Bible criticism, Bible critics, Criticism of the Bible, Liberal Theology

Blind leaders of the blind

Bible criticism in review. Why are Bible critics lost?

- (Matt 15:14) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Has the Bible changed radically?

Are there just the right books in the Bible?

Text timing

The unscientific approach of liberal theologians

A false world view - naturalism is not science

Historically critical research or imagination?

Turning to fables

Bible criticism and morality

Are modern people more loving than Jesus and the apostles?

Why do Bible critics criticize Christian morality?

Bible criticism is not new

To a right relationship with God

This writing has a powerful title and an important topic: Bible criticism. The purpose is to study liberal theology and a critical approach to the Bible. I myself struggled with the same issue already in the 1980s, when Heikki Räisänen, a well-known liberal theologian, was repeatedly in the headlines. I wondered then, in my search for the truth and when I was in the early stages of my religious life, whether it is worth trusting the Bible as a historical book or whether it is worth listening to Bible critics. I was an atheist by background, so the starting points for understanding that the Bible would be historically reliable and God's revelation to us were the worst possible. One reason for this was e.g. the theory of evolution that I blindly trusted when I was an atheist.

In any case, Bible critics are usually favored by the media. They do not represent the mainstream of researchers, but they get plenty of space in the media for their opinions, even if they are poorly justified. This line in the media has continued for decades.

What is the consequence of this? People get the impression that the Bible is not reliable; either it has changed radically or its content is not reliable. It is thought that new scientific or older discoveries have shown it to be unreliable. It doesn't even take into account the possibility that the researchers and their opinions might be badly wrong. However, when liberal scholars get media attention, people are left with these images of the Bible's unreliability for life.

The main reason for dealing with this topic is not related to Bible criticism per se, but to the fact that it has an effect on people's eternity, as I see it myself. That is, if the Bible gives instructions on how to get in touch with God and get eternal life, or how a person can lose it, the matter is extremely important. It is about human souls and their salvation. That's why I see the actions of Bible critics as very damaging. They cause people to turn away from God and not seek salvation and eternal life. It is written in the Bible about the actions of such people, which lead people away from God. First, Jesus' words on the subject:

- (Matt 18:6,7) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

- (James 3:1) 1 My brothers, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Has the Bible changed radically? I will start with the topic of whether the Bible has changed radically. For example, Muslims firmly believe this claim because they have been repeatedly taught that this happened. However, if you ask them a few simple questions, such as when the changes were made, who made them and to what points, they are unable to give an answer and an explanation. Of course, it won't work, because you first have to see the original writings, which were later changed. Otherwise, such claims have no basis.

One of the claims of Muslims is also that Jesus was not crucified, but that the Bible's mentions of this matter are incorrect. They think that since the Bible has been changed, it is also wrong in this matter.

As for the death of Jesus on the cross, it is the best proven historical fact than anything else in the Bible. The four gospels and the letters of the apostles refer to it repeatedly. The apostolic fathers who lived at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century refer to it. Furthermore, non-Christian, Jewish and Roman sources refer to it, so it is certainly a historical fact. There is still consensus in the academic world, including among liberal theologians, that Jesus died as a result of crucifixion, so practically all non-Muslim scholars confirm that Jesus' crucifixion took place. Here are some quotes from historical sources from the first century:

Historian Josephus: "Jesus lived in those times. (...) Many Jews and Greeks followed him. He was Christ. Provoked by our influential men Pilate, however, condemned him to death on the cross. However, those who had loved him before continued to be faithful to him."

Cornelius Tacitus: "The name had been given them according to a certain Christ, whom procurator Pontius Pilate condemned and nailed onto the cross in the reign of Tiberius."

Thallus, a Samaritan by birth, also referred to Jesus in his book as early as in 52 A.D. He thought that the darkness at the time of Jesus' crucifixion was the result of a solar eclipse.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 43, a) mentions that Jesus was crucified on Easter.

From here it is good to move on to Bible criticism prevailing in Western countries and the idea that the Bible has been radically changed. For example, a book called: "Sensuroitu: Raamatun muutosten vaiettu historia" (Ville Mäkipelto / Paavo Huotari) has become public in Finland . It expresses the idea that the Bible has not survived in its original form, but has been altered. In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

• The original manuscripts do not exist. First of all, it should be noted that the original manuscripts of the Bible no longer exist because they have been destroyed over time. The same applies to other ancient manuscripts. There are only copies of them and copies of copies. This is a fact that must be accepted.

• A large number of manuscripts. Secondly, attention can be drawn to the large number of Manuscripts, especially for the New Testament. There are fewer of them from the Old Testament.

More than 24,000 manuscript versions of the New Testament or parts of it have survived in Greek and other early versions (100-400 AD), indicating that the texts of the New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely distributed among ancient texts. This number is huge when compared to the fact that Homer's Iliad is second in terms of ancient texts, of which there are only 643 surviving documents - the difference is almost 40 times. Similarly, there are only 10 surviving documents about Caesar's Gallic War and still no one doubts the reliability of this work. The following list shows the number of surviving copies of ancient texts. (information from the book: Christianity: Hoax or History? by Josh McDowell):

Number of copies / Work

10 / Caesar

20 / Livius

7 / Platon (tetraloges])

20 / Tacitus (annals)

1 / Tacitus (smaller volumes)

7 / Plinius younger (history)

8 / Thukydides (history)

8 / Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum)

8 / Herodotos (history)

/ Horatio

193 / Sofocles

2 / Lucretius

3 / Catullus

9 / Euripides

200 / Demosthenes

49 / Aristotle

10 / Aristophanes

643 / Homeros (Iliad)

over 24 000 / New Testament

What about the reliability and preservation of the Old Testament in the same form? This is evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain writings from all the books of the Old Testament except the book of Esther. These scrolls, which were found near the Dead Sea and the oldest of which date back to the 3rd century BC, are not much different from today's books. Thus, it is justified to believe that the texts of the Old Testament have remained essentially the same.

• There are small differences in the manuscripts, but it is possible to get close enough to the original text. Thirdly, it can be stated that there are indeed small differences in the manuscripts. It is understandable because there are thousands of manuscripts of the books and parts of the Bible and they had to be copied by hand. It would be rather surprising if there were no differences at all among the thousands of copies of the Manuscripts. If only one copy of each book of the Bible had survived, this problem would not occur.

However, the differences between the Manuscripts are negligible and concern about half a percent of the texts. There is nothing in these passages that would affect the basic teachings of Christianity.

In addition, through text criticism, it is possible to get close enough to the original text. When the copies are consistent with each other, especially if they come from different geographical areas, it is easier to determine what the original document was like. In this area, the New Testament is in the best position among the ancient writings. Furthermore, even if all early manuscript copies of the New Testament were lost, the content of the New Testament could still be produced from the tens of thousands of quotations that have survived in the commentaries and writings of the Church Fathers. They quote a lot of texts from the Bible.

• Not relevant in terms of basic Christian doctrines. The fact that there are differences in the manuscript copies does not affect any of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. The same has been admitted by those who themselves have made a fuss about differences in manuscript copies. Thus, Bart D. Ehrman, a well-known Bible critic whose books have been translated into many languages, has admitted in his book on the subject, Misquoting Jesus, that "most of these differences are completely irrelevant and meaningless."

Also Ville Mäkipelto and Paavo Huotari have admitted in their book "Sensuroitu: Raamatun muutosten vaiettu historia", how the differences do not matter to the entirety of the Bible. The differences are small and do not affect the basic teachings of the Bible:

"Most of the differences are so small that they do not affect the level of significance. For example, in Greek sentences, a change in word order often does not change the interpretation of the content" (p. 35).

"the differences between the scripts are generally very small and the main lines of the stories are the same in the scripts." (p. 37)

"It is absolutely true that in the manuscripts of the New Testament the main lines of the narratives are the same." (p. 38).

We will highlight a few other quotes related to the topic. The first quote is from a book by people who represented a rather liberal line (Kuula, Nissinen and Riekkinen: "Johdatus Raamattuun", Kirjapaja 2003). Other quotes point in the same direction:

The differences in reading styles are mostly very small. Researchers have come to a fairly large consensus about the original way of reading the New Testament, although different interpretations are possible in some details. Textual critical solutions have no meaning in terms of the interpretation of any theological doctrine.

F.C. Grant: "It is obvious to the observant reader that... checking has not affected any doctrine of the Christian faith, for the simple reason that not a single one has emerged from among the thousands of ways of reading the manuscripts that requires a revision of the Christian doctrine." (1)

Sir Frederic Kenyon: "The interval between the original writing and the earliest surviving written evidence becomes so small that it has no factual significance, and the final justification for the suspicion that the Bible has substantially changed in its journey has now been removed. The authenticity of the books of the New Testament, that they are genuine and unchanged, can now be deemed completely confirmed." (2)

What can be concluded from the above? Scholars who attack the texts of the Bible make impossible demands, namely that all copies should be 100% identical, and that no scribe would have ever made a single mistake. Such perfection does not exist, nor can it be applied to other ancient texts. Instead, we can be sure enough that the text that has survived to us has remained largely the same. It gives everyone a strong foundation to get to know the texts of the Bible and through them to seek connection with God and eternal life.

Are there just the right books in the Bible? One popular claim, in addition to the fact that the Bible has been changed, is the idea that important material has been left out of the Bible, which would give a very different picture of Jesus than the four Gospels and other New Testament texts. In this context, e.g. The Gospel of Thomas and other sources have been mentioned.

As for these (usually fabled) sources, however, there are two problems with them: They have been written much later than the current four Gospels - usually written a hundred years or even later. Second, they have never been widely known or recognized as authoritative. Only a few individual copies of them have been found, which is a negligible amount compared to how many manuscripts of the current New Testament have survived.

For example, the Gospel of Thomas, which has perhaps made the most headlines, was only discovered in the last century and has never been widely known or acknowledged. It is generally dated by scholars to the middle of the second century. It contains some of Jesus' words familiar from the Gospels, but it is reasonable to assume that they are only late quotations from the Gospels of the New Testament. This writing cannot even be considered a true gospel, because it does not reveal when and in what situation which words were uttered. It just contains a collection of loose sayings without any historical framework.

So the fact is that the current four Gospels of the New Testament and other New Testament texts have been widely known or recognized as authoritative from the beginning; not other later texts. Their authors are well-known, either the apostles themselves or connected to them, so the question is eyewitness information. In addition, their texts were read diligently in the churches from the first century. For example, Paul's letters were generally known and acknowledged:

- (2 Peter 3:15,16) And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him has written to you;

16 As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

When the current New Testament was compiled, there was no question of arbitrarily choosing texts and simultaneously leaving out other important texts. On the contrary, books that were trusted from the beginning within the congregations and that were generally recognized and well-known came along. The synods did not give the books any authority they did not already have, but only confirmed the already established practice:

F.F. Bruce: It is often written and spoken as if the authority attached to the books of the Bible in the Christian's minds is the result of their being included in a holy list. However, the historical fact is just the opposite: they were and are included in the list because they have been recognized as authoritative. (3)

Text timing. When it comes to the dating of New Testament texts, there is generally no dispute about the dating of Paul's letters. They form a significant part of the writings of the New Testament. Even liberal scholars generally admit that they originated in 50-60 AD. between.

