Nature

Main page | Jari's writings

Rewriting history, ergo turning to tales

 

False news are today’s commonality. It means passing on information that contains distorted facts, which leads people to have false perceptions on certain events. False news can be practiced by the state, regular media as well as by individual people, e.g., through the Internet. We didn’t have this many channels before as we have today, and through these channels false news can easily spread.

Similar reportage must have existed in the past as well. For example, rulers and their scribes might have reported history in a selective and one-sided manner. It could be that only the victories and achievements were mentioned, but the losses were disregarded. People usually keep quiet about unpleasant things, and don’t like to record them for others to read. There’s nothing peculiar about this per se, because everyone wants to be seen in a good light. The bad things are usually kept hidden. This is the general rule of thumb.

This is a good place for us to begin discussing real distortion and rewriting of history. It occurs and especially often in fields, where the acts of God in history want to be kept hidden. This has happened throughout the ages, and that is why next up we are going to introduce a few examples of, when history has been rewritten. From the Bible perspective this is false information and turning to tales:

 

- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

 

- (2 Tim 4:3,4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.

 

DENYING CREATION. If we go back in time for 200 years, almost all the people in the Western countries believed that God created the Earth and everything else and also that creation didn’t take place that many thousand years ago. The Flood and other narrations from the Bible were also considered real history.

However, there has been a change. It began in the beginning of the 19th century, and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species had a great impact on this change, which is still going on. The direction of this change is that less and less people believe that God created everything. Instead, naturalistic origin theories and suppositions of ongoing million year evolution have replaced God. This is one certain case that can be regarded as rewriting history. History has been modified, because the thought of God being the creator has also been abandoned.

But is it justified to rewrite this area of history? We will look into some of these new concepts.

 

Can something come out of nothingness? Because people have ruled out God’s role as the creator, they have had to explain, e.g., the origin of cosmos. Currently, the most common perception is the Big Bang theory and that everything began by itself from nothingness, ergo from an empty space that has nothing. Before that there was no time, space, nor energy. This is well described in such book titles as Tyhjästä Syntynyt [Coming About from Nothing] (Kari Enqvist, Jukka Maalampi) or A Universe from Nothing (Lawrence M. Krauss). These books and publications presuppose that everything came into existence by itself from nothing and that the initial state of the Universe was hot and dense.

Can anything come from nothing, however? We can think about this. If there wasn’t anything, then how can something come out of it? How do stones or millions of starts come out of nothingness? Inanimate objects, such as stones, rocks, bikes, planes or any other object doesn’t normally just appear out of nothing. Why would the Universe, which is much larger than anything, be an exception? This theory goes against logic and the laws of nature.

Moreover, even a fly is much bigger than nothing. Similarly, a little bird that eats the fly or a hawk that eats the little bird, are both bigger than nothingness. How could they have appeared from nothing, or how could fish and the sea around them have appeared from nothing? How can a void produce living beings and on top of that an adequate environment for them? It would be the world’s greatest miracle if the things we see in our nature, would have come about by themselves from nothingness.

Furthermore, this is a mathematical impossibility. If there is nothing, nothing can come out of it by itself. If you divide zero with any number, you’ll always get zero. David Berlinski, a mathematician, has commented on the matter:

 

”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)

 

How about the initial state of the Universe, which was supposed to be hot and dense? If we are dealing with nothingness, ergo a concept that doesn’t exist, it cannot have any properties. Such things that don’t exist, can neither be hot or dense, nor turn hot and dense by themselves. It’s a logical impossibility.

How about the Big Bang explosion itself? Do explosions cause anything else than destruction? We can test this. If we place a detonator, for example, inside a solid ball, nothing would come out of it. Some pieces of the ball would only fly around, but nothing else would happen. There is not going to be elephants, people with thoughts, singing birds, beautiful flowers, tall trees, butterflies, fish and sea to surround them or planets and starts or anything else coming out of it. This is empirical science. The assumption that all of the above and more came from a space smaller than a pin, is against practical science and goes against any common sense. It is absurd to think that all living creatures and non-living objects would have come from a small dot.

Many researchers question the whole Big Bang theory. They see it as contrary to real science. What describes the situation is that in 2004 secular researchers, who questioned this theory, wrote an open letter to the New Scientist magazine. Over one hundred other cosmologists supported the letter. Here’s what was written on the letter: ”There is no open discourse; doubting and disagreement are not accepted. One cannot constantly rely on new hypothesis to bridge the gap between theory and observations in any other line of physics.”

The following comments also show how rewriting history through the Big Bang is a questionable act. One should not believe in it:

 

New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)

 

As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)

 

There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)

 

Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).

 

Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (1)

 

How about regular celestial bodies, such as the galaxies and the stars? How were they born if God did not create them?

In this respect, researchers are exceedingly unknowing. Although, the birth of galaxies and stars by themselves might be shown in popular books or in TV animations, the fact is that no one knows. They have been presumed to be born from nebula, but when the nebula condenses, the temperature also rises and the regular gas pressure prevents the nebula from collapsing. One property of a gas is that it keeps on spreading, and no condensation occurs. This is basic knowledge from a school chemistry class. Many astronomers admit the problematic nature of this phenomenon. Next up we’ll have a few comments from these astronomers:

 

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)

 

Books are full of stories that feel rational, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not know, how the galaxies were born. (L. John, Cosmology Now 85, 92 / 1976)

 

A major problem, however, is how did everything come into being? How did the gas from which galaxies were born initially accumulate to start the birth process of stars and the large cosmic cycle? (…) Therefore, we must find physical mechanisms that bring about condensations within the homogenous material of the universe. This seems quite easy but as a matter of fact leads to problems of a very profound nature. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 93)

 

The scary thing here is that if none of us knew beforehand that stars exists, the frontline research would provide many convincing reasons as to why stars could never be born. (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007)

 

Abraham Loeb: “The truth is that we don’t understand the formation of stars on a fundamental level.” (Lainattu Marcus Chownin artikkelista [Cited from Marcus Chown’s article] Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)

 

How about the origin of the Solar System, ergo the Sun, the planets and the moons? They were presumed to have been born from a single nebula, but again this is only a presumption. Researchers admit that the Sun, the planets and the moons had an onset – otherwise, their inner energy would have ran out a long time ago – but they are forced to rely on imagination, when trying to seek for the answers. When, they deny God as the creator, they must look for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of these celestial bodies.

That’s where they don’t have much of a strong basis, because, to name a few, the composition of planets, moons and the Sun is completely different from each other. How could they have come from the same nebula if they all have completely different compositions? For example, some planets are composed of light chemical elements, where as other planets consist of heavier chemical elements.

Many researchers have been honest enough to admit that current naturalistic origin-of-the-Solar System theories are problematic. Next, we will have some of their comments. These comments show how questionable it is to explain the origin of the whole abiotic world as coming about by itself without God. There are no good grounds for rewriting history in this respect. It is much more reasonable to believe that God created everything.

 

Firstly, we notice that the matter detaching from our Sun, is not at all capable of forming such planets that are known to us. The composition of the matter would be utterly wrong. Another thing in this contrast is that the Sun is normal [as a celestial body], but the earth is strange. The gas between stars, and most of the stars, consists of the same matter as the Sun, but not the earth. It must be understood that looking from a cosmological perspective – the room, where you are sitting right now, is made out of wrong materials. You are the rarity, a cosmological composer’s complilation. (Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951)

 

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)

 

How did life begin? Above, we discussed the origin of abiotic universe, ergo galaxies, stars, the Sun, planets and moons. We established that researchers don’t know how the celestial bodies were born. They will end up in a dead-end, because they deny God as the creator.

