An Extended Analysis of Ken Ham’s Book, “Six Days” (Part 3: Biblical Exegesis, Fire-Breathing Dinosaurs, and Why Not Interpreting “Day” as a Literal 24-Hour Day is a Greater Attack on the Gospel Than Denying the Resurrection…yes, Ken Ham really said that)

Chapters 4-5 in Ken Ham’s book, Six Days: The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church, is right up my alley, for in them, Ken Ham tries to make the exegetical case for interpreting Genesis 1-11 as literal history. As someone who teaches Biblical Studies for a living, it is fascinating to read how a former Australian high school science teacher tries to explain exegesis.

Now I’m going to “steal my own thunder” so to speak and tell you up front that when it comes to describing what good exegesis entails, a lot of what Ken Ham says is correct. The problem, though, lies in the fact that despite the correct things he says about what proper exegesis entails and his insistence how important proper exegesis is, Ken Ham doesn’t practice what he preaches. In other words, in chapter 4, Ham essentially says, “This is what good exegesis is,” and then he turns around and ignores the very things he has just said. It is truly fascinating to witness.

And so, allow me to illustrate…

Exegesis—What Does God’s Word Say?
Ken Ham begins chapter 4 by stressing how important it is to understand the Bible correctly. The way he does it, though, I have to say is rather peculiar. He first alleges that the problem with churches today is that they concentrate on talking about Jesus and “teaching spiritual, moral, and relationship matters.” Ham doesn’t think that is good enough. As he writes, “Yes, Christianity is about Jesus and moral and spiritual truths—and relationships. But the truth concerning these is founded in real history—on God’s Word beginning in Genesis—as should all our thinking in every area.  For instance, the Bible also has everything to do with understanding dinosaurs correctly” (65).

Let’s be clear—yes, Christianity is absolutely founded in real history. Jesus was a historical figure; the events in the gospels and Acts really happened. There really was an ancient Israel; I believe all that is real history, all the way back to Abraham. On all that stuff, I probably agree with Ken Ham on most questions of historicity.

But no, the Bible doesn’t have anything to do with understanding dinosaurs correctly. The Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs—that is silly. The plain fact is that when it comes to Genesis 1-11, I simply don’t think they are meant to be historical–and I think that based on exegetical reasons. And that really is the focus of the chapter.

In any case, before he gets to talking about proper exegesis, Ham first establishes his particular view that (as I will elaborate on later) ends up subverting all his talk about proper exegesis. That view is about “starting points,” and Ham holds up an interaction he had with the atheist Eugenie Scott when his creation museum first opened to explain that view.

In that discussion, when she asked him if he was even willing to change his YECist views if the evidence was overwhelming, he said no. She responded by saying real scientists start with evidence, then develop theories, and are willing to change their theories as new evidence comes in. Ham then writes, “Of course, biblical creationists are not prepared to change what the Bible states clearly…” and proceeds to highlight his “Seven C’s of History” (Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation) in order to emphasize that the Bible is all about history.

Can I mention the irony that in his “Seven C’s” that supposedly highlight biblical history, that Ham completely leaves out, save for Genesis 1-11 (that gets FOUR C’s!), the entire Old Testament???

In any case, why does he bring up this discussion in a chapter that is supposedly about biblical exegesis? I think I know why. By highlighting this discussion with Eugenie Scott, Ham is able to not only smuggle in his presuppositions about Genesis 1-11 being “historical science” and present them as facts before his discussion about proper exegesis, he also subtly (or not so subtly!) implies to his readers that when it comes to Genesis 1-11, there really are only two options: his view or the godless view of atheism.

If you will, it is his way of saying, “Hey, we really need to make sure we know how to do proper exegesis, so we can be sure what Genesis 1-11 really means…but it’s science and history—and if you don’t believe it is, then you’re no better than atheists like Eugenie Scott.”

This is what is known as “poisoning the well.”

Ken Ham’s Guide to Exegesis…the One He Doesn’t Adhere To
When it comes to exegesis, Ken Ham states the preferred method is the historical-grammatical method. Now, I do not want to get into the weeds when it comes to labels—I want to focus on the actual exegetical principles Ham highlights. Like I said earlier, you might be surprised that I agree with much of what Ham says about what is required for proper exegesis—a lot of what he says is actually correct. The problem, of course, is that he doesn’t practice the very principles he preaches.

(1) Observe the text and look for the intended meaning of the author. This is abundantly logical. There was an original author writing to an original audience, so in order to understand what that original author was trying to convey, Ham says we have to consider the historical and cultural setting of the given passage. That is absolutely correct: if you want to grasp the intended meaning, you have to consider its historical, cultural, and literary contexts.

The irony is that is something Ken Ham absolutely does not do. Furthermore, I literally laughed when I read these words: “Many people, because they want to find scriptural support for a particular idea, try to claim that the Bible says things it does not.”

That’s right, KEN, many people do that! They do things like point to Genesis 4:22 (“Tubal-cain was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron”) and claim that proves Noah had access to advanced technology! Or they point to Job 40-41 and claim that the references to Behemoth and Leviathan is proof that dinosaurs lived a mere 4,000 years ago and that some were able to breathe fire!

Let me be clear, no one who makes those claims has considered the historical, cultural, or literary contexts of the Bible.

(2) Context: This principle obviously is closely related to observing the text. Ham correctly points out that it is the immediate context that determines the meaning of a word. In fact, he correctly says, “Without knowing the context of a passage of Scripture, coming up with an accurate interpretation becomes incredibly difficult, if not impossible.” But again, this is something Ham simply does not do. Let’s just look at one of my previous examples: does the context of Genesis 4:22 imply advanced technology? Or what about in Genesis 1, when God say calls His creation “very good”? Ham routinely interprets that to mean “perfect,” and goes on to say that that must mean Adam and Eve were “perfect,” and thus had perfect genomes and super-intelligence. Well, do you think reading “very good” in the context of Genesis 1 warrants those kinds of claims? Does the context of “very good” mean “perfect genomes” and super-intelligence? No.

