Mainpage

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 



Grab to eternal life!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus is the way,
 the truth, and the life

 

 

BE FREED FROM LIES!

 

 

 

 

As one talks with people, one notices that they have two ways of reacting to spiritual issues. Some are open to them, but very often it seems like you are faced with an impenetrable wall, and the message does not evoke a response. The attitude of people like that can be so unresponsive that they do not even want to think over other alternatives and that just their beliefs would be wrong. They have decided beforehand how the things are, and that cannot be shaken by any proofs. It will not succeed because they are not interested in different material, logical proofs or explanations that could prove their beliefs wrong. They reject them straightaway without that they become acquainted with them, think over reliability of them and reliability of their own beliefs. They are similar to the Ephesians mentioned in the Acts or similar to Paul’s fellow citizens who rejected the message he preached and did not want to inquire about things. “The wall” was so big and impenetrable in the minds of these people that they did not even want to think over was the message true.

 

- (Acts 19:28, 29) When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

29. Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s travelling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the theatre.

 

- (Acts 22:17,18) “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance

18. and saw the Lord speaking. ‘Quick!’ he said to me. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’

 

But is it in many beliefs of people only a question of lies and preconceptions or what are they? That will we examine in the light of two matters:

 

1. ”I love you”

2. The origin of all

 

1. ”I LOVE YOU”

 

As one talks with people about spiritual things, one so notices often that there is an impenetrable wall ahead, and the message does not evoke a response. They have decided beforehand how the things are, and do not even want to think over other alternatives. It will not succeed because they are not interested in different material or proofs. They reject them straightaway because of the theory of evolution or other beliefs.

   One reason why people reject the Gospel is their idea of what is love and what is not. Many may be offended either by the attitudes of some people or by the fact that someone speaks to them about sinfulness of some issue. They say right away: “Do not judge” and “We must not be narrow-minded”. These attitudes cause them to reject the whole message of the Gospel.

 

What is right and wrong? As it is thought over love and tolerance, most do not take out in the same context a question about that what is right and wrong. They do not express this question for example concerning sexual relations, homosexual way of life and abortion, but they pay only attention to different outlooks that others have. Their attention is in them, but not at all in this question.

   However, the question about right and wrong is quite essential. For example abortion many do not regard as any big matter and wrong, but in fact in it happens the homicide of a little child (You shall not kill!), even though people claimed else. Is it right? Guilt that many experience after an abortion, refers at least to that most have an idea about the matter and that they have done wrong.

   What about if someone takes up a negative attitude towards abortion? Is he narrow-minded? No, but he acts according to that what he realizes to be right and wants to follow it. Rather it could be said that the advocates of abortion and who want to kill little children are narrow-minded. They are more narrow-minded at least in this area.

 

What is the truth? Another question that is not presented very often, is the question of that what is the truth and are our acts significant. It appears hardly ever in worldly media.

   However, this question is quite essential. For if the message of the Bible and especially of the New Testament is true, it shows us that fornicators, adulterers, murders, homosexuals and generally unrepentant will not inherit the kingdom of God (Of course the Bible speaks about forgiveness for the same groups and all people, but we must first know that we have sinned and to confess them so that we can be forgiven. Also in the Lord’s Prayer is said: “forgive us our sins”. If a man does not even admit that he has sinned, how can he be forgiven?). The same matter appears repeatedly in several verses and therefore it is good for us to think over, are they the truth and true or false, because they have to belong to one or the other group. If there is a possibility, for example, only of ten percents that they are the truth, don’t we then act stupidly if we reject them?

 

- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

- (Rev 22:14,15) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15  For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.

 

”I love you”. Nowadays it is so ordinary that it is emphasized love and tolerance in media and there is nothing wrong in it as such, but it is a good thing.

   However, it is wrong to emphasize that God would give His acceptance to sin and evilness because it is not at all like that. For if we look at the previous verses and they are true, so according to them the wrongdoers and generally unrepentant persons will not get to heaven but they will have to go to damnation. It appears also in the next verses:

 

- (Rev 21:5-8) And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.  And he said to me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6  And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7  He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

What about, if someone warns people about damnation and repentance that leads there? What about, if he warns persons who live in fornication or homosexuality? Is he uncharitable and narrow-minded then?

   The answer to the previous is that just him has love towards people and he is practical in his love (It is good to note that Jesus spoke about damnation more than anybody else and warned about it, but in spite of all He has certainly been the most loving man on the earth).

