Rewriting history, i.e. turning to fables

One feature of modern times is fake news. It refers to the transmission of information, in which facts are distorted so that people get the wrong idea about the events. It can be practiced by states, ordinary media and also private people, e.g. via the Internet. Nowadays, there are many channels through which such fake news can spread, which were not there before.

   There has certainly been similar act before. For example, rulers and their scribes may have written history selectively and unilaterally. They may highlight only the wins and achievements, but forget the losses. They would rather keep silent about unpleasant things than record them for others to read. There is nothing strange about it in itself, because everyone wants to bring out only the positive aspects of themselves. We prefer to keep silent about unpleasant things. This is the general rule in this area.

   From here it is good to move on to the actual distortion of history and its rewriting. That also happens, and often precisely in the area where people want to deny God's actions in history. This has happened throughout the ages, and that's why we were going to take out a few examples of rewriting history next. In the language of the Bible, the question is about false knowledge and turning to fables:

- (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.

1. Denying creation

If we go back 200 years, almost every person in 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 descriptions in the Bible were also considered real history.

   However, a change has occurred. It started in the early 19th century, Darwin's On the Origin of Species strongly influenced it, and the change has continued to this day. The trend is that nowadays there is less and less faith in God's work of creation. Instead, naturalistic birth theories and the assumption of millions of years of continuous evolution have taken their place. This is something that can be considered a true rewriting of history. History has been remade because God as creator has been rejected.

   But are there grounds for rewriting history in this area? We explore a few of these new notions.

Can anything come from nothing? When God has been rejected as the creator, it has been necessary to explain e.g. the beginning of the universe. At the moment, the most common idea is the big bang theory and that everything started by itself from nothing, i.e. a state where there was nothing. Before that there was no time, space and energy. This issue is well described by the names of books such as Tyhjästä Syntynyt [Coming About from Nothing] (Kari Enqvist, Jukka Maalampi) or A Universe from Nothing (Lawrence M. Krauss).. In these books and publications, it is assumed that everything was created by itself from nothing and that the initial state of the universe was hot and dense.

   However, can anything be born from nothing? This matter can be thought about. If there was nothing, how can it become anything? How does nothingness become a stone or millions of stars? Inanimate things like stones, rocks, wheels, airplanes, or anything else don't normally appear by themselves out of thin air. Why would the universe, which is vastly larger than them, be an exception? This theory goes against the laws of logic and natural science.

   Besides, even one fly is bigger than nothing. Likewise, a little bird that eats a fly or a hawk that eats a little bird are greater than emptiness. How could they have come from nothing, or how do the fish and the sea around them come from nothing? How can the void by itself produce living beings and a suitable environment for them? It is the greatest miracle in the world if the things we see in nature have arisen by themselves out of nothingness and emptiness.

   Furthermore, it is a mathematical impossibility. If there is nothing, it cannot become nothing by itself. If zero is divided by any number, the result is always zero. David Berlinski, a mathematician, has taken a position on the subject:

”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)

What 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.  Nothing that doesn't exist can be hot and dense or become hot and dense by itself. It is a logical impossibility.

   What about the explosion itself? Will the explosion cause anything but destruction? You can try this thing. If you put an explosive charge inside, for example, a solid ball, nothing happens. Only pieces from the ball spread within a radius of a few meters, but nothing else happens. It does not give birth to living beings like elephants, thinking people, birds, beautiful flowers, big trees, butterflies, fish and the sea around them or planets and stars and nothing else. This is experiential science. The assumption that all the previous and other things have come from a space the size of a pinhead is therefore contrary to practical science and contrary to all common sense. It is a crazy idea that all living things and inanimate objects in the world have come from a tiny point.

   Several scientists 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. More than a hundred other cosmologists supported the letter. The letter said: “There is no open discourse; doubt and dissent are not tolerated. No other field of physics can constantly resort to new hypotheses to bridge the gap between theory and observations."

 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 remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... 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)

What about ordinary celestial bodies like galaxies and stars? How did they come into existence if God did not create them?

