Hambo Explains the True Meaning of Genesis

We have some hard-core stuff from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted (well, re-posted) this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: What Does Genesis Mean? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Many Christians have a different principle for interpreting Genesis 1–11 than they do for the rest of God’s Word. [They do?] So what does Genesis mean? Imagine if we approached everything we read like this headline states. For instance, if you were driving and came upon a sign that says STOP, you might think, “It says, ‘Stop,’ but what does that really mean? My personal interpretation is that it means slow down and stop only if you see other cars coming.” We know better. We’re supposed to think, “Oh, a stop sign. I have to obey what it clearly says. It means to come to a full stop.”

A “Stop” sign means what it says, and according to Hambo, that’s how it is with Genesis too. He tells us:

Sadly, today we see Christians applying the first approach to the Bible [That’s horrible!], particularly the book of Genesis — and specifically the age of the earth and universe.

It’s sad indeed. After that he says:

I was on a radio program, and the pastor interviewing me asked something like this: “You agree Christians can have different views of baptism, eschatology, speaking in tongues, Sabbath day, and Calvinism?”

I answered in the affirmative. The pastor continued, “And Christians can have different views of Genesis; it’s the same thing.”

“No, it’s not the same thing,” I replied.

How can Hambo justify that answer? This is how:

I then explained that when Christians disagree on issues like eschatology and baptism, they are arguing from Scripture and within Scripture. However, I contend that the different views of Genesis come from people taking outside ideas, beliefs from fallible man, and interpreting the clear words of Scripture to fit those beliefs.

That’s the problem — it’s those infernal beliefs from outside scripture! He continues:

Now, I’ve actually had people come to me when I speak at conferences and say, “Our pastor is a gap theorist,” or “My daughter’s college professor is a theistic evolutionist,” and so on, and then someone asks me, “What is your position on Genesis?” My answer? “The biblical one, of course: six literal days, young earth, literal Adam, and global Flood. I take it as written.”

Hooray for Hambo! We assume he also believes the Earth is flat, fixed in place, and covered by the dome of the firmament. Let’s read on:

I have looked into every one of the positions on Genesis that contradict the “biblical one” listed above, and I’ve found one common factor. Every single one in some way attempts to incorporate the “millions of years belief” into Genesis. [Gasp!] Here’s what’s so disheartening to me. Many Christian leaders and academics who hold one of these positions on Genesis would, by and large, take God’s Word the same way I do from Genesis 12 onwards! Yes, we may have some theological disagreements arguing from within Scripture, and we may differ on the book of Revelation. But from Genesis 12 onwards, we don’t use outside beliefs from the secular world to force a particular view on God’s Word — but this is what they are doing in Genesis with the millions of years belief.

Phooey on outside beliefs! Another excerpt:

If we let God’s Word speak to us, keeping in mind the aim of various types of biblical literature, anyone can understand the basic message in the same way we can understand a traffic manual. That’s called the perspicuity of Scripture [Huh?], a big word for a simple concept that the message is clear. It means what it says.

Oh — it means what it says. Got it! Here’s more:

If you read Genesis 1–11 to a child, he or she will understand the basic message and would never get the idea of millions of years from this account. No! The idea of millions of years comes from fallible man’s beliefs and is imposed upon Genesis by many who would never impose man’s rejection of Christ’s physical Resurrection or virgin birth on the New Testament!

Hambo is so wise! This will be our last excerpt:

So what does Genesis mean? It means what it so clearly says!

So there you have it, dear reader — straight from Hambo. Genesis means what it says! And that means you can take your science and toss it in the trash, because if you don’t, you’ll end up in the Lake of Fire.

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

15 responses to “Hambo Explains the True Meaning of Genesis

  1. I suggest that one read what the first verses of Genesis say.
    In the beginning there already was a chaos of wind blowing over water. The Bible does not say anything about where or when or what those came from.
    Don’t rely on what someone tells you. Read it yourself.

