Ken Ham: How To Resist the Devil

Today we encountered a very confusing article by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. It’s titled: Choosing to Resist “the Genesis 3 Attack”.

What’s the Genesis 3 Attack? You’re about to find out. Here are some excerpts from Hambo’s essay, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The very first attack, what I call “the Genesis 3 Attack,” was on God’s Word: “And [Satan] said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said?’” (Genesis 3:1). Satan used the ploy to get Eve to question God’s Word, thus creating doubt that ultimately led to unbelief. That same attack on God’s Word has never let up and continues each day.

Hambo put “Satan” in brackets, because he isn’t named in that bible story. The actual words of Genesis 3:1 (King James version, of course) are as follows:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

We’ll overlook Hambo’s revision of scripture. Then he says:

Sadly, many Christians accept evolution and millions of years, the foundation of the secular religion. This evolutionary religion attacks the Word of God by undermining what God plainly told us. It’s like Satan is whispering in our ears once again: “Has God indeed said . . . ?”

Got that? When a godless evolutionist says the world is millions of years old, it’s just like Satan — or the serpent — whispering in your ear. After that he tells us:

Compromising Genesis with evolution and millions of years undermines the authority of the Word, because this involves taking ideas from outside of Scripture and forcing those ideas into Scripture. When they do this, Christians are making themselves (fallible man) the authority over God’s (infallible) Word!

Gasp — that’s heresy! Hambo continues:

Basically we’re saying that we know more than God and that we can reinterpret and edit His Word to adjust it to man’s ideas. But a Christian should never knowingly compromise God’s Word.

Your Curmudgeon is confused. We know that in over two dozen places the bible says The Earth Is Flat! It also says The Earth Does Not Move! Further, it says that pi = 3 — see Creationists And The Scriptural Value Of Pi.

But Hambo denies those scriptural doctrines! Isn’t he reinterpreting god’s word to adjust it to man’s ideas? And how many things are we told by Hambo that aren’t in the bible?

Hambo denies the clear language in Genesis that men should have one less rib than women — see Adam’s Rib Shocker: AIG Follows the Evidence. Although the bible never mentions even one ice age, Hambo insists there was one (but only one) after Noah’s Flood — see Answers in Genesis — The Ice Age. He also says there were dinosaurs and dragons on Noah’s Ark, but the bible doesn’t say that — see AIG: There Were Dragons on Noah’s Ark, and Life Aboard Noah’s Ark.

How can we trust Hambo when he tells us things contrary to — or absent from — the bible? Then he quotes some bible passages that tell us how true god’s word is, after which he says:

You see, man’s word (like evolutionary ideas) changes nearly every day, but God’s Word never changes. We need to choose to trust God’s Word and ignore the lie of “Has God indeed said . . . ?”

That’s the whole essay. So where are we? If we trust the bible — and not Hambo — we’re going to be a bunch of flat-Earthers. But when Hambo tells us things that aren’t in the bible, what should we do — ignore him? We’re confused, dear reader. What do you think?

Copyright © 2017. 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

18 responses to “Ken Ham: How To Resist the Devil

  1. “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.”

    Subtil = crafty in some translations. So, am I to understand that in the perfect, sinless world god created, the world where A&E walked naked with dinosaurs, the world where there were no thorns or thistles or stinging insects, a world without rainbows, in that perfect world there there was a crafty, devious creature, obviously less than perfect, that could tempt E? God surely slipped up on that one.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Obviously the big guy forgot to include skepticism when crafting a human brain. Imagine how Adam and Eve would have responded to an email from Nigeria…

  3. Here is what you really need to know about old Lucifer -as they say “It’sin the bible” http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/topics/satan

  4. James B Theuer

    This pisses me off. In the Yahwistic creation myth, Yahweh does lie, and the serpent (retconned as “satan” by later religitards) is honest. Yahweh claims that “in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.” But they don’t die that day. Creatards will counter by saying that God didn’t mean what he said, but apparently ‘day’ means ‘day’ in the Priestly source (Gen. 1). Consistency is for ebul atheists, apparently.

  5. The irony is that the things Ken Ham believes about the Adam and Eve story — that Eve was deliberately misled by Satan, for example — are not found in any canonical Christian scriptures. Which religion’s scriptures do they appear in? Islam.

  6. Ham has made a mistake in calling the serpent in eden the devil:

    John 8:44 says the the devil “has no truth in him” yet Genesis 3:4-5 has the serpent/devil saying that once they eat of the fruit, they shall be as gods, knowing the difference between good and evil. God later confirms that in Genesis 3:22 where he says that man has become like him/them? in that they know the difference between good and evil.

    So, it’s Ham vs. the bible then?

