# Ken Ham agrees with the atheists



## lynnie (Jun 6, 2011)

Catchy title, huh? ( not mine). The debate just gets wierder all the time....


Ken Ham Agrees With Atheists on Literal View of Adam and Eve?, Christian News

Answers in Genesis President/CEO Ken Ham is siding with the atheists for once, he says.

Disturbed by a recent cover story investigating the need to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Ham, who endorses a literal view of Genesis, criticized several Christian theologians for rejecting both a literal interpretation of the first couple and existence of a young Earth.

The story, entitled “The Search for the Historical Adam” featured on the June issue of the Christianity Today magazine, quoted a number of Christian scholars who held an evolutionary and allegorical belief of Genesis that accorded with scientific evidence.

Academics like Francis Collins, Karl Giberson, Darrell Falk, and other theologians, found that a literal account of Adam and Eve simply “did not fit the evidence” and suggested different theories, including Adam being a “story of Israelite origins,” not the origin of all humanity.

The founder of AiG reproved the majority of those cited, stating that they were compromising “God’s Word with man’s fallible beliefs about evolution, millions of years, etc.”

Not his first time blasting Old Earth creationists and Christian scholars who believed in an evolutionary account of Genesis, Ham has long touted his six-day 24-hour creation beliefs, as well as a literal view on Adam and Eve.

He emphasized that compromise on Genesis had opened a dangerous door regarding how the culture and church view biblical authority today, and argued that Christians must preserve the Bible’s authority as 100% true through a strong teaching of the first book.

But Christian scientists like Francis Collins, founder of the BioLogos website that claimed to represent the harmony of science and faith, found no conflict in seeing Genesis as “a poetic and powerful allegory,” unlike Ham, explaining that God could have possibly used the first couple to illustrate His endowment of a spiritual and moral nature.

Collins also “reported scientific indications that anatomically modern emerged from primate ancestors perhaps 100,000 years ago-- long before the apparent Genesis time frame-- and originated with a population that numbered something like 10,000, not two individuals.”

Similarly, a BioLogos paper by Dennis Venema and Falk declared that the human population “was definitely never as small as two.”

“Our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear on that,” they commented.

Peter Enns was also quoted in the feature, supporting the same view as Collins that Genesis and the Bible itself was more allegorical than literal.

Reciting the first chapters of Genesis, Enn was recorded to state, “The Bible itself [invited] a symbolic reading by using cosmic battle imagery and by drawing parallels between Adam and Israel.”

“To Enns, a literal Adam as a special creation without evolutionary forebears is ‘at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural sciences and cultural remains,’” an excerpt from the article read.

Dr. Bruce Waltke, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society was open to the new thinking as well, expressing, “We have to go with the scientific evidence. I don’t think we can ignore it. I have full confidence in Scripture, but it does not represent what science represents.”

In contrast to the growing number of Christians who were in favor of a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, AiG affirmed in the recent publication that “God created the mature, fully functioning creation in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.”

If AiG’s claims were substantiated, Christianity Today posited, “[it] would... demolish Darwinism because such a brief chronology offers no time for evolutionary processes to occur.”

Calling it “the major theological battle in Christianity in the 21st century,” the article reinforced what Ham has been warning believers of all along-- the allowance of a fallible, inaccurate Bible.

“The emerging science could be seen to challenge not only what Genesis records about the creation of humanity but the species’ unique status as bearing the “image of God,” Christian doctrine on original sin and the Fall, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and, perhaps most significantly, Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ,” the writer noted.

*Even atheists understood this point “better than the majority of Christian academics,” Ham asserted.

Referencing a previous post featured on American Atheists, he shared a part of the piece on his blog, which revealed, “No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior.”

“It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it.”

For the young Earth creationist, it was a sad day he shared, when the atheists understood Christianity better than so many Christians did.

“As shocking as it may seem, I agree with the atheists, not the majority of Christian academics,” Ham concluded. “So many Christian academics give in to the secular world [because] they want to be seen as academically respectable in the eyes of the world.”*
“No wonder we are losing most of the next generation from the church. And no wonder we are losing the Christian base that so permeated our once Christianized Western world.”

Citing several verses from the Bible concerning Adam (Luke 3:38, Job 31:33, Jude 1:14, Romans 5:14, and etc) the Australian apologist confirmed his steadfast belief, despite “man’s word,” that the first man, Adam, was in fact a real man-- a literal Adam.

“To say otherwise is to undermine Scripture and thus attack the Word, which is an attack of the person of Jesus Christ, Who is the Word.”


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 6, 2011)

Ham is correct. When you undermine the historicity of Adam and Eve, you undermine Christianity, not to mention common sense (If Adam is figurative, then why does he start a geneology?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 6, 2011)

He brings it right back to the main, underlying issue: "No fall of man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer." Absolutely true.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 6, 2011)

Romans chapter 5 teaches that we inherit Adam's guilt and corrupt nature. This could not have happened if Adam was not a real person.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 6, 2011)

So, wait. Who's agreeing with atheists again?


----------



## Quatchu (Jun 6, 2011)

lynnie said:


> Not his first time blasting Old Earth creationists and Christian scholars who believed in an evolutionary account of Genesis, Ham has long touted his six-day 24-hour creation beliefs, as well as a literal view on Adam and Eve.



Good articles very true. It seemed to not understand OEC very well, as OEC do not believe in evolution, it seems if they understood the terms correctly they would have put theistic evolutionists. The misunderstanding in terms got to me.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jun 6, 2011)

Ken Ham is a good man, and one who has tought me a lot.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jun 6, 2011)

Harley said:


> He brings it right back to the main, underlying issue: "No fall of man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer." Absolutely true.


 
That's about the long and short of it.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 6, 2011)

Harley said:


> He brings it right back to the main, underlying issue: "No fall of man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer." Absolutely true.


 
Unless there is a literal fall of man from an unliteral Adam.

As far as early Genesis, I'd bet it contains scientific truth best explained by the words of the ancients, and/or yet discovered.


----------



## jayce475 (Jun 6, 2011)

lynnie said:


> Catchy title, huh? ( not mine). The debate just gets wierder all the time....
> 
> 
> Ken Ham Agrees With Atheists on Literal View of Adam and Eve?, Christian News
> ...


 
And sister the problem with this article is?


----------



## baron (Jun 6, 2011)

I always assumed that all Christians believed in a literal Adam and Eve and young earth.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 6, 2011)

baron said:


> I always assumed that all Christians believed in a literal Adam and Eve and young earth.


 
You would be surprised.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jun 6, 2011)

I haven't found young earth to be in the majority.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 7, 2011)

This has always been so - one of the major problems facing the church is the confusion sown by compromising "Christians" (aka "useful idiots").

On the plus side it can be entertaining to see the extreme frustration it can cause atheists like Dawkins. They prove and they prove that if Genesis is false the whole structure crumbles with it, origin of sin and death, need for atonement, substitutionary death of second Adam and all. It's water off a duck's back to the theistic evolutionists. No theistic evolutionist can see a thing wrong with his own logic, ...but the atheists can  and of course they're dead right.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 7, 2011)

I got into a discussion last night with a WSCal student who had drunk the kool-aid and believed firmly that a six day view is fundamentalist and biblicist, and not required by "in the space of six days" in the Standards (even though it's in the WSC too, which was written to be memorized by children and the mentally impaired).

It is sad when atheists are better exegetes than seminary students.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Jun 7, 2011)

I see alot of judgment and I see so little empathy. Many of us who went through public school having evolution and old earth crammed down our throat are doing our best to believe that Bible. I got saved in the middle of my senior year of Highschool already been indoctrinated. I am trying to believe in a young earth. Just give me time. In faith I completly believe it but in my intellect I have trouble alot. Just a little patience is needed.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 7, 2011)

puritanpilgrim said:


> I haven't found young earth to be in the majority



Majority of whom? Christians or the world?


----------



## Andres (Jun 7, 2011)

austinww said:


> I got into a discussion last night with a WSCal student who had drunk the kool-aid and believed firmly that a six day view is fundamentalist and biblicist, and not required by "in the space of six days" in the Standards (even though it's in the WSC too, which was written to be memorized by children and the mentally impaired).
> 
> It is sad when atheists are better exegetes than seminary students.