How about life coming about by itself? If this is a fact, it ought to be proven as such. However, there is no evidence for this. Real science proves that only life can create life, and no one has found any exceptions for that. This suggests that there is a Creator, and that there is no process that involves life creating itself.

Everyone can picture this. You only need common sense to understand that rocks or any other non-living substances cannot transform themselves into life, start breathing, eating, feeling or reproducing. The only thing that can happen is that abiotic matter can turn into solid, liquid or gas, due to changes in temperature. Nothing else happens. This is real empirical science.

In order to make things clear, we’ll cite J. Morgan’s interview with Stanley Miller, who at the time was in his late age. He has become known for his experiments relating to the origin of life. This is what J. Morgan said about the interview:

 

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (2)

 

Creation or evolution? Now we are moving on to the origin of current organisms. Are they a product of creation or did they come from a stem cell that went through a long developmental process? Atheist scientists arrogantly reject creation, but are their views on gradual development accurate or wrong? Is it justifiable to rewrite this part of the history?

This matter can be approached through the evidence. There are two pieces of evidence: fossils and the current nature. These are the only pieces of evidence that we can turn to.

What should this evidence prove then? If evolution is true, then we should be able to observe the following phenomena. Respectively, if creation is true, the following phenomena should not be observable to us:

 

• A progressive fossil development

• There should be semi-finished and developing senses, feet, wings and transitional forms in the current nature.

 

What does the evidence show? There is no obscurity in the matter. Firstly, we know that there is no observable progressive development in fossils. There are no observable signs of progressive change that would prove every species being descendent from the same stem cell. Fossils are always found finished and fully developed, and no one has discovered any lower and simpler forms from underneath the fully developed fossils.

By observing the current nature, we can see the same thing. All species are fully developed, and none of them have half developed senses or limbs. They are not at a developing stage, but in their fully finished form. Both of these observations – fossils and the current nature – indicate very clearly towards creation and not towards gradual development. Evidence should be taken as it is and not be interpreted through a naturalistic worldview.

Let’s give scientists the floor. The following quotations show, how there is no evidence for gradual development in fossils or in the current nature. Included is also a comment from a famous atheist, Richard Dawkins. These comments show how Darwin and his followers have rewritten history on wrong grounds. The evidence clearly points that God created everything:

 

Fossils – no observable progressive development

 

Richard Dawkins: Since the times of Darwin, scientists researching evolution have known that fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change. - - For example, strata from the Cambrian period from 600 million years ago are the oldest strata that contain fossils from most of the vertebrate phyla. On top of that, many of them are already quite far developed. Because there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared on these strata from thin air… Regardless of their school of thought, all the evolutionists agree that in this area there is a huge gap in the fossil discoveries.  (3)

 

Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (4)

 

Niles Eldredge:  We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (5)

 

The current nature – organisms are not semi-finished but fully complete

 

Richard Dawkins: The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (6)

 

Denying the Flood. Denying that the Flood ever happened is one example of rewriting history. Current researchers look at everything through evolutionary glasses and presume the existence of millions of years. They presume, for example, that the strata were formed during a million year process, and they cannot accept the notion that the majority of the strata were formed mainly during one large catastrophe, the Flood.

However, the general direction is changing its course. More and more researchers in the field of science are beginning to accept the notion of catastrophes shaping our Earth, and that strata can form in an instant during catastrophes. However, they still don’t believe in the existence of the Flood, but think that there were many larger catastrophes. They are presumed to have taken place millions of years ago. A citation from a book, The Universe Within (by Neil Shubin), tells about these catastrophes that people these days believe have happened:

 

The longer Newell and the other researchers collected fossil data, a certain fact began to seem all the more inevitable. Entire animal and plant worlds had lived ages ago, but they had all quickly disappeared and it all had happened almost at the same time all around the planet. Life hadn’t faced one catastrophe, but many… there are five periods in history, where the number of species decreases rapidly. The most well-known one is the mass destruction of the Cretaceous period approximately 65 million years ago. Along with dinosaurs, ocean lizards, flying lizards, ammonites and hundreds of lesser known molluscs vanished for good. Other largest known decimations happened 440,375,250 and 200 million years ago. Each time the general pattern was the same: species disappeared all around the world at the same time. One of these catastrophes was about to destroy all life from our planet: 250 million years ago over 90 per cent of all living species from the sea disappeared for good. (7)

 

How can we interpret the preceding text? Researchers are correct that catastrophes destroy flora and fauna. However, there is no reason to agree with the researchers’ view on multiple catastrophes ten million years ago. Destroyed species might have coexisted on the planet, but they lived in different ecological niches. Similarly, they might have mostly perished during the same catastrophe, the Flood. For, as currently there are ecological niches (sea beds, oceans, swamps, dry lands, highlands…), they have existed before as well. These animals from different ecological niches might have died during the same catastrophe, and not that there would have been many different worldwide catastrophes. We don’t have to look at everything through evolutionary and million year glasses.

It is interesting, that one can find dozens of references to the Flood from the books of secular researchers and geologists. They don’t believe that it ever happened, but they keep on providing us with convincing evidence on, how the current dry areas have been under water in the past. The books that I have come across, have mentioned, for example, how sea life remnants from the past have been found from the Alps, Mount Everest of the Himalayas and from countless of other mountain ranges. Researchers not being able to make correct conclusions from the evidence that is right in front of them can be regarded as being blind to the religious option. The reason for this is probably, because they believe in the rewritten history, where the evolutionary theory with its millions of years has led them to.

(Additional remark; I recently watched the Sea Monsters video by National Geographic. It was about sea creatures and some of them were already extinct. They showed places, where creatures had been discovered, ergo their fossils, in areas that are currently far away from any seas: Kansas, South Dakota, Australia, and also how road workers found ammonites in Texas. The video also said the following about the remnants of sea life: “they were discovered in Kansas, which today is primarily farmland. But it used to be under an enormous ocean.”

Another additional remark; I remember years ago I watched TV and there was a documentary, which told, how the current Sahara desert had been under a large ocean. Similar documentaries and nature programs have been shown on TV numerous times.)

Next, we’ll take a look at a few similar examples. The first one is taken from the formerly mentioned book The Universe Within by Neil Shubin, p. 69:

 

The beauty of corals is not only in the gorgeous underwater reefs that they form, but also in that, what they tell us about the past. If we split stones we find from the side of the road on our way from Texas to Canada, we can find coral reefs that have flourished in the sea millions of years ago. The city of Chicago is built on top of an ancient coral reef.

 

Jerry A. Coyne’s book addressing evolution, Why Evolution is true? p. 127, tells about a similar example, that is how Darwin found fossilized seashells from high up in the Andes. The writer admits that the mountain has been under water, but he doesn’t believe in the Flood:

 

While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water.

 

The following comments follow up on the same topic. It is agreed in the comments that oceanic sediments are common in mainlands. They just haven’t been able to connect it with the Flood; probably because these researchers deny the possibility of the Flood. The first comment is taken from a book that is over 200 years old and written by James Hutton, who is said to be the founder of modern geology:

 

We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)

 

J.S. Shelton: On mainland, oceanic sediment rock foundations are far more common and wider than all the other sediment rock foundations combined. This is one of the simple facts that requires explanation, as it is in the core of everything that is associated with humans’ continuous efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (8)

 

”The era of dinosaurs”. When we are talking about the evolutionary theory, one of its presumptions is that different lifeforms have appeared on our planet at different times. It is presumed that in the beginning there were only simple stem cells in the ocean, and then multicellular and more and more complex organism appeared, those initially residing in the ocean as well. Then land life began, as in frogs appeared, and around 200 million years ago the dinosaurs and eventually humans as well. This view doesn’t take into account the possibility of all these lifeforms having lived at the same time on the planet, only in different ecological niches – likewise, today there are simultaneously fish in the sea, life on land and birds.

