Ken Ham’s Double Standard & the 7Ds of Deception

Or the Ark of Deception

This post is a follow-up to my recent post Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter is Fantastic! In that post, I note the Double-Standard of Answers in Genesis when it comes to depicting the Ark. They chastise illustrators of books for children for their inaccuracies (as defined by AIG) but in their own advertising and practices they do not live up to their own standards.

A Tweet brought another Ken Ham approved message on the dangers that lurk between the covers and frequently on the covers of children’s books and Bibles. In a post on the ArkEncouter.com, Ham reveals that the Ark Encounter will dedicate a whole wall to “Fairy Tale Arks” and the 7Ds of Deception. Next thing you know, he will be insisting that David wasn’t really an Asparagus and Goliath was not a Giant Pickle.

Click Here for “What is a Fairy-Tale Ark and Why Is It Dangerous?

Tantalizingly, Ken Ham only reveals three of the 7Ds of Deception in this post. I can’t wait to visit the Ark Encounter and find out the other four. At $40 a ticket, that’s only $10 per D. A bargain by any post-diluvian standard.

So, what are the first three Ds of Deception? Continue reading “Ken Ham’s Double Standard & the 7Ds of Deception”

Advertisements

Inspiration and Incarnation (Part IV and Final): A Review of Peter Enns’s Book 

In the fourth chapter of Peter Enns’s  Inspiration and Incarnation, Enns turns his attention to the question of how the New Testament authors use the Old Testament. It is a question of hermeneutics or interpretation. Thanks to Rikk Watts at Regent College it is also one of my favourite topics in Biblical Studies. So, as with much of this book, I come at with preformed opinions. As I indicated in the previous post, I thought if I were going to find something “disagreeable” in this book it might come in this chapter. Yet, again, I found nothing in this chapter that accounts for the negative and sometimes viscious reaction of some evangelicals against Enns and his view of Scripture. Continue reading “Inspiration and Incarnation (Part IV and Final): A Review of Peter Enns’s Book “

God Has Spoken 1: Reflections on J.I. Packer’s Book

“Theology is for doxology.” J.I. Packer

As I find myself in the middle of a conversation that is dominated by Evangelistic Atheists (EAs) on the one hand and the heirs (wittingly or unwittingly) of American Fundamentalism on the other hand, I find myself disagreeing with both sides with respect to how they frame the debate and on their assumptions about the nature of Christianity. I have described their almost symbiotic relationship in a series of posts entitled  An Unhappy Marriage.

As one who grew up reading and watching Carl Sagan and other modern scientific apologists, I too imbibed a particular views of Christianity especially with respect to the nature of revelation and of the Christian Scriptures aka the Bible. I accepted their understanding of the nature of Scripture and of Biblical Revelation. This view was reinforced by some Christian relatives, televangelists, and pop-culture in general. For instance, my grandfather was into End-Times charts and, as far as I know, I was the only one of his grandchildren that enjoyed these theological conversations. Like Carl Sagan, I was much more into extra-terrestrials but was fascinated by people’s beliefs in and the idea of supernatural beings as well.

For the most part, those who engage in evolution vs. creationism or science vs. Christianity debate seem to share similar views on the nature of Scripture. Obviously, atheists reject that any text ought to be authoritative in the way Christians hold the Bible to be authoritative but many atheists tend to grant that people like Ken Ham and other heirs of American Fundamentalism are normative with respect to how Christians do and ought to read Scripture. Continue reading “God Has Spoken 1: Reflections on J.I. Packer’s Book”

Is this true? If so, how?

Ozymandias

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive stamped, on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Is Shelley’s poem true? If so, In what way? 

How does your understanding of the truth of Shelley’s poem relate to your understanding of truth as it is presented in the Christian Scriptures?

Humanity was not made for Scripture but Scripture for Humanity

Following from the idea of sola scriptura (scripture alone), many Christians, primarily those coming out of the Protestant traditions, have come to think that if people will just read the Bible they will become followers of Christ. That is, they seem to suggest that acceptance of the Bible as an authoritative text for life precedes acceptance of Christ Jesus as Lord and Savio(u)r.

In convincing the world of this basic though generally erroneous assumption, we Protestants have unfortunately been quite successful. I am reminded of this through my recent interactions with non-Christians of various kinds.

To witness our success, take some time to listen to how non-Christians portray Christianity. For a moment, you might see yourself as in a mirror, it may be a funhouse mirror but it is a mirror, nonetheless.

When you do take time to listen, to ask questions, to create space for your neighbo(u)r to give voice to their ideas, frustrations, fears, dreams, desires, and concerns, I think you will hear what I hear quite consistently. That is, in the distortions of the funhouse mirror, this view of the authority of Scripture is an accurate reflection of what they hear from Christians. Continue reading “Humanity was not made for Scripture but Scripture for Humanity”

Dinosaurs, Dragons and Ken Ham: The Literal Reality of Mythological Creatures

This post is a fun one. I have not read Mayor’s books but, perhaps, they will make some fun summer reading. Her thesis as presented in this post from http://www.thenaturalhistorian.com seem plausible enough. Enjoy!

Naturalis Historia

A mastodon skull. Notice, the hole in the center of the skull. This is where the large trunk (nose) was inserted. A skull like this seems likely to be the source of legends of cyclops. Figure 1: A mastodon skull. Notice, the hole in the center of the skull. This is where the large trunk (nose) was attached. A skull like this seems to have been the source of legends of cyclops.

Image you are living in 200 BC in the Middle East and you come by the skull to the right (Fig. 1) as you plow your field or when you explore the local cave complex.  What if you are wandering the desert  in Egypt and happen upon the bones in the second figure. Or what about the skull in the third figure?  What if you came upon the jaw of a dinosaur (Fig. 4) in the sandstone rocks?   What would you  think?  What would you think they came from?

Surely you would think they came from something that had been alive because you are familiar with the dried bones and skulls of…

View original post 1,891 more words

How to Teach Genesis 1  – Part I: Don’t Begin with “In the Beginning . . . “

Given that my post How to Teach Genesis 1 in 30 Minutes remains one of my most popular posts, I thought my readers (new and old) might appreciate a little more detail and a slower walk through the process.

While my previous post was aimed at a single session, this series will hopefully aid those who teach introductory or survey courses either in an academic or church setting.

Related Posts: Why Seven Days?Review of Michael Cosby’s Interpreting Biblical LiteratureHave Sex and Eat: The First Two CommandmentsWhen is a Snake not Merely a Snake?Review: Pete Enn’s Inspiration & Incarnation 1

Mistakes to Avoid:

Mistake 1. Beginning with Genesis

Do not begin with Genesis. As I have stated elsewhere, I think the majority of textbooks and biblical overview courses make a pedagogical error in beginning with “In the beginning . . . ” In any other subject, you teach the basics first before you jump into the really difficult material. You don’t jump into Hamlet before you teach grammar and the basics of poetry.

What’s a rhyme? What’s a simile? What’s a metaphor? Am I reading a comedy or a tragedy? If Romeo & Juliet is really a love story, then why do they die in the end? If Hamlet is a tragedy, why are there so many funny moments? Is that another dirty joke? Err, I mean, Is that more ribald humor? How come the clowns aren’t funny? Continue reading “How to Teach Genesis 1  – Part I: Don’t Begin with “In the Beginning . . . “”

Bones of Contention IV: A YEC Homo naledi Fossil Status Scorecard

Natural Historian continues his summary and assessment of the three major Young Earth Creationist organizations interpretations of the Homo Naledi fossil find. — IP

I highly recommend this website for those who are interested in the Christianity and Science discussion. Of course, they do more than address YEC related topics.

Naturalis Historia

Creation Ministries International, the third of the big-three literal solar-day young earth creationist organizations, weighed in yesterday with their own assessment of the remarkable set of bones found in the deep recesses of a South African cave. The scientists who recovered and examined those bones over a two-year period have identified them as belonging to a previously unknown species of the genus Homo which they have called Homo naledi.

Now that the final of the big-three have made their assessments of the bones I thought it would be helpful to compare their views. Below is a chart I made to help summarize the responses of these three YEC organizations to this important fossil discovery.

Young Earth Creationist’ Assessment* of the physical and spiritual status of Homo naledi fossils from South Africa
Organization Answers in Genesis Institute for Creation Research Creation Ministries International
Publication title and location

Homo naledi: Claims…

View original post 1,533 more words

Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Dispensationalist: What’s the Difference?

A recent conversation with a family member who was a little disturbed by me describing myself as an Evangelical Christian inspired this post. In this conversation, it was clear that the term Evangelical is often seen as and used as a synonym for Fundamentalist.

I am an Evangelical Christian but I am neither a Fundamentalist nor a Dispensationalist (nor a Young Earth Creationist — but I have written enough about that in other posts).

Whaaaaat? Is that even possible?

Yes. Yes it is.

In this post, I attempt to clarify the meaning of the terms evangelical, fundamentalist, and dispensationalist by setting them in their historical and Christian contexts. Continue reading “Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Dispensationalist: What’s the Difference?”

What Motivates Ken Ham? or What Answers in Genesis gets Wrong about N.T. Wright

A common tactic of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (AiG) is to attack fellow Christians and accuse them of being “compromised Christians.” In the process, if they don’t outright misrepresent these men and women (mostly men), then they most certainly under represent their significant and valuable contributions to the Church and yes, even to, the Academy.

Most recently, Simon Turpin, one of the UK spokespeople for AiG, has aimed his crosshairs at the distinguished Biblical scholar and former Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright. (Click for AiG article.) Wright has devoted his entire life to the service of the Church and the Academy. Moreover, he is of that all too rare and special breed of scholar who is not only able to write to his academic peers but to translate that work into simpler, more accessible, popular books. Indeed, he helps his reader by using the name N.T. Wright on his more difficult and erudite books and Tom Wright on his more popular works. In addition, he is an incredible public speaker and is among the best preachers I have had the privilege to hear.

Later in this post, I will address Turpin’s misleading portrayal of Wright. For now, it is enough to suggest that even Wright’s “secular” colleagues and critics would be amused to hear him described as compromising and seeking their approval. Indeed, if they read Turpin’s descriptions, they would likely mistake his descriptions as ironic or satirical like when you name an elephant Tiny. Having met Wright myself, I suspect this description would be met with a chuckle. Continue reading “What Motivates Ken Ham? or What Answers in Genesis gets Wrong about N.T. Wright”