What is remarkable about his letters is that they have exactly the same picture of Jesus as in the Gospels. Paul mentions that Jesus is the creator of everything (Col 1:16 / cf. John 1:3), that Jesus is God who became man (Phil 2:5-8 / cf. John 1:1:14), that Jesus came to save people (1 Tim 1:15 / cf. Luke 19:10), that Jesus is the judge of everything (2 Cor 5:10 / cf. Matt 16:27), that Jesus will come again (1 Thess 4:15,16 / cf . Matt 24:30), that Jesus came under the law and fulfilled the law (Gal 4:4,5 / cf. Matt 5:17), that Jesus suffered (Heb 2:18 / cf. Luke 17:25), that Jesus was sinless (Heb 4:15 / cf. John 8:45,46), that Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23 / cf. Matt 26:25), that Jesus was before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13 / Matt 27: 2) that Jesus was crucified (1 Cor 2:8 / Luke 23:33), that Jesus rose from the dead (1 Cor 15:17,20 / cf. Luke 24:5,6), that grace comes through Jesus (1 Cor 1:4 / cf. John 1:17) that believing in Jesus saves (Romans 10:11 / cf. John 1:12) and that Jesus is the only way to salvation (1 Cor 3:11 / cf. John 14:6) . The previous examples show that Paul's picture of Jesus is completely consistent with the Gospels.

What about the timing of the gospels? Here, liberal scholars use their own imaginations when they sometimes try to move the Gospels very late, even into the second century. However, there is no basis for this. There are simple reasons for this. First, the authors were widely known. They were either apostles themselves who lived at the same time as Jesus (Matthew, John), or they were connected to the apostles (Mark and Luke). Sources such as Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Origen, Clemens of Alexandria, and a fragment of Muratorio also confirm the identity of the authors, so that there is no ambiguity as to who wrote the books. For example, the following tradition has been preserved about Mark and the gospel bearing his name (statement of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis. He knew the apostle John):

The elder [the Apostle John] also used to say this: "Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, carefully recorded everything he [Peter] mentioned of either Christ's words or works, but not in chronological order. For he was not a hearer and follower of the Lord; but later on, as I said, he followed Peter who adapted his teaching according to need, not in order to dictate a collection of words of the Lord.

Therefore, Mark did not make any mistakes when he this way wrote down some points as Peter mentioned them; since he paid attention to this exact point: to mention everything he had heard; and he would not add any wrong evidence. (4)

The conclusion is that there is good reason to consider the gospels earlier than liberal theologians have presented. For example, the well-known liberal researcher John AT Robinson came to the conclusion - after re-examining the matter - that all the gospels must have been born between the years 40 and 65. Only preconceived views can lead to the idea that they are of late origin.

One proof that the Gospels are of early origin is also their relation to the Acts of the Apostles. Almost all scholars agree that the Gospels (at least the first three) must have been written before the Acts of the Apostles. The reason for this is simple: Luke wrote the gospel bearing his name before the Acts of the Apostles. In addition, according to church tradition, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written before the Gospel of Luke.

What can be concluded from this? When Luke in the Acts of the Apostles does not mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (AD 70) or the death of Peter and Paul in Rome in the 60s, the Acts of the Apostles (and of course the Gospels) must have been ready before then. Why would Luke have left these events unmentioned when he has mentioned, for example, the death of James (Acts 12:2) or the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2)? There is good reason to believe that Luke's silence about the previous things is because they had not yet happened. That is why the Acts of the Apostles were written in the early 60s at the latest, and the Gospels before them.

The unscientific approach of liberal theologians. As stated, liberal theology and Bible criticism are popular in the media. People who represent Bible criticism get space in the media, even if their teachings are poorly substantiated. The basic starting point in their claims is that the Bible is not reliable and that it is not worth believing in. With these arguments, they make the minds of others negative to the gospel message, so that people reject the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

But but. When liberal theologians are obsessed with attacking the Bible and presenting themselves as representatives of science, they themselves do not adhere to scientificity in their research. Although they believe they are objective, perceptive and reason-based, it doesn't seem that way. The reasons for this are as follows:

A false worldview – naturalism is not science. When the common layman hears liberal theologians questioning the texts of the Bible, the layman automatically assumes that the theologians' claims are based on new, revolutionary historical documents or facts, on the basis of which the texts of the Bible can be considered unreliable. This is by no means the case, but other researchers also have the same sources at their disposal and they come to completely different conclusions in their research.

What are the reasons for the differences in the researchers' conclusions? It is a question of worldview and philosophy, not science. Most liberal theologians have a worldview in which they exclude the possibility of miracles in advance. They have a closed universe that even God cannot influence - if he even exists. So when there are many things classified as miracles in the Bible, according to liberal theologians they cannot be true, but are ahistorical descriptions. This is despite the fact that other Jewish sources such as the Talmud and the historian Josephus have referred to miracles performed by Jesus or the disciples. (Furthermore, it is worth noting that the historian Josephus has mentioned many familiar figures from the Bible in his writings: John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate, Cyrenius, Archelaus, the clergy of Jerusalem...)

A good idea of the bias of liberal theologians is given by DF Strauss in the introduction to his famous book "The life of Jesus". He is a typical example of the point of view that prevails among liberal scholars:

In short, we can reject all miracles, prophecies and stories about angels and demons and anything else that is simply impossible and contradicts the known and universal laws governing the course of events.

The well-known theologian Adolf von Harnack has said the same thing:

We are fully convinced that what happens in time and space happens under the laws of nature. No "miracles" that break the order of Nature can happen. (Adolf von Harnack: "What is Christianity?, pp. 28-29, New York, Putnam, 1901)

The conclusion is that liberal theologians have a worldview and prejudice based on naturalism, i.e. atheism. The Bible is read as if God does not exist, and there can be no miracles that violate the laws of nature. Liberal scholars may explain that the authors of the biblical texts have been tied to the ideas of their own era, and therefore could not have conveyed reliable information about reality. However, the researchers do not take into account that they themselves are children of their own era and base their point of view on the general worldview prevailing in Western countries, naturalism.

