"THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS" Perversions Of The Gospel (1:6-10) by Mark Copeland

                     "THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS"

                   Perversions Of The Gospel (1:6-10)


1. As soon as Paul began his epistle to the Galatians, he expressed
   a. Marveling they were turning so soon to a different gospel - Ga 1:6
   b. Letting themselves be troubled by some perverting the gospel of
      Christ - Ga 1:7

2. It is important to know the difference between the pure gospel and
   perverted gospels...
   a. To accept a different gospel is to be accursed - Ga 1:8-9
   b. To not obey the true gospel is to face condemnation 
      - cf. 2Th 1:7-8; 1Pe 4:17

[Today we need to be just as concerned about "Perversions Of The
Gospel".  Are we aware of how some have perverted the gospel of Christ?
There has been at least four such perversions...]


      1. This 'gospel' was the problem Paul faced in his day
      2. Some Jewish Christians demanded that Gentiles had to be
         circumcised and keep the Law of Moses as well as obey the
         gospel of Christ - Ac 15:1-5; Ga 2:1-5

      1. At the council in Jerusalem - Ac 15:22-31
      2. In the epistle to the Galatians - Ga 5:1-6
      3. In other epistles of Paul (e.g., Romans, Colossians)

[Note carefully that those who seek to be justified by the Law fall from
grace (Ga 5:4).  This illustrates the danger of accepting a 'perverted
gospel'.  Another such 'gospel' is...]


      1. This 'gospel' developed later in the course of church history
      2. It exalted the efficacy of certain ordinances to the exclusion
         of faith
      3. Thus some believed you could baptize others without the need of
         a. Such as infant baptism
         b. Such as infidel baptism (e.g., at the point of a sword)

      1. Faith is essential to pleasing God and our salvation - He 11:6;
         Jn 8:24; Mk 16:16
      2. Repentance of sins and faith in Christ are prerequisites to
         baptism - Ac 2:38; 8:35-37
      3. It is faith in the working of God that results in rising to a
         new life - Col 2:12-13

[A popular perversion of the gospel is what we will call...]


      1. Many have the idea that as long as you are a basically 'good
         person', you will be saved
      2. Especially if your 'good deeds' outnumber or outweigh your 'bad
      3. Thus a good moral person, especially if religious, is assumed
         to be saved

      1. Good moral people, even devout, are in need of salvation
         a. Cornelius was a good, moral, devout man - Ac 10:1-6
         b. Yet he needed to be saved - Ac 11:14
      2. Many examples of conversion in Acts involved religiously devout
         a. The 3000 on the day of Pentecost - Ac 2:5
         b. The Ethiopian eunuch - Ac 8:27
         c. Lydia of Thyatira - Ac 16:14
         d. Paul - Ac 22:3
      3. We cannot be saved by our good works - Ep 2:8-9; Tit 3:4-7

[Sometimes a perversion of the gospel leads others to overreact with
another perversion...]


      1. This 'gospel' proclaims that one is saved by "faith only"
      2. I.e., no obedience is required, especially not baptism
      3. An overreaction to salvation by works without faith, or to the
         gospel of good works

      1. The gospel of Christ requires obedience
         a. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him
            - He 5:9
         b. Paul proclaimed what he called "the obedience of faith" 
            - Ro 1:5; 16:25-26
         c. Paul and Peter warned of those who obeyed not the gospel
            - 2Th 1:7-9; 1Pe 4:17
         d. We are not saved by "faith only" - cf. Jm 2:17,20,24,26
      2. Many fail to distinguish between different kinds of works
         a. Works of the Law (of Moses), by which one is not justified
            - Ga 2:16
         b. Meritorious works, done to earn salvation, which is
            impossible - Ep 2:8-9; Tit 3:4-7
         c. Works of God, commanded of us to please Him - cf. Jn 6:28-29
      3. Works of God are done, not to earn salvation, but to receive
         God's grace
         a. Faith in Jesus is a work of God - Jn 6:29
         b. Repentance of sins is a work of God - Ac 17:30
         c. Confessing Jesus is a a work of God - Ro 10:9-10
         d. Such works in of themselves do not save us - cf. Lk 17:10
      4. So baptism is a work of God, not a work of man
         a. Commanded by Jesus and His apostles - Mk 16:15-16; Ac 2:38;
         b. In which God does the work of saving - Col 2:11-12; Tit 3:5
         c. In which we put on Christ - Ga 3:26-27
         d. Which, when obeyed, causes others to thank God - Ro 6:17-18;
            cf. 6:3-7


1. There have been other perverted gospels...
   a. Such as Gnosticism, which denied Jesus coming in the flesh
   b. Such as Mormonism, which proclaims a different gospel based upon
      'angelic revelation'

2. We need to be careful to receive the gospel preached by the
   a. Even angelic revelations are to be rejected if different from what
      the apostles' preached
   b. Otherwise we will be accursed

3. The pure gospel of Christ may not be popular, but who are we trying
   to please...?
   a. If it is men, then we are not true servants of Christ - Ga 1:10
   b. If it is the majority, we are on the wrong path - Mt 7:13-14

Is the gospel you heard, received, and obeyed, the same gospel
proclaimed by the apostles of Jesus Christ...? - cf. Ac 2:36-41; 8:35-38

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Bart Ehrman's Forged: Next Verse Same as the First by Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.


Bart Ehrman's Forged: Next Verse Same as the First

by Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.

