The question and the answer by Gary Rose

Look, there is a chicken (or is it a rooster?) crossing the road. Its even crossing the road WITH the light- how remarkable! I wonder- Why is the chicken crossing the road? Humm, ever heard anything like that? I have and I wonder why people would ask the question in the first place? What difference does it make? Who cares? Why bother with such trivial matters? 

The answer is probably different for each person who has the mind to think on such things- so there really is no definitive answer, but it is easier to occupy ones thoughts with trivial matters than to consider spiritual teaching from God that would force us to change our ways to please HIM! 

Consider...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 ¹⁸ For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  ¹⁹ For it is written, 

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing.”

²⁰ Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ²¹ For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom didn’t know God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe.  ²² For Jews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom,  ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks,  ²⁴ but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God;  ²⁵ because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (emp. added GDR)

 

 

Want to think great thoughts? Read your Bible; it will make you think, then ponder, then question virtually every aspect of "modern living". God will change your life when you consider what HE has to say. You will never be the same again. Oh, you may never be really "perfect", but I guarantee that you will be much better if you listen to the Almighty. And, if you obey HIS Gospel and remain faithful- there is that thing about living forever in heaven with GOD!!! THINK ABOUT THAT ONE, and forget about some dumb chicken!!!

Bible Reading September 28 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading September 28  (WEB)

Sept. 28

Psalms 112-114

Psa 112:1 Praise Yah! Blessed is the man who fears Yahweh, who delights greatly in his commandments.

Psa 112:2 His seed will be mighty in the land. The generation of the upright will be blessed.

Psa 112:3 Wealth and riches are in his house. His righteousness endures forever.

Psa 112:4 Light dawns in the darkness for the upright, gracious, merciful, and righteous.

Psa 112:5 It is well with the man who deals graciously and lends. He will maintain his cause in judgment.

Psa 112:6 For he will never be shaken. The righteous will be remembered forever.

Psa 112:7 He will not be afraid of evil news. His heart is steadfast, trusting in Yahweh.

Psa 112:8 His heart is established. He will not be afraid in the end when he sees his adversaries.

Psa 112:9 He has dispersed, he has given to the poor. His righteousness endures forever. His horn will be exalted with honor.

Psa 112:10 The wicked will see it, and be grieved. He shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away. The desire of the wicked will perish.

Psa 113:1 Praise Yah! Praise, you servants of Yahweh, praise the name of Yahweh.

Psa 113:2 Blessed be the name of Yahweh, from this time forth and forevermore.

Psa 113:3 From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, Yahweh's name is to be praised.

Psa 113:4 Yahweh is high above all nations, his glory above the heavens.

Psa 113:5 Who is like Yahweh, our God, who has his seat on high,

Psa 113:6 Who stoops down to see in heaven and in the earth?

Psa 113:7 He raises up the poor out of the dust. Lifts up the needy from the ash heap;

Psa 113:8 that he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people.

Psa 113:9 He settles the barren woman in her home, as a joyful mother of children. Praise Yah!

Psa 114:1 When Israel went forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of foreign language;

Psa 114:2 Judah became his sanctuary, Israel his dominion.

Psa 114:3 The sea saw it, and fled. The Jordan was driven back.

Psa 114:4 The mountains skipped like rams, the little hills like lambs.

Psa 114:5 What was it, you sea, that you fled? You Jordan, that you turned back?

Psa 114:6 You mountains, that you skipped like rams; you little hills, like lambs?

Psa 114:7 Tremble, you earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob,

Psa 114:8 who turned the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a spring of waters.

 

Sept. 28

2 Corinthians 8

2Co 8:1 Moreover, brothers, we make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the assemblies of Macedonia;

2Co 8:2 how that in much proof of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded to the riches of their liberality.

2Co 8:3 For according to their power, I testify, yes and beyond their power, they gave of their own accord,

2Co 8:4 begging us with much entreaty to receive this grace and the fellowship in the service to the saints.

2Co 8:5 This was not as we had hoped, but first they gave their own selves to the Lord, and to us through the will of God.

2Co 8:6 So we urged Titus, that as he made a beginning before, so he would also complete in you this grace.

2Co 8:7 But as you abound in everything, in faith, utterance, knowledge, all earnestness, and in your love to us, see that you also abound in this grace.

2Co 8:8 I speak not by way of commandment, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity also of your love.

2Co 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich.

2Co 8:10 I give a judgment in this: for this is expedient for you, who were the first to start a year ago, not only to do, but also to be willing.

2Co 8:11 But now complete the doing also, that as there was the readiness to be willing, so there may be the completion also out of your ability.

2Co 8:12 For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what you have, not according to what you don't have.

2Co 8:13 For this is not that others may be eased and you distressed,

2Co 8:14 but for equality. Your abundance at this present time supplies their lack, that their abundance also may become a supply for your lack; that there may be equality.

2Co 8:15 As it is written, "He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack."

2Co 8:16 But thanks be to God, who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus.

2Co 8:17 For he indeed accepted our exhortation, but being himself very earnest, he went out to you of his own accord.

2Co 8:18 We have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the Good News is known through all the assemblies.

2Co 8:19 Not only so, but who was also appointed by the assemblies to travel with us in this grace, which is served by us to the glory of the Lord himself, and to show our readiness.

2Co 8:20 We are avoiding this, that any man should blame us concerning this abundance which is administered by us.

2Co 8:21 Having regard for honorable things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

2Co 8:22 We have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things, but now much more earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he has in you.

2Co 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for you. As for our brothers, they are the apostles of the assemblies, the glory of Christ.

2Co 8:24 Therefore show the proof of your love to them in front of the assemblies, and of our boasting on your behalf.

The Allegory of the Vine and the Branches by Wayne Jackson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Jackson/Boyd/Wayne/1937/vineandbranches.html

The Allegory of the Vine and the Branches

The Holy Scriptures are supremely rich. The Christian who does not plumb the depth of these treasures is poorer indeed.
There is a brief context in John’s Gospel record that we would like to explore briefly, not only for the instruction and edification that it imparts on its own, but also for the opportunity of illustrating how one may reap great rewards in surveying a biblical text analytically, though we do not mean to suggest that this study exhausts all possibilities.
Near the end of his earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus, speaking to his disciples, declared: (Note: The following rendition employs more contemporary language for those not versed in ancient, agricultural vocabulary.)

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he takes away: and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word I have spoken unto you. Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it remains in the vine; so neither can you, unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches: He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit: for away from me you can do nothing. If a man does not remain in me, he is thrown away as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, ask whatsoever you will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:1-7; with supplementary instruction following).

In the following study we wish to explore these elements: the contextual background, the literary format, the characters in the illustration, some verbal forms, along with some vocabulary points of emphasis and interest.

The Background

Jesus and his disciples had concluded the meeting in the upper room in Jerusalem where they celebrated the Passover. Apparently they had just left that event, and were making their way eastward toward the garden of Gethsemane situated on the western slope of the Mt. of Olives (John 14:31b; 18:1). Undoubtedly, the disciples were exceedingly anxious (cf. 14:1), and perplexed as to what loomed ahead.
The discourse in chapters 15-17, therefore, was calculated to calm, to instruct, and to strengthen these courageous (though somewhat fragile — at least at this point) men. They needed some crucial preparation for the ordeal that would follow in the next twenty-four hours.

