What’s This About Moonlight?

It’s hard to believe this, but apparently it happened. A few years ago, Bill Nye was booed back in 2006 while talking to a group in Waco, TX. What dastardly statement could have caused such a reaction from the crowd? Saying that the moon doesn’t give off a light of it’s own…that the moon reflects the light of the sun. Keep in mind, this was way back in 2006…7 years ago.

Well, earlier this week, creationist Ray Comfort said that Bill Nye was wrong. But the funny thing is, he actually admits that what Bill Nye said is right, but he doesn’t admit Nye is Amber Jewelry Tea Set. Here’s the clip from Comfort’s show on 9/17/13.

Comfort: So what Bill Nye was doing was mocking the fact that the Bible says that the moon was one of the light that God created. He made two lights; the sun to rule by day and the moon to rule by night. And he mocks that. And yet, you check out what moonlight is in the dictionary and it says it’s the light of the moon. The moon has light, it reflects the sun. The Moonlight Sonata, just lots of beautiful songs. (emphasis mine)

So, to recap: Bill Nye lied when he said the moon reflects the light of the sun. Ray Comfort is telling the truth when he says the moon reflects the light of the sun.

Are you as confused as I am? My head hurts just from listening to this drivel.

HT: The Raw Story

Ken Ham wonderfully sums up Inerrancy and plaIn readIng

If you as a Christian believe the Bible is inerrant, you’re saying it is without error. And as a creationist, I read the Bible plainly, trusting that I can believe and understand what I read. It’s unreasonable to say that inerrancy and a plain reading of Scripture leads Christians to believe falsehoods as though they are “magically true.” But what is Dr. McKnight referring to specifically here? He writes, “One of which views is that the Bible teaches science in Genesis 1–2.”

via Warning: “Inerrancy” Means We Can’t Trust the Bible | Around the World with Ken Ham.

That’s a lot of I’s in that sentence, Ken.

I read the bible how I want to and it says to ME what I think it says. I’m perfect.

That is Ken Ham’s mantra. It is a Euro-centric, anti-semitic way of reading Scripture, but that’s okay I guess.


That is the central idea behind inerrancy and the plain sense reading, that the modern reader without any help can better understand the Scripture than the original authors and culture. What Scripture says to you doesn’t really matter. It is what it is meant to say that does.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I’m not sure Ken Ham understands basic biology @aig

Of course, biology could be of the devil if it challenges your opinion, but anyway, Ham has gone ape over a book at the San Diego Zoo. In this book, the authors posits a well known biological fact that humans are just a few chromosomes away from being apes. I’m not sure if he knew that or not. Doubtful, because unlike nuclear energy, facebook, and using tax payer dollars to open up an adult store, this is not in Scripture.

But—this is where the world is at today.  And if the San Diego Zoo is selling this book, they must approve of its contents.  Shame on the San Diego Zoo (one of the world’s leading zoos) for promoting the false idea that we are just another ape—and we are “probably smarter than any other animals.”

Poor guy… can’t handle the biological truth.

Ken Ham doesn’t believe in the Historical Jesus @AiG

Click to Order

Whatever do you mean, Joel?

Ken makes a logical fallacy, that for Jesus to be the Son of God, he would have to be completely inhuman. I note that Paul writes that Christ emptied himself of his deity to assume flesh, and yet, Ham argues with Paul. Surely, Ham opines, that Jesus was complete deity. For him, Jesus must have known everything and been incapable of not knowing. Scripture tells us that Christ was tempted in every way, and overcame those temptations. This is because Jesus was human. He was a Jew. A Palestinan Jew of the 1st century, no matter what else we wish to believe about him… Jesus was a Jew.

Ham allows two ‘researchers’ from AiG to write,

The idea advanced by Dr. Enns here is known as the accommodation theory and was first advanced in the eighteenth century by Johann Semler, the father of German rationalism. The accommodation theory is very popular among liberal theologians and basically asserts that Jesus accommodated (accepted and taught) the various ideas of His day, even if they were wrong.5 Allegedly, since Jesus was primarily concerned with spiritual matters, He didn’t bother to correct some of their false historical or scientific beliefs because doing so might have distracted from His real message.