The past decade has seen anti-Christian books scale the peak of bestseller lists ranging everywhere from the New York Times to Amazon.com. It includes everything from the work of new atheists like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens to new age gurus like Eckhart Tolle. Even in a culture where Christianity has been the dominant faith of millions for over two centuries, it would appear that there is a ready market for works aggressively promoting alternatives to Christianity. 
One of the most curious success stories is that of Bart Ehrman. A professor at the highly respected University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ehrman took many people by surprise when his book, Misquoting Jesus, rocketed to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. No one could have ever predicted that a book about textual criticism would have been so popular. After writing several bestselling books, appearing on talk shows, and receiving invitations to speak all across the United States, he could nearly be called an academic celebrity.
Ehrman’s style is popular-level and easy to read. It is also highly critical of the Bible. Those who have followed Ehrman’s career will note that he has grown increasingly strident in his criticism over time. In Misquoting Jesus he argues that the New Testament’s authors were guilty of inserting errors, often by mistake. In Jesus, Interrupted he muses that Christian scholars and ministers are somewhat dishonest about the “problem texts” of the Bible. Now he says that the New Testament authors were not just mistaken—they were liars. 
In Forged: Writing in the Name of God, Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, Ehrman contends that a number of New Testament books were forgeries created by others who had no connection to Jesus. His goal is to expose the alleged deception practiced by the early church, or at least those who wrote these supposedly fraudulent texts. Some of Ehrman’s assertions include: (1) Peter was illiterate and could not have written 1 and 2 Peter, (2) six of Paul’s epistles are forgeries, and (3) 1 Timothy is a forgery that has been used to oppress women. Throughout the book he claims repeatedly that he holds the same view to which the majority of scholars subscribe, although he rarely cites any authors who agree with him.


In Forged, Ehrman discusses the subject of pseudepigraphy—the writing of books under false names—in the first few centuries of the early church. Although he has addressed the issue in previous books, this is his most extended discussion of the topic. According to Ehrman, there were two different types of pseudepigraphical books included in the New Testament. First, some books were supposedly published anonymously but later had authors’ names attached, such as the Gospels (although this could not have been possible, since the early church was virtually unanimous on their authorship. If they had been published anonymously, there would be no end to the debate). Second, some were forged in the names of other authors, usually biblical figures of considerable significance. This practice abounded in the early centuries of the church. Examples include the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, as well as numerous other gospels, apocalypses, and epistles. The second category is where Ehrman places six of Paul’s epistles.
Determining the authorship of any particular work is an oft-debated topic among scholars, given the fact that an author’s language may be influenced by a number of factors. While some scholars were incredibly skeptical of the Pauline authorship of several of the apostles’ letters a half century ago, scholarship has undergone some level of self-correction. Concerning Ehrman’s assertions that the majority of scholars deny the Pauline authorship of nearly half of Paul’s epistles, professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and St. Andrews University, Ben Witherington III states:
In fact the majority of English speaking commentators and specialists on documents such as 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians think these documents also should be attributed to Paul, whatever scribes he may have used to produce them. I ought to know. I have researched and written commentaries on all these books. How many commentaries on books of the New Testament has Bart researched and written? None. Not one. And he should not be taken as a reliable guide on what the majority of commenting scholars think about these matters (2011).
In the case of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, as Witherington notes, scholars are becoming less dogmatic about the non-Pauline authorship of these letters. Donald Guthrie surveyed the Pauline authorship of these letters—as well as the difficulties in denying it—and concluded: “There has yet to be a satisfactory explanation of the composition of the Pastorals from the point of view of pseudonymous authorship” (Guthrie 1990, p. 62). Little has changed since Guthrie wrote those words. Ehrman does nothing to add to the discussion, doing little more than restating the same kinds of arguments that Guthrie and others since have found to be both tired and unsatisfactory.