   The situation could be compared to that if the weak ices (compare; damnation) exist and two persons meet a person who goes on them. We can ask which of the following ways is more loving and practical. Isn’t the latter way absolutely better?

 

- Another person hugs the person that goes on the weak ices but does not speak anything about the danger, but says: “I love you”.

- Another person says to the person that goes on the weak ices: I’m worried about you. Do not go on the weak ices, because you can be drowned. It can happen badly to you.”

 

The description of Jesus about the merciful Samaritan indicates well what is the love of practice. That was not showed at all by the priest and the Levite who were indifferent to the destiny of their neighbour, but the Samaritan who tried to help his neighbour. The similar love we also need and not only indifference about the destinies of people. Nowadays tolerance that can be emphasized in our society, can actually be just similar indifference that was represented by the priest and the Levite:

 

- (Luke 10:29-37) But he, willing to justify himself, said to Jesus, And who is my neighbor?

30  And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31  And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32  And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33  But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34  And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35  And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said to him, Take care of him; and whatever you spend more, when I come again, I will repay you.

36  Which now of these three, think you, was neighbor to him that fell among the thieves?

37  And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus to him, Go, and do you likewise.

 

Are you narrow-minded yourself? As we continue about the same subject or prejudices and –attitudes, it is good to state again that everyone is under them to some extent. It is a mistake to think that anyone of us would be totally free from them. Often it can happen that those who preach most against intolerance and prejudices, are under them most (compare Rom 2:1-3: Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are that judge: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that judge do the same things.

But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

And think you this, O man, that judge them which do such things, and do the same, that you shall escape the judgment of God?). They have not yet taken the beam out of their own eye, but only the mote out of their brother’s eye as Jesus said (Matt 7:3-5: And why behold you the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother’s eye.) Secondly these people do not understand that we shall give account only of our own narrow-mindedness and wrong attitudes, not of others. If we seek faults from the life of others, but do not pay any attention to our own faults, it is fully against the teaching of the Bible and the New Testament.

   The next citation indicates well what is it all about. A person can criticize different opinions of others and narrow-mindedness, but does not notice it at all in his own life:

 

Once, as I was giving a lecture a person said to me with anger: “This is not right. You demand that we would take The Genesis literally; that God created in six days, that the evolution is not true, and that there has really been the world-wide Flood. You are intolerant towards the outlooks of other people. You must tolerate other people, like me, who believe that God used evolution, and that the Genesis is only symbolic.”

   I asked him: Well, what would you want me to do?”

   He answered: “You must allow other outlooks and tolerate opinions that are different from your owns.

   I said: “Well, my understanding is that the literal interpretation of the Genesis is the right outlook. All other kinds of the outlooks about the Genesis are wrong. Do you tolerate my opinion?”

   He looked at me as shocked and hesitated in his mind. I could almost hear his thoughts: “If I say yes, I will give him a permission to say that I must not have a different opinion than he has. If I say no, I’m clearly intolerant. What shall I do? He looked at me and said: “That is semantics!” In fact he meant that he had lost his justifications and did not want to admit to be intolerant towards my opinion. In fact, he had so chosen a definite standpoint.

   Occasionally people are shocked when it is spoken about matters absolutely surely. They say: You cannot be so inflexible.” This utterance is actually inflexible. Many people think that some people are inflexible (dogmatic) and others not. However, it is not a question of that you are inflexible or not, but what doctrine (dogma) is the best doctrine that is worth while to adopt! (1)

 

Modern or conservative? An opinion and a prejudice that often appears is a question of what is modern and conservative. Willingly in papers is taken out grouping to these two groups, thinking that they are modern who regard for example homosexuality as a good matter, whereas the others who think in a different way are conservative.

   The viewpoint of the Bible is however quite other. According to it we act modernly and wisely only then as we turn from our sins, old ways of life and want new life from God. He wants to give us new birth (John 3:3) and a new eternal life for a gift. In fact the whole core of the New Testament is just there that God calls us to His eternal kingdom and that the way to there has been opened by Jesus Christ. This new life He offers to everyone who turns to Him. We look at some verses concerning the matter:

 

New life

 

- (1 Peter 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

 

New kingdom

 

- (2 Peter 3:13) Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness.

 

- (Rev 21:1-6) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5  And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.  And he said to me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6  And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.

