christianity, apology of faith,reliability of the Bible

Is Christian faith true?

Observations in nature, historical sources, archeology, and prophecies, coming true in the Jews, suggest the reliability of the Christian faith and the Bible

The subject of this article is the Christian faith and its validity. Christian faith is based on the person and words of Jesus, but there is much more to it, such as the reliability of the Bible. In modern times, this book has been the target of attacks and many doubt the rationality of the Christian faith, but are there any grounds for these doubts? This is what we are going to look into.

1. The beginning of everything refers to the Creator
2. The seven-day week and the common tradition of the peoples
3. Sexuality and its birth; coincidence or creative work of God?
4. The Fall of man and original sin
5. The Flood
6. The age of mankind
7. Confusion of languages and the Tower of Babel
8. Jews and the reliability of the Bible

1. The beginning of everything refers to the Creator

When starting to study the reliability of the Bible, it is good to start with the first chapter of the Bible, which mentions creation, i.e. how God created the heavens and the earth. It happened in one moment. Creation is also referred to in several New Testament verses:

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- (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,

- (Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

- (Eph 3:9) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer

- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Creation is one of the most essential things in the Bible. If that is not true, i.e. God is not the Creator, it is questionable to trust other things mentioned in the Bible, such as the meaning of Jesus or the fact that God is a judge to whom everyone has to give an account of their life once.

What about the accuracy of the previous verses? Do naturalistically minded scientists accept these verses as true? They don't, but they generally admit the fact that the universe had a beginning. They have arrived at this through logical reasoning. They know the following facts, all of which support the view of the beginning:

• Stars cannot be eternal because they still work. If they had existed forever or for an infinitely long time, their energy reserves would have been exhausted by now. They would be dark. The universe would be in a state of heat death if it were infinitely old. The fact that the stars are still emitting light indicates their beginning.

• The relationship with the sun is the same as with ordinary stars. It couldn't have always existed. Otherwise, its energy reserves would have been depleted, just as the wood in the campfire would have burned out. There must have been an initial moment somewhere when it began to spread light and heat into space.

• Life on earth cannot be eternal, because the sun has not always existed either. Life depends on the sun and without the sun the temperature would be almost -273 degrees. No known life-form could survive in such conditions.

So it was stated above that logical reasoning can be used to determine the beginning of the universe. It also applies to the sun and life on earth. Scientists have to admit that the universe, the sun and life on earth could not always have existed. They do not deny this matter because they have no other option.

The following quotes bring out the same thing, that is, they refer to the beginning of everything. They show how the theory of heat compels us either to believe that the world was created at a certain moment, or else we must suppose that the laws of nature were once different from what they are now. The question is the beginning of the universe:

Arthur Eddington (an English astrophysicist in the 1930’s): When we go back in time, we will come to a more and more organised world. Finally, we will come to a moment where all materials and energy are as organised as can be. We cannot go beyond this point. We have come to a point in time and space that cannot be crossed, and that can only be described by the word "beginning" (...) To me, it is completely natural to accept the conclusion that the current natural science offers for the future – the heat death of the universe. (1)

William Jevons (an English philosopher in the 1870s): We cannot trace the heat history of the universe too far into the past. At some point, we will get impossible results referring to such heat distributions, which cannot, according to the laws of nature, come from any preceding distribution. (...) The theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time. (2)

So what are the options as to how it all started? They are very scarce; either God created the universe or it arose by itself. However, if the naturalistic alternative to the origin of the universe, i.e. the Big Bang theory, is studied, it is very problematic, and the ideas presented by naturalistic scientists should not be believed completely. They may have been badly mistaken and abandoned common sense. They should give a good explanation e.g. to the following two things:

• How did a "pinhead" become life and things many times bigger than that? First of all, scientists should tell how from the state of the Big Bang, which is believed to have been the size of a pinhead or smaller (the idea of a pinhead has appeared in several publications on this topic), has become all the things that exist today such as rocks, mosquitoes, trees, fish and the sea around them, planets, billions of stars, birds, people and everything that exists. For when naturalistic theory requires that everything started from a pinhead-sized space in the Big Bang, how can a tiny "pinhead" turn itself into living beings and everything that exists? Do scientists today, when they pick up a pinhead, believe that it can become life and previous things? Do they believe, when they hold a pinhead in their hand, that the pinhead by itself will create the many forms of life, billions of stars, galaxies, planets, and rocks and other material things? This matter can be considered, but I guess it’s not too far off to say that we abandon common sense when we believe in such a theory. Isn't it easier to believe that God created everything? The following words mentioned in Romans and Corinthians are well suited to the topic:

- (Room 1:20-22) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

- (1 Cor 1:20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

• How did hydrogen gas turn into living things? Secondly, scientists should tell how hydrogen gas can turn itself into people, birds, the sun, ant, fly, worm, banana, elephant or, for example, a tree. For, according to the naturalistic theory, in the beginning there was only hydrogen gas that was born after the Big Bang, has anyone observed hydrogen gas undergoing such great changes? Has hydrogen gas turned into living things in the past or in the present? However, isn't the scientific observation that no such thing happens? Substances can become solid, liquid and gas due to temperature changes, but nothing else happens. This is a scientific observation and real science. Or if scientists know the opposite observation, i.e. how hydrogen gas has formed itself into living beings, they should tell others. Otherwise, they tell fairy tales and fables. For example, Paul wrote about how the time will come when people will turn their ears away from the truth and turn to fables. Isn't this exactly what has happened in naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe and life?

- (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.

Many secular scientists have themselves admitted that the Big Bang theory is inconsistent with practical observations. Taking these comments into account, their explanations for the beginning of the universe are deadlocked. However, it is difficult for them to admit the logical alternative that God created everything. Because everything that has a beginning always has a creator (external), why would the universe be an exception? Nothing that does not exist cannot create itself. This is practical observation and real science.

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)

David Berlinski: ”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)

Life. If we look at the first chapter of the Bible, it mentions there, not only the creation of the lifeless universe, but also the creation of life. God created life and that is the explanation why life exists today.

So how do naturalistically minded scientists feel about this matter? Of course they don't believe the Bible's description. Instead, they may have explained that life arose spontaneously in some warm pond or ocean.

However, here is an image for which there is no scientific evidence. It is believed, even though there is no practical evidence for it. The more the subject has been studied, the more difficult the problem has become. In naturalistic theory, dead matter is given supernatural properties that it does not possess. That is why it is strange that many people deny the miracles mentioned in the Bible, but believe in fairy-tale theories in which dead matter itself gives birth to life. They believe in miracles without a miracle worker, and it certainly doesn't make sense. It is much more logical to think that everything has its creator. It is logical to believe that the creation of life described in the Bible is true, because only life can create life. Not a single exception to this rule - only life begets life - has been found. It is a practical scientific observation.

Many scientists have acknowledged the magnitude of this problem. They have no solution to the origin of life. They admit that life on earth had a beginning, but they are deadlocked on the matter because they do not admit God's work of creation.

Here are some comments on the subject. If scientists are honest, each of them will face the fact that God's creation work is the only logical alternative to life. Or if they claim the opposite, they should prove their claims to be true and not make up fairy tales about the origin of life by itself:

I think we have to go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this idea has been ostracized by physicists, and in fact by me, but we shouldn't reject it just because we don't like it if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980)

Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)

More than 30 years of experiments in the field of chemical and molecular evolution have brought out the immensity of the problem related to the beginning of life rather than its solution. Today, in principle, only relevant theories and experiments are discussed and their dead ends or ignorance admitted (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)

In trying to bring together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life, and the stages of its formation that led to the biology that appears around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in obscurity. We do not know how life began on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances. (Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University) (3)

Species on Earth

- (Gen 1:24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

If you compare the Bible's account and the naturalistic explanation for different animal species, they are completely different. According to the Bible, God has created different species, but in the naturalistic explanation it is taught that everything started from a single primordial cell.

So which of the previous views is correct? There is an image in this area that Darwin has shown species changes to be real, but this is a completely false image. Darwin was certainly a competent scientist, but the cases he presented are not examples of species changes, but examples of variation (the size of the birds' beaks, etc.) and adaptation. They are two completely different things. That is, if the size of finches' beaks varies, or if one bacteria is more resistant than another, it does not make them a new species. They are still finches or bacteria. The examples that appear in the scientific literature are all limited to this area. They are examples of variation and adaptation.