Literary Format

The literary format of the narrative is that of the “allegory.” An allegory is an expanded metaphor. The metaphor is a figure of speech where a comparison is made between two objects for the purpose of illustration. It constitutes a more dramatic mode of teaching than by means of a simple prosaic narrative.
The allegory draws the comparison, but without the use of common comparative terms (e.g., as, like, such like, even as, etc.). This format allows for a more potent form of expression than that of the simile. A good example, comparing these two figures, is found in Jacob’s prophecy concerning the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49). He says on the one hand that Judah “is a lion’s whelp” (v. 9a; metaphor); then again, Judah “crouched as a lion and as a lioness” (v. 9b; two similes).
In this allegory, the Savior sets forth some wonderful truths in the motif of the agricultural environment of his day. A good Bible class teacher will do some research in this area, in preparation for his/her presentation. Background details can add real “sparkle” to a class.

The Characters in the Illustration

There are four characters in the Lord’s illustration.
(1) There is the “husbandman.” This term is rather obscure in our modern culture. “Husbandman” does not signify a “husband,” but rather a tiller of the ground, a vinedresser, or, in our vernacular, a farmer. He is the one in charge of the vines and to whom ultimate accountability is to be rendered. He does everything within his power to see that the plant bears fruit. If it does not, the fault is not his.
Jesus identifies the “husbandman” as “my Father,” i.e., God, the Father. Of special notice should be the singular pronoun “my,” rather than “our.” As the Son of God, Christ entertained a very unique relationship to his heavenly Father, and that is emphasized several times in John’s Gospel (5:17-18; 20:17; cf. also Luke 2:49). The expression is a subtle affirmation of the Savior’s deity.
(2) There also is the “vine.” The vine is the source of life for the branches. It provides the water and nutrients by which the grapes are produced. Without the vine, no fruit could ever result. Branches are utterly dependent upon the vine. Without Christ, of course, there is no spiritual life or hope of eternal reward (John 14:6; Acts 4:11-12).
It is interesting that Christ designates himself as the “true” vine. The Greek term denotes that which is genuine; the word stands in contrast to that which is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretentious (Thayer, p. 27). Inasmuch as the Israelite nation was portrayed on occasion as a “vine” by the Old Testament prophets (see Isaiah 5:1-7; cf. Matthew 21:33ff), one can scarcely avoid thinking that this is a rebuke aimed at a considerable segment of the Hebrew family; the nation largely had failed in its mission, and was on the precipice of murdering its Messiah (cf. John 10:7ff).
(3) The “branches” are identified explicitly as the Lord’s “disciples” (v. 8). How anyone can possibly contend that Christ is the vine, and various denominational churches are the branches, is an unfathomable mystery; it is an example of the most irresponsible scholarship imaginable.
(4) Finally, there is that ambiguous “they,” to which reference is made in verse 6. These will be responsible for gathering the withered/pruned branches, and committing them to fire for burning. One might surmise that these individuals correspond to the “reapers” mentioned in the parable of the tares (Matthew 13:24-30), identified later as the Lord’s “angels” (v. 39). They will “gather out” of God’s kingdom those who cause others to stumble, and who themselves practice iniquity (v. 41).

Verbal Actions and Vocabulary Emphases

Grammar is very important in a book, the words of which are inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Within this context, there are at least ten significant verbal actions set forth. Some have a positive emphasis; others are adverse. Let us consider the positive first, and then the negative. We will survey five actions in each category.
(1) Christ spoke of the necessity of the branches “bearing (i.e., producing) fruit.” The term is used eight times in this chapter. The present tense form indicates a sustained productivity. The unfruitful branch is considered worthless. The fruit, in the immediate context, consists of the converts one personally makes, or is instrumental in helping to bring to the Lord (see vv. 8,16; cf. Romans 7:4). Elsewhere in the New Testament, however, there is also the admonition to produce the “fruit” of Christian character (Galatians 5:22-23).
(2) There is a “cleansing” or “purging” that takes place even with reference to productive branches. The purpose in the cleansing (an allusion to trimming) is to enhance branch production. Every disciple should attempt to be wise enough to be grateful to God for whatever disciplinary procedures are necessary for the development of his service to Christ (see Hebrews 12:7ff). Just as the farmer uses the cutting knife to sever dead branches, even so he “often cuts back the living wood so far that His method seems cruel [to the spiritually dull]. Nevertheless, from those who have suffered the most there often comes the greatest fruitfulness” (Tenney, pp. 227-228).
(3) The Lord emphasized the necessity of “abiding” (i.e., remaining) joined to him. Seven times in this general context there is stressed the urgency of “remaining” with the vine (Christ). The verb meno (118 times in the NT; 67 times in John’s writings) carries the idea of sustaining a union with, continuing with, being steadfast, or enduring. The exhortation assuredly implies the possibility of not doing so!
(4) For those who abide in the Lord, there is the promise that they may “ask” God for those things necessary for their personal spiritual development and the conversion of others (v. 7). Of course many of us have insufficient faith to “ask,” hence, we do not receive (James 4:2). The Christian life is one of trust; and trusting, we petition our Father for heavenly-oriented needs.
(5) In response to unselfish requests (cf. James 4:3), there is Heaven’s pledge that “it shall be done,” i.e., God will respond to our prayers. This promise, of course, is not without limitation. The “whatsoever” of the text must be qualified by other passages that bear on the same theme. See Paul’s requests, and the Lord’s response, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. Even Jesus, when praying that “the cup” pass from him, qualified the request, “your will be done.” This is the most selfless request of all!
(6) But there are verbals of a different tone. Every branch that does not bear fruit is to be “taken away” (v. 2). In this context, the Greek word aireo signifies to “take off” that which is attached to something else — to rend or cut off (Thayer, p. 16). Practically speaking, it is the equivalent of being “severed from Christ,” the expression used by Paul to depict certain Judaizers who were corrupting the gospel (Galatians 5:4). It is utterly incredible that any scholar could suggest: “We should not regard this as proof that true believers may fall away” (Morris, p. 594). What else could have been said to make it plainer? What lengths men will go to, in order to preserve their cherished doctrines!
(7) Those who choose not to remain with Christ are to be “thrown away” (v. 6). They are trash; unfit for further use.
(8) The “cast off” state is said to be subject to “withering.” The original word suggests the idea of simply “drying up.” Interestingly, the verb is in the passive voice; the thrown-away branches “are withered” (as a result of forces exercised upon them). Could this hint of the removal of divine blessings? Or might it be the accelerated influences of the world in a spiritually impoverished environment?
(9) There is reference to the withered branches being “gathered” in preparation for final disposal. As noted earlier [see “Characters in the Illustration,” (4)], this could have to do with the work of angels at the time of the Judgment.
(10) Finally, there is the verb “burned” (v. 6). Dead branches are thrown into the “fire” where they are burned (literally, being burned — present tense). There can hardly be any doubt but that Christ is here warning about the danger of eternal punishment in the hell of fire (Matthew 13:41-42; 25:46). And, as Lenski observes, the verb “affords no support for the annihilation of the wicked — the cast off branches are burning” (p. 1038). Calvinists, of course, would emasculate this context of any reference to hell, because they do not believe that a child of God can fall from grace (cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 273).

