Editor’s note: The following post is satire. See here for my wonderful source of inspiration.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
In this verse, the Greek word logos is translated “word.” There is much that could be said about the word’s deep meaning in regard to Jesus being the Word, the Creator who spoke the universe and life into existence (Colossians 1).
So why do I propose that Answers in Genesis (AiG) might be better called “Answers against Genesis” (AaG)? Because this organization, which heavily promotes atheistic scientific ideas like a round earth, geocentric solar system and the water cycle, is dangerous to Christianity. Headed and co-founded by two-time honorary degree-holder Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis (which has never received a major grant from the Templeton Foundation) is devoted to trying to get as much of the church as possible to compromise on the clear teachings in God’s Word about the flat, sky-domed earth He created.
Now, I am not claiming that such compromising people can’t be Christians. (I would never say that!) Salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, not what a person believes about the roundness of the earth or the origins of atmospheric phenomena.
Such compromise, however, undermines the authority of the Word and is dangerous to the health of the church. In reality, an attack on the Word of God is an attack on Jesus Christ, who is the Word. Those apologists involved with AiG will certainly stand before God one day (as we all will) to give an account of how they handled the Word. And those people who used their influence to teach others many false ideas are warned in Scripture: “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1).
Sadly, and even though the pastors at AiG might reject the assertion, such blatant compromise (which permeates the church) is resulting in many young people walking away from the Christian faith.
Consider the following passages (emphases ours):
“[C]an you join Him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?” (Job 37:18)
“It is He who sits above the [two-dimensional] circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22).
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
“And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree” (Revelation 7:1).
“The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises” (Ecclesiastes 1:5).
“Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved (1 Chronicles 16:30).
“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (Psalm 104:5).
“The Lord will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands” (Deuteronomy 28:12).
“He covers the sky with clouds; he supplies the earth with rain and makes grass grow on the hills” (Psalms 147:8)
Scripture is unequivocal on these matters: The sky is solid (with “floodgates”, like a dam, that God can open and close at will), the earth is flat; the earth does not move, the sun does. And precipitation comes from God alone, not some messy, unguided process of “evaporation” and “condensation”!
It’s impossible to maintain that the whole Bible is the authoritative Word of God and at the same time say that the above passages are incorrect because man’s fallible ideas about the composition of the sky, the shape of the earth, the movement of celestial bodies and so on must override what the Bible clearly teaches. In fact, for secularists, such ideas really are man’s fallible attempts to explain the universe without God. The round earth, water cycle and heliocentric solar system really are the pagan religion of our day. Christians who compromise with such pagan ideas are no different than the Israelites who compromised God’s Word with the pagan religions of their day (like the Canaanites).
At God of Evolution, we believe that the Christians at AiG are our brothers and sisters in Christ. And as such, we believe it’s our biblical duty to draw their attention to their error about God’s Word and challenge them to return to the authority of God’s Word. (I like to try and say “God’s Word” as many times as I can per sentence. My record is 11.)
Christians who believe in the water cycle, round earth, heliocentric solar system and gaseous sky are ultimately accepting secular beliefs and are just adding God to them — but then also rejecting the Bible as trustworthy on all scientific matters.
By the way, what does Mr. Ham and his heliocentric-model-believing colleagues do with the triumph over the Amorites in the book of Joshua? If the earth rotates around the sun, then the “great light” of Genesis 1 is not hung in the solid sky (as Genesis 1:17 plainly teaches), but nearly 100 million miles away in empty space. Most theistic heliocentrists like AiG accept these ideas, with their millions of miles, without blinking. But what do they do with the references in Joshua 10 that teach that the sun “stopped in the middle of the sky”? Are we to believe that what God “really meant” was “the earth stopped spinning in the middle of empty space“?
It’s so tragic to see the lengths some Christians are willing to compromise on God’s Word. Satan’s method has been used to lead people to doubt God’s Word and put them on a slippery slide of unbelief. In this era (beginning in the late 14th and early 15th centuries), there has been a very specific attack on the Bible — compromising with the beliefs of millions of miles and a permeable sky.
Can Mr. Ham explain how secular meteorological teachings can be reconciled with Genesis 1:7-8a (which clearly says the sky is a “firmament,” not some multilayered “atmosphere” of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and trace gases), plus Matthew 5:45 (where Jesus references the sun being “made to rise” and the rain being “sent” — both attributed directly to God and not natural processes dreamed up by secular scientists), and other verses?
If a mobile sun really was hung in the hard firmament, and if the rain really does come from God, and if the earth really is flat and stationary (as God’s Word clearly teaches), and as Jesus and several inspired authors affirmed in the New Testament, then what Mr. Ham and his colleagues are proposing requires readers to reinterpret the clear words of Scripture — and in a hermeneutically inconsistent way. How is this not a clear example of the undermining of biblical authority? That’s why I came up with “Answers against Genesis” — what these compromisers are teaching is contrary to what the Word clearly states.
We at GoE are not teaching anything more than what Scripture plainly teaches and what observational science confirms. And while we appreciate AiG’s staunch defense of a semi-literal interpretation of Scripture, we must oppose their willingness to compromise on other teachings that are so clear in the Bible, simply because the secularists say they must.
In all we do at GoE, our motivation is to stand uncompromisingly, boldly, and unashamedly on the authority of God’s Word and proclaim the gospel.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
If it wasn’t before, I hope it is now clear to you how hypocritical Ken Ham’s hemming and hawing about “biblical authority” is. Like any other Christian, young-earthers like K-Ham interpret the Bible, often in ways that go outside the plain meaning of the text. What makes them different (and not in a good way) is that they insist they are the only ones being “true to God’s word.”
Despite his claims to the contrary, Ham does present a false choice between science and scripture (see here). But to Christians, he presents another false choice, that Genesis can only be one of two things: literal history or “incorrect” and “lies.”
The truth is that prominent church leaders have been openly rejecting the literal reading of Genesis 1-3 (in favor of more metaphorical views) at least as early as Origen in the third century. Even Paul interpreted part of Genesis allegorically in Galatians 4:24, while the four evangelists (Matthew in particular) took great liberty with a number of Old Testament “prophecies” that, in their original contexts, weren’t remotely messianic (Hosea 11:1, for instance, explicitly refers to the nation of Israel).
Would Ham call Paul or Matthew “compromisers”? Probably not. But even if he did, I’d rather “compromise” with them any day than “stand firm” with Ken Ham on the “authority” of the convoluted mess of a hermeneutic that he calls “the plain meaning of Scripture.”