As an indication of the level on which Darwin's examples move, are the following quotations. Although Darwin had good observations, he was unable to prove that species changes had occurred. They are not in his book On the Origin of Species, nor in other evolutionary literature. This is consistent with the denial of the existence of intermediate fossils by several leading paleontologists.

So, if the evidence is taken as it is, and not viewed through evolutionary lenses, it does indeed demonstrate the teaching of Genesis about how species have been separate from each other from the beginning. Changes do occur in them, and in their originally rich gene pool and inheritance, they have had the opportunity to adapt to different conditions. However, it does not change them into other species. In addition, when adaptation and specialization take place, the gene pool of organisms becomes depleted, and they have fewer and fewer opportunities for variation in the future. Cheetah and other specialized species are examples of this. They are at risk of extinction because their gene pool is depleted. If evolution were to go in the right direction, information should increase all the time. Instead, it is lost all the time as species specialize.

Darwin: I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (4)

Encyclopedia Britannica: It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus indirect.

More recently, it has been admitted that Darwin's "evidence" was actually philosophical without a greater scientific basis. To quote the influential evolutionist Ernst Mayr (Harvard University): "It must be admitted that two objections of Darwin's opponents are valid. First, Darwin gave embarrassingly little concrete evidence to support his most important claims." (Nature 248, March 22, 1974, p. 285) The evidence of evolution has never been strong, nor is it still. (5)

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the current situation is this: while Darwin is treated as a secular saint in the mass media, and while the theory of evolution is seen as an invincible challenge to religious claims, leading biologists take it for granted that the origin of species is still unexplained. In Nature magazine, Eörs Szathmary wrote an assessment of Jeffrey Schwartz's attempt to build such a theory and he began his assessment as follows: "The origin of species has long fascinated biologists. Although this is the title of Darwin's main work, his work does not offer a solution to the problem. Does Jeffrey Schwart offer a solution? I’m afraid that generally speaking he does not do that. (6)

"It is quite ironic that a book that has become famous for explaining the origin of species does not explain it in any way." (Christopher Booker, Times columnist referring to Darwin's magnum opus, On the Origin of Species) (7)

2. The seven-day week and the common tradition of the peoples

- (Gen 2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

- (Ex 20:11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: why the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

One remarkable fact is the seven-day week, which occurs around the world in all cultures. This practice is thousands of years old.

Where did the seven-day week come from? Evolutionists can hardly give a good answer to this, but there is an explanation in the Bible: God created everything in seven days and that is why people celebrate a seven-day week. This custom has been known to peoples living in different parts of the world since time immemorial, so it is an early inheritance from common ancestors, as the following quote shows:

"We can find from time immemorial the knowledge of the seven-day week in the consciousness of all peoples - among the Ethiopians, the Arabs, the Indians - in a word, all the peoples of the East have at all times used this seven-day week, which is difficult to explain without admitting that this knowledge was received from the common ancestors of mankind." (8)

When it comes to the common history of mankind, additional evidence can be found in astronomy. Thus, the Australian aboriginals have exactly the same stories related to certain constellations as the Greek mythology. Such an example is provided by the constellation of Orion and the Pleiades star cluster of Taurus constellation. The name Orion used in Europe comes from a hunter named Orion in Greek mythology, but the same name appears in Aboriginal peoples. Astrophysicist Ray Norris, who studied the subject, has said:

The aboriginals also named this constellation thousands of years ago. It is rather extraordinary that throughout Australia the story consists of a hunter or a group of hunters… According to Greek mythology the Seven Sisters, which are the constellation of Pleiades, were sisters that Orion chased. It is peculiar that throughout the whole of Australia aboriginals tell an extremely similar story, where the Pleiades represent seven sisters, who are chased by the hunters of Orion. This is astonishing – the story of Orion and the seven sisters is nearly identical in both the Greek mythology and Aboriginal sleep-time stories. (9)

Australian Broadcasting Corporation referred to the same connection in their science website, regarding the mythologies between the aboriginals and the Greeks. This refers to the common early history of mankind, and how from it is not very many thousands of years ago:

Surprisingly, these stories are very reminiscent of the Greek mythology, where Orion chases Pleiades sisters through the skies. (10)

3. Sexuality and its birth; coincidence or creative work of God?

- (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

When naturalists try to explain the past from a naturalistic worldview, they are at a dead end regarding many things. They cannot show how everything came into being by itself out of nothing, they cannot prove the birth of life as true and they cannot explain how hydrogen gas has turned into humans, rocks, birds, worms, elephants and all living things. All in all, they are deadlocked on a lot of things. They are forced again and again to invent imaginary stories in order to explain the beginning of the universe and life.

