AIG Explains How To Persuade Droolers

This is great advice from the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Their headline asks a question: What’s Wrong with the Word Story? It was written by Bodie Hodge, Hambo’s son-in-law. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I grew up with Bible “stories.” I heard them in Sunday School and youth programs. I read books about Bible “stories.” I was taught about Bible “stories” for years and years. People have compared Bible stories with other stories and fictional movies like the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Aesop’s Fables, or Star Wars. I even talked about Bible “stories” when teaching in the past. But all that changed.

Changed? How? Bodie explains:

One day I made a comment about the evolutionary “story.” I had a man come up to me, and he was clearly not happy. He was very upset that I had called evolution a “story,” because to him, it wasn’t a “story” but the “truth.” [Obviously a fool!] He was okay with me calling biblical accounts “stories,” because, as he put it, ”the Bible was full of myths and fictional accounts so they could rightly be called stories.” But how dare I call evolution “a story” in his view.

That must have been a ghastly encounter. Bodie tells us:

At that moment, I realized that the word story no longer means what story used to mean. Ken Ham, apologist and founder of Answers in Genesis often points out that story now means fairy tale or fiction. A story, to the common person on the street, means movies like Shrek, Cinderella, Lord of the Rings, or your own personal account of what happened with your own “not-so-true” embellishments! That type of story doesn’t necessarily recount what actually happened in the past. So, story no longer means history.

Then there’s a long — far too long — discussion of dictionary definitions now, and how the definitions of “story” were sequenced differently a century ago. When he’s done with that, Bodie tells us:

The point is that the word story no longer means a true historical account, a true narrative, or a record/statement of actual events of the past. If you want to use story to mean an actual historical event, then you need to explain it each time you do, which defeats the purpose of even using the word!

Okay, Bodie — we get what you’re saying. Now what? He continues:

The relevance of this discussion should be obvious. The Bible records actual events as true history [Scripture references]. If we continue using the word story regarding biblical accounts, then many listeners or readers will automatically think the Bible is nothing but a collection of fictional events.

We certainly don’t want that! Let’s read on:

As Christians who stand on the authority of God’s Word as the absolute truth, we need to make sure we are conveying the proper message clearly. We want the truth of God’s Word to be taught and preached to listeners and readers so that they can better grasp the meaning of the text of Scriptures.

Finally, he tells us how to handle this newly-discovered problem:

Many have shifted how to talk and write about biblical accounts. For example, I just used the word account. Did you notice that? I also use words and phrases like biblical history, true history, narrative, events of the past, record of events, chronological account, biblical records, past events, chronicle, history, and so on. If or when I do use story (yep, sometimes it slips out!), I caveat it and make sure the reader or audience knows what I mean each and every time.

For the droolers who probably comprise most of AIG’s readership, Bodie gives yet another explanation of the problem:

[D]efinitions sometimes change over time (e.g., consider the meaning of the word “gay” – meaning happy and carefree just 50-60 years ago – with its meaning now). We need to be able to recognize these definitional changes and adjust if necessary.

He finishes his article — finally! — with some advice:

Although this may seem trivial to some, the importance of this cannot be overstated. The last thing we want to do is be a stumbling block to someone who says, “Why should I believe the Bible when you Christians just think it is stories (i.e., “fiction,” “untruths”)?” Such a problem is easy to deal with using better terminology. … As Christians in unity, we want people to understand that the historical accounts in the Bible are true, and therefore, the message of the Gospel, founded in that same history, is also true.

That’s really useful. If you’re a creationist and you want droolers to know that your tales of Oogity Boogity are The Truth, don’t worry about things like evidence. Just don’t use the word “story.” Really, that’s all there is to it.

Copyright © 2019. 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

10 responses to “AIG Explains How To Persuade Droolers

  1. Bodie, I never use the word “story” to refer to tales in the bible. I use the more accurate “myth”.

  2. “The point is that the word story no longer means a true historical account.”
    Hey, Bodie, we Dutchies are rather fond of Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas) stories. They never were meant as true historical accounts. You make exactly the same mistake as that upset evilutionist you talk about.
    For the record: I’m totally OK with calling evolution a story. And this time I accept your definition: evolution from the Big Bang until here and now. Science ao other things does construct an origin story indeed. The first difference with the creacrap you propagate is that this scientific story (ie evolution) is backed with lots and lots of evidence, unlike yours. Also this story is way more interesting and exciting than what the Bible tells. Which is why you take over some elements (dinosaurs, Ice Age) which that Book of Ignorants failed to mention.
    Don’t worry, Bodie, no matter how you use the words story and account, creacrap will remain crap.
    Btw nice to see that you stick to yet another fallacy popular among creationists (and unfortunately also way too many unbelievers): if one Biblical account appears to be fictional (like Moses and his tribe wandering the Sinai) it doesn’t mean all Biblical accounts are. The Babylonian exile totally happened.

    “As Christians in unity”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! With Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller, no doubt. Oh wait, my bad – in your dictionary being a christian means uncritically accepting whatever nonsense your father in law produces. Smells rather like No-True-Christian in my evilutionist nose.

    “the historical accounts in the Bible are true, and therefore, the message of the Gospel, founded in that same history, is also true.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! The historical accounts of the Waffen-SS are also true. So according to this argument their racist message also is.
    Way to go, Bodie!

  3. Richard Staller

    Bodie, I never use the word “story” to refer to tales in the bible. I use the more accurate “myth”.

    To be more accurate and to use the definitions of Joseph Campbell, all of the Bible stories are an integral part of our shared human mythology, not necessarily meaning these stories are false but part of our common religious or cultural traditions and heritage. They were never meant by their originators to be construed as a historical record and forget about science, the concept didn’t exist in the Bronze Age cultures (going back to the origins of many of these stories in Mesopotamia times).

    But in terms of the history yeah for the most part they are mere myths created by men.

  4. Once again, creationist Hodie Bodge uses the mythical “a man I know” construction to set the scene for his story.

    I do it, myself, but I’m a fiction writer. Oh, wait, wait! So is Bodge! Silly me.

  5. Michael Fugate

    As Christians who stand on the authority of God’s Word as the absolute truth, we need to make sure we are conveying the proper message clearly.
    Then why aren’t they supporting a the biblical universe as depicted here:

  6. Michael Fugate

    If anyone is interested – a new paper on looking for early traces of life:

  7. @MichaelF asks a simple question: “Then why aren’t they …..”
    Because they believe what suits them, whether it’s a scientific or a theological conclusion.

  8. Michael Fugate

    So the “proper” message is whatever Ken Ham believes today and whatever Ken Ham believes today is the proper message…

  9. we need to make sure we are conveying the proper message clearly.
    So, why are they not spending millions of dollars in the basics for understanding the original texts, the languages that they were in, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? They should be teaching these languages as soon as possible. Young children can learn languages easily.

  10. Typical creationist nonsense. Redefine words, limit their use, invent new ones. Obfuscate, complain you’re persecuted. Too bad it works far too often. And, yes wouldn’t it be nice to have the original text of the bible stories, not just copies of copies of translated copies of copies?