Conclusion

In concluding this summary of John 15:1-7, one other word-combination should be stressed. Six times in this context the Lord used the expression “in me.” The term is employed of those who are in “union” with Christ. It initially referred to those “disciples” to whom he was giving instruction on that occasion; later, though, the application would be to those who have become “disciples” in a more technical sense (Matthew 28:19), and thus have entered into the “in Christ” relationship by means of obedience to the gospel (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27). These became known formally as “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16).
Wayne Jackson

Sources/Footnotes

• Beasley-Murray, G.R. (1987), John – Word Bible Commentary (Waco: Word).
• Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg).
• Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to John — Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
• Tenney, Merrill C. (1948), John — The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
• Thayer, J.H. (1958), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).

Copyright © 2013 Christian Courier. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

The Resurrection Narratives by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=294&b=Luke

The Resurrection Narratives

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

INTRODUCTION—THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE MOST
HISTORICALLY ACCURATE BOOK OF ANTIQUITY

Dismissing the miracles documented in the New Testament is a favorite pastime of many skeptics, and even some religious leaders. However, this “dismissal” game gets extremely complicated, because the miracles are so closely blended with historical facts that separating the two soon becomes like trying to separate two different colors of modeling clay. Take, for instance, the plight of Sir William Ramsay. His extensive education had engrained within him the keenest sense of scholarship. Along with that sense of scholarship came a built-in prejudice about the supposed inaccuracy of the Bible (especially the book of Acts). Ramsay noted: “... [A]bout 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts” (1915, p. 38).
As might be expected of a person trained by such “scholars,” Ramsay held the same view—for a little while. He held the view for only a brief time, because he decided to do what few people of his time dared to do. He decided to explore the actual Bible lands with an open Bible—with the intention of proving the inaccuracy of Luke’s history in the book of Acts. However, much to his surprise, the book of Acts passed every test that any historical narrative could be asked to pass. After his investigation of the Bible lands, he was forced to conclude:

The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice (1915, p. 89).

Renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it like this: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (1959, p. 31).
Considering the fact that the land of Palestine in the days of the New Testament writers tossed and turned on a sea of political, economical, and social unrest, I would say that its historical accuracy is pretty amazing. But please remember, this argument is not being used in this discussion to claim that the New Testament is inspired (although some have used it in this way quite effectively). It is inserted at this point in the discussion to show that the books that discuss the Resurrection the most have proven to be true when confronted with any checkable fact. Travel to the Holy Lands and see for yourself if you doubt New Testament accuracy. Carry with you an honest, open mind and a New Testament, and I assure you that you will respect the New Testament writers as accurate historians.

ON SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE GOSPELS

So, maybe the New Testament documents are accurate when they discuss historical and geographical information. But what about all the alleged contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection? Charles Templeton, in his book Farewell to God, devoted several pages to comparisons among the statements from the four Gospels, at the end of which he stated: “The entire resurrection story is not credible” (1996, p. 122). Another well-known preacher-turned-skeptic, Dan Barker, delights in attempting to find contradictions in the different accounts of the resurrection. In his book Loosing Faith in Faith, he filled seven pages with a list of “contradictions” that he found among the narratives. Eventually he stated: “Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let’s leave the Jesus myth buried...” (1992, p. 181) Interestingly, it should be noted that the fact that Barker asks for “exact” details about a day in ancient history that happened almost 2,000 years ago speaks loudly of the legitimacy of the resurrection story. Since no other day in ancient history could ever be examined with such scrutiny. Historians today cannot tell “exactly” what happened on July 4, 1776 or April 12, 1861, but Christians are asked to give the “exact” details of Christ’s resurrection? Furthermore, these requested details can be (and have been) supplied by the Gospel writers—without contradiction. Let’s examine the evidence.

HEAD ON COLLUSION

Collusion: “A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose” (page 363, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition, 2000, p. 363). Even if we have not heard the word before, most of us understand the situation it describes. Suppose four bank robbers don their nylon-hose masks, rob the city bank, stash the cash away in a nearby cave, and each go back to his own house until the police search blows over. The first robber hears a knock on his door. He opens it to find a policeman who “just wants to ask him a few questions.” The officer asks, “Where were you and what where you doing on the night of June 1, 2001?” The thief promptly answers, “I was at Joe Smith’s house watching television with three other friends.” The policeman gets the three friends’ names and addresses and visits each one of their homes. Every robber tells the exact same story. Was it true? Absolutely not! But did the stories all sound exactly the same, with seemingly no contradictions? Yes.
Now, let’s fit this principle into our discussion of the resurrection narratives. If every single narrative describing the resurrection sounded exactly the same, what do you think would be said about the narratives? “They must have copied each other.” In fact, in other areas of Christ’s life besides the resurrection story, when the books of Matthew and Luke give the same information as the book of Mark, many people today claim that they must have copied Mark, because it is thought to be the earliest of the three books. Another raging question in today’s upper echelons of biblical scholarship is whether Peter copied Jude in 2 Peter 2:4-17, or whether Jude copied Peter, because the two segments of scripture sound so similar.
Amazingly, however, the Bible has not left the prospect of collusion open to the resurrection narratives. Indeed, legitimately it cannot be denied that the resurrection accounts come to us from various independent sources. Tad S. Clements, in his book Science Versus Religion , vigorously denied that there is enough evidence to believe in the resurrection. However, he acknowledged: “There isn’t merely one account of Christ’s resurrection but rather an embarrassing multitude of stories that disagree in significant respects” (1990, p. 193). And he makes it clear that the Gospels are separate accounts of the same story. Dan Barker admitted the same when he boldly stated: “Since Easter [the resurrection story—KB] is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity” (1992, p. 179). One door, which everyone involved in the resurrection discussion admits has been locked forever by the resurrection accounts, is the dead-bolted door of collusion.

DEALING WITH “DISCREPANCIES”