However, naturalism is not a science but a philosophy, as stated. Or in the language of the Bible, the issue is unbelief (Hebrews 3: 12 Take heed, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.). Just because someone doesn't believe in miracles doesn't make their worldview scientific. It's just a question of prejudice.

Can real miracles happen then? Of course they can. They have always been caused by God as well as in witchcraft by the forces of darkness. There are such miracles in the Bible, but yes, they happen even today. For example, the well-known Finnish liberal theologian Heikki Räisänen considered miracles such as walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the dead and feeding thousands impossible (Heikki Räisänen: Raamatun ihmeet – tarua vai totta? TAik 93, 1988, 15-23). However, exactly the same miracles happened in the Indonesian revival in the 1960s ( Mel Tari: Kuin väkevä tuulispää / Like a Mighty wind and Kurt Koch: Indonesian herätys), so yes, the same things have happened in modern times as well.

The following quote is related to the topic. In Western countries and in liberal theology, there is no belief in the activity of evil spirits or in the Bible's descriptions of this subject, but in areas where witchcraft has been practiced for centuries, such as in Africa, people are aware of the influence of supernatural forces. To them these powers are real and people fear them. They have a different world view than in Western countries. It is due to long-standing witchcraft:

Doctor Charles Kraft, my colleague from Fuller’s theological seminary, tells what happened to him in Nigeria. He tried to teach, what the Letter to the Romans has to say, to a small tribe. After a few months the same people came to him and explained very politely that his teachings are good, but did not cater to their needs at all. They needed wisdom for their nightly battles with bad spirits that were tormenting them. Doctor Kraft had to admit that, unfortunately, he never received training to act against bad spirits. (5)

Historically critical research or imagination? A characteristic of liberal theologians and scholars is that they believe themselves to be open-minded, unbiased, and scientific. They can also call their research historically critical.

However, their activities are anything but historically critical and scientific. There are simple reasons for this:

• They reject eyewitness testimony. When it comes to writing history, it is based on eyewitnesses telling about the events or someone else having interviewed them. In the descriptions of the New Testament, this is well realized, because the authors were themselves eyewitnesses or interviewed them. There is no better way to do reliable history writing:

- (John 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

- (1 John 1:1-3) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked on, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us;)

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

- (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.

- (Acts 1:21,22) Why of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, to that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

What is the problem with liberal scholars? They do not take into account the experiences of eyewitnesses and those who were there, and thus they drift outside of science. When the gospels are the most important and oldest sources about the life of Jesus, and other non-biblical sources from the same era do not contradict the gospels, researchers should take this into account. However, they do not do this, and as a result liberal theologians have created their own imaginary stories and different Jesuses. Thus, when liberal scholars have searched for "the Jesus of history" and "what he was really like," they have come up with conflicting results—results that cancel each other out. Some have regarded 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 others as a wise teacher who gradually became supernatural and the Son of God in the minds of his followers. These conflicting conclusions are the result of scholars rejecting the most important and oldest sources about Jesus and replacing them with their own imaginations. They have a megalomaniacal attitude where they think they know the course of events better than eyewitnesses.

• They are unable to explain the birth of Christianity because of their prejudice. When liberal theologians reject the main sources about Jesus because of their prejudice, they are left with the problem of explaining the birth of Christianity. How was the Christian faith born and spread explosively, if the events described in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, including the resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, are not true? How could Christianity spread strongly if we only stick to naturalistic explanations? Liberal theologians are unable to give a proper answer to this because they reject the most important historical sources about Jesus.

One example of how much Jesus influenced the world of his time is to compare him to the emperor Tiberius, the most influential person of his time who ruled (14-37 AD) at the same time as Jesus lived and who in modern times could be compared in popularity to the president of the USA.

Thus, the four Gospels about Jesus contain more textual material than the ancient sources about the emperor Tiberius that have survived. Jesus' public ministry was only about 3 1/2 years compared to Tiberius' more than twenty years, and yet a considerable amount of textual material about Jesus has survived. Liberal theologians who claim to represent scientific research cannot give a proper explanation for this or for the spread of Christianity. Only when they believe that the Gospels and Acts tell of real history will they overcome this problem.

• The ideas of liberal scholars are at odds with archaeology. As noted, liberal theologians believe they represent real science and historical-critical research. However, if this is the case, they would have the greatest reason to trust the historical content of the Bible. Again and again, archeology and extra-biblical textual sources have proven the Bible to be correct and the skeptics wrong. Bible critics have constantly had to back down with their skeptical statements. Dozens of names of people known from the Bible have been found written on stone - David, Moab, the high priest Caiaphas, Pilate... - or mentioned in text sources outside the Bible. Likewise, dozens of places and cities mentioned in the Bible have been found, such as Nineveh, Babylon, Samaria, Laach, Shiloh, Gezer, Beth-Sean. For example, the existence of the city of Nazareth was suspected for a long time, but it was discovered in 1955 during excavations. As a result, Anthony Harvey wrote: “This little event is certainly not the only one of its kind. It is just one example of how archeology has increased the reliability of the Gospel accounts in recent decades" ⁽⁶⁾ .

