I prefer “Ken Ham doesn’t believe Moses” @aig

But, Dr. Enns’ approach is most likely better…

Ham’s tactics read more like political ads than how Christians should speak to each other: painting the other in a wholly negative light; employing highly charged rhetoric; quickly labeling his opponents and misrepresenting them to dismiss them more effectively; bullying; and generally not being a very good listener. His rhetoric is also marked by supreme self-confidence that he speaks for God, and is punctuated by the passive-aggressiveness move to ask his followers to “pray” for the person in question.

via “Ken Ham Clubs Baby Seals” (or, it may be time for him to rethink his ministry strategy).

You should read the entire post.

What I’ve noticed about Ham and others – I’m looking at you Hambone – is that when you disagree with them, they simply attempt to resurrect the Inquisition – though to be honest, the Inquisition is a bit more honest than how Ham and his minions treat other Christians.

You Might Also Like

36 Replies to “I prefer “Ken Ham doesn’t believe Moses” @aig”

    1. Yet I am not a Ham disciple so your lie about me destroys your credibility.

      The article cited is just a biased hatchet job that has no real foundation in reality. The author of it and the owner of this website forget that God uses people to communicate His will, His words, His message to other living people.

      Ken Ham in his approach to Genesis is within biblical boundaries as Jesus himself said if people didn’t believe Moses they would have a hard time believing Him. That raises a question–if the people who are like the owner of this website do not accept , for example, Luke 15 or Mark 16 or Matthew 5 and claim they are not about Jesus or His actual words, how can they accept john 3 and claim they are His actual words and about Jesus?

      If they can’t have the faith to accept what Moses said, how can they have the faith to accept what Jesus did and said? They have not seen nor heard Moses speak nor have they seen and heard Jesus speak so how can they say one set of words are true while another are not? They have no evidence to support their rejection of either men.

      1. Yeah… you aren’t his disciple? Sure… and you have a real doctorate…

        Actually, the owner of the site has a real doctorate, has provided evidence for his claims, and writes really well.

        Ham has no clue about biblical boundaries – what ever that may mean.

        Poor, Davy-Tee… keeps trying… but fails every time.

      2. and yet.. since Ham does not interpret Genesis as Moses intended it, and makes it “after his own understanding” rather than Moses`, we know that Ham does NOT believe Moses, and is therefore a hypocrite and a liar.
        On top of that, his claims amount to being the sole arbitrator of what is true about Genesis, despite more qualified people in both science AND biblical theology (and some in both) showing him to be false.

        If you believe Ken Ham, you also have to believe that world is flat, since we can (as joel has already here) demonstrate the bible teaches that, using the same criteria Ham does.

          1. yes, through my ouija board…

            Um – It’s called actually study. You know, you take the writings (Moses did not write Genesis) and see how those around the date of composition would have understood it.

          2. Wow–your unbelief is strong. where is your evidence that he did not write it? and I mean real physical evidence not speculation that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt and is very conclusive.

  1. Poor Tee isn’t even intelligent enough to figure out that by posting in exactly the same vitriolic manner as his Master Ham, he is confirming our criticisms, not discrediting them!

    1. Insulting another person only undermines your own credibility and makes me a martyr.

      Since yo do not believe Moses, you do not believe Jesus either. I guess you figure that John5:45-7 really aren’t Jesus’ words which makes it convenient for you.

          1. No I am not. if you believed God you would not reject most of the Bible especially Genesis 1 and you would not take secular science over God’s word.
            Try taking your girlfriend’s word over your wife’s and see how far that will get you.

            I am not saying you are having an affair but illustrating what you are doing with God. I have done nothing wrong except speak the truth and your comment tells me you are like everybody else–you do not want the truth.

          2. So, not only are you a liar, but you are a gossip?

            First, I reject nothing of Holy Writ. I accept it all – but I accept Scripture, not the interpretation of mortal man, which is what Young Earth Creationism is.

            You have yet to express anything of the truth. You even lie about your titles and experience.