The same thing is with regard to human sexuality. Naturalists are not able to give a decent explanation of how different sexes and sexual reproduction originated. They will not be able to answer how these things arose from a simple primitive cell. For example, sexual reproduction has several thresholds and problems. If any part is not immediately ready, extinction will result. A half-developed system is impossible because it doesn't work. Everything has to be ready immediately so that reproduction is possible. This fits the Bible's description:

• The awakening of love and interest between different sexes is a puzzle. How could such a thing have evolved from a simple primordial cell that certainly had no sexual interest?

• Even if interest would arise between different genders, individuals should have sex organs that complement each other ready. A good question is, how could the genitals suitable for a dog and a female develop separately and in different individuals? Shouldn't that have been impossible since the development would have had to happen simultaneously in two individuals?

• An even bigger problem is the different gametes in the dog and the female, which match each other, merge with each other and develop into a new individual in this world. How can compatible gametes develop separately from each other?

• Extinction would have also been a threat if the uterus, birth canal and secured food intake had not been ready immediately. In fact, all reproductive organs and stages would have had to be ready immediately, otherwise life could not have continued. The fact that all these parts would have arisen spontaneously and just by themselves is, however, so fanciful that there is reason to doubt its possibility.

• Breasts and nipples and the milk that comes from them secure food intake for the months immediately after birth. How can this essential thing for survival come about by chance?

Gender is also referred to in the second chapter of Genesis. It says that first man was created and then God made woman from man.

- (Gen 2:20-23) And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Related to this, it is interesting that the Miao people in China have preserved a similar order of human creation. According to them too, woman was created after man and from man. Their order is the same as in the Bible's creation story.

The similarities do not end only in the correct order of human creation. In the story of the Miao people, names of the same type as Seth, Lemek, Noah and Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japheth in the early chapters of the Bible appear; or at least they are very similar to biblical names. Such similarities to the Bible's narrative strongly point to a common early history of mankind. Similar descriptions of these initial stages can be found in the folklore of nations. The same category includes stories and legends about the Fall, the confusion of languages, the Flood, and dragon stories.

On the earth He made a man from mud. From a man thus created He formed a wife. Then the patriarch Loka made a scale out of stones, estimating the weight of the earth to the bottom, calculating the mass of the heavenly bodies, meditating on the ways of the deity, God. To patriarch Loka was born patriarch Se-teh. To patriarch Se-teh was born son Lusu, and Lusu had Kehlo and to him was born Lama. To patriarch Lama was born the man Nuah. His wife's name was ancestress Kau Po-lu-en. Their sons were: Lo-Han, Lo-Shen and Jah-hu. Like this the earth started to fill with tribes and families. In creation the families and nations were formed. (11)

The well-known fossil researcher Richard Leakey has given a somewhat similar description in his book Origins Reconsidered. It is about an Indian tribe in South America, whose old stories refer to both the Flood and the appearance of women from the body of a man. This suggests that this people has had a vague knowledge of the early stages of humanity. There are similar stories in many nations:

After the Flood there were very few original creatures left. The Periboriwa (Moon spirit) was among the few saved... The story goes on to explain that the women originally emerged as fully grown adults from the body of a man.

When gender has been discussed in this context, how do those people who claim to be the other gender or to be in the body of the wrong gender rank? Or how should one react to the claim that sometimes appears in the media that there are more than two genders, even millions?

The answer to the previous one is that biology knows only two genders: male and female, nothing more. This is a scientific and biological fact that cannot be denied. Instead, it is possible that a person's thinking can be distorted and that is a different matter. This kind of thinking is similar to eating disorders (e.g. in anorexia nervosa, a person can consider himself too fat, even if he is extremely thin) and other deviations in thinking. Usually, however, trans stories are caused by traumatic interpersonal experiences and the fact that the child has been wanted to be of the other sex. It has led thinking astray. The following two examples point to this. Surely the best medicine for human rejection experiences is encountering the love of other people and God. We all need them.

