Ken Ham Finally Confesses His Heresy!

Thanks to a commenter for pointing out that Ken Ham, in a post on his blog yesterday, finally confessed his unbiblical heretical teachings in unambiguous terms.

Ham wrote, “God’s people need to repent of compromise and return to the foundation of the inerrant Word of God instead of building on the foundation of fallible sinful man.”

1 Corinthians 3:11, on the other hand, says: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

If your aim is to be Biblical, then I strongly suggest that you take a very close look at what Ken Ham and other young-earth creationists have to say, in detail.

On a related topic, see Joel Watts’ recent posts on how Ken Ham makes atheists and how he makes God out to be a liar. On that last point, see too this video about a scientist visiting the Creation Museum, and listen to one of the museum’s own scientific staff contradict himself over whether one can trust God’s testimony in nature (and the damage it does to the impression of Christianity the maker of the video is left with):

YouTube Preview Image

  • Gary

    I do not understand how a person like Jason Lisle can get a PhD in astrophysics and still claim YEC theology as true. There has to be a cult mentality to it. He has to throw out-the-window the very basic material he studied. I suppose he found a niche, a group of people he is comfortable with, and wants to be a member of this small group, and ignore the basic scientific foundations of evidence in his field. YEC’ists aren’t attacked by mainstream Christians, I think, because they are viewed as one of them. Like the strange cousin everyone wants to hid in the back room during family gatherings. He’s part of the family, but everyone knows he’s crazy.

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      If I were willing to sell out for financial gain (or perhaps simply had given in to the bullying that takes place in fundamentalist circles), and were to throw my weight behind young-earth creationism, I’m sure it would result in book deals and speaking engagements that would help put my child through college. I can understand the many reasons why some people who should and probably do know better align themselves with young-earth creationism. What is harder for me to understand is why so very many other Christians are gullible enough not to see what is really going on.

  • Dmleitch

    As I continue work on my MTS I have been fortunate enough to take part in a class, Reading Genesis in a Scientific Age. We are exploring the wide range of interpretations of Scripture, especially those texts dealing with the traditional quagmires. From Harlow’s article unabashedly presenting Adam and Eve as strictly literary to Morris’s Scientific Creationism our search is a great overview of the issues. I post this because I wish a class like this could be translated into something palatable for the church. Then, perhaps, many of the faithful would learn that YEC and other radical interpretations are not only inconsistent with the purpose of scripture but actually damage our mission of loving and sharing the Truth who is Jesus Christ.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

    Ham wrote,
    “God’s people need to repent of compromise and return to the foundation
    of the inerrant Word of God instead of building on the foundation of
    fallible sinful man.”
    1
    Corinthians 3:11, on the other hand, says: “For no one can lay any
    foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

    *facepalm*

    John 1:14 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his
    glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full
    of grace and truth.”

    Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.  To refer to one is to refer to the other.

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I am quite certain that you’ll find Ham to have been talking about the Word of God being a book, rather than as a reference to the Word made flesh as Jesus.

      • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

         I’m sure you’re 100% wrong.

        • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Interesting. How do you know this? It is much more common to speak of the Bible as “the inerrant Word of God” than it is to speak of Jesus using that phrase. 

          • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

            How do I know?  Because I’m an evangelical Christian and that’s what we’re taught in church.  It’s actually quite common among us that “Word of God” refers to both the Bible and Jesus because they are one in the same.

            • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              You are taught that the Bible is Jesus and Jesus is the Bible? Having spent much of the last quarter of a century in a variety of evangelical churches, of different denominations and no denominational affiliation, in multiple countries, I have never encountered the claim that the Bible and Jesus are the same since both are referred to as the Word of God. Could you please say more?

              • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

                No.  We’re taught that the Word is the Bible, that the Word is God, and Jesus is the Word made flesh, just as John 1 states.  If you build your foundation on the Word of God, you are building it on God Himself, on the Bible and on Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.  Despite your extremely limited experiences, this is what evangelicals are taught and believe.  To claim otherwise — especially based on spurious, judgmental, and ignorant assumptions about people like Ken Ham — is dishonest.

                • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  Since you said that my experience is extremely limited, I can’t tell whether you are serious. But I must insist that Jesus is not a book, and although you may have misunderstood this point because of the tendency to use “the Word” for both Jesus and the Bible, I am confident that those whom you heard using this terminology are unlikely to have shared your confusion about this point. And I suspect that you may in fact be trying to introduce blurriness in an effort to defend Ken Ham’s unbiblical notions, even if it means taking the whole of Evangelicalism down with you.

                  • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

                     Given how many Christian churches exist in the world, yes, your experiences are extremely limited.  Now, as you think that I said Jesus was a book, now *I* cannot tell if *you* are being serious.  I never said any such thing and your attempt to argue as if I did and claim I am confused is nothing more than a straw man argument.  You clearly do not comprehend John 1 and are trying to blur the passage to create the confusion in others that you claim I suffer from.  Ken Ham’s notions about the foundation of Christianity are not unbiblical and are completely in line with everything in the Bible, particularly John 1.  Finally, your statement about me “taking the whole of Evangelicalism down” paints you as a complete clown.  I’m through with your unbiblical falsehoods.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Martin, when it sounded like Jinx McHue was quoting Scripture, he was actually quoting Ken Ham. But that in itself says something, doesn’t it?

                      Jinx, everyone who is pandering to those who express concern for being “biblical” assert that they are biblical and their opponents are “unbiblical.” You need to do more than make assertions. You need to make a case for your view, explain yourself clearly, and not simply assume that if someone criticizes Ken Ham they must be wrong, as though Ken Ham must be right simply because you happen to like what has to say.

                • Stephanie McGrath

                  The bible does tell us:John 1New King James Version (NKJV)
                  The Eternal Word1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.John’s Witness: The True Light6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.[b]10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own,[c] and His own[d] did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.The Word Becomes Flesh14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”16 And[e] of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[f] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

  • Martin

    I’m not a Christian, but I followed through to this page from the lunacy of Ken Ham’s page. Isn’t the answer to Jinx McHugh’s point that what is translated in John’s gospel, in English, as “the Word”, was in fact “logos” in Greek, which means logic or reason. If Ken Ham was saying that people need to return to the foundation of logic or reason, I couldn’t really disagree, but that’s plainly not what he’s saying. In fact, Ken Ham seems to conveniently ignore the fact that “Word” in John’s gospel is a translation of logic or reason, and has nothing to do with the written Bible, but he frequently slides the two together in support of Biblical inerrancy. Its also interesting that Jinx McHugh  supports his argument based on commas in the English text, as my understanding – maybe its wrong – is that there were no commas in the Greek. What I absolutely can’t understand is all these fundamentalist/evangelicals claiming that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but they can’t be bothered to learn or even consider the language in which it was written, although it was supposedly God’s language of choice. What are they afraid of?

  • Ian

    That actually inspired an entirely different thought – the “sinful fallible man” who was the rock upon whom Jesus chose to build his church…

    • Michael J Findley

      I thought when I first saw this page that this was some kind of Secular Humanist parody. It really is, but I believe that you actually believe these lies which make up the article. “one of the museum’s own scientific staff contradict himself. ” No heresies or contradictions exist in the video or sources you cite.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X