If we had to name the animals that are usually associated with millions of years, many would probably think of dinosaurs, which presumably went extinct ca. 65 million years ago. Is this, however, similar rewritten history, as previously mentioned in examples? We don’t have to question the existence of dinosaurs, but we can question their appearance millions of years ago. We can do this, because of the following reasons:

Firstly, how well the fossils have been preserved. Dinosaur fossils are usually in good condition. They contain soft tissue (Yle uutiset, Finland’s national public broadcasting company, reported the following on the fifth of December 2007: Dinosaur flesh and skin discovered in the USA), blood cells [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993] brittle proteins and also DNA [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation(1):10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 december 2012]  and radiocarbon (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html). Anyone that knows something about biochemistry knows that these frail substances cannot be preserved for a period of million years.

Another important observation is that at least 432 mammal species, such as the beaver, squirrel and primates (Werner Carl, Living Fossils) have been found from the same stratum, as dinosaurs. Dinosaur bones have also been discovered among bones that resemble horse, cow and sheep bones (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.), thus the term era of the dinosaurs is misleading. Similarly, birds such as the parrot, penguin, horned owl, sandpiper, albatross, flamingo, loon, duck and the great cormorant have also been found from the dinosaur strata. Dr. Werner has also stated: “Museums today don’t showcase these present-day bird fossils, nor do they draw the present-day birds with their feathers in their dinosaur environment illustrations. It is wrong. Essentially, whenever T-Rex or Triceratops are being presented in a museum exhibit, they should also present ducks, loons, flamingos or other present-day birds that have been found from the same strata as dinosaurs. But they won’t do this. I have never seen a duck with a dinosaur in a museum of natural sciences, have you? An owl? A parrot?”

How about dinosaurs and people? These days people don’t believe that humans and dinosaurs have coexisted, but what is interesting, is that heritage stories mention dragons, which resemble dinosaurs (the name dinosaur was not invented until the 1840s). The following citations show the prevalence of dragon depictions.

 

The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265)

 

Since the beginning of noting history, dragons have appeared everywhere: in the earliest accounts of Assyria and Babylon about the development of civilization, in Jewsish history according to the Old Testament, in the old texts from China and Japan, in the mythology of the Greeks, Romans and the early Christians, in the allegories of ancient America, and in the myths of Africa and India. It is difficult to find a society that would have not included dragons in their legendary history…Aristotle, Pliny and other writers from the classical times claimed that tales about dragons were based on facts rather than imagination. (9)

 

A Finnish geologist, Pentti Eskola, told in his book Muuttuva maa decades ago, how portrayals of dragons resemble dinosaurs:

 

The varying forms of lizard-like animals seem so funny to us because many of them resemble – in a distant and often caricature-like way – modern mammals living under similar conditions. However, most dinosaurs were so very different from the modern life forms that the nearest analogues can be found in the depictions of dragons in legends. Strangely enough, the authors of the legends had naturally not studied petrifactions or even knew of them. (10)

 

Dragons not only appear in people’s descriptions, but they also appear in art. There are pictures of dragons in war shields (Sutton Hoo) and in church wall ornaments (SS Mary and Hardulph, England). Along with bulls and lions, dragons are also represented in the Isthar Gate of the ancient city of Babylon. Cuddling dragons that have equally long necks as their tales, can be seen on early Mesopotamian cylinder seals. (Moortgat, A., The art of ancient Mesopotamia).

Dragons are also being mentioned in the Bible (Ps 91:13) You shall tread on the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shall you trample under feet). Furthermore the famous paleontologists Stephen J. Gould noted the following about the behemoth, which is mentioned in the Book of Job; the only animal that fits this description is the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist he believed that the person, who wrote the Book of Job, had to have gotten his knowledge from discovered fossils. However, this book that is one of the oldest in the Bible, clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you…). 

In the beginning of the Middle Ages dragons were still known to man. A Finnish researcher specialized in the medieval times, Hannele Klementtilä, mentiones a few examples in her book about the Middle Ages:

 

Knights’ lifestyle, honorary notions and values were widely idolized in Medieval literature. The ideal knight concepts and deeds were told in songs, poems and knight novels. These heroes rescued damsels in distress, searched for treasures, defeated dragons and so on. (11)

 

Secular chivalric orders began to arise in Europe during the 14th century, and rulers of the time invited their noblemen friends and allies to join the orders. The most famous ones were the Order of St. George founded by King Charles I of Hungary in 1325, the Order of the Garter founded by Edward III of England in around 1348, the Sacred Order of the Dragon of Saint George founded by Milos Obilic in around 1370, the Order of the Dragon founded by Sigismund von Luxembourg in 1408, the Order of the Golden Fleece founded by duke Philip the Good of Burgundy in 1430 and the Order of Saint Michael founded by Ludvig XI of France in 1469. (12)

 

According to some beliefs a cursed soul had to be purified of sins by roaming the earth for seven years in the form of a werewolf. It was also commonly believed that demons, especially preferred the form of a wolf over the forms of dragon, snake and ape, although, they could have taken any form they wanted to. (13)

 

How about the centuries old Chinese horoscope? It has 12 animals, and we know 11 of them (rat, bull, tiger, rabbit, snake, horse, lamb, monkey, rooster, dog and pig). However, the twelfth animal is the dragon, which doesn’t exist anymore. It’s good to wonder if eleven of the animals are real, then why would the dragon be a fictional one? Is it not reasonable to assume that it lived simultaneously with humans, but got extinct like many other animals? Only the presumption of millions of years and people rewriting history, which is happening in today’s society, can prevent from seeing the obvious fact that dragons, which are dinosaurs, have coexisted with the first humans.

 

Humans on Earth. How about the history of humans on Earth? We might repeatedly read or watch TV shows, which presume that humans descent from fish, which developed into shrew like creatures and finally into ape like creatures. At least, this is what is assumed in the books, magazines and programs.

However, these assumptions can be debunked with one fact: there is no observable gradual development in fossils. This has been agreed by many frontline paleontologists, as already noted. Ergo, if there hasn’t been gradual development, we can forget the ideas of people being descended from simpler creatures over a period of million years.

How about the presumed ape like ancestors? How should we react to them?

In fact, fossil discoveries suggest that there were only two types: humans and regular apes. The first type is being represented by Homo Erectus/Ergaster, Neanderthal and current humans. The latter type is being represented by Australopithecus, which includes almost all “apeman” remains (Lucy, Taung skull, Ardipithecus…).

Why such a divide to only two types? There are clear reasons. Many frontline researchers have said it directly that Australopithecus-type clearly resembles more the current apes than humans. Their skull size is only a third or a fourth of the size of the current humans’ skull and their physique is similar to current apes.

Secondly, many frontline researchers have admitted that there is not enough difference between Homo Erectus, Neanderthal and humans today. This is supported by many cultural finds, skull size and physique. Therefore, some researchers, like Milford Wolpoff of the Michigan University, have for a long time said that Neanderthals and Erectus should not be classified as different species to us. They should be considered regular humans. What makes this statement of an evolutionist paleontologist more remarkable is that it is said that he has seen more original Homini related fossil material than anyone else has.

There are issues with timing humans’ existence that relate to other discoveries as well. For example, human tools and even human remains have been found from carbon strata that is “over 300 million years old” (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, p. 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.) Erich A. von Frange has also listed more artefacts, which have been found inside coal, in his book Time Upside Down (1981).

Similarly, we know that coal, where humans’ remains and items have been found from, has radiocarbon, whose official half-life is only 5730 years. According to the Radiocarbon magazine, there has not been found a single piece of coal that wouldn’t have had radiocarbon in it. (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989).