Of course it will not be possible, in these few paragraphs, to deal with every alleged discrepancy between the resurrection accounts. But some helpful principles will be set forth that can be used to show that no genuine contradiction between the resurrection narratives has been found.
Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make
Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. But the wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction just because the wife mentions clothing stores while the husband mentions only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They are simply adding to (or supplementing) each other’s story to make it more complete. That happens in the resurrection accounts quite often.
For example, the Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John mentions Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). (Dan Barker cites these different names as discrepancies and contradictions on page 182 of his book.) Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs. To further illustrate this point, suppose that you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. Someone comes up to you and asks, “Do you have a dollar bill in your pocket?” Naturally, you respond in the affirmative. Suppose another person asks, “Do you have five dollars in your pocket?,” and again you say yes. Finally, another person asks, “Do you have ten dollars in your pocket?” and you say yes for the third time. Did you tell the truth every time? Yes. Were any of your answers contradictory? No. Were all three statements about the contents of your pockets different? Yes—supplementation not contradiction.
Also fitting into this supplementation discussion are the angels, men, and young man described in the different resurrection accounts. Two “problems” arise with the entrance of the “holy heralds” at the empty tomb of Christ. First, how many were there? Second, were they angels or men? Since the former question deals with supplementation, we will discuss it first. The account in Matthew cites “an angel of the Lord who descended from heaven” and whose “appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (28:2-5). Mark’s account presents a slightly different picture of “a young man sitting on the ride side, arrayed in a white robe” (16:5). But Luke mentions that “two men stood by them [the women—KB] in dazzling apparel” (24:4). And, finally, John writes about “two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” (20:12). Do any of these accounts contradict any of the others as to the number of men or angels at the tomb? Factoring in the supplementation rule, we must answer, “No.” Although the accounts are quite different, they are not contradictory as to the number of messengers. Mark does not mention “only a young man,” nor does Luke say there were “exactly two angels, no less or no more.” Was there one messenger at the tomb? Yes. Were two there as well, Yes. No contradiction here.
The second question concerning the messengers is their identity: Were they angels or were they men? Most people who are familiar with the Old Testament have no problem answering this question. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men stay for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. Yet the Bible tells us in the first verse of Genesis 19 that these “men” were actually angels. But when the men of Sodom came to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to as men and as angels with equal accuracy. They looked like, talked like, walked like, and sounded like men. Were they men? Yes. Were they angels? Yes.
To illustrate, suppose you saw a man sit down at a park bench and take off his right shoe. As you watched, he began to pull out an antenna from the toe of the shoe and a number pad from the heel. He proceeded to dial a number and began to talk to someone over his “shoe phone.” If you were going to write down what you saw, could you accurately say that the man dialed a number on his shoe? Yes. Could you say that he dialed a number on his phone? Indeed you could. The shoe had a heel, a sole, a toe, and everything else germane to a shoe, but it was much more than a shoe. In the same way, the messengers at the tomb would accurately be described as men—they had a head held in place by a neck, perched on two shoulders, a body complete with arms and legs, etc. Thus, they were men, but they were much more than men, so they were just as accurately described as angels, holy messengers sent from God to deliver an announcement to certain people. Taking into account the fact that the Old Testament often uses the term “men” to describe angels, it is fairly easy to show that no contradiction exists concerning the identity of the messengers.
Perspective Plays a Part
What we continue to see in the independent resurrection narratives is not contradiction, but merely a difference in perspective. For instance, suppose a man had a 4x6-inch index card that was solid red on one side and solid white on the other. Further suppose that he stood in front of a large crowd, asked all the men to close their eyes, showed the women in the audience the red side of the card, and then had them write down what they saw. Suppose, further, that he had all the women close their eyes, showed the men the white side of the card, and had them write down what they saw. One group saw a red card, and one group saw a white card. When their answers are compared, it looks at first like they are contradictory, yet they are not. The reason the descriptions look contradictory is because the two groups had a different perspective, each looking at a different side of the card. The perspective phenomenon plays a big part in everyday life. In the same way that no two witnesses ever see a car accident the exact same way, none of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus saw the activities from the same angle as the others.
I have not dealt with every alleged discrepancy in the resurrection accounts in this section. However, I have discussed some of the major ones that can be shown to be supplementation or items viewed from a difference of perspective. An honest study of the remaining “problems” reveals that not a single legitimate contradiction exists among the narratives—they are different, but they are not contradictory. Furthermore, the differences prove that no collusion took place, and instead offer the diversity that would be expected from different individuals relating the same event.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Loosing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Clements, Tad S. (1990), Science vs. Religion (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Glueck, Nelson (1959), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy).
Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).
Templeton, Charles (1996), Farewell to God (Ontario, Canada: McClelland and Stewart).

Are You Not Much More Valuable than an Animal? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1001

Are You Not Much More Valuable than an Animal?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Holding up signs that included “All Animal Lives Matter” and “RIP Harambe,” animal rights protestors expressed their dismay at the killing of a gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo.¹ Momentarily distracted by three other children, a mother failed to notice her three-year-old son fall into the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo.² The child was dragged violently around the enclosure in a foot or so of water by Harambe, the 450 pound gorilla that occupied the pen. Due to the gorilla’s agitated state, and the delay inherent in the use of a tranquilizer gun, authorities felt it necessary to kill the gorilla, sparking nationwide outrage.³
One on-line petition which seeks “Justice for Harambe,” calling for an investigation of the parents, has already received more than 500,000 signatures.⁴ Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer and animal rights activist Karen Dawn insist: “As animal advocates, we don’t automatically deem the life of a boy as exponentially more important than that of a fellow primate.”⁵ PETA was quick to scold the zoo even for having gorillas and other animals in captivity,⁶ where they are “exploited” and “gunned down.”⁷ PETA Primatologist, Julia Gallucci, chided: “This tragedy is exactly why PETA urges families to stay away from any facility that displays animals as sideshows for humans to gawk at.”⁸
For those whose minds have been shaped by the perspective of divine truth—as most American minds, for most of American history, once were—the confusion regarding the value of human beings in contrast with the animal kingdom are shocking, disturbing, and depressing. How can a civilization slump so far into outright animism, paganism, and atheism? Such should not be surprising since, once the Christian worldview is jettisoned from any society, the ideologies that will quickly fill the vacuum will inevitably be humanistic, heathen, irreligious, depraved, and idolatrous. Indeed, the half-century long descent into the abyss of moral and spiritual confusion that has characterized America is strongly reminiscent of the societal circumstances that prevailed in the Roman Empire during the first century:

[A]lthough they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:22-25).

The passage proceeds to delineate the moral filth that ensues for such a people—a portrait of America’s own moral decline, including the acceptance and practice of homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality, covetousness, and haters of God, to name a few (vss. 26-32).
The substantial infiltration of academia by evolution and atheism has resulted in precisely the social conditions that now prevail in America with regard to the nonsensical and inflated sense of importance assigned to animals and the physical environment. Any individual, who would have even a split second of hesitation to kill a gorilla (or any other animal) to save a human child, has unwittingly become a victim to the massive inundation of humanist propaganda that fails to assign the proper value to animals.
For those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He literally left the heavenly realm and came to Earth to atone for sin, and that He now reigns in heaven itself, and will one day bring the entire physical Universe to a fiery conclusion (2 Peter 3:1-11), the value of Harambe the gorilla is a settled matter. Jesus spoke directly and definitively—several times—to the issue.
In Matthew 6, Jesus reassured His disciples that God’s care for them meant that they need not worry unnecessarily about acquiring food and clothes. His reasoning included this admonition: “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (vs. 26, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:25—“Of how much more value are you than the birds?”).
On another occasion, Jesus challenged the disciples not to fear the hatred, intimidation, and opposition of those who would seek to deter their efforts to teach and preach His message. Why? He explained: “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:29-31, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:7). Observe that animals have some value in this world. God created them for specific purposes. However, there is literally no comparison when it comes to evaluating their status and their worth in relation to humans. Animals are expendable. But Jesus adamantly insisted that humans are much more valuable than even many animals.
On yet another occasion, Jesus answered those who sought to condemn Him for healing—on the Sabbath—a man whose hand was shriveled and deformed. The Lord’s logical prowess was piercing and penetrating: “He said to them, ‘What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?’” This question was a reflection of Deuteronomy 22:1-4. It was part of the Law of Moses designed to promote care and concern for one’s fellow man. In an agrarian society, the preservation of farm animals was a serious matter. A family’s survival was dependent on its animals for food and clothes. So Jesus reasoned, if it is proper to intervene to save the life of a farm animal so that human beings might be provided for, “of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (Matthew 12:11-12). Do sheep have some value? Certainly—they are vital to providing the basic necessities of humans. But they are mere animals—they do not have souls like humans, nor were they made in God’s image like humans (Genesis 1:26).⁹ Jesus’ point was poignant. He was, in essence, stressing an important contrast between animals and humans. He was essentially saying, “If you see the value of preserving the life of a dumb, soulless animal for the good of humans, why in the world would you question My action which will improve the life and well-being of a human?” Indeed, Jesus demonstrated that even His religious enemies were clear thinking enough to know that animals are not even to be compared to the value of human beings.
Whatever might be said about parental responsibility to discipline their children and train them to be obedient when parents warn children of the potential dangers that exist at zoos, and whatever might be said about the value of animals—from zebras and gorillas to tarantulas and boa constrictors—nevertheless, according to Deity, human beings are of much more value. As a nation, our depraved moral sensibilities are on display when our citizens show more concern for a 17-year-old gorilla than for the 56 million innocent human babies that have been slaughtered by abortion since 1973.¹⁰

REFERENCES

¹ Natalie Angier (2016), “Do Gorillas Even Belong in Zoos? Harambe’s Death Spurs Debate,” The New York Times, June 6, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/science/gorilla-shot-harambe-zoo.html.