Below are more quotes on the topic. They show how we have good reasons to trust the historicity of the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. No one has to blindly believe in the writings of the Bible, but there are good historical grounds for faith:

Millar Burrows: "Archaeology has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the presentation of the Bible. In many cases it has refuted the claims of liberal critics based on faulty and artificial models" (7)

W.F. Albright: "There is no doubt that archeology has proven the historical reliability of the Old Testament stories" (8)

Nelson Glück: It can be said without hesitation that archaeological discoveries have never put the Bible's descriptions in a contradictory light. (9)

Albert Clay: “From the interpretation of the discovered writings, it can be said that almost every page of the Old Testament has been confirmed. We can be sure that the Bible as a whole is trustworthy. The shovels of diggers and the patient interpretation of the Found Writings have proven that the Old Testament is not, as critics have tended to claim, a mere collection of fabricated incidents and deity fables. It is a historical truth.” (10)

In a sense, this is exactly what archaeology does. If ancient historical details have been proven to be correct time and time again, we should also trust the stories of the historian in question that cannot be confirmed in the same way.

I asked for a professional opinion from McRay. – What do you think: does archaeology prove or disprove the reliability of the New Testament when archaeologists study the details included in the stories?

McRay immediately replied. – The reliability of the New Testament increases with research, there is no doubt about that. Just as the reliability of any ancient document is enhanced by the fact that, as the excavations progress, it is established that the author has provided correct information about some place or event (...)

– The consensus among both liberal and conservative scientists is that Luke was very precise as a historian, McRay replied. – He was a learned man, he was eloquent, his command of Greek was almost classical, he wrote like a well-educated man and archaeological findings have proven time and time again that Luke was very precise in his writings.

McRay added that in many cases related to the harbour stories, scientists at first thought that some of Luke's references were false, but later findings have confirmed that he wrote the information correctly. (...) One prominent archaeologist carefully studied Luke's references of 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands without finding a single error. (11)

Turning to fables.

- (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.

As stated, liberal theologians and scholars have a naturalistic worldview. It means not believing in the existence of God or that miracles that break the laws of nature could happen.

The same attitude and way of thinking is manifested in relation to the beginning of the universe and life. Liberal theologians and scholars generally do not believe that God created the universe and life as Genesis tells us. Instead, according to their worldview, they look for a naturalistic explanation for the existence of everything. They would rather believe atheist scientists than the Bible's description of the beginning of everything. Especially Darwin's theory plays an important role.

But but. Are atheist theories true or false? Are liberal theologians right to follow atheist scientists, or have they turned to fables? I personally think that the latter option is true. Liberal theologians should consider e.g. following things. They show that it makes much more sense to trust that there is a personal God behind the universe and life just as the Bible shows. Genesis is real history, but the beliefs of liberal theologians and atheist scientists are imagination:

How can anything arise from nothing by itself? First, liberal scientists should consider how anything can come into existence out of thin air, as is supposed to have happened in the Big Bang. This theory is contrary to all physics and natural science, because nothing can arise by itself from nothing. A universe that does not exist cannot create itself. It's impossible. Several astronomers have attacked this notion and consider it contrary to common sense and observation, which it is.

Why hasn't the origin of life been solved? Second, liberal scientists should consider why the origin of life has not been solved. All companies have reached a dead end, which is completely understandable. Only life can create life, and no exception to this rule has been found. This refers to God for the first life forms. By itself, none of them could have been born from inanimate matter.

Why are there no examples of species changes in natural history museums? Third, liberal scientists should consider why fossils do not show gradual evolution from a simple protocell. Variation within species does occur within the framework of their heredity, but no more than that. Natural history museums should have the best evidence of evolution if Darwin's theory were true, but there is no evidence of gradual development from a simple protocell. This clearly refers to God's work of creation:

Stephen Jay Gould (American Museum): 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.” (The Panda's Thumb, 1988, pp. 182,183).

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (12)

None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [13)

The same thing can be looked at from another point of view. Have the fossil species and modern species been found ready and perfect as one would expect based on creation, or have senses, arms, legs or other beginnings of body parts been found, as one would expect based on the theory of evolution?

There is no ambiguity about this matter, the body parts of adult individuals are ready and functional. Even Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist, admits that every species and every organism in every species that has been studied so far is good at what it does. Such an observation fits poorly with the theory of evolution, but well with the creation model:

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. (14)

What is the reason for the seven-day week? Fourthly, it would be good for researchers to think about the seven-day week, which has been familiar to peoples living in different parts of the world since ancient times. It has existed for thousands of years and worldwide, so it is difficult to explain its origin other than as an early inheritance from common ancestors. It refers to how people in ancient times were aware of God's work of creation, which took place in one week and only a few millennia ago. This is the best starting point for the existence of this thing:

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. (15)

Why do newly crystallized igneous rocks give excessively long ages? Fifth, researchers should think about why igneous rocks crystallized only a few years or decades ago give ages of millions or even billions of years. One example of this is the igneous rocks of Mount Ngauruhoe (New Zealand), which were known to have definitely crystallized from lava only 25-50 years ago as a result of a volcanic eruption. So behind it were the observations of the eyewitnesses.

Samples of these rocks were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). What were the results? In the potassium-argon method, the age of the samples varied between 270,000 and 3.5 million years, although the rocks were known to have crystallized from lava only 25-50 years ago. The lead-lead isochron gave an age of 3.9 billion years, the rubidium-strontium isochron 133 million years, and the samarium-neodymium isochron 197 million years. The example shows the unreliability of radioactive methods and how rocks may contain daughter elements from the beginning. If the methods give such false readings when the moment of crystallization of the stones is known, how can we trust the measurements where the moment of crystallization is not known?

Why don't dinosaur fossils refer to millions of years? Sixth, you should pay attention to dinosaur fossils. If they really date back more than 65 million years, why do they have internal gauges that only refer to short periods? Radiocarbon with an official half-life of 5730 years has been found in them (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html ). DNA has been found in them [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation (1):10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 December 2012], whose half-life has been calculated as only 521 years (The number 521 years was reported in Yle's news in 2012: v. 2012: yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13.10.2012, DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat).