What do these findings suggest? They indicate that people have lived on the planet for as long as any other lifeform has, and that it has only been thousands of years. These are practical observations, which make the whole evolutionary theory questionable. They are in unison with the words of Jesus, when he said that man was created in the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. / Matt 19:4: And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,).

What is real history then? The following citations make it a little bit clearer for us. They show, how suddenly civilization has appeared on the planet, and that its development hasn’t taken millions of years, by any means. The first statement comes from the developer of radiocarbon dating professor W.F. Libby, who said in the Science magazine on 3/3/1961 (p.624) that definite history goes only as far as ca. 5000 years back. He talked about the ruler family of Egypt, which’s documentation might also contain errors as large as hundreds of years. (This was also mentioned, e.g., in the TV show “Faaraot ja kuninkaat” [Pharaohs and kings], which was shown on the Finnish television in 1996).

Libby also highlighted that claims about long periods of time should not be taken too seriously. This is in accordance with the fact that many areas on Earth, such as Northern America, Australia and peripheries, have been inhabited mainly during the last 200-300 years (It has been estimated that, for example, in 1800 Australia had only 6000 inhabitants in the whole island, in the beginning of the 18th century North America had 3 million inhabitants at most and at the same time South America had 10 million inhabitants.). They were extremely sparsely inhabited 500 years ago, and elsewhere there was only a fraction of the current amount of the population as well. We don’t have to go that many millenniums back, until we reach zero, when there were no inhabitants on the planet at all. In fact, the current population size could be reached in under a thousand years.

 

W.F. Libby: "Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that 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.” (14)  

 

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. (15)

 

How about the notion of people originating from Africa? Evolutionists assume that the first humans resided in Africa and then migrated elsewhere, but this can also be considered as rewritten history.

Then what is the historical and correct notion? Decades ago it was well understood that people originated from the Middle East and not from Africa. This was suggested by nations’ heritage, as well as, the fact that the first buildings were built in the Middle East and that crop species of the world originate from the same area. This notion is also present in the Book of Genesis. The following citation tells more about the subject matter. The Africa-notion, which, e.g. Darwin believed, can be rejected as unscientific.

 

William Dawson assures in Modern Science that he and other prominent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region must – from a geological perspective – have been the only place where people at first could live.

   Dr. Armstrong says the same in Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of the human kind? The learned pretty much disagree on this and on the question of racial integrity. The high regions giving birth to the Euphrates and the Tigris are considered to be the cradle of the human race. This is proven by many facts, such as the fact that the traditions of almost all tribes mention this part of the world as their original home. Furthermore, all of the types of grain used as human food originate here. Geological studies also lead to the same conclusion.”  (16)

 

How were things in the past? There is one notion that atheists like to spread around, and it is that Christianity has obstructed the development of science and society, whereas atheism/naturalism have lead these things forward. When it comes to this, atheists like to mention ancient history, the Middle Ages and the years of Enlightenment. They consider the time of ancient history as some kind of a golden age, as well as the years of Enlightenment as the years of progression, but regard the Middle Ages as the years of stagnation. This notion was put forward especially by two writers of polemic texts from the 19th century, Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) and John William Draper (1811-1882). Their texts followed in the wake of Darwin.

But how is it? Is this about rewriting history? Many historians disagree with the former claims. The reason is that these historians have familiarized themselves with the Middle Ages and the picture in their mind is quite different than the one painted in some popular atheist books. The following aspects should be taken into account, when discussing this topic:

 

• Firstly, societies of the ancient history. They were not secular societies, but rather resembled Hindu society or African societies many years ago. They involved images of false gods, imps, pantheism and animism. You don’t have to go far back down the timeline of Northern countries either, when the situation there was the same. All the European societies were more or less the same.

Chapter 17 of the Acts provides us with a good starting point to better understand, what Europe was like before Christianity came along. It describes the situation in Athens, when Paul arrived there:

 

- (Acts 17:16,22-30) Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

22 Then Paul stood in the middle of Mars’ hill, and said, You men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I to you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by are and man’s device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:

 

• Although, worshiping false gods was common in Athens during Paul, despite all that, during the prime time of Greek city states many Greek scientists and ideologists believed in a sensible Creator, who had created man and the cosmos. Many naturalists of today place this era on a high pedestal, but don’t consider the fact that many of the leading thinkers of that time believed in God. Amongst them was, for example, Socrates, Plato, Plato’s student Aristotle, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. They were advocates for believing in God in Greece during the ancient history. Their views were closer to that of a theist than to a naturalist worldview, although, advocates of the current naturalistic worldview might claim otherwise.

A good example of believing in a Creator is a statement about a man that was said by Socrates, the father of logic. He was clearly an advocate for intelligent design. He refers to human details that cannot be pure coincidence in the memorabilia by Xenophon:

 

Socrates: Does it not strike you then that He, who made man from the beginning, gave him some useful senses – eyes to behold the visible world, and ears to catch the intonations of sound? (...) And besides all this, do you not think this looks like a matter of foresight that the eyes are closed by eyelids like doors, which, when there is need to use them, can open? They close in sleep and even the winds of heaven may not visit them too roughly, because the eyelashes are as a protecting screen. The eyebrows are like an eave so that sweat falling from the head won’t injure eyes. Besides, the ear catches all sounds but never becomes filled. (...) I ask you, when you see all these things constructed with such show of foresight can you doubt whether they are products of chance or intelligence? (17)

 

• As noted, atheists consider the ancient history as the golden age and the Middle Ages as the complete opposite of that. However, regarding human rights the situation was quite the opposite. For example, slavery was common in the Roman empire and during the ancient history, but Christianity brought change. It was during the Middle Ages that slavery disappeared from Europe, apart from some peripheries.

Similarly, the position of women and girls was bad during the ancient history. One example of this is the stranding of baby girls. In the Roman Empire it was common to plan your family by stranding newborn babies, which was especially ill-fated for girls. Because of this the ratio of men to women was distorted, and it’s been estimated that the Roman society had ca. 130 men for every 100 women. When Christians prohibited abortion and the killing of newborn babies, it affected the position of women positively and changed the the ratio of men to women.

Another example is child marriages and marrying at a young age. In ancient societies it was common to force girls to marry while they were going through puberty or even before that. Greek Cassious Dio, who wrote the history of ancient Rome, stated that girls are ready for marriage already at an age of 12: “A girl, who has been married before the age of 12, becomes a legal partner, when she turns 12.” Christianity impacted Europe in a way that women got to marry, when they were older and they also got to choose their partner.

A third example is widowed women, whose position during the ancient times was bad (similar to current widowed women in India, where they have even been burned). They were one of the most helpless and unfortunate groups, but Christianity brought improvement into their lives, as well. Society was obliged to take care of the widows, just as they were obliged to take care of abandoned children. This influenced the spreading of Christianity in the Roman empire. The position of widows is also talked about, for example, in the Acts and in the Epistles (Acts 6:1, 1 Tim 5:3-16, James 1:27)

 

• Above we mentioned, how slavery was common during the ancient history and, how it disappeared during the Middle Ages.

When did slavery reappear then? Not during the Middle Ages of course, but at the end of Renaissance and during the years of Enlightenment. It was at its most widespread state during the 18th century, which is regarded as time for the years of Enlightenment. However, Quakers and Methodists, among other groups, influenced in a way that slavery was again prohibited in England and in other countries as well. Christianity improved human rights:

 

Slavery continued to exist and became more widespread throughout the whole Age of Enlightenment during the four last decades of the 18th century. Only at the very end of the century first bills were made to abolish slavery in major colonies. An abolitionist movement began in England, which was put in motion by two Christian sects, Quakers and Methodists. According to their declarations and verdicts slavery was deemed particularly a sin rather than some sort of human rights violation. (18)

 

• As already noted, atheists like to compare ancient history, Middle Ages and the years of Enlightenment side by side. However, when looking at human rights, the position of many groups was much worse during the ancient history and the years of Enlightenment.