² Police have decided she will not face criminal charges. See Madison Park and Holly Yan (2016), “Gorilla Killing: 3-Year-Old Boy’s Mother Won’t Be Charged,” CNN, June 6, http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/harambe-gorilla-death-investigation/.

³ “Outrage After Gorilla Killed at Cincinnati Zoo to Save Child” (2016), CBS News, June 1, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-after-gorilla-harambe-killed-at-cincinnati-zoo-to-save-child/; Barbara Goldberg (2016), “Killing of Gorilla to Save Boy at Ohio Zoo Sparks Outrage,” MSN News, May 30, http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/killing-of-gorilla-to-save-boy-at-ohio-zoo-sparks-outrage/ar-BBtCunM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP; Kimberly Ricci (2016), “People Are Furious Over The Death Of Harambe The Gorilla And Want Justice,” Uproxx, May 30, http://uproxx.com/webculture/cincinnati-outrage-harambe-gorilla-death/.

⁴ Sheila Hurt (2016), “Justice for Harambe,” https://www.change.org/p/cincinnati-zoo-justice-for-harambe.

⁵ By Peter Singer and Karen Dawn (2016), “Op-Ed: Harambe the Gorilla Dies, Meat-Eaters Grieve,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singer-dawn-harambe-death-zoo-20160605-snap-story.html.

⁶ Jennifer O’Connor (2016), “Gorilla Pays With His Life for Others’ Negligence,” PETA, May 29, http://www.peta.org/blog/gorilla-pays-with-life-for-others-negligence/.

⁷ Angela Henderson (2016), "From Marius to Harambe: Zoos Teach That Wild Animals Are Expendable,” PETA, June 1, http://www.peta.org/blog/marius-to-harambe-zoos-teach-wild-animals-expendable/.

⁸ “PETA Responds to Gorilla Shooting at Cincinnati Zoo” (2016), WDRB, May 29, http://www.wdrb.com/story/32092202/peta-responds-to-gorilla-shooting-at-cincinnati-zoo.

⁹ Bert Thompson (1999), “Do Animals Have Souls?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=582.

¹⁰ Matt Walsh (2016), “While You Were Crying Over a Dead Ape, 125,000 Babies Were Just Murdered,” The Blaze, http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/while-you-were-crying-over-a-dead-ape-125-thousand-babies-were-just-murdered/.

A Sponge with Fiber Optics by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=961

A Sponge with Fiber Optics

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The last time you picked up a phone to call your business partner about a work project, you might have been using fiber optics. The last time you logged onto the World Wide Web from your home computer, you might have been using fiber optics. We hear much about fiber optics these days, but what, exactly, is meant by the term “fiber optics”? In simple terms, a fiber-optic cable has a core (center) made of very thin glass. Light can travel through the glass and relay light signals that can reproduce sound and other information. Fiber-optic cables stretch thousands of miles all across the world, and can send information quickly and efficiently.
But there are some problems with these cables. First, since they are glass, they can be brittle, which means they can crack and break. Digging up the cables and replacing them is very expensive. Second, in order to produce the cables, factories must use very high heat, which also is very expensive. Fiber optics are amazing, but they could use some improvement.
Interestingly, scientists have found an amazing sponge that has wonderful fiber-optic “cables.” The sponge, called the Venus Flower Basket, lives in the deep waters of the ocean. This sponge produces several fiber-optic cables that grow out of its base. These tiny cables are about as wide as a single human hair, and grow to be anywhere from 2 to 7 inches long.
The fibers produced by the Venus Flower Basket have several advantages over the manmade ones. First, they are produced in cool temperatures. If we humans could learn to copy this, we could save millions of dollars. Second, the fibers from the sponge are very strong and flexible, and do not crack and break like the ones humans produce. In fact, the fibers from the sponge are so flexible they can be tied into a knot. If scientists could learn to make such strong, flexible fibers, we would not have to spend as much time and money repairing our current fiber-optic cables.
Dan Vergano, in an article for USA Today, wrote about the Venus Flower Basket. He quoted several researchers who had been working with the fiber-optic cables of the sponge, or some other facet of biomimetics (the science of copying nature). George Matsumoto, a marine researcher of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, said: “Nature often provides us with a better way of doing thing [sic].” He went on to comment that sponges have evolved varied traits over more than 400 million years (2003).
It is amazing that many scientists who are working in the field of biomimicry do not acknowledge the implications of their work. It is a self-evident truth that where there is design, there must of necessity, be a designer; where there is a painting, there must be a painter. Those who study biomimicry freely acknowledge design in nature. For example, what seems to be the official Web site on biomimicry offers a course from its home page titled “Biologists at the Design Table.” In the course summary, under the heading of “Workshop Logistics,” the site describes the participants in the course as those who are “biologists and naturalists with a passion for the natural world, an understanding of sustainability and an interest in applying nature’s elegant design strategies to human challenges” (n.d., “Biomimicry,” emp. added).
Supposedly, then, over a period of billions of years, nature developed “elegant design strategies”—the likes of which even our most educated, brilliant minds have yet to plumb the depths. And yet we are to believe that this “design” somehow originated by a process of blind, evolutionary chance. Such a conclusion steps beyond bounds of logic.
Intelligent scientists have been working on fiber-optic cables for many years, just to get them to work as well as they do now. Yet, the Venus Flower Basket has strong, flexible fibers that are produced in cool temperatures. If there is design, which is even more intricate and efficient than that produced by highly intelligent humans, then the designer of such must have an intellect equal to or greater than the humans themselves. The writer of Hebrews accurately noted: “For every house is built by someone, but he who built all things is God” (3:4). God’s design in the sponge’s fiber-optic “cables” proves that animals like the Venus Flower Basket did not evolve. Design demands a Designer.

REFERENCES

“Biomimicry,” (n.d.) [On-line], URL: http://www.biomimicry.org/intro.html.
Vergano, Dan (2003), “Sponge Goes Man-made Fiber Optics One Better,” USA Today, [On-line], URL: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-08-20-sponge-fibers_x.htm.

Question and Answer: What is “The Beast”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1732

Question and Answer: What is “The Beast”?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Are you aware of the movie that is scheduled for release next summer called The Beast? I heard it was filmed in an effort to convince people that Jesus never lived. Is that true?

A.

