Answers in Genesis: Insincere Reality Denial?

We may be witnessing a recurring theme being pushed by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the genius who brought you the website Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Our last post showing Hambo’s animosity toward all forms of creationism other than his own was Creationism: A House Divided Against Itself. Now he’s at it again.

At the AIG website, ol’ Hambo has posted this little item It’s an Attack on the Son. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us, and scripture references omitted:

A Christian philosopher recently stated the following:

[Hambo quotes William Dembski:] Dating methods, in my view, provide strong evidence for rejecting this facevalue chronological reading of Genesis [chapters] 4–11.

Whoa! That’s old-earth creationism. Hambo doesn’t like that old-earth stuff. Then he quotes a different creationist whose ideas he doesn’t like:

Another contemporary Christian philosopher/theologian stated the following in answer to a question:

[Hambo quotes William Lane Craig from Biola University:] Why not receive God’s transforming grace yourself and then be better than the Young Earthers? You know that I don’t hold their views about the age of the universe. Neither do most evangelical Christians, despite the high profile of their movement in churches.

Egad! To a young-earth creationist like Hambo, that’s blasphemy! Let’s see what Hambo says about it:

In other words, it’s ideas from outside the Bible, not the plain reading of Scripture, which determine his [Craig’s] view on the age of the earth. Such compromise is sadly the norm in the majority of our Christian colleges and seminaries.

Hambo finds it intolerable that anyone could accept ideas from outside the bible. We continue:

Many times in this newsletter, I have stated that such compromise is really an attack on the authority of the Word, in spite of some scholars’ sincere intentions to the contrary.

[…]

Many young people in our churches are already doubting and disbelieving God’s Word. The result? At least two-thirds of children raised in theologically conservative churches now walk away from the church (or even the Christian faith altogether).

If young people are being told that Hambo’s interpretation is The Truth, it’s a wonder that they all don’t walk away. Here’s more:

Do you realize how serious such compromise really is? Consider the following truths:

We’ll skip Hambo’s scriptural arguments, but you’ll want to click over to AIG to learn what the great man has to say about such things. Moving along:

What’s the bottom line? When Christian leaders deliberately reinterpret God’s Word on the basis of man’s fallible ideas (taken from outside the Bible), not only are they undermining the Word of God, they are actually (though unwittingly) conducting an attack on the Son of God!

Wowie! One more excerpt:

This is very serious. Yes, when you compromise the Word of God, it is also an attack on the Son of God, whose Word it is.

But is accepting scientific evidence really a serious religious problem — even to Hambo? Despite all of his huffing and puffing, we’re not certain of Hambo’s sincerity. Why do we say that? We don’t know the man and we’re unlikely to ever meet him, but here’s why we have doubts.

If ol’ Hambo were really all that fixated on the literal truth of the Word, then why isn’t he a flat-earther? Here are just a few of the verses that he’s ignoring, in favor of man’s ideas. We’ve added a touch of bold for emphasis:

1st Samuel — 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them

2nd Samuel — 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

Psalms — 102:25: Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Psalms — 104:5: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.

Luke — 4:5: And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Well, Hambo? What about it? Is the earth flat, sitting on a foundation supported on pillars, with a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen at once? Are you true to the Word, Hambo, or will you let the ideas of men corrupt your thinking?

The way we see it, Hambo, is that if we apply the same standards to you that you so eagerly apply to others, you can’t believe the earth is spherical. You’ve got to be a sincere flat-earther — otherwise you may be headed for the Lake of Fire.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

8 responses to “Answers in Genesis: Insincere Reality Denial?

  1. “When Christian leaders deliberately reinterpret God’s Word on the basis of man’s fallible ideas (taken from outside the Bible), not only are they undermining the Word of God, they are actually (though unwittingly) conducting an attack on the Son of God!”

    I am still waiting for him to demand slavery brought back too. If the bible even describes the way to treat a slave, and has no injunction against it. It only man’s ideas from outside the bible has ended it, and yet another attack on the Son of God.

  2. Gabriel Hanna

    Old Earth creationism makes Baby Jesus cry. That’s his argument.

  3. Never content to just be wrong, old Hambone insists on being a dick too.

    Is the guy off his meds or something?

  4. Also, he has to believe that the sky is covered by a bronze dome–that’s the literal translation of firmament.

    I’m not familiar with Hambo, since I escaped the creationist culture a while ago, but he sounds like many of his ilk. William Jennings Bryan wrote something similar around the time of the Scopes trial. Denying creation means denying Christ. The answer that I give is that “Hamlet” doesn’t have to be historical truth for it to be meaningful, and in the same way, the Bible can be meaningful in a literary or religious context, without having to support itself with history or geology.

  5. I’m fairly sure this has been asked before, but which version of the “Word” (TM) does old Hambo prefer?
    The original Hebrew documents?
    King James?
    Anything inbetween??

    Or am I just being a bit Snarky?

  6. There is one school which says that the original manuscripts are definitive.
    Another school says that even the vowel points (which were added much later) are definitive. This would, I think, make the Massoretic Text for the Old Testament definitive. (Even though we have substantial portions which predate that.)
    It seems to be that the writers of the New Testament preferred something like the Septuagint version of the OT.
    And even if one takes the King James Version as definitive, most KJVs which are published today have changes from the original KJV. The biggest difference is that most KJVs don’t include the Apocrypha (which the original did).

  7. Such compromise is sadly the norm in the majority of our Christian colleges and seminaries.

    Most seminaries teach biblical scholarship, which delves into the numerous translations, alterations by scribes, transcription errors and inconsistencies, the various meanings of words when originally written verses what they mean today, the context of the original stories, etc. The point being, of course, to understand what the original authors really meant. Only a few very evangelical “bible colleges” teach that the bible is literally a transcription of the word of god – none of the older, more respected seminaries teach this.

    It appears Hamm has a problem with being relegated to the junior league among religious scholars.

  8. The way we see it, Hambo, is that if we apply the same standards to you that you so eagerly apply to others…

    Well, there’s your problem. :) You’re thinking of plain reading as a method when it isn’t, its a rhetorical appeal to authority.

    Think of ‘plain reading’ claims like a politician saying “the American people want…” The point of those statements is not to convey the result of some accurate survey of the American public. Everyone understands that no such exercise was actually done. Its to say to the audience, “I know what the people want. I am the authority on the subject: trust my claims.” That’s what Ham is doing.