THE HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD OF THE HIGHER CRITICS ARE SO CALLED BECAUSE IT IS ANTI-HISTORICAL, AND ALSO HISTORICAL MANIPULATION. THEY DENY THE REAL HISTORY AND SUBSTITUTE IT WITH THEIR OWN CONCOCTED VERSIONS OF STORIES. They say that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph were not historical figures. If we do not believe what is written in the Bible, we will never understand how God has worked in the history of salvation. They say that it is impossible that the whole Israelite nation went down to Egypt. Of course, they also do not believe that the people of Israel crossed safely through the Red Sea, while the Egyptians who followed them drowned. For them, these are all fairy tales. It is easier to believe in all the miracles of the Bible, and the words of God as recorded there, than to believe the foolish stories of the higher critics. The Liberal Christianity of the higher critics is not real Christianity at all. Rather liberal theology denies the historicity of nearly everything in the Gospels to which Christian life and thought have been committed for nearly 2000 years. The Biblical critics in the world speak simply as men who are influenced by the spirit of the age they grew up in.

IN FACT THE MIRCLES CAN BE HISTORICAL. Miracles can be and must be taken with historical seriousness by the historian. The responsible historian must be concerned facticity of the miracles, that is, whether they really occurred or not. If the miracles occurred there are tremendous implications.

ACCORDING TO THE MODERN CRITICS THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. Modern criticism regards the legislation in the Pentateuch is associated with Moses, as unknown until the Exile, or a thousand years after the time of Moses. To them "The Lord spake to Moses" is only a well-known literary device intended to invest the utterance with greater importance and more solemn sanction. They deny historicity to Pentateuch, modify its dates by hundreds of years, pervert the documents on which Israel has rested for centuries, and subvert the views which acted as the spiritual sustenance of millions. If the critical views are accepted, then there isn’t much in the Bible to be preached. Even if we preach, it will lack a great deal of certitude.

HIGHER CRITICISM CANNOT AGREE WITH THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE JEWISH NATION. The Jewish nation is a fact in history, and its record is given to us in the Old Testament. Jewish history does not warrant any reconstruction. The Jewish nation is an outstanding objective fact of history and the Old Testament is the record of their national life. The Old Testament rose with them, grew with them, and it is to the Jews alone we can look for the earliest testimony to the Old Testament canon. Thus the basic positions of modern Old Testament criticism are utterly incompatible with the historic growth and position of the Jewish people. Hence the subjective baseless hypocritical reconstruction of history by the higher critics must be rejected. The rationalistic critics can never appreciate the sublime conceptions of spiritual truth and majesty of the Word of God in the Bible. Hence they cannot understand the majesty of Isaiah, the prophetical power of Daniel etc. and reject them. According to them ambitious priests, at a later date than is commonly assigned, compiled all those books.  to which we have alluded. Thus the critics end up in a ridiculous manipulation of history.

CRITICS REJECT THE TESTIMONY OF ARCHAEOLOGY

The hypotheses of the Higher critics are driven by hard core atheistic assumptions. Their prejudiced anti-biblical scholarship rejects the archeological evidence in favor of the Bible. The critics claim that the Hexateuch was formed by the gathering up of oral traditions, because the early Hebrews did not possess the art of writing and of keeping records. But the evidence of the archaeological study refutes this. The discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets has shown that writing in cuneiform characters and in the Assyrio-Babylonian language was common to the entire biblical world long before the exodus. Other finds have added their testimony to the fact that writing and the preservation of records were the peculiar passions of the ancient civilized world. But the higher critics are unwilling to admit this new light, because it will destroy their pet theory. The books of Joshua and Judges have been regarded by the higher critics as unhistorical on the ground that their portraiture of the political, religious, and social condition of Palestine in the thirteenth century B. C. is incredible. This cannot be said any longer, for the recent excavations in Palestine have shown us a land exactly like that of these books. There are absolutely no discrepancies between the Land and the Book. 

It was held by the higher critics that the legislation which we call Mosaic could not have been produced by Moses, since his age was too early for such codes. This reasoning was completely invalidated by the discovery of the code of Hammurabi, the Amraphelt of Genesis 14.

In short, from the origin of the higher criticism till this present time the discoveries in the field of archaeology have given it a succession of serious blows. It is well known that during the last sixty years a vast number of archaeological discoveries have been made in Egypt, Palestine, Babylonia, and Assyria. Many of these have shed remarkable light on the historical features, including a number of persons and periods of the Old Testament. Not one of these discoveries during the whole of this tune has given any support to the distinctive features and principles of the higher critical position. Hence a number of leading archaeologists who were formerly in with the critical school, have abandoned this view. Today most prominent archaeologists do not trust the higher criticism.