          3. Joel Watts doesn’t want the truth. He attacks Ken Ham for speaking true words and He threatens to banish me for the same reason.

            it is very simple–one who does not accept God’s word but chases after alternatives does not believe God even though they claim to be christian. to be christian one must believe God and not reject some passages while accepting others.

      1. The only one Moses will accuse here.. is Hen Ham and his disciples.

        Really.. if you are going to try and use scripture to “convict” people, you really need to reconsider. Not only is it childish, inane, and futile, but almost 100% of the time it applies more to the poster then a postee. Did I mention it was childish, inane, and futile? Oh.. its also the kind of thing cults do..

  2. The Bible does not teach the world is flat. I know, you’ll give me the whole thing “circle of the earth”, but the other Hebrew word used in Job can be either a ball a disk, because the word was used in Isaiah’s prophecy about throwing them out like a ball. It’s been years so I can’t remember either the Hebrew word of the scripture reference, but if you really want it I’ll get it tomorrow.

    1. Ant.. and that would be the point.

      It does not, but you CAN make an argument that it does. Likewise, it does NOT teach a literal 6 day creation, as the YEC/AiG mob say it does, although one CAN make an argument that it does.

      1. Through my studies (no thanks to seminary) I have come to the conclusion of the gap theory. The world was created for his angels, then they rebelled, then the Lord recreated the earth in 6 days. The whole “replenish the earth” was my initial pointer, but then the Greek says “plirósate”, which just means fill..but then my studies went wild..

          1. I’ve heard this theory years ago when I was still am atheist, and I promoted it. Now, I see it as hogwash. I don’t believe in the “typical” gap theory that days are 1,000 years. A day is a day, but God rebuilt the earth in 6 days AFTER it was destroyed by the angelic war. See “Earth’s Earliest Ages” by G. H Pember, circa 1870

        1. I think they were wild before!

          Genesis 1 is a liturgical hymn but not a description of the actual event. It ascribes power to our God v. the gods of the Babylonians. Further, you have to read the Genesis accounts AFTER Isaiah. For Isaiah, creation revolves around the temple, covenant, and the reign of God.

          1. That’s where you are wrong? Not in any ANE literature, huh? I guess you haven’t read all of it. Just as an aside, both the Book of Jasher and Enoch have this as their primary theology! They are almost commentaries of Genesis.

  3. If you mean Jasher didn’t write it, you are correct. But that’s not the point. And Enoch indeed DOES mention a previous age prior to the 6,000 years of human history. The first 10 chapters give a brief synopsis with Semjaza being the “Vito Corleone” of the fallen angels 🙂

    1. Wait… that is the point. You cannot refer to a completely 18th century forgery to support your claim.

      Enoch comes from about 50 years before Jesus and while is quotable for the Gospels, Jude, and Tertullian, is hardly inspired.

  4. I know when it was written (actually around 100 BC originally in Amharic/Ge’ez), but it does not mean it’s worthless. It doesn’t make the theory, it backs up the theory. In fact, G.H. Pember doesn’t even use Enoch as it wasn’t widely available when he wrote “Earth’s Earliest Ages”.
    You can get a free PDF of the book online if you’re interested.

    1. Um, no – Enoch was not originally written in Ge-ez. It was written at best in Greek, but most likely in Aramaic.

      Ant, you don’t seem to know much about this area.

  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%27ez_language

    Both Ge’ez and Amharic are South Semitic languages but Aramaic is a Central Semitic language. I actually studied the book of Enoch in Ge’ez in graduate school for linguistics (University of Mass, Amherst), as the entire book of Enoch is in Ge’ez (a dead dialect of Amharic). In fact, it’s only in it’s entirety in Ge’ez.
    Enoch 1:9 is quoted directly in Jude as well as Enoch 40 or so. 2 Enoch is a different book entirely.
    Since it was familiar to the Jews in the 1st century, it probably was NOT originally in Amharic.

    1. By what logic and scholarship?

      First, extant means available, but not original. The Coptics held it as canonical and thus preserved it in their language. Tert., from this area of the world, no doubt had an influence here.

      The author of Jude was a Jew, as were the authors of the NT. They new Enoch. Knowing does not mean accepting.

      The original is Aramaic and the best is Greek.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.