Theology is taught in the major universities all over the world based on the historical-critical method. Research is conducted as if there were no God. That means the reality of God is excluded from their consideration from the start. Statements in Scripture regarding place, time, sequences of events and persons are accepted only insofar as they fit in with their established assumptions and theories. Since other religions have their scriptures, one cannot assume the Bible is somehow unique and superior to them. It is taken for granted that the words of the Bible and God’s word are not identical. The New Testament is pitted against the Old Testament, assuming that the God of the New Testament is different from that of the Old. Since the inspiration of Scripture is not accepted, neither can it be assumed that the individual books of Scripture complement each other. Using this procedure one finds in the Bible only a handful of unrelated literary creations. Since the content of biblical writings is seen as merely the creation of theological writers, any given verse is nothing more than a non-binding, human theological utterance. In historical-critical theology, critical reason judges the reality in the Bible. Due to the rationalistic presuppositions that are adopted, the critical reason loses sight of the fact that the Lord God Almighty reigns. They progressively exclude God from the domain of “knowledge.”

HISTORICO-CRITICAL METHOD DEMYTHOLOGIZES, RESCONTRUCTS AND DESTROYS THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE. By the late nineteenth century, the Liberal Protestant Bible scholars regarded the historical accounts of both Israel and the life of Jesus as inaccurate. They claimed that the historians should “demythologize” the Bible and remove the miracles of the Bible as unreasonable. They developed an approach to destroy the Bible, known as the historical-critical approach. This method denied divine inspiration, rejected miracles, and presumed that the biblical text we have is a composite of editions and alterations by various parties with varying and unique interests. In this approach, they attempted to reconstruct and destroy the original text of the Bible.

INSTEAD OF BELIEVING WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TEXT AND TAKING THE DIRECT MEANING, THE HIGHER CRITIC LIBERALS EXPLAINED AWAY THE BASIC TRUTHS OF BIBLE THROUGH BIASED OVER STRETCHED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE. The Bible according to Liberal theology is not verbally inspired or infallible. Jesus' healings may be explained in psychosomatic terms, while his virgin birth is almost always dismissed as myth. His resurrection is affirmed by some, doubted by others, and denied by a few, while still others point to its symbolic meaning and profess agnosticism as to what really happened. Traditional views of Christ as God incarnate give way to Christ being viewed as the perfect revelation of God in that he is the perfect human being, humans being made in God’s image.

HIGHER CRITICS DECONSTRUCT THE BIBLE TO DESTROY THE ORIGINAL REALITY, MEANING AND CREDIBILITY OF THE TEXT, AND RECONSTRUCT IT BY LOADING THE TEXT WITH THEIR OWN FALSE INTERPRETATIONS. They falsely presuppose that understanding a biblical text consists in discovering its individual peculiarity. The size of the text subjected such hermeneutical surgery is often reduced to less than a verse. In the process they ignore crucial passages relevant to the issue. Ironically they put excessive faith even in one word of the Bible with the evil intention of undermining the authority of the whole Scriptures. The Biblical text can be understood only when read in its own spirit. Bible can be properly understood only when one "hears" its words as being part of it and living it. The Jews believe that it is wholly impossible to understand the intended meaning of the text without an oral tradition. God catches the crafty in their craftiness. Thus they LOSE THE WHOLENESS OF THE BIBLE and thereby falsely project many seeming contradictions. Modern liberal theology uses the Bible only for the purpose of defeating the claims of the Bible. They often seek to discover the theological view point of the particular writer of the bible book, both how he arrived at it and how it influenced the shaping of his work. It is concerned with studying the theological motivation of an author. Here the critics can upload their own views and fantasies upon the head of the writer. But such study has no reliable historical evidence.

HIGHER CRITIC DECONSTRUCTION OF THE TEXT WAS  TO DESTROY THE DIVINITY OF THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. Higher criticism is merely full of SPIRITUAL EVIL WRAPPED IN ACADEMIC RIGOR. The historical-critical method attempts to reduce the Scripture to a dead letter. Many critics do not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. They believe that our Old Testament was simply a compilation of oral traditions and were not actually written until after Israel was taken into captivity to Babylon in 586 B.C. Basically what we are seeing in all these forms of biblical criticism is an attempt by some critics to separate the Holy Spirit’s work in the production of an accurate, reliable written document of God's Word. There is no need to criticize the authenticity of the Scriptures if we know that God was behind the scenes directing and guiding men in what to record. God was behind the authorship and preservation of the Scriptures. Redaction criticism and higher criticism are trying to force the limitations of human beings UPON GOD’S WORD.

DECONSTRUCTIONISM AND DESTRUCTION OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS SUPREME DECEPTION. The theory of Deconstructionism assumes that no passage or text can convey a single, reliable, consistent, and coherent message to everyone who reads or hears it. This view is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible that absolute truth does exist and we can indeed know it. The deconstruction approach is the output of postmodernism which denies the existence of absolute truth. But the denial of absolute truth is one of the most serious and common logical fallacies anyone can commit. It is clearly self-contradictory. If one is absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth he is making a statement that is contradictory to his very premise.

