Some may excuse Mr. Ham on the ground that he has no theological or biblical training (he has a bachelor\u2019s degree in applied science). I am not so inclined for one reason: by assuming the pulpit of churches and declaring he intends to interpret the Bible, he de facto sets himself up as a Bible teacher, and should be held accountable to know not only the relevant facts, but the proper way to exegete and teach a passage of scripture. If he does not want to give up seven years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars to get training in the Bible, theology, and the ancient languages (the standard degree program for clergy) then that is perfectly understandable. What is not so understandable is his desire to set himself up as a Bible teacher without getting Bible training.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Amen! That\u2019s one reason why, as much as I applaud Rachel Held Evans\u2019 eirenic approach<\/a> on one level, on another I think that the best course of action is for those who are well-informed about the Bible to debunk, refute and if necessary \u2018refudiate\u2019 the statements of those who have no expertise in any field of scholarship related to the Bible, and yet believe that without any real knowledge of the original languages, historical context, and other relevant factors, their pontifications will do anything but harm the souls of believers and the Christian faith itself. <\/p>\n
Nevertheless, she is absolutely right<\/a> that Ham has\u00a0exalted his own dubious young-earth creationist views above concern for other Christians, and is willing to harm the latter in his vain attempts at defending the former. And I certainly encourage everyone to read her response to Ken Ham on her blog<\/a>. And I\u2019m looking forward to reading her book!<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-9144324376625338814?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"