Christian Geek Central Forums

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

The Online Community Of Christian Geek Central


2 posters

    Speaking of Ken Ham...

    AGoodReed
    AGoodReed


    Posts : 526
    Activity : 834
    Geek-Cred : 4
    Join date : 2018-06-25
    Age : 40
    Location : Missouri

    Speaking of Ken Ham... Empty Speaking of Ken Ham...

    Post  AGoodReed September 26th 2019, 5:54 am

    Paeter and Colin talked a little about Ken Ham in their Fireside Chats interview. Ham was just on Unbelievable? debating an Old Earth Creationist who works for Reasons to Believe, Jeff Zweerink.



    It's not the best debate, honestly. Ham 's whole argument is that if we don't take the Genesis account of creation literally, then we're not "taking God at his word" and thus casting the rest of the Bible in doubt. Zweerink's stance is that he's not a Hebrew scholar, so he has to fall back on others who know the language. Then Ham is like, "You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to know about the other parts of the Bible you're sure about."

    I like Reasons to Believe, but I think maybe they could've found someone better to debate Ham on this topic. But I like the idea of Ham debating fellow creationists instead of atheists on this topic.

    I actually think I lean more towards Young Earth Creationism, but it's something I hold very loosely. The resurrection is the important thing.
    Paeter
    Paeter
    Admin


    Posts : 5708
    Activity : 8030
    Geek-Cred : 60
    Join date : 2010-02-17
    Age : 45
    Location : Mesa, AZ

    Speaking of Ken Ham... Empty Re: Speaking of Ken Ham...

    Post  Paeter September 26th 2019, 12:16 pm

    AGoodReed wrote:
    It's not the best debate, honestly. Ham 's whole argument is that if we don't take the Genesis account of creation literally, then we're not "taking God at his word" and thus casting the rest of the Bible in doubt. Zweerink's stance is that he's not a Hebrew scholar, so he has to fall back on others who know the language. Then Ham is like, "You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to know about the other parts of the Bible you're sure about."

    I like Reasons to Believe, but I think maybe they could've found someone better to debate Ham on this topic. But I like the idea of Ham debating fellow creationists instead of atheists on this topic.

    I actually think I lean more towards Young Earth Creationism, but it's something I hold very loosely. The resurrection is the important thing.

    Bummer. Because I think in this discussion you NEED someone who knows the language and can make a case for genre/linguistic-based interpretation. Personally, I've found the kind of argument you attributed to Ham to come across as sort of passive-aggressive "spiritual bullying". ("If you don't believe what I believe about Genesis, you don't really trust in God's word.") But that side-steps the issue, because it's not a matter of trusting the text, but a matter of what the text means, the intent of the human and divine authors when creating the text.

    I also prefer to see Ham debating Christians, rather than atheists, because otherwise his work can give non-Christians the impression that Young Earth is the only view of Genesis among Christians. (At his ark exhibit, which I went to a couple years ago, there is a lot of implicit language like that. ("Atheists say old earth, but the Bible says Young Earth")

    And I think your final statement is key. The best ground for our hope is in the resurrection, and the powerful evidence for it, not in any particular view of Genesis and the creation of the earth.

    Thanks for sharing all this, Reed!

      Current date/time is March 28th 2024, 6:16 am