To the postmodern thinker, all truth is relative, and there is no absolute truth. The end result will be a very subjective interpretation of the text. Instead of accepting what the text actually says, the deconstructionist will come out with hidden meaning of the text, which will suit his personal interest. The deconstructionist does not study the Bible to find out the meaning intended by the writer, but tries to imagine some cultural or social motives behind the text. His interpretation will be as uncontrolled as his imagination. Rom 1:21-22 - “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” The proper way to approach the Bible is to first recognize that each passage has only one correct interpretation. Bible is God’s objective communication to mankind and the meaning of the passages comes from God and the message cannot be victimized by the subjective interpretations of man.

THE RECONSTRUCTION AND REINTERPRETATION ARE PRE-DESIGNED TO REJECT THE TRUTH AS PRESENTED IN THE BIBLE. They make every attempt to reconstruct the personality of Jesus by using their subjective imagination. They simply don’t want to accept the Biblical version of everything. THEY WANT THE BIBLE TO SPEAK WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR MINDS. SO THEY RECONSTRUCT AND REINTERPRET. THEY PRETEND TO BE SCHOLARS AND WANT ALL PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN READ BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE BIBLICAL TEXTS. BUT THEIR STUPIDITY IS PROVED BY THEIR OBVIOUS INABILITY TO READ THE LINES THEMSELVES. THEY CLAIM THEY CAN SEE THE ANT ON THE DISTANT MOUNTAIN AT NIGHT, BUT CAN’T SEE THE ELEPHANT STANDING IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE DAY LIGHT. They can swallow the camels of Resurrection, but strains at gnats like a few inconsistencies in a few verses which can be easily solved. They are majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors. They are throwing the baby with bathwater.

THESE TRICKY CROOKS CLAIM REAL PURPOSE AND TEACHING OF CHRIST WERE MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISREPRESENTED BY HIS FOLLOWERS. AND THAT THEY WERE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND RECOVERED ONLY BY THESE MODERN SCHOLARS. Their assumption and claim are so cruel and stupid. They are saying the gospel writers who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language, shared the same habits, imageries, assumptions, of Jesus could not understand what he said. What Jesus actually said is now after 1800 years is clear to the liberal hypocrites who neither have honesty nor any of those cultural advantages the gospel writers had. The Biblical critics are foreigners in every sense that they can never offset the cultural gap to qualify themselves as legitimate critics of the gospel writers.

THE ASSURED RESULT OF MODERN SCHOLARSHIP IS STUPIDITY AND HYPOCRISY EXPOSED. In normal cases through a clever reconstruction of the history of an ancient text, one may be able to come out with convincing results of his liking. Because the results cannot be checked by fact, as the men who knew the facts are dead. So the deceivers who want to mislead the public can go around fooling the people. BUT THIS TRICK OF HIGHER CRITICS AND LIBERL THEOLOGIANS DID NOT WORK IN THE CASE OF BIBLE. IN THE END THEIR STUPIDITY AND HYPOCRISY STAND EXPOSED. 

HIGHER CRITICS TRUST IN DARWIN’S UNPROVEN FALSE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND FALSELY CLAIM THAT BIBLE IS RESULT OF RELIGIOUS EVOLUTION TAKING MANY THINGS FROM OTHER RELIGIONS. Their assumption is that the hypothesis of evolution is true. Higher criticism asserts that Israel created the story of the Genesis flood out of the Gilgamesh epics. In fact, that is the heart of historical criticism. Historical-critical theologians say that the Bible has taken something over, not that others have taken something from the Bible. They say that the Bible is the final document, the last step in the evolution of the Scriptures. The theory of evolution is not proven even in the sphere of natural science. Rather evolution is proven false in the realms of history and literature. But this false philosophical principle of evolution is applied to history has assuredly influenced modern criticism of the Old Testament.

THE METHOD REPRESENTS THE MOST RIGID APPLICATION OF A NATURALISTIC HISTORICISM TO THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE. It falsely assumes that biblical religion, passed through stages of growth and evolution like all ancient religions, and in this evolution was heavily influenced through interaction with its religious environment. In this sense, it was anti-revelatory and anti-theological. They falsely assume that the history of the Hebrew-Christian religion cannot embody absolute truth, but must be a development resulting from the religious genius of the Hebrews in interaction with their religious environment. Thus, if there was no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. The so-called evidences upon which the "assured results" rest are largely imaginary. 

But the hypothesis of evolution, when applied to the history of literature, is a fallacy, leaving us utterly unable to account for Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare, the greatest poets of the world, yet all of them writing in the dawn of the great literatures of the world. It is a fallacy when applied to the history of religion, leaving us utterly unable to account for Abraham and Moses and Christ, and requiring us to deny that they could have been such men as the Bible declares them to have been. The hypothesis is a fallacy when applied to the history of the human race in general. Our race has made progress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but progress under the influence of supernatural revelation is one thing, and evolution is another. The hypothesis of evolution applied to human history, renders us incapable of beholding the glory of God in its more signal manifestations.

TO THE HIGHER CRITICS, BIBLE IS A NATURAL BOOK. If a consistent hypothesis of evolution is made the basis of our religious thinking, the Bible will be merely a natural book. But the fallacy of this denial is evident to every believer who reads the Bible with an open mind. He knows by an immediate consciousness that it is the product of the Holy Spirit. As the sheep know the voice of the shepherd, so the mature Christian knows that the Bible speaks with a divine voice.