 
I am just presuming here, but I think that might have a bit to do with the fact that WSC is/was heavily influenced by Meredith Kline. Kline, of course, was a major proponent of the framework theory. I have also heard from other "Klineans" that the WFC doesn't necessarily espouse a young earth creation. I was told that "in the space of six days" doesn't necessarily mean literal 24-hour days.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 7, 2011)

Andres said:


> I was told that "in the space of six days" doesn't necessarily mean literal 24-hour days



It is true that the Hebrew word "yom" can mean an indeterminate amount of time, but it can also mean a literal day, depending on context. In Genesis 1, it clearly means a literal day because the text qualifies each day by saying "and the morning and the evening were the___day". It seems fairly obvious that one morning and one evening would make one literal day.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 7, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> It is true that the Hebrew word "yom" can mean an indeterminate amount of time, but it can also mean a literal day, depending on context. In Genesis 1, it clearly means a literal day because the text qualifies each day by saying "and the morning and the evening were the___day". It seems fairly obvious that one morning and one evening would make one literal day.


 
And in Exodus 20, in the context of the Sabbath, it's pretty clear that the six days of creation are referenced as literal 24 hour days.

In the end, there's no reason to think that God didn't create all things in a six-day span. John MacArthur's book _Battle for the Beginning_ deals with this quite well.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 7, 2011)

Andres said:


> I have also heard from other "Klineans" that the WFC doesn't necessarily espouse a young earth creation. I was told that "in the space of six days" doesn't necessarily mean literal 24-hour days.



Framework advocates like to say this, but it can't be substantiated. The Westminster divines held to six day creation. And I'll reiterate what I pointed out before: The WSC was written for children and the mentally impaired, and Question 9 says God created "in the space of six days." I heard a 13-year-old girl recite it during catechism after the evening service this past Lord's day (at an RPCGA plant I was visiting); what do you think she thinks it means? It is inconceivable to me to think that the Westminster divines intended six-year-old children to memorize "in the space of six days" and think it might allow for "in a non-chronological literary device that's really millions of years."


----------



## JennyG (Jun 7, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> I am trying to believe in a young earth. Just give me time. In faith I completly believe it but in my intellect I have trouble alot. Just a little patience is needed.



I completely sympathise, you get all the patience you need from me! I had the same problem, in an environment totally intellectually hostile. I found Phillip Johnson's books great - I would put the book down wondering how I had ever been fooled for a moment,... but within the hour the certainty had leaked away. I remember thinking at the time that it was like trying to re-route a locomotive with an incalculable number of carriages hooked on behind. The locomotive, ie the conscious, thinking, logical mind, was no problem, because the case for God's creation really is watertight,... but the carriages of implication and consequences and sheer lifelong mental habit were another matter entirely.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 7, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> I see alot of judgment and I see so little empathy. Many of us who went through public school having evolution and old earth crammed down our throat are doing our best to believe that Bible. I got saved in the middle of my senior year of Highschool already been indoctrinated. I am trying to believe in a young earth. Just give me time. In faith I completly believe it but in my intellect I have trouble alot. Just a little patience is needed.



I agree, Weston, and I think many "young earthers" (myself included) can relate to your experience and the difficulties. It is mainly ministers of the gospel (and seminary students in training to be ministers of the gospel) that I can be a little impatient with, more than anybody, when it comes to this sort of thing. Keep studying, reading, praying, and this board is not a bad place to ask questions.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Jun 7, 2011)

austinww said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> > I see alot of judgment and I see so little empathy. Many of us who went through public school having evolution and old earth crammed down our throat are doing our best to believe that Bible. I got saved in the middle of my senior year of Highschool already been indoctrinated. I am trying to believe in a young earth. Just give me time. In faith I completly believe it but in my intellect I have trouble alot. Just a little patience is needed.
> ...


 
haha thanks for the clarification


----------



## Andres (Jun 7, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I was told that "in the space of six days" doesn't necessarily mean literal 24-hour days
> ...