Blood cells have also been found in them [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], soft tissues and proteins [Schweitzer, M. and 6 others, Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis, Science 324 (5927): 626-631, 2009], which should not survive 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]). These are metrics that millions of years are no match for. It is useless to talk about millions of years when the fossils themselves indicate the opposite. Scientists should look more to these internal gauges than to a 19th century geological table that has been proven wrong many times over.

Why do nature programs refer to clear evidence of the flood? Let's also bring up the Flood, which liberal theologians generally don't believe in because they have a naturalistic worldview and evolutionary glasses through which they view the world. However, indirect references to the Flood have repeatedly appeared in many TV nature programs. There are several such nature programs that have been shown on Suomen TV and which I happened to watch in the last couple of years (e.g. the following five programs: "Dinosaur Apocalypse", "Secrets of the Jurassic Dinosaurs", "Ice age: A Frozen World”", "Euroopan jääkausi", "Earth".) They tell good examples and references to a disaster like the Flood. The creators of the programs are on the right track, but because of their worldview, they don't know how to connect clear evidence to the Flood.

Here I take examples from the program "Dinosaur Apocalypse" (Dinosaur Apocalypse. Production: BBC/PBS/France Télévisions, Great Britain, 2022.). It refers to the destruction of the dinosaurs and how water affected it. The program, which is related to Hell Creek's well-known dinosaur deposit, refers to, e.g. to how marine animals such as ammonites and fish were found in the same strata as trees and dinosaurs. How is this possible? How can fish, large terrestrial animals and trees occur together in the same stratum? The only explanation is that a large tsunami has caused this phenomenon, as presented in the program. The existence of dinosaur and other fossils cannot be explained in any other way, because fossils are not created under normal natural conditions. The program even stated about the size of the tsunami that "Its height was at least a kilometer."

Here is the freshwater environment of the Hell Creek formation. The shard, glowing in shades of neon red and green, comes from the shell of a spiral-shaped sea animal, an ammonite. This marine organism has entered a freshwater environment where it does not belong. How the ammonites ended up here is a mystery.

The rock layer is therefore porous and about a meter thick. That and other unusual features point to an extraordinary event in Robert's opinion. Perhaps a flood or a mudslide happened here, which buried everything under it in an instant.

Robert's team follows an attractive chain of leads. The first clue is the fossils of fish that experienced mass extinction.

Here is wood. Against it, the carcasses of the fish have been squeezed tight.

Here are some fossils here and there. Here is one and next to it another sturgeon facing this way. Below the pond sturgeon is another sturgeon. Its body goes under the tree trunk and appears on the other side.

According to Robert's theory, the fish caught in the backlog of tree trunks and surrounded by the spheres died after being caught in some kind of flood and were quickly buried in the sediment. That is why they have been preserved so well. What caused the tidal wave? According to one hypothesis, an asteroid hitting the sea caused a tsunami. Now we are talking about a completely different kind of tsunami. It was much higher and bigger than modern day tsunamis. ... Its height was at least a kilometer.

Could a tsunami have caused the stratification seen in Tanis?

Bible criticism and morality

- (Isa 5:20) 20 Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Bible criticism has been discussed above from the point of view of whether the writings of the Bible are reliable and whether the historical content of the Bible is reliable. It was concluded that there are good grounds for both. We can really believe that the current Bible writings are reliable enough and that they tell about genuine historical events and people. Archeology and extra-biblical sources have repeatedly confirmed this. It was also stated that liberal scientists have a false worldview when they stick to naturalism and atheistic theories of origin regarding the universe and the beginning of life. These notions are contrary to practical observations and there is no evidence for them.

In modern times, Bible criticism has also progressed to another level. Many Bible critics attack the morality that Jesus and the apostles taught. They think they are more loving, just and better people than the first apostles or even better than Jesus. Or is it the case that the Bible critics themselves live in some kind of bubble, being children of their time and that they have adopted a sympathetic attitude towards clearly wrong things? This should be taken into account because, for example, Paul wrote about people who "had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thessalonians 2:12). He mentioned this specifically related to the time of the end. Similarly, Jesus said about the generation of his time that it was "an evil and adulterous generation". The same can be said about the current generation, because the current generation breaks Marriages more often than all the previous generations in the past centuries. How can it be morally better than other generations, even if it considers itself as such, when it rather resembles the same kind of adulterous generation that existed in the time of Jesus?

- (Matt 12:39) But he answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Are modern people more loving than Jesus and the apostles? When it comes to Christian faith, it is based on the person of Jesus, His teachings and the teachings of the apostles appointed by Jesus. These teachings are no longer respected by modern people because they think they are wiser, morally better and more loving than Jesus and the apostles, but is that really the case? Are the people today who reject the teachings of Jesus and the apostles really morally better and more loving than them, or are these people living in delusion?

I don't think there is any ambiguity about this. The current generation that curses each other on internet forums is not at all morally on the same level as Jesus and the apostles. Now I will not bring up the life of Jesus, because it is certainly different from everyone else's life. Instead, I bring up Paul's life and love for people. How many Bible critics can say that he is as loving as Paul was when he was a follower of Jesus and that he could serve as an example to other people? I don't think any of the Bible critics can honestly say that.

- (2 Cor 12:14-15) Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

- (2 Cor 2:3-4) And I wrote this same to you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.

4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have more abundantly to you.

- (Rom 9:1-3) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh

- (2 Tim 3:10-11) But you have fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience,

11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

- (Phil 3:17) Brothers, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an ensample.