One of Ehrman’s constant problems is his refusal to admit that opposing opinions could be true. Rather than engaging in the kind of diplomatic language that is common among scholars, he dogmatically asserts his view as correct. There is virtually no interaction with opposing views. On the rare occasion when he might mention another viewpoint, it is dismissed quickly. He illustrates this approach in Jesus, Interrupted when he says that some of his conservative “students refuse to listen—it is almost as if they cover their ears and hum loudly so they don’t have to hear anything that might cause them to doubt their cherished beliefs about the Bible” (2009, p. 14). It does not appear to occur to him that his students may be intelligent in their own right and have investigated the issue for themselves. Apparently, conservative believers aren’t the only ones who allegedly engage in this practice. Those who write books critical of the Bible appear to be equally guilty.
Witherington has long been critical of Ehrman’s refusal to interact with scholars with whom he disagrees. This is especially true in the case of scholarly treatments of who scribes were and how they went about practicing their craft. Forged includes a discussion of the production of ancient documents, but Witherington notes that Ehrman seems to have given little thought to the role and duties of scribes in the ancient world. In other words, he is concerned with texts, but not with how they were produced or by whom. He explains:
I need to say from the outset and on first glance that there appears to be a rather large lacunae in the argument of this book, namely the failure to do this study after having studied in depth ancient scribal practices and the roles of scribes in producing ancient documents in ancient Israel.  For example, I see no interaction whatsoever in this book with the landmark study of Karel Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, in which it is demonstrated at length that scribes played a huge role in collecting, editing, and producing ancient documents, and that it was indeed a regular practice to name a scroll after either the originator of the tradition, or the first or a major contributor to the tradition (2011, italics and underline in orig.).
As in nearly all of his other popular-level books, Ehrman explains some of the things he considers to be contradictions. But the manner in which Ehrman describes these difficulties leaves the reader with the impression that in the last 2,000 years of biblical studies no one has ever thought through the difficult texts of the New Testament. To be sure, some of these problems are challenging (though none is without an adequate answer), but Ehrman leaves the impression that the only people who believe these supposed contradictions can be solved are those with a pre-commitment to biblical inerrancy. It is yet another example of Ehrman’s failure to interact with other viewpoints. Critics can accept the supposed reality of contradictions all too quickly, and Ehrman proves himself no exception. In an interview on the “Kirkus Reviews” Web site, Ehrman says:
The only people who take offense so far as I can tell are those for whom this kind of historical scholarship is blasphemy. My response to such people is that they need to look not only at the results of scholarship [as I lay them out in my books] but also at the evidence that makes these results convincing to scholars of all sorts of persuasions, Christian and non-Christian alike. The evidence that supports my claims in Forged is extremely compelling to most people who examine it (Pike, 2011, emp. in orig.).
As always, Ehrman presents his findings as the “result of scholarship,” implying that real scholarship—whoever or whatever that might be—agrees with him. In reality, numerous scholars disagree with him—not to mention the fact that the majority of his conclusions are simply false, regardless of the opinions of scholars. He consistently claims that his view is that of the majority, although he provides no defense of this assertion, nor does he point to other scholars who share his views. Instead, he engages in the curious habit of referring back to his own work rather than that of the mass of unnamed experts who allegedly agree with him.
In an article on the Huffington Post’s Web site, Ehrman insists:
Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors—a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that—that the Bible actually contains lies?
Most people wouldn’t put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle—Peter, Paul or James—knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery (2011b).
Why is this alleged consensus of scholarship not forthcoming about the “truth” of these lies, mistakes, and contradictions? According to Ehrman, many scholars are ministers and professors who have to serve the needs of their clientele (see Ehrman, 2009, pp. 13-14). Ministers don’t want to be honest because either it conflicts with their personal faith, or they fear being fired by their elderships. Professors really do know the truth, Ehrman claims, but they cannot be honest about it, because they largely teach in colleges, seminaries, and divinity schools. They cannot denigrate the very texts they are teaching to Christian students without suffering repercussions from their constituency. Simply put, Ehrman implies Christian scholars are dishonest, if not duplicitous, and have engineered a conspiracy to keep the populace from learning the “truth.” Conspiracy theories like this have no place in any serious discussion of these issues.


On-line reviews of Ehrman’s work seem to fall into one of two main categories: (1) New Testament scholars who have critiqued Ehrman’s work and point out his tendency to sensationalize the issues, make unsubstantiated assertions, and downplay or ignore evidence that does not agree with his position, and (2) skeptics with an obvious lack of biblical knowledge who lament that the “fundamentalists” are too mired in their faith positions to take Ehrman seriously. That the latter group demonstrates little discernable awareness of the former is somewhat ironic.
In an interview on Salon.com, Gary Kamiya begins with the words, “Bart Ehrman’s career is testament to the fact that no one can slice and dice a belief system more surgically than someone who grew up inside it” (2009). Even so, those on the outside with little knowledge of the subject often make critical errors in their assessment of the situation. Like many other reviewers, Mr. Kamiya seems to be unfamiliar with the literature produced by scholars that answers Ehrman’s claims, points out his errors, and calls attention to the deficiencies in his work.
Though he is respected in academia for his work in textual criticism, Ehrman consistently proves he is no theologian. He continues to trot out some very strange arguments, such as the idea that the New Testament teaches women can only be saved by having children (2011a, pp. 94,100,103; see also 2006, p. 237). There is no question that 1 Timothy 2:15 is a difficult verse (Miller, 2005), but to think that Paul is actually saying that women can only be saved by bearing children borders on, if not crosses over into, the ridiculous. For Paul, salvation is not works-based (Ephesians 2:9). Surely Ehrman knows better than this, since he repeatedly touts his training at conservative denominational schools like Moody Bible College and Wheaton College. If he was as serious a student as he claims in his books, then he should know that this interpretation is both unbiblical and unsustainable.
Ehrman gives the impression that he is like other critics of the Bible who are interested in criticism rather than truth. While he claims to be a “happy agnostic” and repeatedly affirms that he is not a Christian, it seems that he has retained all the passion and zeal of an evangelist, if not an apologist. Indeed, a few have gone even farther and called him a “reverse fundamentalist.” This is not too far off the mark, as his tone over the course of the last couple of decades seems to have gotten much more combative. His earlier books had a softer approach, discussing the issue of unintentional “mistakes” and “errors” in the Bible. Forged straightforwardly and repeatedly labels the biblical authors as liars. One wonders if he has not taken a few steps down the same path as the new atheists, whose book sales are roughly proportionate to the amount of vitriol they contain. For example, as of July 2007, Richard Dawkins’ caustic The God Delusion vastly outperformed Daniel Dennett’s softer Breaking the Spell, selling 500,000 copies to Dennett’s paltry 64,000 at a rate of 9:1. If this is any indicator, then Ehrman’s new book should do well. This also brings up questions concerning Ehrman’s motivation for increasing public awareness about the “truth” of the Bible. In earlier works like Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted he presents himself as a simple informer seeking greater levels of biblical awareness for the general public. Now he seems to be a crusader, or worse, a profiteer.
Ehrman is a highly entertaining storyteller. He has a vast knowledge of extrabiblical works full of fanciful miracle stories. He clearly believes that the Bible is not too different than these outrageous books, but his skill in pointing out their absurdities makes his own position more difficult to maintain. It is apparent that extrabiblical books were not inspired. Recounting their preposterous fictions only highlights their differences from the New Testament. The biblical authors did not include material featuring talking crosses, levitating virgins, bizarre miracles, and divine mischief. They concerned themselves with reporting historical facts. The uninspired authors seemed much more interested in telling weird stories.
Ehrman promises much but delivers little. Like his other published works, Forged makes grand claims supported with surprisingly little evidence, shows almost no interaction with other viewpoints, and, perhaps most importantly, continues to trot out the same tired arguments even though they have been answered by New Testament scholars in sources ranging from published books and articles to blogs and Web sites on the Internet. One of the strong points of Ehrman’s work is that he is a fine storyteller. For a respected academic, it is too bad that he has sullied his own reputation by offering materials that look less like the truth and more like tall tales.