(3) Clarity: Ham correctly says that God “has…given us the ability to accurately read and interpret [Scripture], if we are serious about learning the truth.” Now, Ham admits that parts of Scripture are hard to understand, but that careful study will often provide clarity. Again—that is true. The irony, of course, is that to modern readers Genesis 1-11 is one of those difficult parts of Scripture, yet Ham simply does not acknowledge it. He assumes Genesis 1-11 is simple, and he thus ends up ignoring its original historical and literary contexts and then simply interprets it in order to use it as support for his particular presupposition of YECism. And when he does that, he ends up doing the exact opposite of bringing clarity to the text—he ends up sowing confusion and darkness.

(4) Compare Scripture with Scripture and (5) Classification and Genre:  Now what #4 means is that often times one passage in one part of the Bible can help us understand another passage. Let’s use the example of Leviathan in Job 41. In Job 41, it certainly in some sort of terrible creature in the sea—is it is fire-breathing dinosaur, as Ham claims? No—and we know this when we compare Job 41 with other passages like Psalms 74:14 and 89:10, or Isaiah 27:1, 30:7, and 51:9, as well as other ancient Near Eastern mythological texts (#5).

We can see that in the ancient Near East—Israel included—Leviathan (or Rahab) was the great mythological chaos creature who threatened and rivaled the gods. In ANE myths, “the gods” had to battle with Leviathan in order to create the cosmos, but in Genesis 1 there is no mention of Leviathan because Genesis 1 is teaching that there is only one God, and that nothing rivals Him. Yet, the imagery of Leviathan still comes up in various poetic passages in the Psalms, Job, and Isaiah. Sometimes it is used to refer to God’s power over creation, sometimes Egypt is depicted as Leviathan, and sometimes (as in Job) Leviathan is depicted as that mythological creature representing chaos. Two great videos by Ben Stanhope on Behemoth and Leviathan can be seen in the links.

Knowing that makes it clear that Leviathan in Job 41 is not some sort of literal fire-breathing dinosaur. There is nothing in the immediate literary context, in Scripture itself, or in the larger historical context of the ANE that would suggest such a thing. Yet Ham flatly rejects considering the ANE context because the figure of Leviathan is found in their mythology. And he has pre-determined that Job 41 is proof that there were fire-breathing dinosaurs living 4,000 years ago (or even 1,600 years ago, if you consider the Beowulf exhibit at the Creation Museum!), and that Behemoth must be a brachiosaurus.

Not to sound crass, but Ham essentially is saying, “Screw context and genre! Job and Genesis 1-11 is history, therefore “standing on the Bible” means preaching about dinosaurs and fire-breathing dragons!”

(6) The Church’s Historical View: The final thing Ham correctly says we need to consider is how the Church has historically understood any given biblical passage. Again, this is true. And again, when it comes to Genesis 1-11, this is something Ham simply does not really do. There are numerous early Church Fathers—from Irenaeus, to Origen, to Augustine, to the Cappadocian Fathers—who clearly did not interpret Genesis 1-11 in the way Ken Ham claims the Church has always interpreted it. Origen outright mocked anyone who thought there was a literal Eden and a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil; Augustine thought the creation was instantaneous; Irenaeus expressly taught that Adam and Eve represented humanity, and that they were most certainly not perfect.

Let’s Talk About “Day” Really Quick!
Putting all this together makes one thing clear: Ken Ham knows the principles of proper exegesis yet does not adhere by them. Why? Because they interfere with his “presuppositional apologetics” that insist Genesis 1-11 is doing history and science.

I haven’t discussed Ham’s 5^th chapter yet, but I believe I can cover it in no more than a paragraph or two. The entire chapter is devoted to Ham’s argument regarding the word yom (i.e. day) in Genesis 1, and how “day” means “day,” and how it doesn’t mean “millions of years.” If you are aware of the typical arguments in the YEC/OEC/TE debate, you’ve heard it before. Let me just say that I think both Ham and those who do try to argue that millions of years can be fit into Genesis 1 are simply wrong and misguided.

Why? It all comes down to literary context and genre.

Basically, here is my take: yes, “day” really does mean “day” in Genesis 1. But no, Genesis 1 isn’t trying to give us a science or history lesson on exactly how and how long it took God to create. Rather, there is a clear poetic parallel structure to the entire chapter. Therefore, since Genesis 1 isn’t doing science or history, and since it is more poetic in its structure, we can understand “day” as “day” within the context and genre of Genesis 1, without trying to force any kind of “scientific” explanation (be it YEC or OEC) into it. Just like we can appreciate the Robert Burns’ poem “My Love is Like a Red, Red Rose,” and understand that “rose” really does mean “rose” in the poem, but no, Robert Burns isn’t actually in love with a rose!

Apparently though, Ham really thinks that interpreting the seven days of creation as seven literal 24-hour days that occurred in history is a matter of life and death for the gospel. To understand “day” any other way is to undermine the authority of God’s Word, and the result is that “the entire gospel message is undermined.” In fact, Ham even says that to interpret the “days” as “millions of years” is a “much more powerful attack” on the gospel than denying the resurrection of Christ. Why? “…because it is an attack on the Word from which the gospel comes.”

What can you say to that? Well, I’ll say more in the next post, because the next few chapter in Six Days is about “Genesis 1 and Millions of Years.”

But for now, I’ll just say this: “Ken, I don’t think you’re reading the Word in its proper context.”