 

2. THE ORIGIN OF ALL

 

Concerning the thought that God has created everything, it is good to understand that believing in it is based on the outlook on life, in which the origin of life and everything is God. It is based on that God is believed to have created the universe, the earth and life in a short time and that it is not a question of mere chance, but everything has originally been born by Him. At least this teaching appears well in Hebrews, in which Paul straight admitted the impact of faith in understanding matters. He said that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of nothing:

 

- (Hebr 11:3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

But it is good to note that evolutionism is a quite similar outlook on life. It too is based on faith such as faith in creation. Many evolutionists do not want to admit that, but the matter is just so. It is a question of a belief system, in which it is supposed and believed in haphazardness and that everything can be explained without God’s share in anything. In it is believed quite in the same way as in creation even though it cannot be proven:

 

I answered him: “The reason why the scientific theories change is that we do not know everything, is it just so? We have not all proofs.”

   “Yes, just right”, he said.

   I answered: “But we will never know everything”

   “This is true”, he answered.

   I said then: “We find also all the time new proofs.”

   “Quite right”, he said.

   I answered: “This means that we cannot be sure of anything.”

   “Just right”, he said.

   “This means that we cannot be sure neither of evolution.”

   “No! Evolution is a fact”, he put in.

   His logic crumbled and he only showed how his own viewpoints arose from his biases.

   The scientific models of both creationists and evolutionist can change. However the beliefs, on which these models have been built, will not change. The problem is that the most part of the scientists do not understand how the evolution-belief (or –religion) is the ground of scientific models (interpretation ways or stories) – models by which it is tried to clear the present time. The evolutionists are not ready to change their proper belief, according to which all life can be explained by natural series of events without God’s share (or necessity). Evolution is a religion to which they have engaged. The Christians must understand this. Evolution is a religion, it is not science! (2)

 

A reason why evolution theory and either creation cannot be proven, arises from that the past conditions cannot be repeated and that we cannot visit in the past. We have in use only the present time and the evidence being in it, such as the fossils, animals and plants, but knowing the events of the past perfectly is impossible, because no-one has been proving the supposed genesis and evolution of life. It is only a question of faith and belief-system, but not of science, because these matters cannot be proven scientifically in a laboratory. It is an impossibility.

 

THE PRECONCEPTIONS LEAD research

 

As evolution such as creation cannot be proven, so in spite of all it is done research work in this area and it is generally led by preconceptions.

   It is true that most scientists do not want to admit it, but they can think to be free from them and impartial and neutral in their action. They probably do not admit that they have any preconception or the outlook on life through which they look at matters. They may deny it sharply.

   However, the fact is that everyone of us has such attitudes and views and the outlook on life through which we filter matters. If someone says that it is not like that, he is certainly not honestly to himself. It appears, among other things, in the life of a atheist, an evolutionist and a person who believes in the Bible:

 

A atheist is sure that there is no God even though he cannot prove it. (In other words, if someone has not seen God, it does not prove His nonexistence. As well He can belong to that part about which the person has no information). He has a bias that rejects all such information which speaks about God’s existence, because it is against his beliefs. If he received it, he could stop to be a atheist.

 

An evolutionist who believes in evolution, does research on the ground of that it has really taken place. Even though he cannot prove it, he believes in it and generally rejects arrogantly and straightaway the proofs that seem to refer to opposite. He does not receive them and does not want to think over other alternatives.

   An example of the belief in the theory is also, when someone seeks the missing link of the human race and a progenitor in the wilderness of Africa. If he did not have belief in the theory and his outlook on life, he certainly would not trouble to do it. He does research just therefore because he believes in the theory.

   The next citation indicates well how the scientist and other people have biases that lead their research and teaching. They are common to all people:

 

I changed then the method and taught then the real nature of science – what science can do and what it cannot do. We examined those limitations in detail that the scientists have when they examine the past. To students were told that all scientists have preconceptions (beliefs) that they use when they examine proofs. I told them about my belief in the Bible, as far as creation, the Fall and the flood and other subjects are concerned, and how from this ground can be built scientific models. I showed them how the proofs fit logically to the creation model, but not to the model of evolutionists. I had started to use a approaching way being based on preconceptions. The difference was enormous. When the students went to other lessons and the teachers tried to interpret the proofs again, the students were able to recognize suppositions used by the teachers. The students could recognize how the beliefs of the teachers influenced what was their attitude towards the proofs. The question of the origin was outside of scientific proofs.