Loren, an elegant, handsome forty-year-old man, had been openly homosexual since his youth. This had caused great conflicts between him and his father, and problems in his other relationships. He did not accept himself but defended his behavior passionately when arguing with his father. He understood that his homosexuality included a grudge and a rebellion towards his father, but he was never able to deal with these. This man had genuinely found Christ and salvation, but he often lost the battle against his homosexual tendency, until God brought into light his first memories. This happened when we asked the Lord to find that recollection that would expose the cause of the problem. During this prayer, he relived an occurrence that took place when he was only just born.

He saw his father coming into the room where he had just been born. Disappointment quickly filled the room and heavily weighed on him. His father looked at him with disgust and said, "Boy again!” Then he turned and rushed away from the room. Loren was their third son, they had been hoping for a girl. Loren "saw" all of this and experienced it again – and this time, understood it both intellectually and emotionally. This rejection explained why Loren had later tried to become a girl, to the great astonishment of the family. He wanted to play with dolls and girls, not with boys. He unconsciously tried to be the girl his father had hoped for. (12)

… - I’m from the Netherlands. My father was an Italian and my mother a Romany of the Netherlands. My family was very broken. I had to cope with the criminal world of Rotterdam already in youth. At the age of fourteen, I was sentenced to prison for three and half years, La Serpe tells.

Because of problems at home, the girl spent several years of her childhood with her grandmother in Italy. Her parents had hoped for their firstborn to be a boy. The girl noticed already at an early age that she pleased her parents and managed in streets better as a boy. The dresses, jewellery and make-up were not for her. Luisa suppressed all things feminine in herself and took as her name the masculine name Loid.

Only a few knew her right sex because she shaved her hair, used men’s clothes and behaved like other men.

(...) This is how Luisa’s change from a drug dealer to an evangelist began. Femininity began to be in proportion as she started to recover from her internal wounds, of which the rejection experiences of her childhood were biggest. It took, however, several years before she dared to give up her male identity wholly to God’s care.

(...) God assured that He knew how Luisa was doing. He promised to heal the wounds of her heart if Luisa only returned to Him.

- That night, the Holy Spirit came and took care of me. I got to be healed thoroughly from my internal wounds and to be in His arms like a child. I repented that I had lived in the role of a man up to the age of 37. Only then did I dare to give up my male identity wholly to God and accept my femininity.

The tall, beautiful woman breaks with emotion many times as she remembers the old days. The journey has not been easy but today she is happy. Luisa is full of joyful tension as she waits to see what God has planned for her next.

After her recovery, Luisa returned to slum work among the most miserable of Fortaleza in Brazil. She shows photographs in which she poses with a saved, former Macumba priest or prays with a crying woman whose lower extremities are gangrened because of untreated diabetes.

- Poverty, diseases, criminality and prostitution are the daily reality in slums. Sometimes I had to flee with my friends from gangsters armed with jungle knives. But still the work was worth the while, Luisa La Serpe rejoices. (13)

4. The Fall of man and original sin

- (Rom 5:12) Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

When people reject the teaching of the Bible, they also reject the teaching about the Fall and original sin. They don't believe that, but think that man is fundamentally good. This can be related to the idea of continuous human development, also morally, as required in the theory of evolution.

In reality, however, the fall into sin is one of the most well-founded doctrines in the Bible. It explains the existence of evil, suffering, selfishness and death. It also explains the great injustices that happened in the 20^th century and the killing of tens of millions of people. Likewise, the need for police and armed forces in society proves the Fall to be true. They are needed because human goodness is not trusted. It's not just about upbringing and circumstances, but about original sin that lives in us. The practical evidence is too great to deny the Fall:

- “Professor Joad was an intelligent and quick-witted opponent of the gospel,” the pastor interrupted him. “I remember, as I was in England, how a vicar preached about the subject, ‘God, the devil and Professor C.E.M. Joad’.”

Everyone burst into laughter.

Michael continued his speech:

- Professor Joad was of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with human nature that would not be cured by a higher civilization, better opportunities and a better environment.