   Here the researchers are quite ignorant. Although popular books or TV animations may present models of the spontaneous formation of galaxies and stars, in reality this matter is unknown. They have been assumed to have arisen from a gas cloud, but as the gas cloud condenses, the temperature rises and the normal gas pressure prevents the cloud from collapsing. The nature of gas is that it spreads out all the time and no condensation occurs. This is basic information from school chemistry classes. Several astronomers admit that this is problematic. Here are some of their comments:

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.” (Cited from Marcus Chown’s article Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)

What about the birth of the solar system, i.e. the sun, planets and moons? It has been assumed that they were born from a single gas cloud, but it is a matter of guesswork. Scientists admit that the sun, planets and moons have a beginning - otherwise their internal energies would have been exhausted over time - but they have to resort to imagination when looking for a reason for their birth. When they deny God's work of creation, they are forced to look instead for some naturalistic explanation for the birth of these heavenly bodies.

   In this, however, they are faced with problems, for example, because the composition of the planets, moons and the sun is completely different from each other. How did they arise from the same gas cloud, if they are completely different in composition? For example, some planets consist of light elements, while others have heavier elements.

   Many scientists have been honest enough to admit that current naturalistic theories of the origin of the solar system are problematic. Below are some of their comments. These comments show how questionable it is to explain the origin of the entire inanimate world by itself without God. There are no good grounds for rewriting history in this area. It makes more sense to believe in God's creation work.

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. You have to understand that, cosmically speaking—the room you're sitting in is made of the wrong materials. In fact, you are a rarity, a compilation of a cosmic collector. (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, 6^th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

How did life begin? Above we discussed the birth of the inanimate universe, i.e. galaxies, stars, sun, planets and moons. It was stated that scientists have no information about how these heavenly bodies were born. They come to a dead end because they deny the creation work of God.

   What about the origin of life itself? If it is a fact, it should be proven true. However, there is no evidence for this. Real science shows that only life creates life and no exception to this rule has been found. This refers to the Creator, not to the birth of life by itself.

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

   To make the point clear, we quote J. Morgan's interview with Stanley Miller towards the end of his life. He has become famous for experiments related to the origin of life. J. Morgan said of 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 development? Then to the question of the origin of current forms of life. Have they come to earth through creation or through long evolution from the first primordial cell? Atheists arrogantly reject creation, but is their own view of gradual evolution correct or false? Are there grounds for rewriting history in this area?

   This issue can be thought about and approached through evidence. There are two things as evidence: fossils and current nature. They are the only evidence we can turn to.

   So what should the evidence show? If the theory of evolution is true, you should see the following things. Similarly, if creation is true, the same things should not be seen:

• Gradual development in fossils

• In modern nature there should be half-finished and developing senses, legs, wings and intermediate forms

What does the evidence show? There is no ambiguity about that. First of all, it is known that no gradual development can be observed in fossils. No signs of gradual change can be observed in them, which would prove that all species were inherited from the same original cell. They always appear in the soil ready and fully developed, and no simpler forms have been found below them.

   By observing modern nature, the same thing can be observed. All species are ready and developed, and not like they have half-developed senses or limbs. They are not just developing and half-finished, but completely finished. Both of these observations - fossils and modern nature - therefore clearly point to creation rather than gradual development. The evidence should be taken as it is and not interpreted through a naturalistic worldview.

   Let's let the scientists themselves speak on the topic. The following quotations show how the evidence for gradual development is lacking both in fossils and in modern nature. The comments of the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins are included. These comments show how Darwin and his followers have rewritten history on false grounds. The evidence clearly points that God created everything:

Fossils – no observable gradual evolution

Richard Dawkins: Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in 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)

2. Denying the Flood

When history has been rewritten, one example is the denial of the flood. Modern scientists look at everything through evolutionary glasses and millions of years. They assume, for example, that the strata were created in processes of millions of years, and cannot accept the idea that most of the strata were mainly created in one big catastrophe, the Flood.

    However, the sled is changing its direction. More and more researchers in the scientific world are beginning to accept the idea that catastrophes have shaped our Earth, and that deposits can be created instantaneously through catastrophes. However, they still do not believe in the Flood, but think that there have been many great disasters. They are supposed to have happened millions of years ago. A quote from the book The Universe Within (by Neil Shubin) tells about these catastrophes, which are widely believed today:

The longer Newell and other researchers collected fossil material, the more inevitable one fact began to seem. Entire worlds of animals and plants had lived ages ago, but they had all disappeared quickly and almost simultaneously from different parts of the planet. Life had suffered not just one, but many catastrophes... there are five periods in history when the number of species declined sharply. The most famous of these is the so-called Cretaceous Mass Extinction around 65 million years ago. Lizards, flying lizards, ammonites and hundreds of lesser-known molluscs that lived in the sea disappeared forever with the dinosaurs. The other largest mass extinctions in world history occurred 440, 375, 250 and 200 million years ago. Each time, the general lines were the same: species from all over the globe disappeared at the same time. One of the catastrophes almost destroyed all life on our planet: 250 million years ago, more than 90 percent of all species that lived in the Sea disappeared for good. (7)

How can the previous text be interpreted? Scientists are right that disasters destroy fauna and flora. However, there is no reason to believe the scientists' view of several huge catastrophes tens of millions of years ago. Extinct species may have lived simultaneously on Earth, but only in different ecological compartments. Likewise, they may have been mostly destroyed in one and the same disaster, the Flood. For just as there are ecological compartments in modern times (seabed, sea, marsh, dry land, highlands...), there have been them before. These animals, located in different ecological compartments, may have died in one and the same disaster, not that there have been multiple global disasters. You don't have to look at everything through evolutionary glasses and millions of years.

   It is interesting that there are dozens of references to the Flood in the books of secular scientists and geologists. They don't believe it ever happened, but still give convincing examples of how the current dry areas were under the sea in the past. In these books, which I myself have come across, is told e.g. about how the Alps, Mount Everest, the Himalayan mountains and numerous other mountains contain remnants of marine life in the past. It can be considered a great spiritual blindness when scientists are unable to draw correct conclusions from the evidence that is right in front of them. 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.

   (Side note: I just watched the National Geographic video Sea Monsters. It was about sea animals, some of which were extinct. The video showed the places where sea animals were found, or their fossils, in areas that are now far from the sea: Kansas, South Dakota, Australia, and how road builders found ammonites in Texas. In the video it was also reported about some remains of marine life that "they were found in Kansas, which is now mostly farmland. But at one time Kansas was under a huge sea."

   Then another additional note; I remember watching a documentary on TV years ago that told how the current Sahara desert was under a huge sea. Similar documentaries and nature programs have been shown on TV numerous times.)

   The following are a couple of examples from this area. The first appears in the aforementioned book, The Universe Within (p. 69, Neil Shubin):

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 the continents, marine sedimentary rocks are far more common and widespread than all other sedimentary rocks combined. This is one of those simple facts that demands explanation, being at the heart of everything related to man's continuing efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (8)

3. ”The era of dinosaurs", or the concept of millions of years

When it comes to the theory of evolution, one of the assumptions of this theory is that different life forms have appeared on Earth at different times. It is assumed that at first only primitive cells appeared in the sea, then multicellular and increasingly complex organisms appeared, even those at first only in the sea. Then land life began, as frogs appeared, and around 200 million years ago the dinosaurs and eventually humans as well.This view does not take into account the possibility that all these life forms lived on Earth at the same time, but only in different ecological compartments - just as there are fish in the sea, life on land and birds at the same time today.

   If one were to name the animals that are usually associated with millions of years, the first thing that comes to mind for many are the dinosaurs, which are supposed to have died out about 65 million years ago. However, is this a question of the same kind of rewriting of history, of which a few examples have been brought up above? We don't have to doubt the existence of dinosaurs on Earth, but we can question their presence millions of years ago. This is due to e.g. for the following reasons.  

   Another important finding is that at least 432 species of mammals such as beaver, squirrel and primates have been found in dinosaur deposits (Werner Carl, Living Fossils). Dinosaur bones have also been found among bones resembling 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.), so the term dinosaur age is misleading. Similarly, birds such as parrot, penguin, osprey, sandpiper, albatross, flamingo, loon, duck and cormorant have been found in dinosaur deposits. Dr Werner has stated: "Museums do not present these fossils of modern birds and do not draw modern birds in their descriptions of dinosaur environments. It is wrong. Basically, whenever a T. Rex or Triceratops is depicted in a museum exhibit, ducks, loons, flamingos, or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same strata with dinosaurs should also be depicted. But that doesn't happen. I've never seen a duck with a dinosaur in a natural history museum. Have you seen? An owl? A parrot?”