And did Jesus and the apostles teach to love or hate people? There is no ambiguity about this either. Throughout the New Testament, it becomes clear that we should love even our enemies, that is, those who reject us, speak ill of us, or who think differently than we do. It becomes apparent through Jesus himself and the teaching of the apostles. If modern critics of the Bible believe themselves to be morally superior, what are their morals in this area? Have they respected and loved those who think differently like Jesus and the apostles or how do they act? I myself admit my shortcomings in light of these teachings. I can't say that I have always loved those who think differently, even if I wanted to do so.

Jesus: (Matt 5:43-48) You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if you love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if you salute your brothers only, what do you more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be you therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Apostle Paul: (Rom 12:14,17-21) Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18 If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord.

20 Therefore if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Apostle Peter: (1 Peter 3:9,17) Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that you are thereunto called, that you should inherit a blessing.

17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that you suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

Apostle John: (1 John 4:18-21) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear: because fear has torment. He that fears is not made perfect in love.

19 We love him, because he first loved us.

20 If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loves God love his brother also.

Why do Bible critics criticize Christian morality? It was stated above how Jesus and the apostles represented love. They certainly represented it more than any of the Bible critics today. In addition, we know from history that precisely due to the influence of the Christian faith, e.g. slavery, which was common in antiquity, disappeared, the status of women improved, the abandonment of children was abandoned, the sick were cared for better and education became possible for more and more people (most hospitals and schools, e.g. in Africa, were born due to the influence of the Christian faith .In Europe the same development happened earlier).

So, if Jesus and the apostles were loving and positive things have come out of the Christian faith, why are Bible critics still against Christian faith and morality? The reason is that the Bible critics themselves have moved the line between right and wrong, and put things on the right side that were previously considered clearly wrong. They believe they are loving, just, and championing human rights, but is that the case? Let's look at some of the controversial issues today:

Abortion. Bible critics speak and march strongly in favor of abortion, but what is the issue here? There is the question of killing children (Mark 10:19: You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.). In the ancient world, it was common to abandon children (especially girls), and abortion is not much different from this. Children are only killed at an earlier stage than in the ancient world. Aborted children have the same body parts as adult individuals: legs, hands, eyes, ears, mouth..., so they definitely are humans. This was also acknowledged in a recent survey asking 5,577 biologists around the world when human life begins. 96% of them said it begins at conception (Erelt, S., Survey asked, 5,577 biologists when human life begins. 96% said conception; lifenews.com, 11 July 2019).

Killing children was also a common practice among the Canaanites, for which God was angry with this nation. They killed their own children just as today there is a sympathetic attitude towards killing one's own children through abortion. History repeats itself when the line between right and wrong has been moved in this area.

- (Deut 12:31) You shall not do so to the LORD your God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

Patriarchy and the status of women. Bible critics often accuse Christianity of patriarchy and oppression against women. They think that if a woman is the same as a man in everything, then things will be fine.

What about the accusation that the Christian faith has weakened the position of women? This is not at all true in the light of history. Quite the opposite, because the Christian faith influenced, among other things, the stopping of child abandoning (mostly girls), improved the position of women in marriage, and improved the position of female widows. In the Christian congregation, the position of women was better and their proportion was higher than in Roman society in general.

Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and comparative religion, has written a book about the growth and success of Christianity and analyzed the importance of women in the spread of Christianity. According to Stark, the position of Christian women was good from the early stages of Christianity. They enjoyed a higher status and security than, for example, their Roman sisters, whose status was significantly better than that of Greek women. Abortions or the killing of newborns were also not accepted in Christian communities - both were strictly forbidden. Thus, Christianity was very popular among women (Chadwick 1967; Brown, 1988) and it spread especially through upper class women to their husbands. (16)

Nowadays, women are also subjected to a lot of violence in relationships and sexual harassment outside the home. The Bible instructs that men should love their wives, so this will surely improve the status of women:

- (Eph 5:28,33) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Furthermore, regarding the sexual harassment that many women and girls experience, the Bible teaches that sex belongs only in marriage between a man and a wife, and not elsewhere. If followed, it will improve the status of women and reduce sexual harassment:

- (1 Cor 7:1,2) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

What about women's right to abortion? As stated, this is about killing one's own children. How can such a thing be considered a human right? This is spiritual blindness and the promotion of a clearly wrong cause, which the media has also strongly promoted.

What about the accusation that the Christian faith is patriarchal? Yes, perhaps this can be admitted, but is it a bad thing in itself? If, for example, a wife should respect her husband (Eph 5:33), is that a bad thing? Or if Jesus chose twelve men as apostles, but no women, is that frowned upon? Or is it frowned upon that the military has been the duty of men, while women have been free from it? Or why men have had the main responsibility in the priesthood? How should these things be viewed? Is it the case that today's people are in a bubble of their time and are unable to see things through this bubble? Maybe that's just the way it is.

Homosexuality has been in the headlines for the past few decades, and many have attacked the Christian faith because of this, because according to the Bible, homosexual sex relationships are sinful and wrong (Rom 1:24-28, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-10, Jude 1:7, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13). Love of the same sex or of any group of people is never wrong, but all sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a wife are wrong - whether heterosexual or homosexual.

So why don't people accept this? The point is that they do not respect God, but are in rebellion against him. They themselves want to determine how they want to live, and of course everyone has the right to that. However, if one follows Jesus and wants to live according to God's will, God is the final moral regulator, not man. None of us tell God what is acceptable and what is not, but he himself defines the difference between right and wrong, and according to that everyone will also be judged. That's why we should strive to humble ourselves to God's will, and not live according to our own will. This does not only apply to those living in homosexuality, but to every person. Each of us can have wrong inclinations and preferences, but we have to choose which direction we want to go. Unfortunately, we often have to notice, even if we want to go in the right direction, that evil clings to us and we do not live in God's will (Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.). However, everyone should strive in that direction.