   This confused some teachers so that once a woman teacher came to me and stated as irritable that I had destroyed her credibility. She had taught students that coal had been formed in mires during millions of years, whereas I had taught students that there were different theories about the forming of it. As this teacher had not told about the limitations of science and had only taught her mire theory as a fact, her credibility had collapsed in the eyes of the students. The reason for her anger was that her credibility could not be restored any more and she knew it. And so knew the students too.

   I appeal to all who have a possibility to teach creation/evolution-subject. Examine carefully your teaching methods. Make sure that the students understand the whole philosophical area, in other words the used suppositions and preconceptions. The result of this is that the students will not only understand this question better but they will also become better thinkers and scientists. (3)

 

A man who believes in the Bible is as well overpowered by his preconceptions and that cannot be denied. However, it is good to note that many of them, who now regard the message of the Bible as true and believe in God, are former atheists and evolutionists (as the writer of this writing) and agnostics and other people with different outlooks on life. It indicates that our outlook on life can change.

 

THE PROOFS

 

As the methods of science concerning the past are limited and the former conditions and events cannot be repeated, it leads so to that are outlook on life very much sets what we believe of the past; in other words do we believe in supernatural God or an haphazard origin and evolution.

   However, it is important to note that all have in their use the same proofs and facts, which are known. They will not change. It is only a question of interpretation of the same facts and what conclusions can be drawn from them. Do they refer to an haphazard origin and evolution or to opposite?

   However, if it is examined systematically the most important axioms of evolutionism, it can be noticed that there are big gaps in them. The facts and the proofs fit clearly better to that model which the Genesis tells about the origin of everything: 

 

Big bang. Everything began from a big bang. Like this has at least supposed in the most common standard theory about the origin of the universe. It has been supposed that from the size of a pinhead (this idea is often expressed in the writings of firm believers in this theory) was born the universe like the present and life.

   But what says common sense? If it is supposed that from the size of a chip of a stone would now be born a new similar universe, how many would believe in it? How many an ordinary man would believe that from the size of a pinhead could be born quite a similar universe with dozens of billions galaxies, hundreds of billions stars, a sun like the present one, the planets, sea and water, the rocks, man, the birds, elephants, mosquitoes and so on, so what would he answer? How reasonable would he deem the whole issue when holding a chip of stone in his hand?

   Isn’t it so that if the matter is thought logically, it is an impossibility and one of the greatest follies in the history of science? It is impossible and logically foolish to think that the whole universe and variety of life has been born by itself from a little chip. The words of Paul fit it well:

 

- (1 Cor 1:19,20) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20  Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 

- (1 Cor 3:18-20) Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness.

20  And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

 

The galaxies and stars. As people do not want to believe in the creation work of God, they have to find an explanation how all – also the galaxies and stars – was born in spite of all.

   Concerning the birth of galaxies, it is however a full enigma. The next citation describes problematicness of the area. The birth of them by themselves is an enigma and there are not good proofs of it:

 

I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)

 

What about the birth of stars? If it is so simple, where is the evidence? Since it has been estimated that there are a hundred billion galaxies in the sky, and a hundred billion stars in each, and if we divide this by 10 billion (the estimated age of the universe is 10–15 billion years), it would mean that 10 new galaxies and 1,000 billions new stars would have to be born every year! This huge amount of new stars and galaxies should be detectable somehow, but why can we not detect it?

  Detecting should not even be difficult, because scientists believe that they can only see the past of the outer space. Thus, we would only need do look at different distances between one light year and 10–15 billion light years – so there would be many alternatives – and we would surely see orbs forming. Why can we not detect this?

 

The birth of the solar system and Earth is one problem. Especially the different composition of the Sun, planets and moons is an enigma. The next two citations indicate this problem:

 

Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)

 

All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

 

The birth of life. As a man believes in supernatural God, it is natural that he understands God to have created everything. Paul wrote about it in Hebrews: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebr 11:3).

   However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied. For the spontaneous generation is an issue, which cannot have been proven, but is based on faith in people’s minds. Attempts to generate it in a laboratory have been made, but with no success whatsoever. No scientist has been able to get even near to solving the origin of life, i.e. people believe in it even though practical observations do not support it. The belief in the matter is only inside the people.

 

Mutations and natural selection. When talking about what promotes evolution, usually the most important factors mentioned are mutations and natural selection.