   What about dinosaurs and man? In modern times, it is not believed that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, but it is interesting that people's folklore mentions dragons that resemble dinosaurs (the name dinosaur was only invented in the 1840s). The following quotes tell about 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 recorded history, dragons have appeared everywhere: in the earliest Assyrian and Babylonian accounts of the development of civilization, in the Jewish history of the Old Testament, in the old texts of China and Japan, in the mythology of Greece, Rome and early Christians, in the metaphors of ancient America, in the myths of Africa and India. It is hard to find a society that did not include dragons in its legendary history…Aristotle, Pliny and other writers of the classical period claimed that dragon stories were based on fact and not 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. Early Mesopotamian cylinder seals show dragons necking each other with tails almost as long as their necks (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 paleontologist Stephen J. Gould told 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 14^th 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 one belief, a cursed soul had to cleanse itself of sins by wandering the earth in the form of a werewolf for seven years. It was also widely believed that devils particularly favored the figure of a wolf, along with a dragon, a snake, and a monkey, although they could take any form they wished. (13)

What about the centuries-old Chinese zodiac? It has 12 animals, 11 of which are still familiar today (rat, bull, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig). Instead, the 12th animal is a dragon, which does not exist today. A good question is, if the 11 animals are real animals, why would the dragon have been a mythical creature? Isn't it reasonable to assume that it lived at the same time as humans, but died out like many other animals? Only the assumption of millions of years and the rewriting of history practiced today can prevent us from seeing the obvious fact that dragons, or dinosaurs, lived at the same time as the first humans. 

4. How long have humans been on Earth?

What about human history on earth? We repeatedly read or watch on TV shows how man is supposed to have descended from fish, then from creatures like shrew, and finally from creatures like monkeys. At least this is what is assumed in these writings or programs.

   However, these assumptions are refuted by one fact: no gradual development can be observed in the fossils. This has been admitted by several leading paleontologists, as already stated. That is, if there has been no gradual development, the idea of ​​human descent from simpler creatures over millions of years can be forgotten.

   So what about the supposed ape-like ancestors of humans? How should we react to them?

   In reality, however, fossil finds only point to two classes: humans and common apes. The first category is represented by Homo Erectus/Ergaster, Neanderthals and ordinary modern humans. The latter category is represented by Australopithecus, which contains almost all remains of "ape-men" (Lucy, Taung's skull, Ardipithecus...).

   Why such a division into only two categories? There is a clear reason for that. Many leading researchers have said outright that the Australopithecus class is clearly more similar to modern apes than to ordinary humans. The size of their skull is only about a third or a quarter of the size of the modern human brain, and the body structure is similar to that of modern apes.

   Second, several leading researchers have admitted that there is not enough of a difference between Homo Erectus, Neanderthal man, and ordinary modern man. This is supported by several cultural finds, skull size and body structure. Some researchers, such as Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, have therefore long said that Neanderthals and erectus should not be classified as different species than us. They should be considered ordinary people. What makes this evolutionist paleontologist's statement remarkable is that he is said to have seen more of the original hominid fossil record than anyone else.

   There are issues with dating 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 show that humans have lived on the planet as long as all other forms of life, and it is only thousands of years since then. 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,).

  So what is real history? The following quotes refer to this. They show how suddenly Civilization has appeared in the world, and that its development has not taken millions of years. In the first of the statements, the developer of the radiocarbon method, professor W.F. Libby, who said at the time in the Science magazine on March 3, 1961 (p. 624) that verified history only goes back about 5,000 years. He was talking about the ruling families of Egypt, which may have hundreds of years of errors in dating (This was mentioned, for example, in the television series "Pharaohs and Kings", which was shown on Finnish television in 1996).

   Libby also stressed that claims about long periods of time should not be taken seriously. This is consistent with the fact that several regions of the world such as North America, Australia and remote areas have mainly been inhabited only in 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 very sparsely populated 500 years ago, and elsewhere too there was only a fraction of the current population. You don't have to go back many millennia when you come across a zero point, when there were no inhabitants on earth. In fact, the current population could be born in less than 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 time of the First Dynasty of Egypt is in reality the oldest historical point of time confirmed with some certainty." (14)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, 6th volume, p. 12)

In the recent excavations, the most surprising thing 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 diggers 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)

What about the notion that man originated in Africa? Evolutionists assume that the first humans resided in Africa and moved from there to other places, but this too can be considered as rewritten history.

   So what is the historical and correct understanding? Decades ago, it was much more clearly understood that man's original home is from the Middle East, not Africa. This was indicated by the people's traditions, that the first buildings were built in this area and that the world's cereals originate from the same region. This view also appears in Genesis. The following quote tells more about the subject. The concept of Africa, which e.g. Darwin believed, can be dismissed as unscientific.