  2. “interpreting the clear words of Scripture to fit those beliefs”
    Bats are bird – pi equals 3.

  3. Eddie Janssen

    TomS: I don’t understand your comment
    Genesis 1:1: (KJV) “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

    With chaos and void and without form as Genesis 1:2 states

  4. Michael Fugate

    Ham thinks like a child? And yet he denies a stationary flat earth?

  5. Hey Ken, I’m a scientist and I don’t “believe” the earth is billions of years old. I think that that it is billions of years old because that is what massive amounts of evidence indicate. If you’ve got some evidence to the contrary, let me know. Mythology written about your favorite god doesn’t count as evidence any more than the myths about the several thousand other gods people have invented.

  6. Hey, abeastwood: Were you there? Hambo has the written word of the Creator. You’ve got nothing.

  7. “Now, I’ve actually had people come to me when I speak at conferences and say […] What is your position on Genesis?”

    I’m going to call utter BS on that nice pat little story…. nobody in their right mind would ask Ken that, as it’s pretty obvious. usually in the first minute of his “talk”!

    But then, we know that Ken likes to make stuff up…..

  8. Ken even got stop wrong. STOP means this; skid tires on pavement. Silly old man should go back to Oz. I know, they don’t want him back.

  9. “You agree Christians can have different views of baptism, eschatology, speaking in tongues, Sabbath day, and Calvinism?”
    Yes, we can quibble about all these questions by trying to interpret the Bible. But when it comes to interpreting nature, we look at nature.
    Where in the Bible does it tell us that the earth is a planet, going round the sun? (I assume that’s what most Christians believe).

  10. If the word “stop” on a stop sign were an example of a well-defined and recognised narrative genre, one that has been the normal commerce of human story-telling since the very beginning, and if it was the usual practice to read it metaphorically, not literally, then Ham might have a point. As it isn’t, he doesn’t.

    Since Genesis is an example of genre – in fact, of several of them – and since it does not say anywhere that it is not genre, but rather literal history, and since the Bible contains many examples of genre that are known to be genre – the parables of Jesus, for example – the onus is on Ham to demonstrate that Genesis is not genre. But his only recourse is to simple denial: it is not genre because Ken Ham says it isn’t.

    It’s as if the idea of demonstration from observation had never occurred to him. But of course that isn’t true. He makes deductions from evidence every day. We all do. We must.

    I’m sorry. My train of thought was just now interrupted. As I was writing the last words of the last paragraph, one of the dogs was sick (AngloAustralian for “threw up”) on the clean floor. Come to think of it, that’s a case in point. I didn’t see her do it. What happened was I heard coughing noises, and when I got up and went into the kitchen, I saw her backing away from a lumpy puddle. How did I know that God did not place the puddle there? Why did I assume that it was WInnie, the dog?

    But the evidence for an ancient Earth is far more compelling than that. Ham simply denies it by exempting it from everything else. He prefers that God put the puddle there, as it were. It’s as irrational as that.

  11. Michael Fugate

    If you read the story of Joshua to a child, will they get the idea that the earth is a sphere, a big sphere, spinning on its axis at a high velocity?

  12. Karl Goldsmith

    Ken doesn’t seem to understand that comes from Judaism.

  13. @Michael Fugate
    We do not have to speculate as to what children will think about the story.
    Lots of people have understood the story, as well as other passages in the Bible, to be telling us about the regular daily motion of the Sun around the Earth; and we have no examples before about the year 1500 where someone wrote that this might be about a daily rotaton of the Earth.
    Yes, there are a few instances where someone did consider the possibility of the Earth’s daily rotation, but no one came to that conclusion on the basis of what the Bible said. Even Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo didn’t come to their beliefs from a careful reading of the Bible.

  14. I mean, sure, you can real those eleven verses that way but, boy, does it make the next three chapters mighty confusing.