According to the movie’s Web site (www.thebeastmovie.com), The Beast is scheduled to be released in theaters worldwide on June 6, 2006 (or 6/6/06—which I can assure you is no accident). And, yes, it does appear that the movie’s main focus will be to persuade audiences of the alleged “fact” that “Jesus Christ never existed.” It is a story about a young person named Danielle whose father mysteriously disappears after stumbling across “a cover-up of Christianity’s best-kept secret: That Jesus Christ never existed.” Brian Flemming, the movie’s director, supposedly dives “into factual territory” that is “well-explored by scholars but largely hidden from the view of the public” (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/about/index.html). Although The Beast is listed as “fictional,” based upon the movie’s Web site, the director’s aim will be to persuade his audiences that Jesus is equally fictional.
While I have not seen the movie (and certainly do not encourage Christians who are simply seeking to be entertained to view and support such an anti-Christian film, which will simply poke more fun at “fundamentalist Christians”), I can only imagine how the many sources that do testify to Jesus’ historicity will be critiqued. The historically reliable (not to mention inspired) New Testament documents likely will be dismissed with the slightest of ease. Even though every one of the New Testament writers testified to the reality of Christ, they must be rejected as liars or lunatics. Similarly, statements about Jesus from such reputable first and early second-century historians as Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius will also have to be explained away somehow (if even mentioned at all).
Who knows if this movie will even make it into theaters next summer? (My prayer is that it will not.) But, if it does, Christians do not have to be alarmed about some new piece of evidence that supposedly proves Jesus never lived. When all of the facts are gathered, the honest individual will come to the same conclusion that the French humanist Ernest Renan came to more than 100 years ago: “[A]ll history is incomprehensible without him [Jesus—EL]” (http://www.lexilogos.com/document/renan/life_jesus.htm).
By the way, Apologetics Press is scheduled to release a new book on the historicity and deity of Christ in the spring of 2006—sometime before the release of The Beast.

Can Humans Become Gods? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1221

Can Humans Become Gods?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One of the more eye-opening beliefs of Mormonism is the polytheistic notion that humans can become gods. Standard Mormon theology maintains that even God (the Father) and Jesus Christ were once human. They were preceded by other humans who themselves progressed to the status of gods.
Of course, this doctrine was not presented initially by Joseph Smith, but was developed after the production of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon actually contradicts later Mormon revelation, in that it affirmed in 1830 the biblical doctrine of the oneness of God in three persons, i.e., the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Observe the conversation between Ammon and King Lamoni:

And then Ammon said: “Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?” And he said, “Yea.” And Ammon said: “This is God.” And Ammon said unto him again: “Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?” And he said: “Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.” And Ammon said unto him: “The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.… I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people” (Alma 18:26-30).

Nephi declared: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end” (2 Nephi 31:21, emp. added). Amulek contended with the diabolical Zeezrom: “And Zeezrom said unto him: ‘Thou sayest there is a true and living God?’ And Amulek said: ‘Yea, there is a true and living God.’ Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ And he answered, ‘No’ ” (Alma 11:26-29, emp. added).
The Book of Mormon also affirmed that Jesus was God in the flesh:

And now Abinadi said unto them: “I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:1-4, emp. added).

Even the “three witnesses” to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, affirmed monotheism and the oneness of God: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God” (“The Testimony,” 1981, emp. added). Joseph Smith affirmed the same thing in the Articles of Faith: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Pearl, 1981, p. 60).
These teachings certainly are in harmony with the Bible. The Bible repeatedly and frequently affirms the doctrine of monotheism and the unity of God: Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5; 46:9; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; 1 Timothy 2:5. These and many other passages indicate “there is but one infinite Spirit Being, and that within that one Spirit essence there are three personal distinctions, each of which may be, and is, called God” (Lanier, 1974, p. 46). There is only one divine essence (ousia) or nature (phusis)—a solidaric unity—one divine substance in (not and) three persons (prosopa or persona), with each “person” being the subsistence (hupostaseis) of the divine Essence [NOTE: for discussions of the concept of Trinity and its treatment in church history, see Archer, 1982, pp. 357-361; Bickersteth, n.d.; Boles, 1942, pp. 19ff.; Chadwick, 1967, pp. 84ff.; Schaff, 1910, 3:670ff.; Walker, 1970, pp. 106ff.; Warfield, 1939a, 5:3012-3022].
But by 1844, Joseph Smith had begun to advocate a very different understanding of deity—in direct contradiction to the Book of Mormon. He began to promulgate the idea that God had, in fact, previously been a man Himself Who had become exalted, and that all men were capable of the same progression (see Tanner, 1972, p. 163). This shift was expressed formally in the Pearl of Great Price where, in the Book of Moses, God is spoken of in the singular throughout. For example: “I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest” (2:1). In stark contrast, however, in the Book of Abraham, in a section discussing the same creation event, God is spoken of as “Gods.” For example:

And then the Lord said: “Let us go down.” And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.... And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night....And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.... And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness....And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed (4:1,5,18; 5:8, emp. added).

Anyone who is familiar with the King James Version cannot help but be struck with the fact that the author of the Book of Abraham had before him a copy of a KJV and merely paraphrased the text. It is equally apparent that the author “had an axe to grind” in adjusting the text to foist upon the reader the notion of multiple “gods.” In fact, in the thirty-one verses of chapter four, the term “Gods” is used thirty-two times! It is used sixteen times in chapter five! Polytheism now so thoroughly permeates Mormonism that one Mormon apostle asserted that humans are the offspring of the union between an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother (McConkie, 1979, p. 516)!

“LET US MAKE MAN”

Separate and apart from the issue of the inspiration of the Book of Mormon (see Miller, 2003), the question must be asked: Does the Bible give credence to the notion of multiple gods? Certainly not! However, various verses have been marshaled in an effort to defend the Mormon viewpoint. For example, on the sixth day of Creation, God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). It is alleged by Mormons that the use of the plural in this verse implies a multiplicity of “gods.” However, an examination of the context reveals that the doctrine of the Trinity is being conveyed (see Leupold, 1942, 1:86ff.).
The Holy Spirit was active at the Creation, “hovering over the face of the waters” (1:2). “Hovering” refers to attentive participation (cf. Deuteronomy 32:11). Elsewhere, the Bible makes clear that Jesus also was present at the Creation, in active participation with Deity’s creative activity (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 2:10). Hence, when God spoke of “Us,” He was referring to Himself and the other two members of the divine Essence [cf. “Godhead” (theotes) in Colossians 2:9, “divine” nature (theios) in Acts 17:29 and 2 Peter 1:3-4, and “divinity” (theioteis) in Romans 1:20. The first term (theotes) differs from the third term (theioteis) “as essence differs from quality or attribute” (Thayer, 1901, p. 288; cf. Vine, 1966, pp. 328-329; Warfield, 1939b, 2:1268-1270)]. Some (e.g., Archer, 1982, p. 74) have suggested that God was including the angels in the “us,” since “sons of God” sometimes can refer to the angels (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Psalms 29:1; 89:6), and “sons of God” can be shortened to “God” while still referring to angels (e.g., compare Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6, and Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:7,9). In either case, the fact remains that the Bible presents a consistent picture that there is only one God, and that this divine essence includes three—and only three—persons.