William Dawson asserts in his book Modern Science that he and other eminent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region, geologically speaking, must have been the only place where man could have lived in the beginning.

    Dr. Armstrong says much the same in his book Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of mankind? On this, as well as on the question of racial unity, scholars are more or less in agreement. The high altitude regions where the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are located are considered to have been the cradle of mankind. This is proven by many facts, e.g. the fact that the genealogies of almost all tribes mention this corner of the world as their original home. In addition, all the grain species used for human consumption in the world come from there. And geological studies also lead to the same result." (16)

5. How were things in the past? Antiques, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment

One notion that atheists like to cultivate is that the Christian faith has been an obstacle to the development of science and society, while atheism/naturalism has advanced it. In this context, atheists like to bring up the eras of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment. They see antiquity as a sort of golden era, and the Enlightenment as an era of progress, but think of the Middle Ages as a time of stagnation. This concept was brought up especially by the two controversial writers of the 19th century, Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) and John William Draper (1811-1882). Their writings were born in the wake of Darwin's theory.

   But how is it? Is this also a question of rewriting history? Many historians disagree with the previous claims. The reason is that historians themselves are familiar with the study of the Middle Ages and the picture is very different from what is mentioned in some popular atheist books. In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

• First, ancient societies. They were not secular societies at all, but very much resembled Hindu society or African societies decades ago. It included idolatry, paganism, pantheism and animism. Even in the Nordic countries, you don't have to go back many centuries when the situation was like that. All European societies were more or less the same.

   A good starting point for understanding what Europe was like before the appearance of the Christian faith is Acts chapter 17. It tells about 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 idolatry was common in Athens during Paul's time, nevertheless, during the heyday of the Greek city-states, many Greek scientists and thinkers believed in a Creator who made man and creation. Many naturalists today exalt this period, but fail to consider that many of the leading thinkers had a belief in God. Among them were e.g. Socrates, Plato, Plato's student Aristotle, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. They were defenders of the faith in God in ancient Greece. Their thinking was close to a theistic, not a naturalistic worldview, although those who support a modern naturalistic view may argue otherwise.

   A good example of creationism is the statement of Socrates, the father of logic, about man. He was clearly a proponent of intelligent design. In Xenophon's memoirs, he refers to man's details that cannot be considered mere coincidence:

Socrates: Do you think that he, who in the beginning of time made men, gave them senses for their benefit, eyes to see what there is to see, ears to hear what to hear. - - Don't you think it also shows consideration that the eyes are closed with lids like doors that open when the eyes are needed. They close in sleep, and so that the winds don't damage them, lashes were put on them like sieves. 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. (...)  - - When everything is planned like this, I ask again, is it the result of chance or consideration? (17)

• As stated, atheists view antiquity as the golden age and the Middle Ages as its opposite. However, with regard to human rights, it was the opposite. For example, slavery was common in the Roman Empire and antiquity, but the Christian faith brought a change to the situation. Slavery disappeared from Europe, except for a few peripheral areas, precisely in the Middle Ages.

   Similarly, the position of women and girls was bad in antiquity. One example of this was the abandonment of baby girls. In the Roman Empire, it was a common practice to practice family planning by abandoning newborns, which was especially the fate of girls. As a result, the ratio of men to women was distorted, and it is estimated that in Roman society there were about one hundred and thirty men for every one hundred women. When Christians forbade abortion and killing newborns, it improved the status of women and changed the ratio between men and women.

   Another example is child marriages and early marriages. In ancient society, it was common for women to get married at or before puberty. The Greek Cassius Dio, who wrote the history of Rome, stated that a girl is ready to marry already at the age of 12: "A girl who is married before the age of 12 becomes a legal spouse when she turns 12." The Christian faith made it possible for women to get married at an older age and choose their own spouse.

   A third example is female widows, whose position was poor in the ancient world (just like in modern India, where female widows have even been burned). They were one of the most helpless and disadvantaged groups, but the Christian faith brought repentance to their lives as well. The community was obliged to take care of widows such as abandoned children. This influenced the spread of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. The status of widows is discussed e.g. In the Acts of the Apostles and letters (Acts 6:1, 1 Tim 5:3-16, James 1:27)

• It was mentioned above how slavery was common in antiquity and how it disappeared in the Middle Ages.