   However, it is questionable to name mutations factors promoting evolution. Through them have not been born new species or great changes, but everything has taken place within certain limits. As experiments with the banana fly have been carried for decades, they have indicated the same thing. Through them the banana fly has not changed into a wasp, worm, or butterfly, for example, but it has still remained a banana fly

 

After having observed mutations in the banana flies for many years, Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained that the changes were so hopelessly minuscule that even if a thousand mutations were to be combined in one individual, a new species would not be created. (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33) (4)

 

Even though thousands of mutations have been examined in our time, we have found no clear case in which mutation would have changed an animal into a more complex one, produced a new structure, or even caused a deep, new adaptation. (R.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After, p. 131)

 

Natural selection is as problematic. It cannot bring about anything new, because it always selects only from what is old and already there. It cannot create any new kinds of species or completely new species, because mere surviving cannot bring about a new plant or animal:

 

It is here that Darwin's principle decisively fails. Natural selection may perhaps explain how those who are best equipped remain alive, but it can in no way explain how the best equipped have come into existence. Natural selection is not able to produce new properties: the process can only, given the chance, select from already existing properties. A new organ cannot be "selected", it must be created! Already existing genetic properties and possibilities can be artificially refined, but neither natural nor artificial selection is able to produce anything new. Natural selection may perhaps explain how some individuals are destroyed, but not how some are created. (5)

 

Fossils. If evolution and the theory of Darwin are true, it should be easy to prove by fossils that are the only and best pieces of evidence of possible evolution, because they are the only history of life at our disposal. If we reject them, we will not have any other material to start with.

   But the problem is that even though fossils have been found tens of millions and there are millions of fossils in museums, it has not been found, however, developing forms of different animals, such as half developed wings, hands, feet, senses, and other intermediate forms buried in the ground, even though the theory of Darwin requires so. Such fossils and intermediate forms are missing such as it is indicated in the following citations. Only preconceptions and –attitudes can get us to think that evolution in the past is true in spite of all:

 

No matter how long in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla. The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning. Neither has no animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types. This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only. If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms, in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)

 

The fact is, as every paleontologist knows, is that most of the species, genera and families and almost all new groups more extensive than the level of a family, appear in fossils suddenly and the well-known, gradational, transitional stages following each other perfectly without gaps don’t pave their way (George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

 

In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (Dr. Etheridge, world-famous superior of the British Museum [6])

 

Question of age. If we believe in that teaching of the Bible that God is Creator, it requires that He has created everything and from it is not even millions of years.

   Instead, one axiom of “evolution-religion” is a thought of millions of years, during which evolution has taken place. In it, or evolution and millions of years, is believed, even though there are no observations in fossil material about the changing of species.

   A thought of strata of millions of years is however easy to prove wrong. It appears from the next points:

 

Long trunk fossils, which extend are through several strata, are an indication that the strata have not been slowly over a period of millions of years. According to the evolution view these strata should be millions of years old, but in spite of all the trunks extend through them:

 

Many signs refer to several overlapping strata being formed as a consequence of a continuous and world-wide process, since the fossils of many plants and large animals in an upright position penetrate several different strata without any signs of being exposed to erosion over thousands of years at their upper or lower end. Therefore, a trunk has remained in an upright position in the middle of quickly accumulating layers of sediment. Large dinosaurs have also been found similar positions. A 24-metre-tall tree trunk going through more than ten strata was found near  Edinburgh, and everything indicated to the trunk having been quickly carried in place. Neither have any signs indicating erosion between various geological periods been found between the different strata. (7)

 

Thick trunks that have remained in an upright position pierce through dozens of meters of soil indicating how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim. (8)

 

Fossils in strata (also the trunk fossils mentioned above) are an indication of a fast stratification of the strata. For when there are fossils in these strata, it indicates that the mud and sludge slides have buried an animal or plant very quickly, otherwise they cannot be born. In the Flood mentioned by the Bible such is possible. Even the geologists admit that the strata are best formed by floods and water.

 

The remains of man in ”250-300 million years old” strata. An indication of that, how dating is fully astray, is that from coal strata “from across 300 million years”, or about 200 million years before dinosaurs, have been found a gold chain, an iron pot, and other objects that have belonged to a human. Human fossils have also been found in similar strata (Glashouver, W. J. J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39).

