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
Stay in touch! Like Religion Prof on Facebook:
Scholars Love The Bible
Not What I Planted
Happy Mothers' Day!
Permission vs. Causation
  • 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/blogs/religionprof/ 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://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay 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/blogs/religionprof/ 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://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

        I’m sure you’re 100% wrong. Edit: in fact, here’s very strong evidence that you are wrong: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/18/say-the-word-became-flesh “Only through the lens of God’s Word can we gain a correct understanding of this world. The Bible also reveals that Jesus Christ, the Word, became flesh and serves as our Mediator who will restore all things. His perfect, atoning sacrifice for sin is all that could appease the wrath of the holy God.” Notice the punctuation. “The Bible also reveals that Jesus Christ [comma] the Word [comma] became flesh…”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/ 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. 

          EDIT: You added to your previous comment and so I need to add to this one. I think you’ll find that Ham uses “the Word of God” in reference to the Bible as well as Jesus, and so one has to look at the context to determine which way he is using it.

          • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay 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/blogs/religionprof/ 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://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay 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/blogs/religionprof/ 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://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay 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/blogs/religionprof/ 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.

      • Hisprisoner

        Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

  • 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.

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

        Nope, nothing here but Christianity, but if you mistakenly accept what Ken Ham offers as though it were Christianity, then you will probably mistake actual Christianity for something else.

  • Esmerki

    This entire discussion could be ended with just one verse. John 5:39 “You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me.” We need to stop wondering around our own opinions and confusions and allow God’s Word to speak. Ken ham was not the first one who made a statement of authority in the Word of God, Jesus himself did. He told the Pharisees in this verse that the Scriptures testify of him. He is commanding these religious leaders that did not believe in him to look for him in the Scriptures. It is of interest to notice that Jesus is not talking about the gospels or the New Testament because it had not been written yet. Jesus was sending them back to the Old Testament. Jesus in the Old testament? Sure, He is the theme of the Bible, He is the living Word of God. In few words, Jesus was placing the authority of His ministry and life in the Scriptures. So, if you want to use the verse in Corinthians to desprove the supreme authority of the Word of God, you just failed. Jesus himself is the living Word and he based his own ministry in the Scriptures, the book on which you don’t want to place your authority. Oh wait, you just used a verse from the “Scriptures” to say that they’re not the foundation and authority.

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

      This comment is quite ironic, both because it tries to use a text about Scripture pointing to Jesus to elevate the Scriptures to his status, and because it seems to think that, if the Biblical authors did not view their own writings the way you do, somehow that is self-contradictory. Neither point is persuasive in the least.

      • Esmerki

        Isn’t your comment even more ironic? You’re using a verse from the Scriptures to ignore the authority of the Scriptures. I am not using a verse to elevate the Scriptures and humiliate Jesus’s authority, actually it’s the opposite Jesus himself said these words to emphisize the authority of the Scriptures and his own authority. They are both emphisized. If you think I am violating the intent of the author, give me a better explanation of what the author was saying. Jesus was simply saying that His authority and His personality is clearly explained in the Scriptures. If he sent these religious leaders to the Scriptures, it is because the Scriptures are a foundation for authority.

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

          This is like saying that someone cannot point to things that Plato wrote while disagreeing with what Plato wrote. There is nothing illogical or problematic about doing so. There is more than one way to read a text.

          Your assumption that Jesus spoke the words attributed to him in John, while historians have shown just how unlikely that is, provides clear illustration that you are putting the cart before the horse. You begin with a doctrine about what the Bible must allegedly be, then you force the Bible into that mould, and only then do you reach Jesus, potentially distorted by that lens.

          • Hisprisoner

            I pray that God has mercy on your soul.

          • Esmerki

            I will be sincere with you, you are So confused in your own thoughts that you don’t even know what you believe. If the Bible is not your authority, What is your authority? What do you believe? Where do you find truth? In the ideas and interpretation of historians? I don’t think that you know who you are or what you believe. Your thoughts are just wondering around without sense. Please! be humble, open your eyes to the truth. How can you believe that Jesus Christ is the foundation outside of the teachings and authority of the Word of God? You’re making references to historians but you don’t even make any contributions to the matter. I don’t have more time for these kind of arguments that have confused you as much as a person can be. My question to you is where do you stand? I will boldly keep on standing in the authority of the Word of God. it has a clear message: Jesus Christ and a clear goal: bring sinners to God through Salvation.

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

            This approach is simply an idolatrous attempt to grasp a certainty that God has not given us to have. You cannot decide that you need to be sure you are right, therefore the Bible must have such characteristics as to make that possible. And the fact that there is extensive disagreement among people who believe the Bible to be inerrant tells us something, does it not?