    So when did slavery start again? It did not start in the Middle Ages at all, but at the end of the Renaissance and during the Enlightenment. It was at its most extensive in the 18th century, i.e. the period that has been considered the Enlightenment. However, e.g. the Quakers and Methodists were instrumental in re-banning slavery in England and other countries. It improved human rights:

Slavery continued to exist and became more widespread throughout the whole Age of Enlightenment during the four last decades of the 18^th century. It was only at the very end of the century that the first legal initiatives to abolish the slave trade were made in the large colonial states. The abolitionist movement was born in England from the initiative of two Christian sects, the Quakers and the Methodists. In their declarations and decisions, slavery was condemned as a special sin and not so much as a violation of human rights. (18)

• As stated, atheists like to juxtapose antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment. However, in terms of human rights, the position of many groups of people was worse during antiquity and the Enlightenment than in the Middle Ages.

   What about the 20th century? Atheists often forget by far the worst century, the 20th century, when the most extensive human rights violations in human history were committed. Tens of millions of their own citizens were killed by Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and in many communist states happened the same. Several groups of people had no human rights or the right to live at all. The 20th century and its beginning were the worst time in history in this respect.

      The development of the time becomes clear from a few quotations. They are related to Germany and show how the opposition to religion and God preceded the worst human rights violations in history (Communist countries were also characterized by opposition to God). The first of the quotations is a statement by the anthropologist Max Müller from 1878, the second is from a book from 1891, and the third is related to Karl Marx, who stated that the criticism of religion has been completed in Germany. The quotes show how the wave of apostasy started already in the 19th century:

Anthropologist Max Müller 1878: Every day, every week, every quarter, the most widely read magazines tell us that the age of religion is over, that faith is a hallucination or a disease of children, and that the gods have finally been revealed and removed as outmoded.

Secondly, the attacks were merely cursory and intermittent during the old times; now they are regularly organized. The French spirit is roaring and fierce, but not as dangerous as the German... A far worse disturbance than those French babblers has been caused in the circles of believers by David Strauss and his fellow thinkers. Ever since the French spirit made its groping attacks against Christianity in the time of Voltaire, the rejection of Christianity has gone through the philosophical school of the German spirit and developed into a whole system of worldview, which has actually tried to place itself instead of Christianity. (Dr. Chr. Ernst Luthardt in his book in 1891)

"In Germany, criticism of religion has essentially been completed, and criticism of religion is a prerequisite for all criticism." (Karl Marx in the introduction to "Hegel's Critique of Legal Philosophy")

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, there have been mass movements of abandoning the church in several countries after the war. Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the evangelical churches. This escape from the church has continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone, 59,225 persons renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those Catholics and Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not say much about the spread of blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute non-existence of God has increased immeasurably. Some men who are considered scholars claim that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They either completely stop believing in God or present that "science requires a new understanding of God". This denial of God begins among children at school. In some cities, thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from elementary school, have walked the streets carrying the following posters: "“God out of schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc.

What about the Middle Ages? It wasn't a golden age either, because there hasn't been such time than in paradise before the Fall. There were certainly abuses in the Middle Ages, such as selfish and evil rulers, selfish and evil popes, and other evils. Compared to the 20th century, however, the Middle Ages were in many respects a peaceful time, and the position of several groups of people was legally better than it was in the 20th century.

   Numerous medieval scholars have paid attention to the same issue. They have become familiar with the material of the Middle Ages and the image of it has changed. The following are the comments of two Finnish medievalists (Hannele Klemettilä, Marko Nenonen) on the subject. The first deals with the Middle Ages in general and the second with the so-called witch persecutions, which were not common in the Middle Ages and are mainly a concept created by posterity:

In 1977, the French historian Régine Pernoud lamented that the Middle Ages had been labeled as brutal and backward. This same problem has been commented on by many others, for example Tuomas Heikkilä, one of the Finnish Middle Ages experts. Stereotypical perceptions still hold fast. 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 been looking for explanations for the witch persecutions, but what were the witch persecutions? They are a concept created by 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.

   There has not been such a phenomenon, which is called witch persecution based on conventional images. The researchers explained for a long time what they had invented themselves. A more balanced picture of the witch persecutions became possible at the end of the 20th century, when dozens of researchers unprejudicedly dug up original materials after years of work. (23)

• As stated, the notion that the Christian faith was an obstacle to the development of science constantly appears in the media and in the books of naturalistic scientists. Belief in God and science have been considered opposites of each other.