Did Jesus Tell a Lie? | Around the World with Ken Ham.

If this was the case, that Jesus had to correct everything (and for some reason, Ham and others assume that the Jews of 1st century Palestine were just proto-fundamentalist Christians in believe), then why didn’t he do that about medicine? Or give the world nuclear energy? Or tell people that washing hands wasn’t just a good thing when eating, but so too for physicians? Do you know how many lives that could have saved between then and the late 1800’s when it started happening?

They must make the presupposition that the 1st century Jewish Jesus believed and taught what the 21st century Ken Ham does. Second, they must believe that unless Jesus did, then Jesus was wrong. Third, they must endeavor to make sure that other 1st century Jews believed the same way that Ham does now. Fourth, they assume that unless Jesus acted in accordance with their theology, then he was wrong. Fifth, they also must assume that the Gospels are ‘historical narrative’ of the same time which is produced by modern Western societies. It is a house of cards which protects their faith.

So, no, Ken Ham doesn’t believe in the historical Jesus; he believes in an Imaginary Jesus of his own creation.

By the way, there is a blog tour for Dr. Enns’ book…see a post of it here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Peter Leithart, Peter Enns, and just not getting it.

Jason alerted me to this post from Peter Leithart objecting to Peter Enns‘ recent work on the Evolution of Adam. Jason believes that Leithart is writing against a supposed parallelomania. The problem is, is that Leithart writes,

I’m not sure who Pete is aiming at, since nearly everyone with the thinnest exposure to ANE literature knows that there are lots of overlaps with the OT

As I noted to Jason earlier… his use of the word parallelomania is a red herring… and false because even Leithart holds that the OT fits nicely with ANE even actually noting that their are similarities. The problem, for me, is that Leithart seemingly allows for overlap but then moves that the Hebrew author had a different concept… that he somehow ‘got it right.’ It’s not even that Leithart doesn’t like the comparison between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, but that he insists that the concept is different. This is the issue with proving inspiration, and why it is a fallacy to attempt to do so. Working with the presupposition that one must consistently prove inspiration, or worse, inerrancy, removes one’s logic from consistency. Leithart doesn’t seem to be arguing against overlapping or the over emphasis on overlapping, but that somehow, the Hebrews got it ‘right’ whereas their Babylonian cousins didn’t, especially when it comes to cosmogony. (While the cosmogony in Genesis 1 doesn’t involve violence, later Scriptural creation accounts do.)

For instance, the common ploy by YEC who will attempt to show that everyone at the beginning of the world held the same stories, but that for one reason or another, the stories were corrupted, with only the ancient Hebrews having the right one. The first issue with this is, mainly, that it is unprovable, except if you first make the presupposition and then work backwards to prove it. Second, this hypothesis removes Genesis 1 from the context, or concept, of the author(s). Third, and most damning, is Genesis 1 is ANE, and ANE is not Genesis 1 due to the fact that if this was actually the case, then we would except to find similar stories not just in Babylon, but throughout all ancient civilizations, from the Americas to the Far East (Boom, Rodney, boom). Yet, we don’t. We find similar stories, as one should suspect, only in the cultural nexus of the ANE.

Another issue of late. Jason complains about the lack of charity in the debates about origins:

There is truly very little Christian charity involved in the discussion. It is more so an issue of ad hominem attacks which are sadly lacking even in logical coherence

Very well and good and Jason should be commended for calling attention to the fact that Christians on all sides make a habit of lambasting the other… but then, Jason goes on to write…

Unfortunately, many refuse to acknowledge their worldview, and they resort to arbitrariness because of the fact that their worldview is does not come back to God as revealed in His Word as the absolute standard of truth.

Say… how about those ad homs?

Anyway, at that last link, Jason once again tries to defend the wrong notion that Scripture is the ‘Word of God,’ but instead of using Scripture, he uses Warfield and the ISBE. Perhaps, he should use Thayer’s instead, but regardless, you have other verses to consider, in that Scripture gives itself to the hands of the writers, collectors, historians, and the such. And, of course, there are those pericopes which are deemed not of God, even by the authors. His definition is wrong and doesn’t allow Scripture to be what Scripture calls itself – inspired.

When you work backwards, you are bound to trip and fall.