  7. I always assumed that what was meant was that the day Adam and Eve eat of the Tree they will be doomed to die someday, rather than living forever as God intended. But this is not what the Bible’s words say, which is indeed a problem for Biblical literalists.

    I’ve always wondered, though, why God had a problem with the couple eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (it is not called simply the “tree of knowledge,” though people routinely make that error). Did God intend for humans to live not merely without knowledge of the material sort but also without any moral sense? That is, did God intend for humans to be just another sort of animal, albeit one in (as the ancient Hebrews saw it) His physical image?

  8. “What do you think?”.
    Ol’Hambo obviously speaks the words of Satan.

  9. Dave Luckett

    I would point out that an equally valid translation of Genesis 2:7 (second part) is “the day you eat from it, you are surely doomed to die”. Meaning that death will be entailed upon you, not that you will die that day.

    Mind you, that’s in conflict with Gen 3:22, which tells us that to have eternal life, they would have had to have eaten from the Tree of Life as well as the Tree of Knowledge, and hence that they would have died anyway. Which is to imply that either the Bible’s got it wrong, or God was misleading them.

    You pays your money and you takes your choice.

  10. Ayn Rand had it right:

    What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

    Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html

  11. Michael Fugate

    If God used dirt to make humans, then why aren’t we silicon-based?

    And if it is so clear-cut, why all the debate over Old Testament Law – does it apply or doesn’t it?

  12. Dave Luckett

    No, Ayn Rand had it wrong. The fable – of course it is a fable – of the forbidden fruit illustrates a profound truth about the human condition: Every single essential good aspect of humanity comes bundled with evil. Reason, morality, creativeness, joy – all are often and routinely perverted, often with the best of intentions. Who was it said that the way to hell was so paved?

    The teachers told us correctly: yes, we gained the virtues that enabled us to live as human beings – and in the very same action, their associated vices, for which God forgive us. Or better still, for which we forgive ourselves and one another. Another thinker that I respect a whole lot more than Ayn Rand told us the forgiveness of God is conditional on that.

  13. Mike Elzinga

    If you study anything – such as science for example – just do a light gloss and never look at the details. That’s were the Devil is hiding.

    In other words; remain ignorant or loose your soul.

  14. Why does Ham depart from his usual “augmented literalism” and claim that the talking snake was Satan? If the snake were Satan in disguise, what was the point of punishing snakes by taking away their legs? They had nothing to do with it. And if it were actually Satan, he definitely was not crawling around on his belly anywhere else in the bible, so the curse did not work.

    The only way to read that passage is that it was a real talking snake. Ham is trying to take man’s ideas about whether or not snakes can talk and discuss theological issues and insert them in the bible. What a compromiser.

  15. Far be it from me to defend the creationists, but the identification of the physical animal, the snake, with the immaterial Satan is something with a long tradition behind it. There is the language in the book of Revelation, for example. For some reason, lots of people find something repulsive about snakes. Genesis thinks that there is something tricky about a snake. Not to mention the way that fables identify an individual with a class – the snake leads Eve astray, so all the various kinds of snakes thereafter are legless.

  16. It’s interesting how a comment by Ken Ham can get us all sounding like a bunch of junior high boys arguing over the finer points of Dungeons & Dragons.

    Let’s let Ken Ham enjoy his alternate reality of biblical fables and concern ourselves with the true reality.

  17. Has ol’ Hambo ever wondered why God allowed this serpent to corrupt His creation? Surely Yahweh knew this was happening, in fact He knew it was going to happen before it happened. Why could an omnipotent and omniscient god not able to prevent this? Since that god also created the serpent, one might ask why did that god create that serpent, knowing full well what it would do; so why did God create the effing serpent? It sure created a mess that involved a lot of work cleaning up later. I’m guessing I am asking why was a puny serpent more powerful than ol’ Hambo’s creator god?

    On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:42 PM, The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

    > The Curmudgeon posted: “Today we encountered a very confusing article by > Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. It’s titled: Choosing to > Resist “the Genesis 3 Attack”. What’s the Genesis 3 Attack? You’re about to > find out. Here are some excerpts from Hambo’s ess” >

  18. Steve Ruis, an idea has been bouncing around in cosmological circles recently that the universe is mathematically indistinguishable from a hologram. If it is a hologram, we could all be elements in a cosmic multi-dimensional video game. YHVH and Satan installed all those complications you mention to make it as interesting as possible for beings with their advanced intelligence and competitive drive.

    So maybe the ministers in the church my parents took me to were right when they charged that a member of the congregation was “possessed of a demon.” The poor schnook could have been one of Satan’s avatars.

    If you see a new religion spring up that systematizes this computer game/hologram idea, it will mean that, following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard, I have figured out a way to monetize an elaborate fiction.

    Don’t any of you join. Give me nothing but ignorant sheeple for members. Preferably rich ones.