How about the 20th century? Atheists often forget the worst century, ergo the 20th century, that is when the most widespread human rights violations took place. At the hands of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and also by communist states, dozens of millions of their own citizens were killed, and many different human groups didn’t have any human rights or even the right to live. The 20th century and its beginning were the worst times in history in this respect.

The development of time becomes apparent from a few quotations. They relate to Germany and show, how the opposition of religion and God preceded the worst human rights violations in history (opposition of God was also common for communist states). The first statement comes from an anthropologist, Max Müller, from 1878, and the other statement is taken from a book that is from 1891and the third is related to Karl Marx, who noted that criticism towards religion was complete in Germany. These quotations show how the wave of leaving Christianity began already in the 19th century:

 

Anthropologist Max Müller 1878: Every day, every week, every fourth year the most read magazines tell in a race like manner that the time of religion is gone, that faith is a hallucination or a sickness ravaging children and that gods have finally been revealed and removed as they have surpassed their time.

 

Secondly, the attacks were merely cursory and dispersed during the old times; now they are periodically organized. The French spirit is roaring and wild, but not as dangerous as the German one... David Strauss and his like-minded people have caused much more disturbance amidst believers than those French babblers. Ever since the French spirit tried to dolorously go against Christianity  during Voltaire, rejection of Christianity has gone through philosophy school of the German spirit and developed into a whole world view system, which has really tried to replace itself with Christianity. (Toht. Chr. Ernst Luthardt kirjassaan v. 1891 [Dr. C. Ernst Luthardt in his book, yr. 1891])

 

“In Germany criticism towards religion has moslty reached its goal, and criticism towards religion is the prerequisite for all criticism.” ([Karl Marx in the introduction of “Critique of Hegel”)

 

The last quotation shows, how the opposition of God was common during the 1920s-1930s in Germany. Many people were leaving the church and atheism was taking over. The book was published in 1934:

 

From time to time in many countries there have been masses of people leaving the church after a war. And so 305 000 people left the Evangelic church in Germany in 1920. This fleeing from churches has continued. In 1930, 59 225 people left a Lutheran church in Berlin alone, not to mention those Catholics and Jews, who abandoned their fathers’ belief… We do not need to get too much into the spreading of atheistic ideologies during the 20th century. It is enough said that the number of those, who publicly recognize or silently accept the absolute nonexistence of God, has tremendously increased. Some men, who are considered educated, claim that the modern science makes believing in God impossible. They either completely stop believing in God or state that “science requires new a new concept of God”. This denial of God begins in schools among children. In a few cities thousands of children of the age of 6 to 14 have, all the way from the lowest classes, walked the streets carrying the following stickers: “God out of schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, Religion is a narcotic” etc. (21)

 

How about the Middle Ages? It wasn’t the golden age either, because such an age only existed in the paradise before the Fall. Surely, there was corruption, as in the form of selfish and bad monarchs, selfish and bad bishops and also other kinds of evil during the Middle Ages. But when compared to the 20th century, the Middle Ages were relatively peaceful time and many human groups’ position was from a juridical point of view much better than it was in the 20th century.

Numerous researchers of the medieval times have noticed the same. They have familiarized themselves with the material related to the Middle Ages and as a result their views on the time period have changed. Next, we’ll take a look at related comments that come from two Finnish researchers, who are specialized in the Middle Ages (Hannele Klemettilä, Marko Nenonen). The first comment addresses the Middle Ages as a whole and the other comment looks more specifically into the so-called witch-hunt, which weren’t that common during the Middle Ages, as they mainly are a creation of later generations.

 

In 1977 a French historian Régine Pernoud was upset, because there was such a brutal and underdeveloped stigma on the Middle Ages. The same defect has been commented on by others as well, like Tuomas Heikkilä from the Finnish researchers, for example. These stereotypes are still deeply rooted. New research results don’t reach large audiences, due to the popularized stereotypes… Neither do school books stay up to date with the newest research, as they so often offer outdated information and interpretations. (22)

 

Researchers have looked for answers to witch-hunts, but what even were they? They are a notion created by the posterity… Overall, the image that we have on their trials has been wrong. Witch-hunts didn’t occur in the Middle Ages, they didn’t only sentence women and not everyone was tortured or even sentenced. There weren’t hundreds of thousands of convicts, let alone millions. There were utmost a few ten thousand people sentenced to death. The majority of the accused were released. Gender was not even mentioned in the majority of the witch trials.

   Such a phenomenon called the witch-hunt, which is based on common imaginary, didn’t exist. Researchers explained, what they had come up with it themselves for a long time. A more balanced view of the witch-hunts became possible at the end of the 20th century, when after decades of work, dozens of researchers dug up original material in an unprejudiced manner. (23)

 

• As previously mentioned, the notion of Christianity being an obstacle for scientific development in the past, is constantly present in the media and in naturalistic scientists’ books. Having faith in God and science have been considered as opposites.

This notion, however, is not supported by history research. According to modern sense, science only came into being once, which was during the 16th 18th centuries in Europe, where Christian theism was dominant. It didn’t begin in secular society, but specifically in society that was inspired by Christian faith. Almost all the leading scientists believed in creation. Amongst them were Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Copernikus, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Clerck Maxwell, John Ray, Louis Pasteur etc. They weren’t representatives of the Enlightenment, but Christian theism:

 

These are the slogans used by one of the most long-standing and most efficient campaigns based on polemic articles in the history of Western countries. Although, this campaign generally has had a very significant impact on intellectual world, it does not seem to have made an impact on the scientists per se. The executors of the scientific revolution were famous for their belief in God and this tradition they represented has continued in science. For example, during the whole of the 19th century scientific development was as much of a religious mission as it was a secular mission – aspiration to understand Gods creations continued. (24)

 

How about the centuries before the 1500s-1700s? The common view is that these centuries, ergo the Middle Ages, were the dark ages, which stopped the development of science and culture. Science began to redevelop once again, after the culture was slowly getting free from the suffocating influence of believing in God during the Renaissance and the years of Enlightenment. This is possibly, how it has been taught in books addressing the subject matter.

Reality is quite the opposite, according to researchers familiar with the topic. In reality, science developed significantly from the ancient times. From the early stages of the ”Dark Ages” began one of the “most innovative periods of mankind” (Jean Gimbel: The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution in the Middle Ages, New York: Penguin Books, 1976 / ks. myös Lynn Whyte Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford University Press). It marked great and continuous advancement, when compared to the Roman Empire. Change occurred, e.g., in architecture, mechanical technology, agronomy and in utilization of new energy sources. New innovations consisted of a plough on wheels, a millwheel, a windmill and its development, the development of fine pottery and glazing, the creation of a mechanical watch and its development, development of lenses to spectacles, a magnetic compass, water pumping methods in mining, etc.

If a scientific revolution occurred in the 16th - 18th century Europe, what made it possible? One reason is the existence of Universities, and in Europe there were around 60 of them by the year 1500. These Universities were not maintained by secularists or the states, but they were built thanks to the active support of medieval churches, and these Universities gave great importance to natural sciences and astronomy. Remarkable freedom of research and discussion were predominant, and they were even favored. These Universities had hundreds of thousands of students, and they in part made it possible that the scientific revolution in the 1500s-1700s Europe could take place. This revolution didn’t appear suddenly from nothing, as it was preceded by development that was beneficial for it. Other continents didn’t have as wide of an education system and similar Universities as Europe did, because Christianity didn’t hold such a role in those continents.