   Furthermore human footprints have been found on rocks in Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky, and some other states. These rocks are supposed to be as old as 250 million years: in other words, the leading fossil method must have made a huge mistake or the coal period must have occurred only a couple of thousand years ago. As comes to these findings, Albert C. Ingallis commented:

 

If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of a man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)

 

The following text dating back to the year 1938 also depicts footprints, resembling those of a human, that were found in strata "more than 200 million years old” or long before the supposed era of the dinosaurs. Researchers have had difficulties trying to understand how these prints can even exist in strata that "old":

 

Human-like prints on rock are a mystery to scientists. They cannot belong to a man, since they are too old – but what kind of an odd, two-footed, amphibious animal could have made them?

   What is this animal that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs that had human-like feet?

   (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found. Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These prints were uncovered by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

   A few men from the Kentucky mountains recently visited professor Burroughs. They took him onto their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)

   These footprints are extremely peculiar. They are just the right size to be human – being nine or ten inches in length – and almost the right shape. Almost anyone seeing them will at first think that they have been made by human feet and it is almost impossible to try to convince anyone to the contrary. (...)

   But even the boldest estimations regarding the appearance of the man on the Earth refer to a million years – and these prints are 250 times as old. (...)

   Such is the mystery. A quarter of a billion years ago this animal, walking like a man, left footprints on the widespread sand that hardened into rock over time. Then he disappeared. And now the scientists are scratching their heads." (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)

 

The age of the fossils. Concerning the fossils themselves, it is good to note that they exist only in the present and there are no notes or scraps of their age. No-one really knows when they have exactly died.

   The problem of different dating methods is that they are based on suppositions and their accuracy cannot be proven ever. Contents in different stones can very well be measured, and it is indeed measured, but it is wrong to think that we could know their contents originally and the real age. It is an impossibility. On grounds of fresh lava rock has been made measurements, which have indicated it to be hundreds of millions years old, even though it is not so. It indicates that the contents of stones do not give truthful ages and they cannot be trusted.

 

The history of man. If it is believed in “evolution-religion”, one of its axioms is the evolution of man during a long time or during a few million years.

   However, the fact is that our knowledge about the history of the mankind extends only about 5000 years, when at the same time appeared such things as constructing buildings and cities, using metals, ceramics, ability to write and agriculture. Any of these matters are not much older than that. This fact fits better the beginning told by the Bible than the explanation given by evolutionism:

 

Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that the history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the first dynasty of Egypt is, as a matter of fact, the oldest even somehow confirmed historical date. (9)

 

The earliest notes we have of the history of man date only approximately 5,000 years to the past. (The World Book Encyclopaedia, 1966, volume 6, p. 12)

 

In the recent excavations, the most surprising issue has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the excavators would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (10)

 

What about creation? When we start to examine mentions of the Bible about the beginning of all, we are on more considerably stable ground than in evolution theory. For example the seven-day week, which is mentioned already in the first chapters of Genesis, is familiar to all nations from very ancient times. It had already appeared for thousands of years globally and so it is difficult to explain its origin in any other way than that it is an inheritance from common ancestors:

 

We can find information about the seven-day week from very ancient times to be in the knowledge of all nations – including Ethiopians, Arabs, Native Americans – all nations in the East have at all times used this seven-day week which is difficult to explain without admitting that this information has been received from the common ancestors of mankind. (11)

 

The Fall is an issue about which we can find evidence. The pieces of evidence include, for example, the seal and stories appearing in the traditional knowledge of nations – which we are going to list next – indicating how the nations have had information from very ancient times concerning the Fall that has effected future generations.

 

Near Nineveh in Tepe Gawra was found an imprint of a seal where there is a picture of a man and a woman with bowed heads as an result of an accident, and a snake following them. It has been thought that the picture may represent being banished from Paradise. This seal is preserved in a museum in Philadelphia, U.S.A.

 

In Mesopotamia another imprint of a seal was found. It describes a man and a woman sitting on both sides of a tree and a snake which is in an upright position just behind the woman. This seems to be an accurate description of the Fall and it indicates that the nations that lived in Mesopotamia had information about this event.

 

One Sumerian poem, from which a part has been interpreted, also seems to refer to the Fall. It speaks about a woman who ate that which was forbidden and by this she became the mother of sin. This seems to be a description of Eve, the spouse of Adam, who first fell into sin and then lured her husband to sin. (Alfred Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im lichtes des alten orients, Leipzig 1930, 4. part, p. 99):

 

"The woman ate it which was forbidden and the woman, the mother of sin, did wrong. The mother of sin had a painful experience.”