Ehrman, Bart D. (2006), Peter, Paul, and Mary: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Ehrman, Bart D. (2009), Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York: HarperOne).
Ehrman, Bart D. (2011a), Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne).
Ehrman, Bart D. (2011b), “Who Wrote the Bible and Why it Matters,” March 25,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html.
Guthrie, Donald (1990), The Pastoral Epistles (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Kamiya, Gary (2009), “Jesus is Just Alright With Him,” April 3, http://www.salon.com/news/environment/atoms_eden/2009/04/03/jesus_interrupted.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Female Leadership and the Church,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1407.
Pike, William E. (2011), “‘Forged’: Bart Ehrman on the Bible’s True Authors,” March 23, http://www.kirkusreviews.com/blog/question-and-answer/forged-bart-ehrman-bibles-true-authors/.
Witherington, Ben (2011), “Forged—Bart Ehrman’s New Salvo—The Introduction,” March 30, http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/03/30/forged-bart-ehrmans-new-salvo-the-introduction/.

Dragonfly Flight and the Designer by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Dragonfly Flight and the Designer

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

More proof of the existence of the Master Designer comes from research conducted by Z. Jane Wang, professor of theoretical and applied mechanics at Cornell University (Gold, 2006). Centering on flying systems and fluid dynamics, Dr. Wang notes that the best way to learn about flight is by first looking at what happens naturally. Interesting. In order for the complex human mind to comprehend the principles of flight, that mind must focus on the natural order—the Creation. So mind must learn from that which, according to evolutionists, came into being and developed without any mind. Intelligence is dependent on non-intelligence. Who can believe it?
Reporting her findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Wang observed that her research calls into question the conventional wisdom that ascribes to airplanes (human inventions) more flight efficiency than the flying creatures of the natural realm. Dragonflies, for example, are “a marvel of engineering” (Gold, 2006). “Marvel of engineering”—without an Engineer? So claims the evolutionist—despite the irrationality of such a conclusion.
Indeed, the dragonfly possesses four wings, instead of the standard two, enabling it to dash forward at speeds approaching 60 kph. Its unusual pitching stroke allows this amazing insect to hover and even shift into reverse. According to Wang: “Dragonflies have a very odd stroke. It’s an up-and-down stroke instead of a back-and-forth stroke.... Dragonflies are one of the most maneuverable insects, so if they’re doing that they’re probably doing it for a reason” (Gold, 2006, emp. added). “For a reason”? But doesn’t “a reason” imply a reasonable mind behind the reason that thinks and assigns a logical rationale to specific phenomena?
The more scientists study dragonflies the more they are impressed with these “marvels of flight engineering” (“How Do Things...,” n.d.). They appear to twist their wings on the downward stroke, creating a whirlwind of air that flows across the wings, facilitating the lift that keeps them flying. Even more amazing, one Australian scientist, Akiko Mizu­tani, of the Centre for Visual Science at the Australian National University, has studied dragonflies at length in the past few years. She observes that, while chasing its prey, dragonflies “shadow their enemies in complex manoeuvres that military fighter pilots can only dream of. Their tricks create the visual illusion that they’re not moving” (as quoted in “How Stealthy...,” 2003, 2398:26, emp. added). In fact, according to Dr. Javaan Chahl, the quick aerial movements allow the dragonfly to disguise itself as a motionless object (“Military Looks to Mimic...,” 2003, emp. added). These insights are not lost on the military establishment. They recognize the incredible implications for technological development—from the ability of fighter aircraft to approach the enemy undetected, to greater maneuverability, to enhanced helicopter logistics. Indeed, “scientists believe the insect’s flight control could have applications in new planes and helicopters” (2003). Is it any wonder that one of the very first helicopters produced was named “Dragonfly” (“Sikorsky...,” 2003)? If no one considers the helicopter as the product of time and chance, why would any reasonable person believe that the insect to which scientists are looking for an understanding of principles of flight evolved from mindless, mechanistic forces of nature?
If the human mind, with all of its complexity and ingenious design, is necessary to engineer flight capability (e.g., airplanes), what must be said for the Mind behind the human mind? If scores of intelligent scientists must expend vast amounts of time, energy, intention, deliberation, knowledge, and thought in order to discover the secrets of the “efficient motions” of the dragonfly, what must have been required to create that dragonfly in the first place? Mindless, non-intelligent, unconscious, non-purposive “evolutionary forces”? Ridiculous! Time and chance do not and cannot account for the amazing design found in insects like the dragonfly. The only logical, plausible explanation is that dragonflies were designed by the God of the Bible, and they testify to His wisdom: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (Revelation 4:11).