One of the reasons why many have a positive attitude towards homosexuality is also the perception that it is an innate tendency and that nothing can be done about it. However, if this is so, any man could excuse his bad behavior by saying that he was born that way; a person prone to anger could defend his outbursts of anger, an alcoholic his alcohol use or a pedophile his own behavior. However, it doesn't work that way. Yes, each of us is responsible for our behavior and tendencies, whether they are innate tendencies or not.

On the other hand, it is noteworthy that many homosexuals themselves do not believe in the innate nature of their inclinations. Rather, many of them think that same-sex sexual seduction and circumstances have played a role in the birth of their tendencies. These were common concepts also in psychology a few decades ago.

I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person.

Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (17)

Transsexuality has also repeatedly been in the headlines in recent years. It's basically the same thing as homosexuality and most sins: man is in rebellion against God. Man does not accept his gender received at birth, but rebels against God in this matter.

In general, there are many factors behind transsexuality, such as the fact that the parents wanted the child to be a representative of the other sex. This may have led the child in the wrong direction. It is an identity disorder somewhat similar to eating disorders, where a person can consider himself too fat, even if he is extremely thin (anorexia nervosa). Similarly, it may be difficult for someone to accept their own appearance or something else in themselves. It is good to understand these people's backgrounds so that we do not judge other people unfairly. In addition, before God, each person is responsible for himself, not others. We can only urge other people to take God and eternity seriously. It is true love for people, including those who struggle with these things.

Bible criticism is not new . This article discusses Bible criticism. I believe it's because people are lost, that is, deceived by Satan, because Satan wants to keep people away from God and all the good that is available in fellowship with God.

However, such Bible criticism is not new. It already started in paradise (Genesis 3:1 "Has God said"), but it has occurred throughout history. One such phase also preceded Nazi Germany. 20th century Nazism in Germany did not arise by chance, but was preceded already in the 19th century a strong attack on the Christian faith and the Bible. The most civilized country in Europe was the leading country in the criticism of religion, so that liberal theology and the theory of evolution were very popular, although both views were found to be ill-founded. It is certain that this partly prepared the ground for the acceptance of Nazism in the most civilized one in Europe in the state.

We look at the development of time from a few quotes 30-50 years before the appearance of the Nazis. No ideology starts as if from scratch, but is usually based on a longer development that has prepared people to adopt it. I myself see similar dangers in modern times. When the roots of the Christian faith, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and other important teachings are rejected, it can open the door to all kinds of evil. It is likely that the development will go in this direction, because in recent decades the Christian faith has been the target of a much stronger attack than in the time before the birth of Nazi Germany. In addition, the Bible has prophesied about the development of the last days that people will go further and further in evil (2 Tim 3:1-5,13 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away... But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. ).

In any case, the development of the time 30-50 years before the Nazis becomes clear from a few quotes. The first of them 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 quotations show how the wave of abandoning Christianity started in Germany 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. (18)

Secondly, the attacks were merely cursory and dispersed 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 spirits. 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) (19)

"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")

To a right relationship with God. Finally, a matter of man's relationship with God. Liberal theologians and Bible critics often have a cynical attitude in which they despise trusting the Bible and Jesus. This cynical, arrogant attitude keeps Bible critics away from God and eternal life, which is unfortunate. They reject Jesus and eternal life because they think they are wise, when in reality they live in spiritual blindness. This is the case with everyone else who has followed the writings and speeches of Bible critics. The media has been flooded with this kind of talk and writing in recent years.

The following verses give a good picture of such a negative attitude. They are a message to the Laodicean church, which could well be compared to the religiosity of modern Western countries. It describes a religiosity where people have no spiritual thirst for God and think they are in a good position when they are not. They need a change in their attitude before their relationship with God can be repaired.

- (Revelation 3:14-22) And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things said the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot.

16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

17 Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel you to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that you may be rich; and white raiment, that you may be clothed, and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

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

21 To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

22 He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit said to the churches.

So what does a person need to do to get into a right relationship with God? It all starts with a person admitting he was wrong and confessing it to God like the prodigal son in Jesus' parable. This is the first step in repairing the relationship. So turn to God and confess to him your cynicism, rebellion and other sins:

- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Also put your trust in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, because only through him can we be forgiven of our sins. He is the way to the heavenly God. Don't reject Jesus, but 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 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.

- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

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. F.C. Grant: An introduction to the revised standard version of the New testament (1946), p. 42 - Sit. kirjasta "Raamatun juuret", F.F. Bruce, p. 266.

2. F.G. Kenyon: The Bible and archaeology (1940), p. 228 – cit. from "Raamatun juuret", F.F.Bruce, p. 266.

3. F.F. Bruce: Raamatun juuret (The Books and the Parchments)

4.. Cit. from "Jeesus totta vai tarua", Josh McDowell, p.62.

5. John Wimber, Kevin Springer: Ihmeet ja merkit (Power Evangelism), p. 60

6. John Young, David Wilkinson: Käsittely jatkuu, The Case Against Christ, p. 133

7. Millar Burrows: What Mean These Thones, 1941, p., 291s

8. John Young, David Wilkinson: Käsittely jatkuu, The Case Against Christ, p. 136

9. John Young, David Wilkinson: Käsittely jatkuu, The Case Against Christ, p. 136

10. Arkeologia ja Raamattu, p. 173, publisher Kirjatoimi and kirjeopisto Codex

11. Lee Strobel: Tapaus Kristus (The Case for Christ), p. 132-134,136

12. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

13. Cit. from "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19

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

15. Tri John Kitto kirjassa Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, II, hakusana "Sabbath", p. 655

16. Mia Puolimatka: Minkä arvoinen on ihminen?, p. 130

17. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132

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

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