 

Accounts of the Fall that have spread as different versions among the nations are one possible reference to the historicity of this event. One of these accounts has been preserved from the Santaals, an Native American tribe. What is interesting there is that in addition to the Fall, the Flood and also the confusing of languages are mentioned:

 

According to Kolean a long, a long time ago Thakur Jiu, genuine God, created the first man, Haram, and the first woman, Ayo, and put them to live far away from India towards the west, to the region named Hihiri Pipiri. There a creature called Lita tempted people to make rice beer. After that, she provoked them to pour a part of the beer on the ground as an offering to Satan. Haram and Ayo got drunk from the rest of the beer and slept. When they woke up they saw that they were undressed and were ashamed of it.

 

The similarities of the story of Kolean to the story of the Bible made a deep impression on Skrefsrud. But the story still continued...

 

Ayo later bore Haram seven sons and seven daughters, who married and established seven tribes. Those tribes wandered to the country which was called Kroj Kaman, and there were met with destruction. Thakur Jiu called people "to return to him". When they refused, Thakur Jiu took "the devout married couple" for protection into some cave of mountain Harata (note the similarity with the Bible’s name of Ararat). Then Thakur Jiu allowed the rest of the mankind to drown in the flood. Later the descendants of "the devout married couple" multiplied many times and wandered to a plain which was called Sasan Beda ("mustard field"). There Thakur Jiu separated them into many different nations (the confusing of languages in Babel?). (12)

 

The traditional knowledge of Karens who live In Burma, also tells about the Fall. In one of their songs it is told how Y'wa, the true God, in the beginning created the world, and indicated also "the test fruit" but Mu-kaw-lee betrayed two persons. This is how people started to become ill and to age, and death came into the world:

 

In the beginning Y'wa gave form to the world.

He indicated food and drink.

He indicated "the test fruit".

He gave accurate commands.

Mu-kaw-lee betrayed two persons.

He got them to eat the test fruit.

They disobeyed; did not believe Y'wa...

When they ate the test fruit,

they faced illnesses, ageing, and death. (13)

 

The Flood is referred to in at least 140–150 stories that have been found in different parts of the world and among different tribes. Many of these stories have naturally been colored and changed over the years but essentially all of those accounts mention water as the cause of the devastation.

   Furthermore there are thousands of proofs about a global flood throughout the world. We will not list them here so accurately. However, for example the remains of marine creatures that appear on all high mountains (the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Ural, Altai …), about which the next two examples from the books of secular geologists tell, are an indication of the matter. It is only spiritual blindness and prejudice if man cannot see these clear proofs. (Such person should ask himself, what proofs are enough so that he would change his opinion. If the remains of marine animals on all high mountains are not that, so what are that?):

 

Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three kilometres above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals, and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the mountains. (…)

   At an altitude of two kilometres above sea level, the geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike rock surface, similar to that which is formed by waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have been found even on the peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water. (Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55)

 

There is reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in the mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. If we were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there – we would find fossilized remains of marine creatures. They are often badly damaged, but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237, Pentti Eskola, Muuttuva maa)

 

The tower of Babel is one of those issues about which the different nations have traditional knowledge. It has been written even in the ancient stone slabs and the stories of different nations. These following records have been preserved:

 

- From the history of Mexico (Mexican antiquity, 9. Part, p. 321) a story has been preserved from which we can find many similarities to the texts in the Bible. It describes among other things the Flood, the increase of the people after it, the building of the tower, and also the confusing of the languages. One significant similarity is that the mountains were under water to the depth of 15 cubits, as is mentioned in Genesis (Gen 7:20):

 

Frightening rains and lightning from the sky destroyed the people and also the whole country without exception, and also the highest mountains were covered by water, to the depth of fifteen cubits. After the Flood, the people multiplied on earth and built a very high zacual (tower) for protection, in case the other world would be destroyed. Shortly after this, their language was confused, and when they could not understand each other, they scattered around the earth.  (14)

 

- One more reference to the confusing of the languages is a story found from Babel about the destruction of the tower and confusing of the languages in the same way as the Bible does. The only major difference is that the story is told polytheistically:

 

Building this temple insulted the Gods. One night they threw to the ground what had been built. They scattered people to different countries and made their speech strange. They prevented any advances in work. (15)

 

- The Sumerians have been regarded to be the earliest civilized nation in the Middle East. They have also preserved information about the early stages of mankind. We have seen one example in the previous story about "the mother of sin" (see the Fall passage). Their next poem is connected with the early history of mankind. It speaks about the time before the confusing of the languages, in other words, of the time when all people praised one supreme god Enlil in one language:

 

Once upon a time there were no snakes,

no scorpions,

no hyenas, no lions,

no fear, no fright,

the man did not have any competition.