Gold, Lauren (2006), “On the Wings of Dragonflies: Flapping Insect Uses Drag to Carry its Weight, Offering Insight into Intricacies of Flight,” Cornell University Chronicle, February 19, [On-line], URL: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb06/AAAS.dragonflies.lg.html.
“How Do Things Fly?” (no date), Boeing, [On-line], URL: http://www.boeing.com/compan yoffices/aboutus/wonder_of_flight/dragon.html.
“Military Looks to Mimic Dragonflies” (2003), ABC News, June 5, [On-line], URL: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s872489.htm.
“How Stealthy Insects Outsmart Their Foe” (2003), New Scientist, 2398:26, June 7.
“Sikorsky HO2S-1/HO3S-1G ‘Dragonfly’” (2003), USCG Homepage, [On-line], URL: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBAIRCRAFT/AC_Sikorsky_HO3S.html.

To Whom Does Matthew 19:3-12 Apply? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


To Whom Does Matthew 19:3-12 Apply?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In order to sort out the proper application of the discussion on divorce in Matthew 19, one must take into account several contextual indicators. First, observe that in the context of the passage, Jesus addressed Himself to Jews (vs. 3—“Pharisees”)—not ChristiansHe answered theirquestion: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” (vs. 3).
Second, if Jesus’ answer applies only to Christians (as some claim), then He did not help His Jewish inquirers and, in fact, He completely dodged their question. But He made clear that His answer did apply to them and to everybody else, for three reasons:
  1. He said, “Have you not read” (vs. 4) and “But I say unto you” (vs. 9). He was speaking to them!
  2. He used the term “whosoever” (vs. 9)—an all-inclusive term that means anyone and everyone.
  3. In verses 4-5, He appealed to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 for His answer to their question. The instruction from Genesis predates the Mosaic period in its original context. Consequently, the teaching of Genesis (i.e., that God has intended from the very beginning of time for one man to be married to one woman for life, with the only exception being fornication) is teaching that applies to mankind and humanity in general.
Though (a) during certain time periods (e.g., Mosaic), people grew lax in their sensitivity to this Divine guideline, and though (b) God “winked at” this lax behavior (Acts 17:30), such is no indication that people today are free to ignore the laws of God on divorce and remarriage (Hebrews 13:4).
Third, notice the disciples’ reaction to the stringent nature of Jesus’ declaration: “[I]f the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” (vs. 10). In other words, if a man is obligated to remain married to his first spouse (with the only possibility for divorce and remarriage being the sexual unfaithfulness of that mate), then the man ought to think twice, deliberating long and hard, before he decides to get married the first time. In marrying, he is committing himself to a lifetime with the same woman (in God’s sight). It may very well be preferable to live single than to risk permanent marriage to a mate who creates misery and is unpleasant to live with (but who remains sexually faithful). This is the gist of the disciples’ remark to Jesus. They understood Jesus’ instruction to be very restrictive. But they then drew an erroneous conclusion by proposing the propriety, even priority, of celibacy.
Fourth, in response to the disciples’ remark, Jesus noted in verse 11 that not everyone can live as they suggested (i.e., single and celibate). The implication is that some, more than others, possess a greater need for companionship and the sexual relationship that accompanies that marital companionship. (Notice that sex is perfectly permissible in God’s sight—after all, He designed it! But, if one desires to indulge, the participant is under obligation to conform to divine guidelines, limiting and confining sexual activity to a scriptural marriage relationship). Jesus then elaborated upon three classes of men (vs. 12) who would be able to pursue the celibate life which the disciples proposed: (1) those who are born physically defective and, consequently, are unable to function sexually; (2) those who are born physically normal, but who are then surgically rendered unable to perform sexually. Though odd to the modern mind, it was a common practice in ancient cultures to render impotent various individuals who sought to function in official capacities, e.g., wards in charge of royal bedchambers, servants who lived in the palaces of royalty, etc. (cf. Genesis 37:26; 40:2,7; Daniel 1:3; Esther 1:10; 2:21; 1 Kings 22:9; 2 Kings 8:6; 9:32; Acts 8:27); (3) those who simply choose to forego sexual relations and marriage in order to devote themselves completely to religious matters (like Jesus and Paul).
Fifth, Jesus’ concluding statement, “he that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (vs. 12), pertains to that which He had been discussing, i.e., the choice to live celibate. He could not have been referring back to the statement of verse 9. Such would be a contradiction. For, on the one hand, He would have been declaring emphatically that those who divorce/remarry unscripturally are guilty of committing adulteryand then, turning right around and minimizing this declaration by suggesting that a person does not have to abide by the stricture if he does not want to. If people are free to decide their own guidelines for marriage, there was no need for Jesus to have even mentioned the matter in the first place. But when has God ever laid down any regulation with the implication that men do not have to obey if they do not wish to? The “saying” (vs. 11) with which He took issue, maintaining that it should not be set in concrete or urged upon mankind indiscriminately and universally, was the saying of the disciples—that men ought to refrain from marriage and live celibate lives. Jesus’ statement in verse 9 is clearly universal in its application and import. The disciples’ statement in verse 10 is clearly limited in its scope and application to the three classes of individuals that Jesus delineated. Only those three categories of persons are in a position (physically, and/or mentally) to “receive this saying” pertaining to abstinence from marriage.