            If you do not have time to study the Bible in a serious and rigorous way, that is your business. But continuing to treat as an idol while not even studying that idol is about as unbiblical an approach to religion as one can imagine.

            I pray that God may lead you out of the darkness that you seem to have mistaken for God’s light. :-(

          • Esmerki

            You’re so confused! The one who actually doesn’t study the Bible rigorously is yourself Sr. Your level of study is manifested in your unbelief. how can you study the Bible so rigorously as you said and not believe it? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
            As you stated, I might not study the Bible as rigorously as I should but at least I have studied it enough that have produced faith in me. However in your situation you declare to have studied the Bible deeply and throughly but you have not found your faith in it. It is evident that your level and form of study have just led you to confusion and unbelief!

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

            I think you must be the one who is confused. I actually spend more time studying the Bible than most people, since I am paid to do that for a living and do not have to limit it to my spare time – although I do study the Bible outside of work hours as well.

            You also seem confused when you refer to my “unbelief” – if you actually studied the Bible, you would have understood, I hope, that it points away from itself and its human authors towards God. Turning the Bible into an object of faith is idolatry and at odds with the teaching of the Bible.

            Or perhaps you think disagreeing with your viewpoint is “unbelief”? In that case, it is not the Bible that you have turned into an idol, but you yourself and your own understanding and thinking.

          • Esmerki

            I would love to explain to you that I don’t have to become an idolatrous of the Bible, just for the simple fact that I believe it is the Word of God and the authority for the Christian faith. I could spend much time just giving you verses that support this truth but you’re so blinded and busy in finding your own way of thinking that it will be waste. Anyway, you know all of those verses because you study the Bible “so much” but they go blank in your understanding.

            I will always disagree with your view of the Scriptures, it is not just a book to point to God, like any other religious book, The Bible is God’s Word to man. “All the Scripture is given by inspiration of God”. I don’t look at the Bible as an idol, I look at it as the Word of God, therefore I have to believe what it says, respect what it says, do what it says and share what it says because it is God’s Word to me. Now, I might sound too fanatic for your unbelief but at least I have a foundation where I stand, my question to you again is :where do you stand?

            What is ironic to me is how you can spend so much time of your life studying one specific book that for you is just a religious book. It is even more ironic to me that someone is paying you to study a book that you don’t even belief, a simple religious book. I guess that is the only reason why you study it because they pay you.

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

            First, the translation of the verse (which obviously cannot refer to a compilation yet to be made, in which the work itself would eventually be included) as “given by inspiration” is problematic. It actually says “God-breathed” and envisages God giving life to what is otherwise lifeless, just like in the creation story.
            I began studying and continue to study the Bible, personally and professionally, because I am a Christian. It is a great privilege to be paid to do something that is so important to me. And it is studying the Bible in such detail which persuaded me to move from the kind of view of the Bible you have, to the kind that I now have.

          • Esmerki

            I can’t believe you get paid to give Such a bad interpretation of that verse. I do agree with you that the Word “inspired” means God-breathed but that it means to give life to something lifeless like in creation that explanation is such an errancy and a false invented meaning. In addition to that how can you use an old testament event like Creation to explain a New Testament Word. Wow! That tells me a lot about your level of study. the meaning of “God-breathed” just declared the origen of the Words, they come from God, he inspired them or breathed these Words to the human writers.

            Another good verse for you is 2 Peter 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. These human writers were “moved” the same word used by paul in Acts 27:15 when they went through that storm in the sea and they were moved a away by the winds so strongly that “they let it drive”. the same word “phero” is used meaning being driven or move with force. This is how clear the Scripture is about is origen and the way in which it was given to the human writers. God breathed them unto men while they were being moved by force of the Holy Spirit to write His Word. This is why I believe it is the Word of God.

            Regarding your transformation from a Christian who believes in the Divine origen of the Scriptures, and it’s authority to the Christian faith to a Christian who denies the authority of the Scriptures and bases his faith on… ???

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

            This comment reminds me of the YouTube comments in which someone doesn’t like a particular band, can’t articulate why, and writes things like “I can’t believe you get paid to make such awful music.” Comments like this fail to address matters of substance. You never explain why, if the author of 2 Timothy meant “inspired,” he didn’t write that, since there are perfectly good ways of saying that in Greek.

            And then you ironically complain that knowledge puffs up, as though your claims to know things you do not while exposing your ignorance are a better alternative to knowledge.