“YE SHALL BE AS GODS”

Another verse that has been brought forward to substantiate Mormon polytheism is the comment made on the occasion of Adam and Eve being tempted to eat the forbidden fruit: “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5—NKJV). The King James Version says, “ye shall be as gods.” Four points of clarification are in order on this verse. In the first place, Satan made this statement—not God. Satan’s declarations are never to be trusted, since he is “a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
In the second place, the uncertainty conveyed by the various English translations in their differing treatment of the verse (i.e., whether “God” or “gods”) is the result of the underlying Hebrew term elohim. This word is not to be confused with Yahweh, the formal name for God throughout the Old Testament. Elohim is a generic term used some 2,570 times in Scripture, and generally refers to the one true God, but also is used to refer to pagan gods, and even can refer to judges or rulers and, as noted previously, to angels (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:44-45). Though the word is plural in form, it is used in both the plural and singular sense [cf. “face” (panim)—Genesis 50:1; Exodus 34:35 and “image” (teraphim)—1 Samuel 19:13]. English shares a similar phenomenon with its plural nouns like “deer,” “seed,” “sheep,” and “moose.” The same form is used, whether referring to one or to many. Hebrew, like most other languages, matched the number (whether singular or plural) of verbs and adjectives with the noun. In the case of elohim, with only rare exception, the verbs and adjectives used with it are either singular or plural in conformity with the intended meaning (Ringgren, 1974, p. 272). Fretheim noted that its use in the Old Testament for Israel’s God is “always with singular verbs” (1997, 1:405; cf. Archer, 1982, p. 74).
Some Hebrew scholars maintain that the plural form used to designate the one true God is the pluralis majestatis or excellentiae—the plural of majesty—or the plural of intensification, absolutization, or exclusivity (e.g., Fretheim, 1:405; Gesenius, 1847, p. 49; Harris, et al., p. 44; Mack, 1939, 2:1265; Reeve, 1939, 2:1270), although others question this usage (e.g., Grudem, 1994, p. 227; Jenni and Westermann, 1997, p. 116). In the case at hand, Satan was tempting Eve with the prospect of being like God—Whom she knew, and from Whom she (or at least her husband) had received previous communication (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:3). She knew nothing of other “gods”—pagan or otherwise. Since the term elohim occurs 58 times in the first three chapters of Genesis and is consistently rendered “God,” and since Satan himself used the term earlier in the same verse as well as four verses earlier (vs. 1) to refer to the one God, no contextual, grammatical, or lexical reason exists for rendering it “gods” in verse five. In fact, most of the major English translations properly render it “God” (e.g., NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV). [See also the discussion in Clarke, n.d., 1:50, who noted that the ancient Syriac version rendered the term correctly].
Third, elohim in this verse has an attached prefix (Biblia Hebraica, 1967/77, p. 4)—what Hebrew scholars call an “inseparable preposition” (Weingreen, 1959, p. 26). In this case, the prepositional prefix is the eleventh letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the kaph, and means “like” or “as.” Satan was not saying that Eve would become God or a god; He was saying she would become like God. This realization brings us to a fourth point: the context stipulates in what way Eve would become like God. In the very verse under consideration, an explanatory phrase clarifies what Satan meant: “You will be like God, knowing good and evil” (emp. added). This meaning is evident from subsequent references in the same chapter. When they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew…” (verse 7, emp. added). God commented: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil” (verse 22, emp. added). In other words, Adam and Eve became like God in the sense that they now were privy to a greater breadth of awareness, understanding, and insight: “They now had a sufficient discovery of their sin and folly in disobeying the command of God; they could discern between good and evil; and what was the consequence? Confusion and shame were engendered, because innocence was lost and guilt contracted” (Clarke, p. 51). As Keil and Delitzsch summarized: “By eating the fruit, man did obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and in this respect became like God” (1976, 1:95, emp. added).

GOD OF GODS

A third attempt to substantiate the Mormon doctrine of plural gods is the use of various verses from the Bible that speak of God being a “God of gods.” For example, on the occasion of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, the “Song of Moses” declared: “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods” (Exodus 15:11, emp. added). Forty years later, in his stirring challenge to the Israelites to be firm in their future commitment to God, he reminded them: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome” (Deuteronomy 10:17, emp. added). During the days of Joshua, some of the Israelites exclaimed: “The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, He knows” (Joshua 22:22, emp. added). These verses, and many more in the Bible, speak of “gods” in such a way that a cursory reading might leave one with the impression that the Bible teaches that “gods” actually existed. However, one cannot really study the Bible and come away with that conclusion. The Bible presents a thoroughgoing monotheistic view of reality. It repeatedly conveys the fact that “gods” are merely the figment of human imagination, invented by humans to provide themselves with exemption from following the one true God by living up to the higher standard of deity. Humans throughout history have conjured up their own imaginary gods to justify freedom from restriction and to excuse relaxed moral behavior.
Consequently, all verses in the Bible that use the term “gods” to refer to deity (with the exception of the one God) are referring to nonexistent deities that humans have invented. When God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, the very first one said: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Liberal higher critics of the Bible (like Wellhausen) have alleged that this dictum advocated only monolatry (exclusive worship of Yahweh) rather than actually denying the existence of other gods. Distinguished professor of Old Testament languages, Gleason Archer, has maintained, however, that “this construction of the words is quite unwarranted” (1974, p. 235). Many additional passages clarify the point. For example, the psalmist declared: “For the Lord is great and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods” (Psalm 96:4, emp. added). One might get the impression from this verse by itself that the psalmist thought that “gods” actually existed. However, the next verse sets the record straight: “For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the Lord made the heavens” (vs. 5, emp. added). The Hebrew word for “idols” (elilim) means “of nothing, of nought, empty, vain” (Gesenius, p. 51). Notice carefully the contrast the psalmist was making. The people made their gods; but the one true God made the heavens (i.e., the Universe). The genuineness, reality, and greatness of God are placed in contrast to the people’s fake, nonexistent gods who could not make anything. Archer concluded: “This passage alone…demonstrates conclusively that the mention of ‘gods’ in the plural implied no admission of the actual existence of heathen gods in the first commandment” (1974, p. 236). As God Himself announced: “They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God” (Deuteronomy 32:21, emp. added).
The denunciation of the Israelites for conjuring up false gods—pretending that such actually existed, rather than devoting themselves exclusively to the one and only God—reached its zenith in the eloquent preaching pronouncements of the Old Testament prophets. Elijah treated the notion of the existence of gods in addition to the one God with sarcasm and forthright ridicule (1 Kings 18:27-29). The idea of multiple gods would have been laughable, if it were not so spiritually serious (cf. Psalm 115:2-8). The people on that occasion finally got the point, for they shouted: “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!” (vs. 39).
Likewise, the reality of monotheism was pure, well defined, and single minded for Jeremiah. He frequently chastised the people by accusing them of following gods that were, in fact, “not gods” (2:11; 5:7; 16:20). Isaiah was equally adamant and explicit:

You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, and there was no foreign god among you; therefore you are My witnesses, says the Lord, that I am God. Indeed, before the day was, I am He; and there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it? (43:10-13, emp. added; cf. 37: 19; 40:18-20; 41; 44:8-24).

Over and over, Isaiah recorded the exclusivity of the one true God: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me” (45:5, emp. added); “There is no other God” (45:14, emp. added); “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (45:18, emp. added).
The New Testament continues the same recognition of the nonexistence of deities beyond the one God Who exists in three persons. Paul reminded the Galatian Christians of their pre-Christian foolish belief in other deities: “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods” (4:8, emp. added). By definition, the “gods” that people claim actually exist are not gods! In his lengthy discussion of whether Christians were permitted to eat foods that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, Paul clarified succinctly the Bible position on the existence of so-called gods:

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, emp. added).