Then came war. When Joad contemplated misery of the pain and destruction, he came to the conclusion that the events of that moment and also of history are a long account of man’s inhumanity towards other people. He came to notice that theologians had one common viewpoint, which the philosophers did not emphasize, namely that in human nature there is some fault, and that fault could be called original sin. From these starting points, Joad progressed from sin to the need for salvation and from the Savior to God, who sent Him to atone for the sins of men. Joad experienced an intellectual conversion to Christianity and became a member of the Anglican Church. "A higher level of education, better opportunities and a better living environment," he finally said, "have not yet brought about a better society, as evidenced by the growing crime statistics of welfare countries." (14)

We can also find some evidence of the Fall from sources other than the Bible. Such are e.g. the imprinted information by the seals, and stories appearing in the folklore of nations, which are listed below. They show how the peoples have had knowledge of the Fall that happened at some point, which has had an impact on future generations. Such descriptions once again point to the common early history of mankind.

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

In Mesopotamia another imprint of a seal was found. It features a man and a woman seated on either side of a tree. A snake stands in an upright position just behind the woman. This seems to be an accurate picture of the story of the Fall of man told in Genesis. It shows us that people across Mesopotamia knew the story and understood its message.

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

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

The accounts of the Fall, which have spread in various versions among the nations, are one indication of the historicity of this event. For example, the tradition of the Karen people living in Burma tells about the Fall. In one of their songs it is told how Y'wa, or the true God, first created the world, then showed the "test fruit," but Mu-kaw-lee deceived two people. This made people vulnerable to illnesses, aging and death:

In the beginning Y'wa gave form to the world. He indicated food and drink. He indicated "the test fruit". He gave accurate commands. Mu-kaw-lee betrayed two persons. He got them to eat the test fruit. They disobeyed; did not believe Y'wa... When they ate the test fruit, they faced illnesses, ageing, and death. (15)

5. The Flood

When current modernists attack against the Bible, they also place doubts on the Flood, which is mentioned in the Book of Genesis. They don’t believe the Flood ever existed, just as Peter prophesized about the people of the last days: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts… For this they willingly are ignorant of, that… the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”.(2 Peter 3:5,6).

However, the Flood is much easier to prove than, for example, the theory of evolution (primordial cell-to-human theory). There is real evidence in its favor, both in nature and in human tradition. In nature, good evidence is the remains of marine animals and plants in high mountain ranges and arid regions. This indicates that these areas have been covered by the sea. This applies to all high mountain ranges. The following quotes are related to the Himalayas and the Alps.

In the glaciers of the Himalayas there are bones of oxen and horses. An avalanche of ice that originated on a glacier at an altitude of 5000 metres brought such bones. A large English expedition, reaching almost the top of Mount Everest, discovered petrified fish at these heights lying on the mountain. (16)

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

At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)

There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)

Jerry A. Coyne's book on evolution (Why evolution is true, p. 127) tells how Darwin found fossilized seashells high in the Andes. The author admits that the mountain was under water, but does not believe in a Flood. His opinion is typical of modernists who ignore clear evidence. The reason for this attitude is surely that scientists look at everything through evolutionary glasses and long time periods. They don't understand that in connection with the Flood, the peculiarities of nature that have been thought to have born during millions of years, have been born in a short time.

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.

When clear evidence of the Flood can be seen in nature, the same event has been included in people's hereditary knowledge. In total, there are hundreds of such stories around the world. Collectively and globally, they are strong evidence for the historicity of the Flood:

Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (17)

Famous anthropologist Sir James Frazer has collected traditional lore on the Flood from a variety of remote locations, such as the Leeward Islands, Bengali, China and Malaysia. This terrifying event has been retained in the memory of peoples all around the world, including very primitive tribes. The stories agree on one issue: the Flood was a punishment for severe sins and only a few devout people were saved.

Titus Flavius Josephus is generally considered to be the most reliable historian of the classical period. He writes in his book Antiquities of the Jews: “The Armenian called the place (where Noah and his family exited the ark) the Apobaterion, the landing place.” (18)

6. The age of mankind

Previous chapters have discussed naturalistic theories about the origin of the universe and life. It was found that these theories have no scientific basis, but are stories based on imagination. No scientist has been able to show how the universe can arise from nothing or how life can arise by itself, and no one has been able to show that species changes are real either. These are false images that control human thinking.