    However, this perception cannot be supported by historical research. In the modern sense, science has started only once, i.e. in the Europe of the 16th-18th centuries, where Christian theism prevailed. It did not start in a secular society, but specifically in a society inspired by the Christian faith. Almost all leading scientists believed in creation. Among them were Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Clerck Maxwell, John Ray, Louis Pasteur, etc. They were not representatives of the Enlightenment but of 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. But while this campaign has had a very significant effect on the intellectual world in general, it seems to have had no effect on the scientists themselves. The implementers of the scientific revolution were known for their faith in God, and the tradition they represented has continued in science. For example, throughout almost the entire 19th century, doing science remained as much a religious as a secular vocation – the efforts to understand the work of God's hands continued. (24)

What about the centuries before the 16th-18th centuries? The general perception has been that these centuries, or the Middle Ages, were through ignorance, which stopped the development of science and culture. Science began to develop again only when culture gradually freed itself from the stifling influence of belief in God during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. This may have been taught in many books on the subject.

   According to researchers familiar with the matter, the reality is the opposite. In reality, science developed considerably since ancient times. From the early stages of the "Dark Ages" began "one of the most inventive periods of mankind" (Jean Gimbel: The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution in the Middle Ages, New York: Penguin Books, 1976 / see also Lynn Whyte Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford University Press). It meant great and continuous progress over the Roman Empire. The change took place e.g. in architecture, mechanical engineering, agronomy and exploitation of new energy sources. Inventions included the wheeled plow, water wheel, windmill and its development, the development of fine ceramics and glazing, the birth and development of the mechanical clock, the development of lenses for eyeglasses, the magnetic compass, water pumping methods in mining technology, etc.

   If the scientific revolution happened in 16th-18th century Europe, what made it possible? One reason was the universities, of which there were about sixty in Europe by the year 1500. These universities were not universities maintained by secularists and the state, but arose with the active support of the medieval church, and natural science research and astronomy played a prominent role in them. In them there was considerable freedom of research and discussion, which was favored. These universities had hundreds of thousands of students, and they helped prepare the ground for the scientific revolution to be possible in Europe in the 16th-18th centuries. This revolution did not suddenly arise out of nowhere, but was preceded by favorable developments. Other continents did not have the same extensive education and similar universities as in Europe, because the Christian faith had not gained the same place in them.

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 rough idea of the Middle Ages as a millennium of stagnation brought about by Christianity has largely disappeared among scholars familiar with the period, but it remains alive among popularizers of the history of science — perhaps because recent popularizers have uncritically relied on their predecessors rather than familiarizing themselves with research on the subject. (26)

Vishal Mangalwadi: In my home country, science was not taught in Hindu ashrams and Buddhist monasteries. Why, then, did Christian universities in Europe - religious institutions as well - start to develop and teach them? It became clear to Bible scholars that reading the "nature book" is more important than reading books in Greek and Latin. The latter were written by men, but the author of the former was God. Paracelcus wrote that before getting to know Galen, Avicenna and Aristotle, one should read the book of nature, get to know the library "written, made and bound by God himself". (27)

6. Jesus and the rewritten history

Then to a completely different topic, namely Jesus. He is the main character of the New Testament and the core of the entire Christian faith. It is common for people to reject belief in him because of the influence of liberal theologians. They listen and read the teachings of liberal theologians and that prevents them from turning to God.  They think that when liberal theologians have presented that God's incarnation, resurrection, or fulfilled prophecies and miracles have not been possible, then they should trust these unbelieving theologians.

   One example of the researchers' attitude is the attitude towards the virgin birth of Jesus. They think it hasn't happened. How do scientists know this? They don’t know; it is simply about their prejudice, which has nothing to do with science.

   It is of course true that a virgin birth is a rather unlikely event. However, the question is what is possible for God. Can God become a man as the Bible shows happened with Jesus? If God exists, shouldn't this be expected if He wants to approach people and make his will known?

   So what is this about? It is by no means a matter of science but of naturalistic faith. The naturalistic bias of researchers affects their conclusions and those of people who follow them. They conclude through their own worldview that miracles, including miracles mentioned in the Bible, have never been possible. If scientists were honest, they would admit this naturalistic attitude, and not consider their own worldview as science. Naturalism itself is not a science, and neither is theism, but both are faith-based views. Scientifically, the miracles mentioned in the Bible cannot be disproved, nor can they be proven true, because we cannot go back to the past.