The Da Vinci Code and the Deity of Christ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


The Da Vinci Code and the Deity of Christ

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, the character known as Sir Leigh Teabing “enlightens” one of the story’s main characters, Sophie Neveu, about a number of matters that lay at the heart of Christianity. One of the subjects that he broaches with this young French government cryptographer is the deity of Christ. According to Teabing, until the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325,
Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.... Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.... By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable (Brown, 2003, p. 233, italics in orig., emp. added).
Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death.... Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike (p. 234, italics in orig., emp. added).
No doubt, millions of readers have examined these words and pondered over their truthfulness. Was the “master storyteller” Dan Brown simply trying to sells books with such statements, or are we to consider these words by the fictional character Sir Leigh Teabing as absolute, historical truths? Was Jesus considered only a man before Constantine’s alleged transformation of Him at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325? Or, was He from the beginning of the Christian era considered by inspired writers and the early disciples as God in the flesh?
Exactly where Dan Brown includes historical facts in his novel, and where he simply includes information for entertainment enhancement purposes, is difficult to decipher. Since Brown includes a “FACT” page at the very front of his book that alleges, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate” (2003, p. 1, emp. added), one gets the strong impression from the very outset of the book that when documents such as the New Testament manuscripts are mentioned, Brown (through his fictional characters) must be telling the truth. The problem is, much of what he says about Christianity, especially about the nature of its Founder—Jesus—is woefully inaccurate.
First, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah wrote of the coming Messiah’s deity 1,000 years beforethe time of Constantine. “For unto us,” Isaiah foretold, “a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6, emp. added). Isaiah also prophesied of the virgin birth of the Messiah, and that His name would be “Immanuel” (7:14), which means “God with us” (Matthew 1:23, emp. added). Early Christians had access to these Jewish Scriptures, even in the Greek language (i.e., the Septuagint), which they could consult regarding both Christ’s humanity and deity. In fact, in the late second century A.D., Irenaeus quoted from Isaiah 9:6 in defense of Jesus’ divinity (3:19).
Second, when Jesus came to Earth in human form in the first century, He repeatedly referred to His divine nature. The fact that He claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:61-62), is proof enough, since according to the Old Testament, the Messiah would be called “Mighty God.” Jesus also claimed to be “One” with the Father (John 10:30), and that “all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23). He accepted worship time and again (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38; Luke 24:52), which is due only to God (Matthew 4:10)—not mere human beings (Acts 12:23; 14:8-18; cf. Hebrews 1:6). Truly, Jesus came from heaven (John 3:13; 6:33,38,41) and ascended back into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father (Matthew 26:64; cf. Psalm 110:1).
But in The Da Vinci Code, historian Sir Leigh Teabing alleges that such statements as these, which allude to Jesus’ divinity, were “embellished” by Constantine in A.D. 325 in order to make Christ “godlike” (p. 234). Is Teabing, who in the movie version of The Da Vinci Code is played by Ian McKellen, factually accurate? Not at all. The truth is, numerous copies of the various New Testament documents and quotations from those documents by early Christian writers exist that predate the time of Constantine by 100-200 years. Constantine did not write or “embellish” John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” emp. added; cf. 1:14). Copies of this passage (found in manuscripts designated p66 and p75) go back to the late second and early third centuries—100 to 150 years before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. Jesus’ claim, “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30), and the Jews’ recognition that Jesus made Himself, not just a man, but “God” (John 10:33; cf. 5:18) also predate Constantine by more than a century (cf. manuscripts designated p45, p66, and p75). What’s more, a copy of Paul’s letter to the church at Philippi, in which he affirms “Christ Jesus, Who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,” existed long before Constantine’s supposed embellishment of the nature of Jesus (p46).
In The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, edited by Philip Comfort and David Barrett, more than 60 of the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts are transcribed (including those mentioned above). Many photographs of these early manuscripts (the originals of which are housed in museums throughout the world) are also contained in the book. Interestingly, in the introduction to this massive 700-page volume, Comfort and Barrett state: “All of the manuscripts [contained in the book—EL] are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)” (2001, p. 17). In fact, “[s]everal of the most significant papyri date from the middle of the second century” and thus “provide the earliest direct witness to the New Testament autographs” (p. 18). Comfort and Barrett even concede that “it is possible that some of the manuscripts thought to be of the early second century are actually manuscripts of the late first” (p. 23). New Testament manuscripts with descriptions of Jesus’ deity from the middle second century, and possibly the late first century? But The Da Vinci Codesays that Constantine purposefully manipulated the scriptures in the fourth century (A.D. 325) in order to make Jesus sound divine when really He was not? The facts speak for themselves. The story told in The Da Vinci Code is dead wrong. We have ample proof that Constantine did not change the New Testament documents by elevating Jesus’ status from man to God. Unfortunately, millions of Dan Brown’s readers have been duped into believing that Jesus is not Who the Bible claims that He is.
But, that’s not all. Writings from early Christians (all of which predate Constantine by well over a century) also exist that reveal much about the early church’s view of Jesus. Ignatius, who died in the early second century and is thought to have been a companion of the apostle John, referred to Jesus Christ as “our God” several times in his letters to the Christians in Ephesus (Chapter 7; Chapter 8) and Rome (Introduction; Chapter 3). Polycarp, who was a contemporary of Ignatius and died around A.D. 150, wrote a letter to the church at Philippi in which he called Jesus “the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest” (chapter 12). Another “church father” from the second century, Justin Martyr, wrote that Jesus, “being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God” (First Apology, chapter 63). Irenaeus also provides us with valuable insight into what Christians (living more than a century before the time of Constantine) thought about Jesus. In approximately A.D. 200, He wrote:
...this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: ...that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him (Book III, Chapter 19, emp. added).
Even certain second-century enemies of Christ give testimony to the fact that Christians viewed Jesus as divine long before A.D. 325. In a letter that Pliny the Younger (Roman governor in the Asia Minor province of Bithynia around A.D. 115) wrote to the Emperor Trajan, he stated: “They [the Christians—EL] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds...” (10:96). Another individual who opposed Christianity was the Greek rhetorician and satirist, Lucian. He wrote:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws (11-13, emp. added).
Thus, aside from the non-hostile witnesses that testify of Jesus being God, even His enemies, who lived both in the first century (e.g., Pharisees; John 5:18; John 10:33) and second century (i.e., Pliny the Younger and Lucian), recognized that both Jesus and His followers, believed that He was God, and thus worthy of worship.
In truth, Jesus was viewed as divine by His followers long before the Council of Nicaea convened in A.D. 325. The leaders who gathered at that council nearly 300 years after the death of Christ (not “four centuries” as Teabing stated in The Da Vinci Code, p. 234) did take a vote regarding the nature of Christ (which was not nearly a close vote—another strike against the historical accuracy of The Da Vinci Code, cf. p. 233). But, that vote did not settle the matter regarding His deity. The nature of Christ was settled hundreds of years earlier when Jesus and the first century apostles and prophets who were guided “into all truth” by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) taught that He was “God” (John 1:1,14; 10:30; 20:28; etc.).
...Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).