Once upon a time there was a time when the countries of Subur and Hamaz

(later) multilingual Sumer, the great land of princely divine laws,

Uri that had everything that is imaginable,

The land of Martu which rested in security,

The whole world, all people together

praised supreme Enlil in one language. (16)

 

- One special reference to the ancient tower of Babel can be found from Nabopolassar, who was the founder of the New-Babylonian kingdom (626–605 B.C.) and the father of famous Nebuchadnezzar. In his statement about the tower of Babel and about building it, he says:

 

At that time Marduk commanded me to build the tower of Babel which had been destroyed in the old days, to lay down a firm foundation when the top of the tower reached heaven.

 

His son Nebuchadnezzar continued the same issue and spoke about the tower competing with heaven:

 

I still built the tower for Etemenank so that it competed with heaven.

 

 

 

 

TO THE NEW LIFE

 

As people reject speeches about spiritual issues, it arises so from that they have strong preconceptions and –thoughts. Because of them it is difficult for them to receive other views. It does not succeed, because this kind of attitude prevents to think over other alternatives and it does not want to inquire into matters (compare the words of Jesus, John 7:17: If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.). It can finally lead to that, if a person has this kind of attitude, that it leaves him outside the kingdom of God. Paul’s own citizens in his time are one example of that:

 

- (Acts 13:45-47) But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46  Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, see, we turn to the Gentiles.

47  For so has the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set you to be a light of the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.

 

In any case, if you are interested in spiritual issues and before all are ready to turn to God and to receive eternal life, it is possible. The next points are important:

 

Understand the significance of Jesus!

 

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

 

- (John 10:9) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

 

- (Acts 4:11,12) This is the stone which was set at nothing of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

Firstly you must understand the significance of Jesus, that only in Him there is salvation and an access to God and to heaven.

   The problem of many religious people is just that they have only the forms and exterior, but not Jesus Christ in their life. They can be baptised, members of a church, partake of the Communion and give many to charity. Furthermore they can even pray and be turned from some forms of sin, but in spite of all Jesus is outside their heart and waits for a chance to step into their lives: 

 

- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

A reason why people do not have eternal life, arises just from that they have not received Jesus Christ into their life and turned to Him: And you will not come to me, that you might have life (John 5:40). They refuse to come to Him and therefore they have not yet eternal life. The Bible says (1 John 5:11,12): And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life, so we must receive Jesus Christ into our life and turn to Him. If you do it, or receive Him, you are a child of God and you have eternal life:

 

- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

 

Receive so Jesus Christ into your life and do not reject Him and grace that comes through Him. You will never regret it:

 

My friend, if you are damned, it is not because of your sins but because you have not received mercy, which God offers to you through Jesus. That is why it is fair. If you reject Jesus, what can God do? Then, you dismiss your only hope of salvation. (17)

 

THE PRAYER OF SALVATION:

   

Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen. 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES:

 

1. Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 22,23
2. Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 39
3. Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 50,51

4. Cit. in: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. witnesses, p. 105
5. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: "Puuttuva rengas" [Jakten på apemennesket], p. 46
6. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på apemennesket], p. 94

7. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, p. 121, edited in Finnish by Pekka Reinikainen
8. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 124,125
9. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624 - Cit. from: Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. witnesses

10. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28. Cit. in : Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. witnesses
11.Tri John Kitto in Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, II, keyword "Sabbath", p. 655
12. Don Richardson: Iankaikkisuus heidän sydämissään (Eternity in Their Hearts), p. 52,53.
13. Same, p. 96.
14. Cit from: "Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?", Toivo Seljavaara, p. 6,7.
15. Free, Joseph, P.: Archaeology and Bible history, 12. p. 1973 – Cit from: "Voiko Raamattuun luottaa", Uuras Saarnivaara, p. 187.
16. ARMAS SALONEN: Sumeri ja sen henkinen perintö (Keuruu 1962), p. 138,139.
17. OSWALD J. SMITH :Maa johon kaipaan, p. 89

 

 

 

 

 

Jari Iivanainen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





shopify analytics ecommerce