   The most important thing is whether the eyewitnesses have told the truth. If they have spoken and written the truth, the things mentioned in the Bible have also happened. It is significant that the apostles at least claimed to have remained in the truth throughout. This is evident from the following verses:

 - (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.

So what is the consequence of liberal theologians rejecting the Bible and the historical Jesus? One consequence is that they have become myth builders and story tellers. They have created their own imaginary Jesus. Because when they have not taken the Bible as it is, they have had to give an explanation for how the stories about Jesus have started despite everything.

   So it is not surprising that when many liberal scholars have searched for the "Jesus of history" or "what He was really like" they have come up with completely contradictory results - results that actually cancel each other out. Some have seen Jesus as a political radical, others as a seeker of the Messiah title, others as an ordinary faith healer, of which there were many, others as a religious genius and still others as a wise teacher who gradually became supernatural and the Son of God in the minds of His followers.

   On the basis of the previous one, it can be understood that the researchers' image of Jesus does not have to have anything to do with reality, nor does any reliable historical material support it. The researchers' ideas are in conflict with the most important sources, the gospels. In addition, other early Jewish and Roman sources, archeology and the mentions of the church fathers do not confirm the researchers' ideas, but they confirm the historicity and accuracy of the texts of the New Testament. It is evident from the fact that sources outside the Bible mention the names of rulers, other persons and places, many of which were initially known only on the basis of the Bible. It is a strong testimony that these things really happened.

   Basically, this issue meens again the matter of rewriting history. History is being rewritten 2000 years later because it does not fit the naturalistic and unbelieving view of the researchers. It's not about science, it's about telling fairy tales, which liberal theologians are guilty of.

   Liberal scholars should consider the following words of Jesus. First, he claimed to be from heaven, unlike other people. Second, he showed the importance of believing in him and the consequences 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.

It's about lies and fables. Many examples of rewriting history have been discussed above, i.e. how history has been changed centuries later in a false direction.

    So what is the reason for such a rewriting of history? Based on the Bible, there is one important answer to this: it is caused by a supernatural spirit world that misleads people. Of course, there is also a person's own part involved, but basically in the question of rewriting history is the misleading influence of the evil spirit world and Satan on humanity. These lies and fables do not appear in all areas, but mainly concern God and the reliability of the Bible. The purpose of everything is to prevent people from being saved and understanding the truth. People believe lies that come from Satan and it takes them further and further away from God. This is evident in the following verses:

- (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 does exist? There was a well-known atheist campaign in Great Britain, where buses toured the country's largest cities. On the sides of the buses it was written: "God probably does not exist. So stop worrying and enjoy life.”

   The same campaign was also organized in Germany. There, a confident text was pasted on the side of the bus: "There is no God." You don't need faith to live a satisfied life." However, the Christians did not leave the matter there, instead they rented another bus, and on the side of it there was a questioning text: "What if he does exist?" It was amusing and the joy of the media was that both buses were often parked side by side in the same cities. God was a strong topic of conversation.

   From this it is good to move on to everyone's personal relationship with God. What if God does exist and eternity exists? What if we each have to give an account of ourselves, and we can't rely on what some others have done? This is written for critics of Christianity but also for everyone else. Therefore, take into account that we will have to answer before God about our own lives! Then no one can refer to what others have done and what they have done wrong. Everyone is only responsible for himself:

- (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 grace, but he must turn to Jesus Christ, because only through Him can we get into God's communion and receive the gift of eternal life. Therefore, do not reject Jesus Christ, but 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 grace and Jesus? What if we don't care about him and the life to come? Are there any consequences? Does it affect our eternity?

    The answer is that we then have to pay for our sins ourselves. We will have to atone our judgement in eternal damnation – a place where there is no way out. We have then turned our backs on the only possibility to be saved and enter God's paradise. Therefore, do not personally turn your back on God's mercy. Let yourself be saved today so you don't regret it later. It's 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. (28)

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

More on this topic:

When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence

The Bible and history. There is tremendous evidence for biblical events and the historicity of individuals - including Jesus. Check out this evidence

The early stages of mankind. The first 11 chapters of the Bible are real history. This includes creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the mixing of languages. Read here

"The Bible isn’t historically reliable"

"The Bible isn’t historically reliable"