 

The Middle Ages created a basis for the greatest accomplishment of Western society: modern science. Claim that says science did not exists before “Renaissance” is simply untrue. After familiarizing themselves with classical Greek research, scholars of the Middle Ages developed ideology systems, which led science much further compared to the antique times. Universities, where academic freedom was protected from the leaders’ power, were founded in the 1100s. These institutions have always provided a safe haven for scientific research. Even Christian theology proved to be uniquely fitted to encourage researching the nature, which was believed to be God’s creation. (25)

 

The vague idea of the Middle Ages being a century stagnated by Christianity is largely gone from the minds of the researchers, who know the era well, but it remains strong among those, who popularize the history of science – perhaps, because current people, who popularize it, have uncritically trusted their predecessors, instead of familiarizing themselves with the research. (26)

 

Vishal Mangalwadi: In my home country there was no teaching of natural sciences in Hindu Ashrams or in Buddhist monasteries. Then why would Christian Universities in Europe – equally as religious institutions – begin developing and teaching them? It became apparent for the Bible researchers that the reading of “creation of the nature” was more important than reading Greek and Latin books. The latter were written by men, but the former was written by God. Paracelcus wrote that before getting to know Galen, Avicenna and Aristotle, one should read a book about the creation of the nature, familiarize oneself with the library of “books written, made and bound by God Himself”. (27)

 

Denying the Holocaust. Then to a whole different topic, which is the Jewish nation. We know that they had to suffer during the Second World War in a way that around six million Jews are estimated to have been killed in concentration camps, in gas chambers and in shootings. The Nazis also killed other human groups, such as nonconformists, Polish and Russian people and gypsies – comparably there were more gypsy deaths than there were Jewish deaths – but the Nazi killings were mostly aimed at Jewish people.

History books have also gotten a new page in this part of history as well, due to people rewriting history: denying the Holocaust. It is recognized that, e.g., the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was publicly such a thinker. Similarly, the leader of Palestine, Mahmud Abbas, has also been a denier of the Holocaust. Abbas wrote a thesis in Moscow, and in that he claimed the genocide of the Jews had been exaggerated. Typically, in Arab countries the denial and belittling of Holocaust have been common practice in the media.

Also, in Europe – in the area, where most Jews were killed – there has been more and more activity around rewriting the history. Now that it has been over 70 years from the Second World War, people have begun to rewrite history and deny the existence of Holocaust. That is especially practiced by the Neo-Nazis, who idolize Hitler and the past Nazis. They accuse Jews for almost all the problems in the world and for their efforts to rule the world, as did the predecessor Nazis decades ago.

How should we deal with this matter? It is pretty much pointless to argue with the deniers of Holocaust, because deep down they know that the Holocaust did take place. It is rather about the evil nature of people and their finding pleasure in injustice (2 Thess 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness) an also their love for lying, which the Bible warns us: “For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.” (Rev 22:15).

The founder of the Finnish resistance movement, ergo the Neo-Nazi movement, Henrik Holappa, who in the end left the organization, has spoke about this matter in his book Minä perustin uusnatsijärjestön [I founded a Neo-Nazi organization]. He denied the existence of Holocaust in his speeches, although he knew the whole time that it was true. He also admitted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which Neo-Nazis use in their propaganda, is fake (The London Times magazine had already in the 1921 proven these same documents to be fake):

 

… Thoughts of Ryssen… He had connected a few centuries old claims about the faked Russian anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is claimed to describe the Jews’ plan to take over the world, to his anti-Semitic propaganda. (28)

 

As a Nazi I was used to disclaim the whole Holocaust and other war crimes that Germany committed and I was also used to underrate the number of victims… I remember well descriptions of the Nazis’ atrocities, which I had read from war books, when I was young. Later, I had concealed these depictions with revisionism. Ultimately, I had known the horrors of Nazism the whole time.

All of a sudden I felt sick. How could I have denied the mass murders and the genocide of the Jews executed by the Nazis? How could I have supported an ideology that aims to completely destroy other nations and minorities? (29)

 

What are the consequences of Jews, strangers and other groups of people being slandered? This is where we ought to learn from history.

When the Nazis got a hold of the country by no means did they initiate the mass murders straight away, but everything started off from anti-Semitic propaganda, which was present, e.g., in the Der Stürmer magazine. It appeared in the form of derogatory names – tumor, parasitic plant, leech, germ… - and it caused ordinary Germans to have negative thoughts about the Jews. The Jews became all the more inhuman in the eyes of Germans. Next up, a citation from a book Gestapo (Frank McDonough: The Gestapo - The Myth and Reality of Hitler's Secret Police), which tells more about the subject:

 

Malevolent propaganda that had gone on for years and demonized the Jews by presenting them as physically disgusting big nosed demons, had influenced even those, who used to be very tolerant. Posters, movies and newspapers were full of this kind of Jewish resentment on a daily basis. Max Rainer recalled: “I could no longer grab a German newspaper. Jewish this and Jewish that. As if other topics didn’t exist. Newspapers were competing against each other on who had the best insults, threats and ridiculous content.” (30)

 

Hans Fritzsche, who used to possess a high position in the propaganda ministry of Joseph Goebbels and was the executive chief of the radio department from 1942, has spoken out about the topic, ergo negative propaganda. He was interviewed during the break of Nürnberg trial in 1946 by Leon Goldensohn. During the interview Fritzsche admitted that a crime always begins, when negative propaganda is being put out, not when people are being murdered. This is a good reminder from the past decades. Negative propaganda is always the first step towards evil, no matter who it is directed at.

 

…I feel like there is religious demand – ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ – this principle has not been followed for two thousand years. I wish that in this tragedy’s darkness at least one spark of life would emerge. I mean understanding that a crime is not committed only after a person is being murdered. Crime begins with propaganda, even though it would be for a good cause. At that moment, when propaganda turns against another nation or a person, evil springs up. (31)

                              

Another comment suggests the same. Ronald Boyd-MacMillan was visiting the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp to take a look around the camp and its cremators, when a rabbi approached him, and the rabbi had a set of digits tattooed in his arm. The rabbi pointed at the cremators and said how significant words can be. Everything began with slander, lies and slogans:

 

You must understand this: these cremators were not initially built from bricks, but from words! Everything began with lies that were initially put forward as jokes, slogans and claims, hence we Jews became impersonal, stripped from our humanity, creatures comparable to animals, and you can do anything to animals! We didn’t see what was coming before it was too late. (32)

 

How about the current area of Israel and the Palestinians? We mentioned previously, how denying the Holocaust and undermining it is a common practice in the media in Arab countries. It is constantly present in the Iranian media and in other countries as well.

The Arab countries have also been anti-Semitic in other areas, ergo down to the UN and UNESCO. These countries, and other countries hostile towards Israel, have repeatedly expressed how the Jews don’t have the rights to the current area of Israel and to the historical places, such as the Temple Mount and Jerusalem. They have stated that the whole area belongs to the Arabs, ergo to the Palestinians, and that Jewish people took possession of a historical Palestinian country.

These kinds of claims, however, are part of the rewritten history and distortions of the truth, which we already discussed. There is a simple reason for this: there are no known evidence from the past on so-called Palestinian nation or country that would have had its own rulers, army, currency, language, clear borders or other characteristics related to the presence of a nation. These important characteristics are completely lacking. The name Palestine – Falastin in Arabics – has existed as a name, but it has been a name for a land area, which the Roman emperor Hadrianus gave for the Jewish country in 135 A.D. At the same time Jerusalem got a new name as well, Aelia Capitolina.