Brown, Dan (2003), The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday).
Comfort, Philip W. and David P. Barrett (2001), The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).
Ignatius (1973 reprint), “Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Ignatius (1973 reprint), “Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Irenaeus (1973 reprint), “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), “The First Apology of Justin,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lucian (1905 reprint), “The Death of Peregrine,” The Works of Lucian of Samosata, trans. H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, [On-line], URL: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl4/wl420.htm.
Pliny (1935 reprint), Letters, trans. William Melmoth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Polycarp (1973 reprint), “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution?

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The humanistic sociologist Auguste Comte coined the term “altruism,” derived from the Italian altrui, which means “other” (Rhode, 2005). Under Comte’s definition, altruism signified an unselfish regard for the welfare of others (Rhode, 2005). People are not entirely self-interested. If they were, then families would be nonexistent. Yet, 90 percent of Americans marry (Coltrane, 44[4]:395). Modern instances of what we generally call altruism abound. For an example of obvious altruism on a grand scale, over $4.25 billion was raised for Hurricane Katrina-related relief and recovery (“Hurricane...,” 2006).
The animal world also is filled with animals that appear to help other creatures. Eduardo Porter noted in The New York Times, “altruism isn’t an exclusively human trait. Vampire bats are pretty altruistic, too, regurgitating blood for members of the group that haven’t eaten. Sterile worker bees, which are incapable of conscious thought, let alone moral behavior, are about as altruistic as a living creature can be: they give their lives so their queen may reproduce” (2005). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reveals:
In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in so doing, they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked (Okasha, 2003).
As we ask of all relevant features of scientific data, we ask of the phenomenon of altruism in the animal kingdom: Does it best fit the creation model or the evolution model? Evolutionists categorize altruism as a product of genetic determinism (i.e., genetics explain all behavior), while Christians believe that God instilled altruism as an instinct in animals and a psychological, moral force in humans (see Thompson, 2004, pp. 23-24; cf. Jackson, 1992).
Of course, we are ignorant as to exactly what goes on inside the heads of animals and humans. We do not expect a dolphin to answer intelligibly when we ask, “Why did you help that other creature, even when it created the potential of danger to your own health?” Animal altruism troubled Charles Darwin, who popularized evolution in the 1800s. Darwin wrote that “[n]atural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing any injury to its possessor” (1859, p. 228). As Okasha well noted, “From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling.... Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others” (2003).
Indeed, traditional evolutionary theory has emphasized the individual, to the neglect of any social obligation. McFadden commented, “Altruism—helping others at our own expense—puzzled Charles Darwin, whose theory predicted that individuals should act selfishly to serve their self-interest. Why should wolves share their kill; or sparrows draw attention to themselves by issuing a warning call when they spot a hawk” (2004)? Major observed, “If a bird helps a breeding pair build its nest and feed its young, without breeding itself, then it would seem to be a loser in the struggle for life. While this individual is busy helping others, it is missing out on the opportunity to produce heirs of its own” (1999). How, then, do evolutionists account for altruism in animals?


Group Selection

Evolutionists have suggested that natural selection involves “group selection,” whereby a member of a group of animals would do something for the biological benefit of its entire group. In this way, evolutionists argue, the fittest group will survive, and natural selection will have met its obligation. Of course, there are severe problems with natural selection (Thompson, n.d.; Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 227-270). Problems with group selection theory further illustrate the flaws in natural selection as a mode of evolution. As evolutionist Bryan Appleyard observed, “[Group selection theory—CC] makes no sense in the context of the selfish gene because all the gene can possibly see is the survival of its own particular organism” (1998, p. 112, emp. added). The selfish gene is Dawkins’ notion, reflective of Darwin, that the individual gene will do whatever it takes to ensure that the individual in which they are stored produces additional copies of the gene (1989; cf. Thompson, 2004).
Even if we were to admit that group selection occurs, however, it would not prove that genetic determinism is responsible for altruism in animals. Major explained:
[Group selection theory—CC] does not explain how the gene for altruism can survive over the long term. If an individual carrying this mutation behaves unselfishly and, as a result, leaves fewer or no offspring, then the mutation will die out. Also, the group needs to discourage cheaters—individuals that take advantage of altruists to further their own selfish interests, and thus neutralize the benefits of altruism for the species as a whole (1999).
By attempting to account for legitimate altruism by introducing a faulty hypothesis that maintains dependence on the genetically selfish individual, evolutionists have moved right back where they started.