From here it is good to move on to timing and years. When naturalistic theories about the beginning of the universe and life are without a foundation, the related timings can also be questioned (the origin of the universe by itself 13.8 billion years ago, the origin of life by itself 3-4 billion years ago, etc.). These years, related to the creation of the universe from nothing itself and the beginning of life, have no meaning if the things in question never even happened. These year numbers can be immediately moved aside.

What about the presence of life and man on earth? What does the Bible say about human existence and life on earth? One good starting point is the words of Jesus, according to which man was created at the very beginning of creation, not millions of years later. He said the following about the creation of man:

- (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

It is clear that the words of Jesus are against modern concepts and atheist scientists do not believe in them. However, they should consider the following points and examples. They strongly suggest that man has been on earth just as long as other life forms, not millions or even thousands of years later but at the same time.

• First of all, you should pay attention to how old the fossils are. The fact is that no one can say with certainty when they pick up a fossil or touch it, what age it is. The fossil itself tells us nothing about when it lived on Earth:

There is no man on this Earth who knows enough about rocks and fossils to be able to prove in any way that a specific type of fossil is truly essentially older or younger than another type. In other words, there is no-one who could truly prove that a trilobite from the Cambrian period is older than a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period or a mammal from the Tertiary period. Geology is anything but an exact science. (19)

A good example is dinosaur fossils. There are no notes on them about when they have lived on earth. However, if one examines these fossils directly (that is, putting aside the geological table compiled in the 19th century), they indicate a short age rather than a long one, due to the following reasons:

- Radiocarbon, of which official half-life is only 5730 years, has been found in them (see http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html.)

- As early as the 1990s, newspapers published information about how DNA was isolated from dinosaur bones. However, e.g. Yle uutiset reported that the half-life of DNA is only 521 years (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012, DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat [The last limit of DNA preservation was found - dreams of cloning dinosaurs ended]. This shows that it cannot survive in nature for even 100,000 years, let alone millions of years. DNA samples have not always been obtained even from old human mummies. So if there is DNA left in the dinosaurs, such as measurements already from the 1990s show, the dinosaur fossils cannot be from millions of years ago.

- Nuclear blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993] and hemoglobin has also been found in them. These perishable materials show that it cannot be a question of bones that are millions of years old.

- Soft tissues have been found in dinosaur fossils (Yle uutiset 5.12.2007: Dinosaur muscles and skin were found in the USA). They also cannot survive in nature for periods of millions of years.

- Proteins have been found in dinosaur fossils, whose preservation in nature for millions of years is not considered possible:

On the other hand, it is known that biomolecules cannot be preserved for more than 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, [1379 ]). This is the research result of empirical science. Collagen, which is a biomolecule of animal tissue, i.e. a typical structural protein, can often be isolated from fossils. It is known about the protein in question that it breaks down quickly in the bones, and only its remains can be seen after 30,000 years, except in very dry special conditions. The Hell Creek area is sure to get some rain from time to time. Therefore, collagen should not be found in "68 million" year old bone that has been buried in the soil. (20)

If the observations about proteins isolated from dinosaur bones, such as albumin, collagen and osteocalcin, as well as DNA are correct, and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefullness, based on these studies, the bones must be re-dated to no more than 40,000-50,000 years old, because the maximum possible preservation time of the substances in question in nature cannot be exceeded. (21)

• As stated, natural scientists assume that man appeared on earth at a different time than the dinosaurs. However, they haven’t considered that there are plenty of descriptions of dragons in folklore, and that dragons closely resemble dinosaurs. This suggests that these large animals have lived at the same time as humans. They are just extinct like thousands of other animals.

A good example of how dinosaurs may have actually been dragons is the Chinese lunar calendar and horoscope, which is known to be centuries old. So when the Chinese zodiac is based on 12 animal signs that repeat in 12-year cycles, there are 12 animals involved. 11 of them are familiar even in modern times: rat, ox, 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 that if the 11 animals have been real animals, why would the dragon be an exception and a mythical creature? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that it once lived at the same time as humans, but has become extinct like so many other animals? It is also good to remember that the name dinosaur was only invented in the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, the name dragon was used for centuries:

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. (22)

Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola reported decades ago in his book Muuttuva maa, how descriptions 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. (23)

• Regarding human history, some sites are often presented in the media as being 10,000, 30,000 or 50,000 years old. It is claimed that human history goes back so far.