The name Palestine was used by the Jews as well and by many others during the beginning of the 20th century. The current Jerusalem Post magazine was originally named as the Palestinian Post, the Palestine Symphony Orchestra (later Israeli Filharmonic Orchestra) was in charge of the music, and electricity was provided by the Palestine Electric Company. These terms show that it was about a land area and not a nation called the Palestinians, which never existed. The Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi stated the following in his report before the Peel commission in 1937: “Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.”

Instead, it is better known that the current Palestinians are Arabs, who came from the surrounding countries, or descendants of Arabs. Many of them are descended from Ismael, the son of Abraham, and they have moved to this area primarily during the last 150 years.

These people didn’t represent only one nationality, but rather many nationalities (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq…), as they came from the surrounding Arab countries or (before the year 1917) from the former Turkey, the area of the Ottoman kingdom, which ruled over the majority of the Arab countries over one hundred years ago. During those times they could have not have any national Palestinian identity, and not even the surrounding Arab countries spoke anything about such things back in those days. It all occurred much later, ergo after the war in 1967.

In this context it is good to take a few example passages from the New Testament. These passages address real history and there are no mentions of the Palestinians, because such a name didn’t exist. Instead, they talk about the Jews, who had settled to Jerusalem and also to Judea and Samaria, which are the current West coast. We are dealing with events that are from over 2000 years back:

 

- (Acts 1:4-8) And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, you have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, will you at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in his own power.

8 But you shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come on you: and you shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.

 

- (Acts 2:14) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said to them, You men of Judaea, and all you that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known to you, and listen to my words

 

Also Qur’an, the most prestigious Muslim piece of writing, notes that the holy land belongs to Israel and, how the Jewish people are the chosen ones. Thus, many Muslims act against their own sacred book:

 

Moses said unto his nation: "My nation, remember the mercy, which God showed you when he set prophets among you, made kings from you and gave for you such, what he has not given to anybody else. My nation, go to the holy land, which God has regulated for you, don't turn away, that you wouldn't be ruined." (5:20,21)

 

We led the Israelites over the sea, and pharaoh with his troops followed them because of his wickedness and his hostility, until he was engulfed by the waves. Then he said: "I believe that there is no other god other than the one whom the Israelites believe in, and I too submit to him."... We led the Israelites to live in the blessed land and we fed them with all good, but they began arguing when they found out. God will solve their dispute on the day of the resurrection. (10:90 93)

 

After that, we said to the Israelites: "Settle down to live in this land, and when the last moment comes, we will bring you all together before us." (17:104)

 

This took place, for we wanted to let the Israelites inherit the land. (26:59)

 

Israelites, remember my mercy that I showed you, when I chose you from among the nations. (2:47)

 

We gave the Israelites the Book, wisdom and prophecy, we fed them with all good, we chose them from among all people (45:16)

 

How about the so-called occupation policy of Israel? These matters can also be questioned, as there has never been a country named Palestine. The current Palestinian areas have in turn been under different rulers, previously, e.g., under the Ottoman Turkey, the English mandate system, and also the West coast belonged to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in 1948-1967, when they illegally conquered these areas. They were the illegal occupiers. Additionally, we know that the areas of the West coast and Gaza were promised to Israel by the League of Nations in 1920. According to the Balfour Declaration (1917) they were areas, where the Jews were allowed to settle. This declaration also included Jordan, thus originally the land area promised for the Jews was rather large. The precursor of the UN, the League of Nations accepted the Balfour Declaration and the borders of the mandate area in the San Remo conference on the 24/4/1920.

We also know that the West coast and Gaza, which were earlier promised for Israel by the League of Nations, ended up belonging to Israel in connection with the 1976 war. This war was a defensive war, which ended with Israel getting back the areas. It was not about conquering a country named Palestine, as it never existed, but it was about land areas that Egypt and Jordan had illegally occupied for over 20 years. What else is significant, is that after the 1967 war Israel immediately promised to withdraw from all the areas they had won back in substitution of peace and public recognition of Israel, but Jordan, Egypt and Syria declined the offer. Thus a new war sprung only six years after, ergo the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when the Arab countries yet again attacked Israel. This is actual history and it shows, how difficult the situation in the Middle East is and, how we got to this current state. The problem is very difficult and there are no easy solutions.

What we should focus on here, is that the Palestinian identity and nation are relatively new concepts. It was not talked about at all, when Israel became independent (1948). The Arabs didn’t mention anything about it, as such the concept wasn’t known back then. They were the same Arabs as in the surrounding Arab countries. Instead, the concept was put forward only after the 1967 war, which Israel had won, and not before that. The people, who represented many nationalities and whose parents came from surrounding countries, received this new identity as late as after the war. This was, especially, promoted by the representatives of PLO, due to tactical reasons, as they wanted to use it against Israel in the war. There is no long historical base for the concept. It has always been about distorting history since 1967, which the Western reporters don’t always understand, because they don’t have the background information from the past. Generally, Israel doesn’t have that good of a position in the media. Pasi Turunen’s book Israel Jumalan silmäterä, maailman silmätikku [Israel, the apple of God’s eye, the patsy of the world] provides good examples of distorted and false media information:

 

What seems to be less noted is the fact that neither during the years immediately preceding the war leading to Israel’s independence nor the years immediately after it was a state called Palestine ever named as the other party to the war. What was mentioned, instead, was that the objective of neighbour Arab states was to prevent the creation of a Jewish state and that their objective to absolutely destroy such a state regardless of any UN resolutions. The war in 1948 was not fought for the purpose of creating an independent state called Palestine. Instead the objective was to divide the land among the five attacking Arab states... Therefore, the idea of an independent and eternal state called Palestine came into being during the times after the summer war of 1967.Only after that were they actively developed. (33)

 

The next quotation also refers to the same topic. The Palestinian identity is a relatively new concept, which came about only after the war of 1967. The former commanding officer of the PLO voices the quote, and he tells that there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese:

 

Zuheir Mohsen’s, the commanding officer of the armed forces of the PLO, statement for a German magazine in Cairo in 1972: A Palestinian nation doesn’t exist as it stands. The creation of a Palestinian state is merely a way of fighting against a Zionist country for the unity of Arabs. In reality, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese people. We only speak of the existence of a Palestinian state today, due to political and tactical reasons, as the national asset point of views of Arab countries demand that we place a separate Palestinian nation to oppose Zionism. You see, Jordan, which is a recognized and a sovereign country with its own reinforced borders, cannot demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba or Jerusalem only out of tactical reasons, but instead, a Palestinian living inside Israel can undoubtedly do that. I want to highlight that at that moment, when we conquer the whole of Palestine, we have instantly united Palestine and Jordan. (34)

 

Jesus and the rewritten history. Then moving on to a whole new topic that is Jesus. He is the main character of the New Testament and the core of the whole Christianity. It is not unusual that people stop believing in him, due to the influence that liberal theologians have. Many people listen to and read the teachings of liberal theologians and that is what prevents them from really turning to God. They think that, when liberal theologians say that God becoming a man, the resurrection or fulfilled prophecies and miracles are not possible, then they should trust these faithless theologians.

Researchers’ attitude towards the virgin birth of Jesus is an example of their stance. They think that it never happened. How do they know this? They don’t, it is simply about their bias, which has nothing to do with science.

It is, of course, true that a virgin birth is quite an unlikely event. However, it’s about what is possible for God. Can God become a man, as the Bible states is what happened with Jesus? If God exists, shouldn’t this be expected if he wanted to become closer to men and have His will be heard?

