Words
Words (Photo credit: sirwiseowl)

He begins by quoting John 1.1 in the NKJV. Not the Greek, but a translation. As such, he writes,

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).

via Should BioLogos Be Called “ContraLogos” Instead? | Around the World with Ken Ham.

From there, he only gets worse. His argument, all of his arguments really, are based on a translation and not on what the theological emphasis behind what the word/sentence/linguistic image may mean. For instance, is John pulling the Logos imagery from Wisdom of Solomon 18 or from Philo who pulled it from Heraclitus? Not that Wisdom may be different from Philo, if you interpret Proverbs 8 (and Wisdom 7) in light of the Alexandrian Logos.

 

He then goes on to associate Jesus Christ with Scripture. This is a common doctrinal idolization found in fundamentalist sects. They do not understand Scripture except as a form of Jesus. Rather, as one minister once told me, Jesus is Scripture in the flesh.

 

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.

Scripture is not the word of God. It does not claim to be. It contains prophecies and message from God, but the only thing writers called other writings now included in our canon is something along the lines of “holy writings.” Note, not only all of their holy writings made it into our canon.

 

As discussed on Facebook with someone over this past week, Ham has a nasty habit of reading everything the same way – woodenly, which is why when he says evolutionists call Genesis 1-11 “incorrect” he is committing a grave error, almost a lie. He can see no difference in nuance. Rather, I would maintain Genesis 1-11 is classic ANE myth, a theologized account. Ham shows himself to be the theological liberal that he is, taking only his experience (what scripture says to him) as the validator of what Scripture is. He is his own authority.

 

In one blog post, Ham as revealed himself to be an 1.) idolator who worships the creature (a book) more than the Creator, 2.) a liberal who proclaims his own authority, and possibly 3.) a mythicist who doesn’t believe Jesus is anything more than a story.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta