It's time to just come right out and say it, Answers In Genesis founder Ken Ham is a dangerous
man.
Wow, now that's a pretty strong statement, isn't it.
And why would one Christian say that about another Christian?
Well, Ken Ham has an absolute obsession with what he claims is the literal view of Genesis
and insists that the universe and Earth were created in just 6 days and that the universe
is only 6,000 years old.
So let me be clear right off the start, that's okay of you want to believe that as a Christian,
fine, but the problem is, Ken Ham pretty much insists that you can hardly be a Christian
and not hold to that view.
Mr Ham insists this debate about the age of the universe is one of biblical authority
and he will hear no other argument, even ones based on solid scientific work from scientists
who hold to a Christian worldview such as Astrophysicist Dr Hugh Ross.
Just as Richard Dawkins insists no matter what the evidence shows, he will not acknowledge
a God in the design of the universe, Ken Ham has in effect done the same thing by flatly
rejecting anything in science that points to an old earth and universe.
Utterly ignoring that our closest neighboring galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million
light years away, just for starters, the dangerous Ken Ham insists the universe is only a mere
6,000 years old.
But why is Ken Ham dangerous?
For the simple reason that in his article entitled, "Rejecting Six Literal Day - What's
The Real Motivation?"
Ken, instead of looking for real answers and science to back up his assertions, wants to
suggest Christians who even attempt to present evidence of a different interpretation of
Genesis that contradicts Ken's 24 hour 6 day creation interpretation, must have some kind
of anti-Christian anti-God motivation.
In Ken's article, which is a rebuttal to Justin Taylor's article "Biblical Reasons to Doubt
the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods" he does little to actually rebut the 5 reasons
given by Taylor, but instead, questions Taylor's motivations, accusing him of questioning God's
and the Bible's authority.
Ken Ham gets into dangerous, cult like territory when he goes down the path of making the age
of the universe an authority issue instead of making this exactly what it is, an interpretive
issue.
While I am certainly not a Hebrew scholar or a theologian, there are many of those types
who most definitely question how the ancient Hebrew of which Genesis was originally written
is to be interpreted when it comes to the creation event.
Just as there are different views on baptism, there are also differing views on the age
of the universe and how to interpret Genesis 1-2, but not in Ken Ham's world, no, there
is only one, closed minded, anti-science view in his world.
How do you go back to an ancient language, and get an exact meaning from a text, of which
there are no original versions in existence, which by the way also had no vowels, and insist
on an exact interpretation, when there are more educated people than you who may have
a different opinion as to what that text says?
And then to top it all off, you arrogantly want to question their motivation and in effect
say whether they are real Christians or not.
I certainly don't question Ken Ham's Christianity based on whether he wants to ignore sound
science and believe in a 6,000 year old universe which there is not a shred of evidence for,
but I might question his Christianity based on his, my way, or the highway arrogance.
When you question someone else's core beliefs and motivations based on a narrow interpretation
that you hold to, that's when your beliefs and motivations come into question.
Check out the articles I link to in the video description below...
Justin Taylor's article: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/
Ken Ham's article: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/01/30/rejecting-six-literal-days-whats-the-real-motivation/
Hebrew Scholar Michael Heiser's article on Genesis 1-2:
http://drmsh.com/2014/06/20/genesis-1-2-as-polemic/