Kin Selection

Dawkins (1989) proposed a solution to the problems with the group selection idea: “kin selection” (i.e., since close relations share genes, a gene may prompt its organism to help others who are closely related). The theory of kin selection is responsible for much of the development of sociobiological research. McFadden objected: “Altruism isn’t always restricted to kith and kin. When a female vervet monkey is attacked, non-relatives will often come to her aid. Studies show that the likelihood that a non-relative helps depends on how recently the distressed monkey groomed the helper” (2004).
Even if we were to suppose that some animal altruism occurs due to some “kin selection” mechanism, evolutionists “still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the animal world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness” (Appleyard, 1998, p. 112).
cheating still is possible. A mutation could arise that mimicked the identifying features of individuals that carried the gene for altruism. This introduces the need for some sort of policing strategy.... The problem now is that the difficulties have multiplied. The evolutionists sought to explain a highly complex social behavior in biological terms, and ended up having to explain other complex behaviors, such as cheating and policing (Major, 1999).
Again, if evolutionists merely repackage selfishness and call it “altruism,” they fail to explain how real altruism fits in evolutionary theory. They may insist that altruism is only apparent. But such a notion is untenable, particularly in the wake of such a generous, altruistic outpouring of support to those devastated by Katrina. Evolutionists are forced to dichotomize aspects of beings, artificially separating the biological from the psychological/moral. The fact is, we differentiate between selfish human acts and altruistic acts, because we can identify altruism when we see it. Altruism is real, and even in the light of kin selection theory, remains biologically inexplicable.

Game Theory

A more recent evolutionary explanation involves attributing even more psychological human qualities to biological features of animals that “help”: game theory. “Game theory seeks to make sense of competition by analyzing different moves in as clear a mathematical way as possible” (Appleyard, p. 111). When applied to animal altruism, game theory suggests that various organisms play an instinctive, mathematical “game” to determine what is best for the group. When some lions share a zebra corpse, for example, they are playing a sharing game that involves “subtleties of calculation and...a remarkable distillation of all the complexities in any confrontation” (p. 111). In short, game theory is the idea that organisms cooperate because it is beneficial (p. 112).
Observe that reductionist, evolutionary game theorists again have reduced a discussion of altruism to an explanation of survival tactics. In order to prove that game theory accounts for the altruism exhibited in nature, evolutionists would be forced to prove that animals are capable of solving very complex mathematical equations about which advanced college students study regularly (see “Certificate...,” 2006). Such proof is—and will be—unavailable. Furthermore, evolutionists would need to explain why, on occasion, some members of a particular “kind” of animal help members of another “kind,” which would seem to be excluded from the “game.” For example, dogs occasionally “adopt” orphaned kittens (“Mother Dog...,” 2006).
Game theory cannot explain why animals, with no prior training, occasionally appear to help humans. For example, a group of New Zealand swimmers had to depend on a group of dolphins, which formed a protective circle that kept a great white shark at bay (McFadden, 2004). Moreover, proof that all animals coexist by playing these types of “games” would fall woefully short of proving evolution and disproving the biblical creation account. The Creator endowed animals with instinctive dictates that allow them to live together.


Having demonstrated that the major evolutionary explanations of altruism fail, we reach the conclusion that evolution logically implies that altruism, as an instinctive motivation in animals, or as a psychological/moral factor in humans, is imaginary (cf. Lipe, n.d.). However, we observe altruism in nature and in the clear teaching of the Bible (John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4). Altruism embarrasses evolution, but makes perfect sense in light of the biblical creation account.


Appleyard, Bryan (1998), Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in a Genetic Future (New York: Viking).
“Certificate Program in Mathematical Modeling in Political Science and Economics,” (2006), University of Rochester, College Center for Academic Support, [On-line], URL:http://www.rochester.edu/College/CCAS/certificates/cert_mathmodel.html.
Coltrane, Scott (2001), “Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the Politics of Fatherhood: 2001 Presidential Address to the Pacific Sociological Association,” Sociological Perspectives, 44[4]:387-418, Winter.
Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Avanel, 1979 reprint).
Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press), second edition.
“Hurricane Katrina One Year Later: Where Did the Money Go?” (2006), Charity Navigator, [On-line], URL: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/katrina.article/cpid/452.htm.
Jackson, Wayne (1992), “The Blind Bookwriter,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1213.
Lipe, David L. (no date), “The Foundations of Morality,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Foundations-of-Morality.pdf.
Major, Trevor (1999), “Ethics and Darwinism [Part II],” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/73.
McFadden, Johnjoe (2004), “The Kindness of Animals,” The Hindu: On-line Edition of India’s National Newspaper, [On-line], URL:http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/14/stories/2004121401511000.htm.
“Mother Dog Adopts Litter of Kittens” (2006), WNBC, [On-line], URL:http://www.wnbc.com/news/9927844/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news#.
Okasha, Samir (2003), “Biological Altruism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [On-line], URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/.
Porter, Eduardo (2005), “Putting Charity Through the ‘What’s in It for Me?’ Test,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10814FF3B540C718C DDA90994DD404482.
Rhode, Debora L. (2005), “Altruism and Hurricane Katrina: Lesson For and From the Public’s Response to Social Needs,” Stanford Center on Ethics, [On-line], URL:http://ethics.stanford.edu/newsletter/December%2005/Altruism.htm.
Thompson, Bert (no date), “Neo-Darwinism: A Look at the Alleged Genetic Mechanism of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf.
Thompson, Bert (2004), The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.
Thompson, Bert, and Brad Harrub (2003), Investigating Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).