          • Esmerki

            The big difference between that band and you is that at least they’re getting pay for doing a music which they believe is music but you’re getting pay to study a book in which you don’t even believe. A book which you’re just trying to put your own thinking in it and your own knowledge, adjusting the meaning of the Scriptures to your convenience. You are trying to say that What I explained didn’t make any sense or contributions to the matter because I destroyed and clearly exposed your lack of knowledge or let’s call it disrespect to the interpretation of a passage like this. It wasn’t that I didn’t like or just disagreed with your explanation, but it is that you’re clearly braking rules of hermeneutics, using a term from the old testament which was mainly written in Hebrew to explain a Greek Word of the New testament. This mistake is just horrible for someone who does this for a living.

            If you didn’t understand what I explained about the Word “inspired” let me just emphize it o be more time. The word in the original means “God-breathed” which has the idea of origin, God Breathed all the Scriptures, he didn’t give life to lifeless words but these words came from him. He breathed these Words. And 2 Peter explained to us this process.

            About my complaint about knowledge puffing up, this was not a complaint, it was a quote from the Bible which you don’t believe. I am not the one who is claiming to be the expert because he gets pay for doing this and because His knowledge has taken him to a higher level. You’re the one making these arrogant and proud statements! God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

            I might not be an expert like you, but at least I know where I stand. My question to you is still the same where do you stand? Where do you based your salvation? Because you call yourself a “Christian” but on the bases of what authority you call yourself a saved believer? All of these terms are explicitly found in the Bible. The book on which I based my faith.

            Keep on running from this question, you’re afraid of recognizing the authority of the Scriptures even in the terms that you use. If you reconsider you might find yourself agreeing with Ken Ham’s statement.

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

            You comments keep getting stranger and stranger. Your suggestion that the New Testament authors were not intimately acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures, and regularly drawing on and alluding to them, is beyond bizarre. And yet even though you can’t seem to get such basic details about the Biblical authors correct, you arrogantly persist in insisting that someone who is well-informed about them should instead adopt your position of ignorance. And you have the audacity to claim that your failure to understand the Bible is what it means to “stand on the authority of the Word of God”!
            Your view of the Bible only seems persuasive to you because you are so poorly acquainted with its contents. And your ignorance of them is so bad that you mistake your ignorance for faith, and knowledge of the Scriptures for unbelief.

          • Esmerki

            Thanks for your honesty in proving that you have not authority for your belief, so you just have to call ignorant all of those who trust in the authority of the Word of God. By the way, I am not the only “ignorant” who trust in the authority of The Word of God, there are thousands of people of faith who believe the same. I think each one of them would feel proud for being called ignorant by a man like you. A man who spends his life studying a book he doesn’t believe, a man who brags about getting paid for studying that book, a man who calls himself a Christian but has no basics for his faith, or actually doesn’t want to recognize the authority of the Scriptures in his belief; therefore he spends all those hours of study trying to find a way to explain the Scriptures without recognizing its authority. I am very glad for being called ignorant by a man like that.

            Regarding my view of the Scriptures that it is only persuasive to me, I have to clarify that this view has been persuasive to many others believers like Ken Ham, Josh McDowell, John MacArthur, and many other recognized “ignorants” as you called them who believe and are persuaded for the same view of the Scriptures.

            You know, what is sad about this conversation is that the proud man who presented himself as the intellectual, the man of study, and the professional teacher when he couldn’t defend his belief with good arguments against a young man who is just 24 years old, just ended up using such a low and derrogatory vocabulary insulting his opponent; instead of giving good arguments to defend his belief. What a shame!

            I am done! this discussion is out of place. Just remember this you will always know where I stand but you have not said where you stand; actually, I figured it out, you prefer to stand in your own understanding. I will keep on standing on the authority of the Word of God. Hope you never forget this phrase!

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

            This comment is quite amusing, although I suspect you can’t see it. In essence you say, “But you don’t just disagree with Ken Ham, you also disagree with Josh McDowell and others who are just as wrong about the Bible as Ham is!” Did you think that Ken Ham was a unique figure in twisting the Bible as he does?
            You want to be certain, and so you make the Bible an idol that will allow you to feel that way. It is the sin of the golden calf, and it doesn’t matter how many of your fellow conservatives sin in this way, that doesn’t change your sinfulness into righteousness, nor your idolatry into faithfulness to the one God.

  • Kevin

    Ken Ham is the most deplorable human being in the United States of America, and needs to be shut down. Think I’m being extreme…think of the thousands of children’s minds he is destroying for life with his nonsense. Guy is a complete jerk too. Never have I come across a more imbecilic, obtuse, slow minded, unethical, liar, con man and charlatan as this absolute POS. Pity there is no hell for him to go to. This is a truly disgusting, dangerous and evil man, and he and his bs noah’s ark, child indoctrination park need to be shut down. Despicable human. I can’t say enough