What is this about then? It is by no means about science, but about naturalistic belief. Researchers’ naturalistic bias affects their and their followers’ conclusions. Based on their own world view they conclude that miracles, also the ones mentioned in the Bible, have never been possible. If these researchers were honest, they would admit to having a naturalistic bias and they would not consider their own world view as science. Naturalism by itself is not science, as is with theism, because they both are views based on beliefs. Scientifically we cannot debunk the miracles mentioned in the Bible, nor can we prove them right, because we don’t have the ability to go back in time.

The most important thing here is, whether the eyewitnesses spoke the truth. If they spoke and wrote with honesty, then  the events mentioned in the Bible also really happened. It is significant that the disciples at least said that they stuck with the truth the whole time. This becomes apparent from the following passages:

 

 - (Luke 1:1-4) For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them to us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed.

 

 - (John 19:35) And he that saw it bore record, and his record is true: and he knows that he said true, that you might believe.

 

- (John 21:24) This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

 

 - (2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

What are the consequences to liberal theologians abandoning the Bible and historic Jesus? One consequence to this is that they have become creators of myths and storytellers. They have created their own imaginary Jesus. As they have not interpreted the Bible as it is, they have been forced to come up with explanations to, how the narrations about Jesus came to be, despite everything.

   Thus, it is no wonder, when many liberal researchers have searched for “Jesus from the history” or “what he was really like”, and when they have ended up with results that contradict one and the other – results that actually refute each other. Some have regarded Jesus as a politically radical person, or as someone who sought the Messiah title, others have regarded him as one of the many regular faith healers, or as a religious genius and others have regarded him as a wise teacher, who gradually became supernatural in the eyes of his followers and turned into the Son of God.

We can see from the points above that researchers’ Jesus image doesn’t need to be connected to the truth and that it is also not supported by any reliable historical data. Researchers’ perceptions are in disagreement with the most important sources, ergo the Gospels. Additionally, other early Jewish and Roman sources, archeology and what the church fathers have written, do not support the researchers’ views, but they do strengthen the historical accuracy of the New Testament. It is revealed from the fact that sources external to the Bible mention names of rulers and other people and places, many of which are initially recognized from the Bible. It is a clear indication that these events really happened.

In the end, it’s again about rewriting history. History is being rewritten 2000 years later, because it doesn’t fit into the researchers’ naturalistic and incredulous bias as it is. It’s not a question of science, but a matter of telling stories, which many liberal theologians are guilty of doing.

These liberal theologians ought to take into consideration the following words of Jesus. Firstly, he said He’s from heaven, unlike other people. Secondly, He showed us, how important it is to believe in Him and what comes of disbelief:  

 

- (John 8:23,24) And he said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

 

We are dealing with lies and fiction. Above, we have discussed many examples of history being rewritten, ergo how history has been changed afterwards further from the truth for centuries.

Why is history being rewritten then? According to Bible there is a pivotal answer to this question: it derives from a supernatural spirit world, which tries to mislead people. Of course humans do play their own role as well, but fundamentally rewriting of history is about evil spirit-world’s and Satan’s misleading influence on mankind. These lies and stories don’t extent to all areas, but mainly revolve around God and the reliability of the Bible. The purpose of it all is to prevent people from receiving salvation and from understanding the truth. People believe in lies, which come from Satan and lead them further away from God. This becomes apparent from the following passages:

 

- (2 Cor 11:14) And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

 

- (2 Cor 4:3,4) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.

 

- (Eph 2:2) Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience:

 

- (John 8:44) You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

- (1 Peter 5:8) Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour:

 

However, we can free ourselves from the lies and that is what this text aims to do. Above all, we must turn to Jesus Christ, as He is the truth. He said the following words:

 

- (John 8:31,32) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed;

32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

- (John 8:44-46) You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.

46 Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?

 

- (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.

 

What if He exists after all? There is a well-known atheist campaign in Great Britain, where busses go around the largest cities of the country. On the side of these busses it says: ”There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.” 

The same campaign was also organized in Germany. There the following assertive text was plastered on the busses: “There is no God. You don’t need belief for a good life.” Christians didn’t turn a blind eye to the situation and thus rented a bus of their own, where they added a wondering text: “What if He exists after all?” For the amusement of people and the media the two busses were usually parked next to each other. God was predominantly the talk of the town.

This is a good place to move on to talk about the personal relationship that people have with God. What if God and the eternal life exist after all? What if we are all held accountable for what we’ve done and we cannot plead to other’s actions? This has been written to the critics of Christianity, and also to everyone else. Take into consideration that one day we must all be responsible for our actions before God! On that day no one can plead to other people’s actions or to what they have done wrong. Everyone is responsible for themselves only:

 

- (Rom 14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

 

- (Rev 20:12-15) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

However, everyone can be forgiven. Everyone can receive mercy, but they must turn to Jesus Christ, because we can only get to God through Him and receive a gift of eternal life. So, don’t reject Jesus Christ, turn to Him and welcome Him into your life:

 

- (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.

 

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

 

What if we reject God’s mercy and Jesus? What if we don’t care about Him or our future? Are there any consequences? Will it affect our eternal life?

The answer is that in such a case we ourselves have to pay for our sins. We will have to atone our judgement in eternal damnation – a place where there is no way out. We then have turned our backs on our only chance for salvation and a ticket to God’s paradise. Therefore, don’t make the personal choice of turning your back to God’s mercy. Let yourself be saved today, so you won’t have to regret your decision later. It is the best decision you can ever make!

 

My friend, if you are damned, it is not because of your sins, but because you have not received mercy that God offers to you through Jesus. That is why it is fair. If you reject Jesus, what can God do? You then dismiss your only hope of salvation. (35)

 

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 from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

 

 

REFERENCES:

 

1. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, (edited by) edited by Douglas Geivett & Gary Habermas, in book In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122

2. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

3. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

4. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

5. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (edited) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

6. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

7. Neil Shubin: Universumi sisällämme (The Universe Within), p. 136,139

8. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated

9. Francis Hitching: Arvoitukselliset tapahtumat (The World Atlas of Mysteries), p. 159

10. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366

11. Hannele Klemettilä: Keskiajan julmuus, p. 67,68

12. Hannele Klemettilä: Keskiajan julmuus, p. 72

13. Hannele Klemettilä: Keskiajan julmuus, p. 281

14. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624

15. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28.

16. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175

17. Ksenofon: Sokrates (1985, Helsinki, Otava), p. 30

18. Pekka Isaksson & Jouko Jokisalo: Kallonmittaajia ja skinejä, p. 77

19. Lainaus Diogenes Alleni teoksessa Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, p.2

20. Toht. Chr. Ernst Luthard: Kristinuskon perustotuuksista, p. 2

21. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115

22. Hannele Klemettilä: Keskiajan julmuus, p. 331

23. Marko Nenonen: Noitavainot Euroopassa, ihmisen pahuus, p. 274,275

24.  Rodney Stark, (2004), p. 172

25. James Hannam: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

26. Michael H. Shank: “That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science, in book Numbers (edited.) 19-27

27. Vishal Mangalwadi: Kirja, joka muutti maailmasi (The Book that Made Your World), p. 265

28. Henrik Holappa: Minä perustin uusnatsijärjestön, p. 129

29. Henrik Holappa: Minä perustin uusnatsijärjestön, p. 151

30. Max Rainer's statement in Burleigh, Third Reigh, p. 300

31. Leon Goldensohn: Nürnbergin haastattelut (The Nuremberg Interviews), p. 120

32. Ronald Boyd-MacMillan: Faith that Endures: The Essential Guide to the Persecuted Church (2006), Revell. USA

33. Pekka Sartola: Totuutena valhe, p. 279, 282

34.  Sit. kirjasta "Totuutena valhe", Pekka Sartola, p. 278

35. Oswald J. Smith: Maa johon kaipaan, p. 89