In this passage, Paul declared very forthrightly that idols, and the gods they represent, are, in fact, nonentities. The RSV renders the meaning even more clearly: “We know that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one” (emp. added).
Of course, Paul recognized and acknowledged that humans have worshipped imaginary, nonexistent gods in heaven (like Greek mythology advocated) and on Earth (in the form of idols). He used the figure of speech known as “metonymy of the adjunct,” where “things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 597; Dungan, 1888, p. 295; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4). He spoke of “gods” as if they existed, simply because many people of his day had that opinion. But Paul knew “there is no God but one.” As Allen observed: “The gods (i.e., the so-called divine beings contemplated by the pagans) represented by the images did not exist. …[T]hey were nothing as far as representing the deities envisioned by the heathen” (1975, p. 98, emp. added; cf. Kelcy, 1967, p. 38; Thomas, 1984, p. 30).
Paul continued his discussion of idols two chapters later, and again affirmed the nonexistence of any deities besides God: “What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?” (1 Corinthians 10:19). For Paul, it was technically permissible for a Christian to eat food that had previously been used in a pagan ceremony as an offering to a “god.” Why? Because such “gods” did not, and do not, actually exist—except in the mind of the worshipper (cf. 8:7-8)! Thus, the food used in such ceremonies was unaffected. However, the person who really thinks there are “gods,” and who then worships these imaginary “gods,” is, in actuality, worshipping demons (10:20)! Paul said there are only two possibilities: “But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (10:20-21). Paul envisioned no class of beings known as “gods.” There is only the one true God, and then there are the demons and forces of Satan (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:15-16). This bifurcation of the spiritual realm (i.e., God versus Satan and his forces) is the consistent portrait presented throughout the Bible. The Bible simply admits no knowledge or possibility of “gods.”

YE ARE GODS

A final passage that is alleged to support the notion of “gods” is the statement made by Jesus when the Jews wanted to stone Him because He claimed divinity for Himself:

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came…do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”? (John 10:33-36).

Mormons allege that Jesus here endorsed the notion that men can become “gods.” But, of course, Jesus did no such thing. On this occasion, He appealed to an Old Testament context to deflect the barb of His critics. Psalm 82 is a passage that issued a scathing indictment of the unjust judges who had been assigned the responsibility of executing God’s justice among the people (cf. Deuteronomy 1:16; 19:17-18; Psalm 58). Such a magistrate was “God’s minister” (Romans 13:4) who acted in the place of God, wielding His authority, and who was responsible for mediating God’s help and justice (cf. Exodus 7:1). In this sense, they were “gods” (elohim)—acting as God to men (Barclay, 1956, 2:89). Hebrew parallelism clarifies this sense: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High’” (Psalm 82:6, emp. added). They did not share divinity with God—but merely delegated jurisdiction. They still were mere humans—although invested with divine authority, and permitted to act in God’s behalf.
This point is apparent throughout the Torah, where the term translated “judges” or “ruler” is often elohim (e.g., Exodus 21:6; 22:9,28). Take Moses as an example. Moses was not a “god.” Yet God told Moses that when he went to Egypt to achieve the release of the Israelites, he would be “God” to his brother Aaron and to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). He meant that Moses would supply both his brother and Pharaoh with the words that came from God. Though admittedly a rather rare use of elohim, nevertheless “it shows that the word translated ‘god’ in that place might be applied to man” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.). Clarke summarized this point: “Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High” (3:479, emp. in orig.). But because they had shirked their awesome responsibility to represent God’s will fairly and accurately, and because they had betrayed the sacred trust bestowed upon them by God Himself, He decreed death upon them (vs. 7). Obviously, they were not “gods,” since God could and would execute them!
Jesus marshaled this Old Testament psalm to thwart His opponents’ attack, while simultaneously reaffirming His deity (which is the central feature of the book of John—20:30-31). He made shrewd use of syllogistic argumentation by reasoning a minori ad majus (see Lenski, 1943, pp. 765-770; cf. Fishbane, 1985, p. 420). “Jesus is here arguing like a rabbi from a lesser position to a greater position, a ‘how much more’ argument very popular among the rabbis” (Pack, 1975, 1:178). In fact, “it is an argument which to a Jewish Rabbi would have been entirely convincing. It was just the kind of argument, an argument founded on a word of scripture, which the Rabbis loved to use and found most unanswerable” (Barclay, 1956, p. 90).
Jesus identified the unjust judges of Israel as persons “to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35). That is, they had been “appointed judges by Divine commission” (Butler, 1961, p. 127)—by “the command of God; his commission to them to do justice” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.; cf. Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Luke 3:2). McGarvey summarized the ensuing argument of Jesus: “If it was not blasphemy to call those gods who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger” (n.d., p. 487). Charles Erdman observed:

By his defense Jesus does not renounce his claim to deity; but he argues that if the judges, who represented Jehovah in their appointed office, could be called “gods,” in the Hebrew scriptures, it could not be blasphemy for him, who was the final and complete revelation of God, to call himself “the Son of God (1922, pp. 95-96; cf. Morris, 1971, pp. 527-528).

This verse teaches the exact opposite of what Mormons would like for it to teach! It brings into stark contrast the deity—the Godhood—of Christ (and His Father Who “sanctified and sent” Him—vs. 36) with the absence of deity for all others! There are no other “gods” in the sense of deity, i.e., eternality and infinitude in all attributes. Jesus verified this very conclusion by directing the attention of His accusers to the “works” that He performed (vs. 37-38). These “works” (i.e., miraculous signs) proved the divine identity of Jesus to the exclusion of all other alleged deities. Archer concluded: “By no means, then, does our Lord imply here that we are sons of God just as He is—except for a lower level of holiness and virtue. No misunderstanding could be more wrongheaded than that” (1982, p. 374). Indeed, the Mormon notion of a plurality of gods is “wrongheaded,” as is the accompanying claim that humans can become gods.

CONCLUSION

It is unthinkable that the consistent prohibition of polytheism and idolatry throughout the Bible would or could give way to the completely contrary notion that, as a matter of fact, many gods do exist, and that these gods are merely exalted humans who now rule over their own worlds even as God and Christ rule over theirs. It is likewise outlandish—and contradictory—that humans would be required to worship God and Christ—while being banned from worshipping these other gods. The fact of the matter is that “historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic” (Mack, 1939, 2:1265). The same may be said of historic Christianity. To think otherwise is pure pagan hocus-pocus—“a mere creation of the imagination, a mere matter of superstition” (Erdman, 1928, p. 78, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Allen, Jimmy (1975), Survey of 1 Corinthians (Searcy, AR: Privately published by author).
Archer, Gleason L. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barclay, William (1956), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press), second edition.
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Bickersteth, Edward (no date), The Trinity (MacDill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).
Boles, H. Leo (1942), The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature, Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1971 reprint).
Book of Mormon (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butler, Paul (1961), The Gospel of John (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Chadwick, Henry (1967), The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books).
Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Erdman, Charles (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Erdman, Charles (1928), The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fishbane, Michael (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Fretheim, Terence (1997), “elohim,” The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.
Grudem, Wayne (1994), Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann (1997), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kelcy, Raymond C. (1967), First Corinthians (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Lanier, Roy H., Sr. (1974), The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries (Denver, CO: Roy H. Lanier, Sr.).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1950 reprint).
Mack, Edward (1939), “Names of God,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
McConkie, Bruce (1979), Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Is the Book of Mormon From God?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2243
Morris, Leon (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Pearl of Great Price (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Reeve, J.J. (1939), “Gods,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.
Ringgren, Helmer (1974), “elohim,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Schaff, Philip (1910), History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979 reprint).
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1972), Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City, UT: Modern Microfilm).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
“The Testimony of Three Witnesses” (1981 reprint), Introduction to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Thomas, J.D. (1984), The Message of the New Testament: First Corinthians (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Walker, Williston (1970), A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939a), “Trinity,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939b), “Godhead,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Weingreen, J. (1959), A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press), second edition.