 


austinww said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I have also heard from other "Klineans" that the WFC doesn't necessarily espouse a young earth creation. I was told that "in the space of six days" doesn't necessarily mean literal 24-hour days.
> ...


 
hey, don't shoot the messenger! I was just passing along what I have heard them argue. I disagree with them and hold that it's literal 24-hour days too! Also, Sproul explains in Truths We Confess, his commentary on WCF, that there is too much exegitical hoops to jump through to make Framework work. He says that Reformed theology has always been based on the most plain interpretation of scripture. Framework does the opposite.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 7, 2011)

Andres said:


> hey, don't shoot the messenger! I was just passing along what I have heard them argue. I disagree with them and hold that it's literal 24-hour days too! Also, Sproul explains in Truths We Confess, his commentary on WCF, that there is too much exegitical hoops to jump through to make Framework work. He says that Reformed theology has always been based on the most plain interpretation of scripture. Framework does the opposite.



I figured you disagreed with them. I hope it didn't sound like I thought you didn't. The conversation yesterday got me worked up and maybe I haven't geared down yet. Sorry.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 7, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> I see alot of judgment and I see so little empathy. Many of us who went through public school having evolution and old earth crammed down our throat are doing our best to believe that Bible. I got saved in the middle of my senior year of Highschool already been indoctrinated. I am trying to believe in a young earth. Just give me time. In faith I completly believe it but in my intellect I have trouble alot. Just a little patience is needed.


 
If there's any sharpness in my tone, it's toward people who know better. People who are running to the secular academic world and trying to compromise in order to gain the applause of men. Those are the ones who earn our ire. 

You, on the other hand, have sympathy from me and many others here I'm sure. While it wasn't the subject of evolution, I've had to "undoctrinate" myself from things I've heard for a good portion of my life, so believe me you do have my sympathy, prayer, and support. It's one thing to recognize a belief or action as wrong; it's quite another to unlearn it.

Three years in purgatory (Ohio State) for you should suffice.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 7, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> Many of us who went through public school having evolution and old earth crammed down our throat are doing our best to believe that Bible



This is precisely why it is so important for Christian parents to give their children a Christian education. I know it is hard to overcome what has been pumped into you, but there can be no other way. If Genesis is not true, then none of the bible is true and our faith is built on sand. The only logical conclusion of an evolutionary worldview is that religion is false, and the only logical conclusion of a biblical worldview is that evolution is false. There is no in between.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 7, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> If Genesis is not true, then none of the bible is true and our faith is built on sand. The only logical conclusion of an evolutionary worldview is that religion is false, and the only logical conclusion of a biblical worldview is that evolution is false. There is no in between.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 7, 2011)

Andres said:


> He says that Reformed theology has always been based on the most plain interpretation of scripture. Framework does the opposite.



I agree. I sat through an all day lecture on Framework one time and I was more confused after the lecture than before it started.


----------



## LaurieBluedorn (Jun 7, 2011)

My husband Harvey and I did the blogging and tweeting for the Illinois Christian Home Educators convention this past weekend. Ken Ham was one of the keynote speakers -- here's a short interview I did with him.

We have one copy left of one of Ken Ham's new books Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it (we were sent several of his books as promotional material). I'll mail it to the first person to email me (US address only). [email protected]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 14, 2011)

Great article. Ham is right. 

I've been considering some things in regard to Genesis 1-10:

1. It's not a God to 'cause light to appear' that looks billions of years old. Even to have it bypass the laws of time and space and appear immediately.

2. The change from the water canopy to the current cloud/rain scene.... what effect does this have (since, obviously, more radiation can now enter the atmosphere) on rocks, people, vegetation, etc.... ?

3. Have we been able to 'fool' radiological dating methods ? (i.e. make something look 'older' than it really is ?)

4. The half-life of U235 is 4.47 billion years, the supposed age of the earth is 4.54 billion years. Somehow, I'm thinking that the U235 found in nature should be even LESS radioactive now (if the earth is really that old), since we've had roughly one 'half-life' cycle for all of it to have decayed into Strontium 90, Thorium and its' other daughter products. 

There's a few other thoughts, but these stay on my mind immediately as reasons to question evolution and any attempt to merge it with orthodoxy.


----------

