Over the past week, Ken Ham has taken to Twitter on two different occasions to attack Christianity Today and The Christian Post for the sin of associating with people who do not accept Ken Ham’s “gospel” of YECism. Sadly, it no longer comes as a surprise to see this divisive tactic coming from YECist circles. It has become, dare I say, a defining characteristic of YECism.
Now, even though I grew up in Wheaton, Illinois, the heart of Evangelicalism, I had never believed the earth was only 6,000 years old. In my circle of conservative Evangelicalism, such a notion was just unheard of. And so, when I first was introduced to Ken Ham and his “ministry” back in 2009, it struck me as flat out bizarre. Over the past ten years, not only have I become painfully aware at how much traction the “gospel of Ham” has managed to get within certain Evangelical circles, I have felt the effects of it in my own career. It is what caused me to write my book, The Heresy of Ham. Long story short, it should be abundantly clear that there is a certain divisive bunker mentality that is emblematic of YECist organizations like Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis that essentially says, “If you question us, we cannot simply disagree. We must attack you and we must call your faith into question. For if you question our gospel, you are the enemy.”
That mentality comes across in Ken Ham’s recent Twitter attacks of Christianity Today, who interviewed Daniel Harrell, the man they hired to be Christianity Today’s next editor-in-chief, and The Christian Post, who published an interview with David MacMillan, a former YECist supporter of AiG who is now featured in the recent documentary, “We Believe in Dinosaurs.”
The CT and CP Articles…and Ham’s Response
You can read both articles here: Christianity Today’s “Introducing Christianity Today’s New Editor-in-Chief,” and The Christian Post’s “Rethinking Origins: The Evolution of a Young Earth Creationist.” By and large, neither article comes across as attacking or even really antagonistic toward YECism.
For that matter, the Christianity Today article isn’t even directly about YECism at all. Like its title suggests, it is simply introducing its readers to the new editor-in-chief of the magazine. In the article, you learn about how Harrell became a Christian, how he was called to be a pastor, about his time as a pastor up in the Boston area for 25 years, about how he had to deal with his wife’s recent death, as well as about three books he had written, one of which was about how evolution is not only not antagonistic to the Christian faith, but how it can actually inspire faith. And even in that little section of the article, Harrell doesn’t even say anything about Ken Ham or YECism. He simply says that he ended up writing the book as a way to try to understand the relationship between science and faith.
And for that, Ham took to Twitter to say the following: “To be expected (sadly) that Christianity Today would employ an editor who promotes Theistic Evolution and thus undermines the authority of God’s Word. Of course, we’ve come to expect such attacks on God’s Word from this publication. The church needs to stand against compromise, not promote it!”
Ham ignores Harrell’s call to ministry, his lifetime as a pastor, and even his story about struggling with the loss of his wife. No, as far as Ham is concerned, the fact that Harrell doesn’t think evolution is a threat to the Christian faith trumps all of that, because for Ham, YECism is the only thing that matters. He may say that the foundation of the Christian faith is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but in reality, Ham judges people solely on their stance regarding YECism. YECism is the standard by which Ham passes judgment.
The Christian Post article, although specifically about the topic of YECism, and particularly why MacMillan no longer subscribes to it, still doesn’t come across as overtly hostile to AiG. In that article, MacMillan talks about how he grew up an avid YECist and supporter of AiG and about how his faith took a hit when he started to realize in college that so much of the YEC “science” he had believed growing up was, simply put, really bad science that wasn’t backed up by the actual evidence. Specifically, he talks about the sad phenomenon many who grow up in Fundamentalist circles encounter when they get out of that YECist bubble. When they realize that none of the YECist scientific claims and arguments coincide with reality, they end up questioning the Christian faith as a whole, and some end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And why do they do that? Because YECists like Ham tell them they have to. YECists like Ham say that the foundation of the Christian faith is that of a literalistic YECist interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Therefore, when someone finds out that the YECist foundation of the faith is baseless and doesn’t coincide with reality, that person ends up having a crisis of faith.
And simply because MacMillan talked about his journey, about how he came to realize YECist scientific claims are just bad science, and about how he came to a bit of a crisis of faith precisely because he had been taught to base his faith on YECist claims, for that, Ken Ham took to Twitter and said, “Sad that the Christian Post again promotes an article undermining the authority of God’s Word and attacks AiG & endorses a ‘documentary’ that is nothing less than tabloid journalism promoting outright lies, misinformation & an agenda meant to spread false propaganda about the Ark Encounter. The 9th commandment comes to mind. The Christian Post needs to stop bearing false witness by publishing such an article.”
What Are We to Make of This?
Back when I got blindsided by the wrath of a few YECists and lost my teaching job because I dared express the fact that I thought Ken Ham didn’t do a good job in the Nye/Ham Debate, I really didn’t know all that much about YECism. As a result, I ended up taking a good three years researching and reading up on YECism just to get my mind around what had happened to me. In the process, I wrote my own book and wrote quite a few blog posts about YECism as well.
After a while, though, constantly writing about YECism got just boring. It was the same old handful of arguments, bad science, bad exegesis, and pharisaic venom directed at any Christian who dares question Ham’s claims. At first, I thought maybe good arguments could convince people to abandon YECism, but by and large, I’ve come to see that’s not the case most of the time. What I’ve come to realize is that the value in writing about YECism is in helping people who have been burned by it not to abandon the Christian faith.
And that really is the tragedy of YECism: the negative effect it has had on so many people. The biblical and historical fact is that the foundation of the Gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and not on a literalistic YECist interpretation of Genesis 1-11. And so, there simply is no other way to say it. When YECists make a literalistic YECist interpretation of Genesis 1-11 the foundation for the Gospel, and when they proceed to condemn and pass judgment on Christians based solely on their stance regarding YECism, they are, in fact, preaching a different gospel, one that stirs up hatred, factions, and divisiveness, and that resembles so many of the “works of the flesh” Paul describes in Galatians 5.
I’ve come to realize that the best way to respond to the condemning tactics of YECists like Ken Ham is simply to bring things to light. And one of the fundamental points to emphasize is this: YECism and a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is not the foundation for the Gospel and the death and resurrection of Christ. If you happen to be honestly convinced that the earth, and indeed the entire universe, is only 6,000 years old, fine. I disagree, but by all means, make you argument and state your case. But you have to realize that the moment you try to turn the issue regarding the age of the earth and evolution into a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, you are wading into heretical waters. “Heresy,” by definition, is the conscious choosing of a belief to be a fundamental tenet of the faith that has never been a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith throughout its history. And so, if you choose to make YECism a fundamental tenet of the faith, then you are choosing to walk away from the traditional Christian faith.
So how are Christians to make of YECist claims that a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and the belief that the universe is only 6,000 years old are core tenets of the Christian faith? Simple: No they are not, and to insist they are deviates from the historical, traditional faith of the Church. If you follow Ham’s gospel, that’s your choice, but it’s not the Gospel of Christ.
Excellent article, as usual. The more I read about Ham’s tactics and arguments, the more angry and frustrated I get. I wish the church world could discuss issues like this, political matters, and other controversial topics without resorting to ad hominem arguments and vitriol. Admittedly, when I read something Ham has written, my first thought is, “Can somebody please make him shut up!?” But if I want to have an intelligent and respectful discussion, I know I can’t cling to that mentality. Nevertheless, the spirit he projects infiltrates the thinking of so many people. I wish I could find a way to discuss issues like YEC in the church I pastor without it turning into a pharisaic brouhaha.
I recommend the book “The Fool and the Heretic” for a probing look into how positive dialogue on creation can happen. https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2019/01/30/book-review-the-fool-and-the-heretic-by-todd-charles-wood-and-darrel-r-falk/
If YECism is wrong then I would love to understand from a Biblical point of view how it is wrong. If you can help me understand sin, death and redemption and how it fits into other views I am willing to consider it.
Well, I’ve written quite a bit on the proper understanding of Genesis 1-11. You can type in “Genesis” in the search bar, and I’m sure you can find some posts. But for this response, here’s my quick response: Genesis 1-3 basically teaches the following–God created everything, and it is good and orderly; God created human beings in His image, meaning we are to be his co-regents who rule and care for His creation; at the same time human beings are imperfect, naïve, and they sin, and thus they die; the entire OT story of God’s interaction with Israel and the entire NT story of how God’s story with Israel culminates in the death and resurrection of Jesus is the story of how God goes about renewing and transforming His creation.
Or more simply put: The Bible teaches that human beings ARE sinful and are in need of redemption; it isn’t trying to scientifically or historically pinpointing when that “first sin” happened. The story of Adam is YOUR story and MY story–that’s what human beings do, and that is why human beings need salvation.
My recent two posts here may be of interest:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=52727#p52727
I’ve now read the above article. ”YECism is the standard by which Ham passes judgment.” Indeed. It’s a sect or even a cult within Christianity (fundamentalist Christianity).
What’s interesting to me is to try to understand *why* Ham and those like him feel compelled towards a fundamentalist, literalist view of Genesis 1-3. Ham’s views don’t exist in a historical vacuum, after all anymore than than those of theistic evolutionists.
Fundamentalism was basically a late 19th c. reaction to what its proponents viewed as a rampant theological modernism. There’s no real doubt that many 19th c.scientists and others used this new science as a challenge to orthodox, traditional Christian faith. Fundamentalism was a reaction–or perhaps more precisely an *overreaction*–to the challenges posed by secularist Darwinian evolutionists and anthropologists.
I grew up in a fundamentalist church in the 1970s, which, if challenged, would’ve insisted on a literal six-day creation, thus a “young earth.” My dad once told me he thought dinosaur remains were faked by modern scientists to discredit the Christian faith. So I understand I think, why Ken Ham and others are bothered by evolution. Of course when I started reading and thinking outside the fundamentalist box I was raised in I saw how the truth of Christianity didn’t have anything to do with how old the earth might be or not be (or whether dinosaurs existed or not). I think a person has to have enough humility to recognize that they might be wrong and that they always have something more to learn.
NT Wright traces all of this and more in his new book *History and Eschatology: Jesus and the Promise of Natural Theology.* The book shows how the modern divide between faith and science is a 20th c. invention which traces back to the 17th-18th c. Enlightnment one of whose aims was to push God upstairs out of human affairs. This resulted in Deism, the view that God created the world then left it to spin on its own steam. (Wright actually traces Deism back to ancient Greek Epicureanism, which posited that *if* the gods exist, they’re a long way away and don’t get involved in the affairs of men or the world.) When challenged by modern scholars seeking to disprove, for example, the claims of the NT regarding Jesus of Nazareth by driving a wedge between “the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith,” many fundamentalists yielded the ground of history to the skeptics and made everything a matter of faith, even going so far as to say that if you needed historical verification for anything in the Bible, esp. regarding Jesus of Nazareth, your faith was either weak, or you were making it into a work by seeking historical verification. Skeptics said “keep Jesus and Christianity out of history” and many Christians responded by saying “fine, keep history away from Jesus and Christianity.” Obviously Wright believes that careful, deliberate historical inquiry isn’t at odds with the Christian faith, but indeed is crucial to that faith. Nor is science at odds with faith in Wright’s view, and never has been.
I suspect CS Lewis might say with a wink and a chuckle that “A Young Earth Creationist wishing to retain his Young Earth Creationism cannot be too careful of his reading.” Of course Ken Ham likely considers CS Lewis suspect, so there you go.
Pax.
Lee.
You’ve lost me here in two regards. First, if the death & resurrection of Christ are all that really matters, and we shouldn’t be making a big deal out of this issue (in fact, to do so would be heresy), then why are you making such a big deal out of it? After all, you have written a whole book and multiple blog posts about why Christians can & should believe in evolution. In a hysterical manner, you claim that young people who aren’t taught evolution in church will lose their faith! You seem as bent on teaching evolution as Ham is on teaching YEC. You believe in Christ’s death & resurrection; Ham also believes in Christ’s death & resurrection: isn’t that all that matters? Why do you care about peripheral beliefs and claims he makes? So it’s okay and even necessary for you to accuse him of being a heretic; but if he claims that evolutionists are undermining Scripture, he is way out of bounds? Shouldn’t this work both ways? At least he is being consistent precisely because he believes that it is a big deal insofar that evolution undermines the authority of Scripture; whereas, you say that one’s beliefs on the issue are not really a matter of Biblical authority and we are guilty of heresy if we make a big deal out of it; so why are you making a bid deal out of it?
Second, why do you keep insisting that only Gen. 1-11 are not literal history? Why do you arbitrarily stop there? If chapters 1-11 aren’t literal history, why do you believe that chapters 12-50 are literal? Surely there was never a literal Abraham or Moses; these are simply mythical characters intended to teach us – not how God guided & worked in history to bring about the Jewish people – but only that He worked to bring them about. (Just as it doesn’t really matter where sin came from; only that it came about.) You must know that the scientific consensus in the archaeological field and Biblical studies is that the Israelites never really had an “exodus” from Egypt; they were native local Canaanite tribes who eventually emerged and evolved into the nation that it became. Of course, Moses didn’t really write the Pentateuch. You know about JEDP. And Wellhausen demonstrated that religion and monotheism evolved just like life forms on earth. Why do you accept the evolution of life, but not the evolution of religion? I just don’t understand why you arbitrarily start interpreting Genesis as literal history at chapter 12; it makes you sound rather anti-science, anti-archaeology, and anti-intellectual. Again, at least Ham is consistent precisely because he takes all of the narrative to be literal history. (I’m sure he would believe in the utilization of poetry and metaphors in Scripture, but would not subscribe to the notion that the entire narrative of Gen. 1-11 is the genre of myth.) Bottom line: can’t we just believe in the death & resurrection of Christ, and not make an issue out of whether there ever was a real Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, or David?
Presumably you would address a similar pile of questions to Ken Ham as well (if you had the chance)? Ham being the one who makes a big deal of telling Christians what they should think and believe on all sorts of topics (such as current ongoing global warming), many of which are not addressed in the Bible. Ham is the one who demands that Christians have a ‘biblical worldview’ – something that is not found in the Bible itself but made up by Answers in Genesis. He is the one constantly sniping at Christians who do not tow the young earth creationist line.
My point is that at least Ham is being consistent precisely because he believes that evolution undermines the authority of Scripture and rises to the level that it really matters; therefore, because it matters he makes an issue out of it. On the other hand, Anderson believes that the topic does not really rise to that level of importance and to say that it does equates to heresy. Therefore, he is being inconsistent to make an issue out of it. To be consistent, Anderson’s response should be, “What difference does it make whether life & sin originated 6,000 years ago or millions of years ago?” But he doesn’t: he seems rather concerned about the suggestion that it may have originated 6,000 years ago and takes great pains to attack that suggestion. In other words, Ham is right to be concerned about Anderson because he believes that Anderson’s position undermines Scripture; but Anderson should not be concerned about Ham’s position because you can’t argue that it undermines Scripture. (You might disagree with it, but you can’t argue that it undermines Scripture.)
Furthermore, Ham rejects the scientific consensus about both human origins and the origins of the Jewish people. By contrast, Anderson seems to say that we ought to accept the scientific consensus about human origins, but we can safely reject the scientific consensus about the origins of the Jewish nation. So, can a Christian safely reject the scientific consensus, or not?
Ken, I think you’ve missed my point. The fundamental problem with Ham is that he has effectively made YECism a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, even though it has NEVER been considered a fundamental tenet of the faith throughout 2,000 years of Church history. He is free to believe the earth is young, he’s free to make arguments for that–it is a completely secondary issue when it comes to the Christian faith. But it is his making it a major issue that is the problem. And the simple fact is that many young people HAVE walked away from the faith because they were taught growing up that if you don’t believe the earth is young, then you can’t trust anything in the Bible–again, that had NEVER been taught or claimed in all of Church history. And so, when they are convinced the earth isn’t young, they conclude, “Well, I guess Christianity as a whole is false because that is what guys like Ham have told me all my life that I have to now conclude!”
When it comes to evolution, one should be free to argue for/against it without calling the faith of the other person into question. When it comes to how to properly interpret Genesis 1-11, it should be able to be debated without someone saying, “If you don’t agree with ME, then I’m going to accuse you of undermining Scripture and calling God a liar!”
In all my writing about this, I have ALWAYS said if you’re a Christian who thinks Genesis 1-11 is historical or that the earth is young, that’s fine–I disagree and we can debate those things (and there is nothing wrong with debating those things) but I’m not going to call your faith into question.
And yet, THAT is what Ham consistently done. And so, when he goes about telling people that you can’t be a true Christian if you think the universe is 14 billion years old, and when people get attacked and when people lose their faith because of what Ham says, I’m going to speak up and say, “No, that’s not true. You can be a Christian and think the universe is 14 billion years old, you can be a Christian and think the earth is only 6,000 years old. THAT ISSUE IS NOT A LITMUS TEST FOR YOUR FAITH.” That is a very real problem that has to be confronted.
As for you first question regarding where history begins in Genesis, that is a whole other topic, and I do address it in a number of posts as well as my book. It comes down to genre recognition. If you are familiar with the ancient world, ancient Israel, and the ancient Near East as a whole, and have studied the way they wrote and the genres they used, it becomes quite obvious that when we get to Genesis 12, the writer is telling us about historical people living at a certain time and place. The literary/genre indicators are everywhere that show a distinct shift in writing style. Just one example: Abraham gets a good 13 or so chapters devoted to him, whereas throughout Genesis 1-11, you have passing comments about people who supposedly lived for hundreds and hundreds of years, and you end up covering 500 years in a verse or two–THAT is not what a writer who is trying to tell you about actual history does, because there is no historical information or events being conveyed.
Thank you for offering this clarification. This is a somewhat more fair and measured approach to the topic. Having said this, however, I still don’t think you’re being entirely fair to Ham. If you are familiar with him, as apparently you are, you must know that he does not teach, as you claim, that, “You can’t be a true Christian if you think the universe is 14 billion years old.” I have often him heard say exactly the opposite: he often clarifies that he is NOT saying that one can’t be saved and believe in evolution or millions of years, but that rather that such a saved person is – whether he knows it or not – undermining the authority of Scripture. There’s a big difference there.
I’m still left wondering what happens when a young person goes off to a secular college and learns that Abraham never really existed, the exodus never happened, and David is nothing more than a “King Arthur” style legend. Does he lose his faith, and if so, is that the fault of his conservative home church for teaching him that these were real people? And if Ham is anti-science for rejecting the consensus on a single, narrow issue (human origins) as some often claim, then are you anti-science for rejecting the consensus about Jewish origins?
Well, to the point, yes, Ken Ham doesn’t literally say those words. But if you read much of his material (books and blogs), it is quite clear that he does, in fact, feel that way. For example, he may SAY that he’s not saying the “professed” Christians at BioLogos aren’t really Christians, but then he turns around and says BioLogos is “Calling God a liar,” are “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and are spreading Satan’s lies. He’ll say, “YECism isn’t a salvation issue, it’s a GOSPEL issue…and the Gospel is about salvation.” It’s double-speak. And speaking from personal experience, I’ve had many Ham disciples accuse me of not really being a Christian–they get that idea from somewhere.
The fields of science and history/Biblical Studies are different. There is logic and evidence that points to truth. The claims that people like David, Abraham, Moses, etc. are nothing more than non-historical legends are based on very weak arguments, often from “minimalists” who have an agenda to push. Simply put, there most definitely ISN’T a consensus among Biblical scholars that David, Moses, Abraham were just legends.
Well Ark, I don’t think you really followed the point of the post. For the sake of argument, whether or not the resurrection of Jesus happened, and whether or not Jesus existed, is beside the point of the post. The fact is that the claim of the resurrection of Jesus has always been the foundation of the Christian faith. By contrast, interpreting Genesis 1-11 literalistically/historically has never been the foundation of the Christian faith.
Nevertheless, those who deny the basic historicity of Jesus are, to put it kindly, on the furthest fringe of fringe. As I’ve always said, if you don’t believe Jesus was resurrected, fine–that is understandably a tough to swallow. But if you don’t believe Jesus even existed, neither I, nor anyone else, can take you seriously.
And finally, if you want to get a well-informed and well-rounded understanding of how to read and assess the Old Testament texts, as well as biblical archeology, I will recommend Iain Provan’s book, A Biblical History of Israel.
I neither stated nor alluded to the historicity or lack thereof of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.
My two main points were:
1) you considering his biblical view was false as was his criticism of other Christians yet your foundational beliefs are no more grounded in fact than are his.
and:
2)
your unsubstantiated claim that the character, Moses (and the Exodus)etc was historical, for which there is ample evidence that refutes the tales in bible.
Neither of these two points you addressed. Perhaps you would like to now?
Oh contraire! “There is no evidence for the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth yet you believe it.” (That’s a direct quote from you in your original reply)
As for your two main points:
1. Historically and factually speaking, the foundation of the Christian faith is the claim of the death and resurrection of Jesus in history. It has always been that. At no time in Church history has the definition of being a Christian been whether or not one believes Genesis was historical. And so, my charge that Ham is wrong to set up a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as the litmus test of the Christian faith is on point and true. His claim that belief in a historical Genesis 1-11 is foundational to the Christian faith is factually and historically wrong.
2. I recommend Provan’s book that goes into detail regarding how to assess the historicity of the Old Testament, how to read the OT texts as ancient works of literature, and how to assess archeological findings. But to your point, there isn’t “ample evidence” that refutes most of what is found in the Bible. Archeology, although very important and helpful, is still the study of scraps and fragments–it is spotty, to say the least. If you set that up as the be-all-end-all, and commit yourself to a wooden and tone deaf reading and understanding of the OT and Gospel texts, you’re going to have a very stilted and ignorant understanding of both the biblical texts and the actual archeological findings.
And so we come back again to a point I tried to make previously. You argue that one’s interpretation of Gen. 1-11 is not foundational to Christianity. A belief in a literal Adam or a world-wide flood is not fundamental; therefore, the attempt to make them foundational doctrines is heresy. But do you limit this reasoning solely to Gen. 1-11? In other words, is a belief in a literal Abraham, a literal exodus from Egypt, and a literal David fundamental or foundational to Christianity? So, do you merely believe in these people and events on a personal level, or would you actually argue that a belief in a literal Abraham, Moses, and David are foundational to Christianity such that if one denies the literal existence of all these characters he is undermining the Bible? I’d like a clear and definitive answer that clarifies where you are coming from: am I undermining the Bible (and people’s confidence in it) if I claim that Abraham, Moses, and David were never real people? If you say no, exactly how much of the Bible can we deny as literal history before we have become guilty of undermining it? If you say yes, aren’t you guilty of the very thing you accuse Ham: you are guilty of heresy for raising a belief in Moses and David to the level of fundamental doctrine and making it into a litmus test of the Christian faith (after all, one can believe in the death & resurrection of Jesus without believing in these other people).
Hi Ken,
You made a point previously? I don’t remember any comments by you recently (or perhaps it was from awhile ago?).
To your comments, though. It is a matter of historical fact that at no time did any of the Church Father set up a literal/historical belief in Adam, Abraham, Moses, or David as a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. When it comes to reading and assessing what is in the Bible, it is a matter of being a competent and informed reader. I would argue that a basic understanding of the literary style and genre of Genesis 1-11 should lead one to conclude it shouldn’t be understood as historical. The same goes for Job and the book of Jonah, for that matter.
It comes down to basic genre recognition. Scholars will tell you that the narratives of Abraham, of Moses and the Exodus, and of David are markedly different than Genesis 1-11. They clearly are not the same kind of writing. Some Christians might doubt whether or not Abraham, Moses, or David were historical figures, and to that, I would say they are wrong. Still, that is not the basis of the Christian faith.
So, what I’m trying to understand is how far can we take this principle. Can one dispense entirely with the OT and still be a Christian? In other words, would you argue that none of the OT is “the basis of the Christian faith”?
If we can’t dispense with the OT entirely, then exactly how much can we dispense wit,h and where do we draw the line?
You’re going about it all the wrong way. Instead of asking “What can one discount and still be a Christian?” you should be asking, “What is the evidence for the historicity of what is found in the OT?” And there is plenty. Sure, if you discount the entirety of the historicity of the OT, you’re probably not going to be a Christian in the first place–but that’s not because it is a litmus test; it’s because the Gospel doesn’t make sense without it. You are not going to say, “I believe Jesus is the Messiah” if already discount the entire Jewish history in which the Messianic hope developed.
It comes down to being a competent reader, plain and simple.
Read Provan’s book.
Again, he is Christian so he is biased.
However, you have obviously read it so give one or two examples and perhaps we can discuss them.
That cant be too difficult, surely?
For the record. Provan teaches at Regents College in Canada, an evangelical theological institution.
Each year, all faculty (both full-time and sessionals), senior administrators, and members of the Board of Governors subscribe in writing to the College’s theological position.
Point 2 of its theological position reads thus:
We believe in:
The divine inspiration of Holy Scripture and its consequent entire trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
My bold.
Provan cannot be objective under these circumstances.
I hope you appreciate why his perspective will be governed first and foremost by his faith.
Yes, I know where he works. I went there. And your assertion is laughable. Come on, actually challenge yourself and read the book. Dismissing it out of hand on the charge that if one is a Christian, one is hopelessly biased–that is pathetic. Evidence and reason stand on their own. And if you don’t think secular scholars can be prejudiced and biased, then I don’t know what to say.
So, be a man and actually read and wrestle with it. If you don’t, then all you’re doing is insisting on staying in your nice, comfortable bubble of confirmation bias.
Reading it requires purchasing it. That I am not prepared to do. Seriously? For what?
His position is self-evidently based on his faith.
And the mission statement denies him the opportunity to be objective.,
I asked you to simply provide a few examples of these historical facts you claim he refers to and yet you avoid doing so. Why?
I have read a great deal of material produced by Christians and to date none of them have produced facts that pertain to the historical veracity of the OT claims in question.
But you seem confident of your position so it would take very little effort to list a couple of examples.
I feel obliged to ask, what are you afraid of?
Hahaha…of course! Why would you read a book that might challenge your claims and confirmation bias?
Ignore Sennacherib’s annals, the Cyrus cylinder, the Mernthaph Steele, the Balaam Inscription, the Babylonian annals, etc. –all which contain information that validates the existent of historical Israel.
Hahaha…don’t read the book.it might threaten your sense of certainty.
I think Ham would argue that if all we had in the OT were the first 11 chapters of Genesis, we could make sense of the gospel: it explains where we came from, where sin came from, where death came from, why Jesus died, and who He is (the “seed of the woman.”) Thus, you would argue that we don’t really need to believe in the literal history of Gen. 1-11 to understand the gospel, but we do need to interpret the rest of the OT as literal history in order to make sense of the gospel. I think Ham may have a better argument in saying the opposite: we need the first 11 chapters of Genesis to make sense of the gospel, but we could dispense with the rest of the OT (not that we actually would dispense with it, but that in theory we could and still make sense of the gospel).
Re: My direct quote: What has this got to do with the historicity of the character Jesus of Nazareth?
2)
The archaeological evidence refutes the Exodus as recorded in the bible and I am unaware of any secular archaeologist who believes otherwise.
Provan is a Christian, yes?
Perhaps you are unaware of people such as Kenyon, Finkelstein, Herzog, Dever?
If you can suggest a secular archaeologist who has evidence that supports the biblical tale I’d be very interested to read.
Archaeology also refutes the flood, a cornerstone of Ham’s religious worldview.
Do you agree with Ham regarding this, and more importantly do you accept it as written in the bible?
1. Your original comment: “There is no evidence for the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth yet you believe it.”
Your second comment: “I neither stated nor alluded to the historicity or lack thereof of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.”
You need to recognize a contradiction when it stares you in the face.
2. There is no archeological evidence that supports a wooden/fundamentalist reading of the Exodus account, as if it were a Cecille B. Demille film. But that should be obvious already. And yes, Provan is a Christian, so what? He is an accomplished scholar to directly addresses the other scholars you mention. It doesn’t matter if one is a Fundie or an secular atheist–if you read the Exodus account as if it were a blow-by-blow newspaper account, you’re going to misread it.
And of course science an archeology refutes the historicity of Noah’s flood. A competent reading of Genesis 1-11 in light of the ancient Near Eastern context refutes the historicity of Noah’s flood. So of course I do not agree with Ham.
I am not suggesting there was no historical character called Yeshua. Merely stating that there is no evidence for the Resurrection for which you believe.
You need to recognise the difference between historicity of the character and the unsubstantiated religious claims.
Why do you accept the biblical tale of the Exodus and the historicity of the character Moses, yet do not believe the biblical tale of the flood? And would this include the characters who feature in the myth as well?
There is evidence for neither.
We’ve had discussions like this before. You’ve already stated plenty of times that you reject the historicity of Jesus, so stop playing games. In any case, the kind of evidence one would expect to find when it comes to the resurrection is the kind we find in the NT: People claiming to have witnessed it. Aside from that, I don’t know what other kind of evidence you’d expect. So what you should be saying is, “I reject the evidence of the early believers testimony.”
As for the Exodus-Flood question, simple: The flood story isn’t written as history; the Exodus is. It is all about literary competency. The Exodus story is not a “myth.”
Claims are not evidence. And the point is that you criticize Ham for his YEC nonsense yet you believe in unsubstantiated supernaturalism, which is equally nonsensical.
the Exodus is.( written as history)
Neither tale has any supporting evidence, and archaeology demonstrates this.
Yes, the Exodus tale as written is a myth and this is the consensus of archaeologists, historians and scholars.
To suggest the Exodus is history is to assert such nonsense as the parting of the Red Sea (as described) was an actual historical event.
No, Ham is making claims about what is foundational to the Christian faith. What he is claiming has never been claimed in Church history.
The question of the historicity of David, Moses, Abraham is not one of “supernaturalism.” It is one of history.
And no, the Exodus is not written as a “myth.” You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of what “myth.” No, the consensus does NOT say the Exodus was written as “myth.” That is a nonsensical statement.
The resurrection is a question of supernaturalism.
I did not say the Exodus was written as a myth. I said it is regarded as a myth. In fact it is considered a foundational myth of Judaism.
And yes, this is the consensus and includes the majority of scholars, every secular archaeologist that I am aware of , and the majority of Rabbis. And if such top ranking Jews accept the evidence then why don’t Christians?
I can provide enough quotes and links to make you head spin if you like?
So, once again,. the point is that, you are berating Ham’s literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 l and his criticism of those Christians who do not and yet, here you are expecting to be taken seriously for also believing in supernatualism.
This is most definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.