However, the question is, are these findings based on reliable information? They are not based because they are impossible to check. Usually, the basis of discoveries are radiocarbon measurements, but these measurements can show numbers that are higher than their actual age, e.g. due to the constantly weakened magnetic field (The strength of the magnetic field has been calculated to halve once every 1400 years.)

The following comments show how sure human history is only a few millennia old, no more. Findings assumed to be older than that are questionable. 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 also mentioned the dynasty of Egypt and how its chronology might contain errors of hundreds of years (this was also speculated in Finnish TV in the three-part series called “Faaraot ja kuninkaat” [Pharaohs and kings] shown in November and December 1996).

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." (24)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (The 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. (25)

7. Confusion of languages and the Tower of Babel

- (Gen 11:1,4, 6-9) And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach to heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad on the face of the whole earth.

6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there on the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from there did the LORD scatter them abroad on the face of all the earth.

As already noted, humans differ from animals in speech and language, for example. Animals do not have the same linguistic ability, grammar, and do not write or read. Instead, for humans, these are innate qualities.

So where did human linguistic ability come from? The clear teaching of the Bible is that God has put this quality in us along with other special qualities, among them an intelligence that is many times greater than that of animals.

From here it is good to move on to the confusion of languages, which we can read about in the Book of Genesis. People with naturalist ideologies often show an arrogant attitude towards this Bible narration, such as they usually deny creation, the Flood, and other early events in Genesis. However, it is a fact that the confusion of languages and the Tower of Babel are mentioned in many sources. Here are some examples:

• In the history of Mexico (Mexican antiquity, 9. Part, p. 321), we find a story preserved that tells of destruction that is in many ways similar to the texts in the Bible. It describes the Flood, the increase of the people after it, the building of a tower, and the confusion of languages. One significant similarity is that the mountains were under water to the depth of 15 cubits, as is mentioned in Genesis (Gen 7:20):

Frightening rains and lightning from the sky destroyed the people and also the whole country without exception, and also the highest mountains were covered by water, to the depth of fifteen cubits. After the Flood, the people multiplied on earth and built a very high zacual (tower) for protection, in case the other world would be destroyed. Shortly after this, their language was confused, and when they could not understand each other, they scattered around the earth. (26)

• One reference to the confusion of languages is the account found in Babel, which talks about the destruction of the tower and the confusion of languages in a way reminiscent of the Bible. The only major difference is that the story is told polytheistically.

What is interesting in both this and the previous story (which also appears in the Bible) is the scattering of people to different parts of the globe, because they no longer understood each other. The same movement of settlement and the increase of people has continued until these days, so that such areas as North and South America and Australia have become mainly inhabited only in the last 200-300 years. (It has been estimated that, for example, Australia had only 6,000 inhabitants on the entire huge island in 1800, North America had a maximum of 3 million inhabitants in the early 18th century, and South America had 10 million inhabitants at the same time.). They were very sparsely populated 500 years ago, and elsewhere 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. Thus, if man had been on earth hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, the earth would have become densely populated long ago, but that is by no means the case.

Building this temple insulted the Gods. One night they threw to the ground what had been built. They scattered people to different countries and made their speech strange. They prevented any advances in work. (27)

• While the Sumerians have been considered the first known historical people in the Middle East, they have also preserved information about the beginnings of humanity. Among them is one of their poems, which is related to the early history of mankind. It speaks of a time before the confusion of languages, when all people praised the supreme god Enlil in one language. That also fits with the description in the Bible that in the beginning "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Genesis 11:1):

Once upon a time there was a time when there was no snake, no scorpion, no hyena, no lion, no fear, no terror, no rival for man. Once upon a time there was a time when the lands of Suburi and Hamazi (since then) the multilingual Sumer, the great land of the divine laws of princehood, Uri, which had all that is relevant, the land of Martu, which rested in security. The whole world, all people together praised supreme Enlil in one language. (28)

• One peculiar reference to the ancient tower of Babel can be found from Nabopolassar, the founder of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-605 BC) and the father of the famous Nebuchadnezzar. His statements mention the tower of Babel and its construction.

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

His son Nebuchadnezzar also talked of a tower competing with the sky:

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

8. The Jews and the reliability of the Bible