It is commonly charged that certain documents of the Old Testament are unbalanced in terms of sexual matters? This allegation reflects a misunderstanding of the sacred text. This week’s Question addresses this matter.

This is a response to those who may be critical of God for his command to Israel that they hock the horses taken in battle.

An atheist thinks he has crafted an ingenious argument against the time-tested concept of “design demands an intelligent designer.” But his reasoning is logically flawed and internally inconsistent.

A response to the Jesus Seminar propaganda, as featured by Peter Jennings on ABC’s special, In Search of Jesus

Bible critics have charged the sacred book with mistakes in that the King James Version mentions both “unicorns” and “satyrs” — both of which are mythical creatures. How does the student of the Scriptures respond to this alleged difficulty?

A critic writes that if human beings have true “free agency,” then God could not punish them for their “sins.” He sees a conflict between the ideas of freedom and responsibility. Let us briefly consider this matter.

Did Jesus contradict himself as he approached the ordeal of the crucifixion? Some critics so allege, but what are the facts?

In an article published sometime back, we denied that Peter was the “rock” upon which Christ built his church, as alleged by Roman Catholicism. A kindly critic objects to this position. Wayne Jackson discusses the matter further.

Former Vice President Al Gore comments on evolution and violence in the public schools

Is there a reasonable explanation for John’s statement that the deeds of Christ could not fit into all of the world’s books (Jn. 21:25)?

The discovery of the Code of Hammurabi reveals several interesting ideas when compared to the Law of Moses.

The Lord expects his disciples to demonstrate a loving disposition, while, at the same time, defending the truth vigorously. All of us to some extent, have made errors in both of these areas. And sometimes, we do more harm than good when attempting to defend truth with incorrect reasoning. This is part three in a three-part series, “Defending the Faith with a Broken Sword.”

A recent news item highlighted a case where an inmate was refused the privilege of being immersed for the remission of his sins. A chorus of sectarian voices argued that “hard cases” like this negate the belief that baptism is a necessary condition for salvation. Is this quibble valid?

Is the account of Noah’s flood accurate? How, the critic wants to know, could the dove have plucked a fresh olive leaf from a tree that, a week earlier (Gen. 8:10), had been totally submerged in water?

A Christian lady has suggested that Paul was mistaken when he recommended benevolence, first to Christian, then to non-Christians. Is the criticism reasonable?

There is an exploding educational phenomenon in America. It is the accelerating practice of homeschooling. Some charge that homeschooled kids suffer from inadequate socialization. A new study disputes this allegation.

While uninformed modern critics continue to question the credibility of the New Testament documents, the evidence continues to pile up which establishes their genuineness.

Civilized men lament the Holocaust (1933-45) as one of the darkest eras of modern history. There is, however, almost a conspiracy of historical silence—few journalists care to reflect upon just why Hitler and his associates perpetrated that infamous evil.

A critic has disputed the biblical position that water baptism is requisite for the forgiveness of sins. He contends that one cannot be saved by a “corruptible” method. But “water” is corruptible. Thus, it has no place in the plan of redemption. Does the argument have merit? Read this article and see.