Has anybody told Ken Ham?

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.christianpost.com/news/whea ... ience.html

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
''We are well aware of the Genesis compromiser John Walton and the damage he and others at Wheaton have done—and are doing to generations of kids. The headline of this article should be: "Wheaton scholars pen 'Origins' college textbook bridging the Bible to man's pagan religion of evolution and millions of years, to undermine the authority of the Word of God to help the atheists destroy the minds of generations of kids and lead them away from God's infallible Word."
BioLogos is an organization that is out to infiltrate Christian colleges and churches with evolution—they've infiltrated colleges like Wheaton, Calvin, and many others. At Answers in Genesis, we not only have to battle for the truth of God's infallible Word against secularists, but much of the church too:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/whea ... ience.html
''

Ah yes, the true age of the Earth (4.5 bn years not 6,000) must be a 'pagan religion' if you are an anti-science fundamentalist Bible thumper of a Christian.

Christians - you don't need to listen to Ken Ham as the means of preventing the destruction of your minds and your children's minds by 'atheists'. You really don't. (May I suggest that you simply have an open mind about scientific matters whilst retaining your faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.)

And - if God's word is infallible, WHY does this AiG article undermine the clear wording of Matthew 4:8 (which strongly implies that we live on a flat Earth which of course even AiG accept is untrue) by questioning whether the mountain mentioned in the infallible Word of God at this verse actually exists?
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

Of course it's probably also true that Biologos do re-interpret the Bible to make it fit with science (but the Bible is NOT a science text is it).

[MisterGordons]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/


And - if God's word is infallible, WHY does this AiG article undermine the clear wording of Matthew 4:8 (which strongly implies that we live on a flat Earth which of course even AiG accept is untrue) by questioning whether the mountain mentioned in the infallible Word of God at this verse actually exists?
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

We all know that Ashley Haworth-Roberts hates Ken Ham and other YECs. He will find any fault in them. Answers in Genesis is right to point out that Biologos and others are hypocritical in their Christian claims but Ashley Haworth-Roberts only seeks this as another excuse to malign Ken Ham. His excuse to claim that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat is desperate cherry picking and relies on taking things out of context and ignoring other teachings in the Christian Bible. If Ashley Haworth-Roberts were intellectually honest and bothered to search he would have his answers. Here is one of many. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/


And - if God's word is infallible, WHY does this AiG article undermine the clear wording of Matthew 4:8 (which strongly implies that we live on a flat Earth which of course even AiG accept is untrue) by questioning whether the mountain mentioned in the infallible Word of God at this verse actually exists?
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

We all know that Ashley Haworth-Roberts hates Ken Ham and other YECs. He will find any fault in them. Answers in Genesis is right to point out that Biologos and others are hypocritical in their Christian claims but Ashley Haworth-Roberts only seeks this as another excuse to malign Ken Ham. His excuse to claim that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat is desperate cherry picking and relies on taking things out of context and ignoring other teachings in the Christian Bible. If Ashley Haworth-Roberts were intellectually honest and bothered to search he would have his answers. Here is one of many. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

Gordons

Please tell me what the answer is that I already 'have'. Please tell me why - if Matthew 4:8 (read literally and regarded as 'infallible') does 'not' suggest that Earth is flat - Danny Faulkner colleague of Ken Ham at Answers 'in' Genesis tries to avoid the plain meaning of this particular verse, including by suggesting that the mountain this verse mentions is 'hypothetical'.

I was not really 'cherry picking' - and verses like this are enough to convince certain YECs like Philip Stallings that Earth is indeed (contrary to observation and logic) 'flat'. I will shortly reproduce here my email of 8 March (which believe I DID copy to YOU among others).

I am intellectually honest and I did NOT (and you have not shown what you are maliciously alleging) take Matthew 4:8 'out of context' ie the context of Jesus being tempted by the devil (my 8 March email did compare Matthew 4:8 with Luke 4:5 which is hardly 'cherry picking' as you baselessly allege).

The solution is to take the Bible seriously but not insist that every single verse is 'infallible'.

So - what is YOUR take on Matthew 4:8, Gordons? Do you agree with Danny Faulkner and, presumably, Ken Ham? If the verse is 'infallible' how does it 'not' suggest that we live on a flat disc of a planet (do you take issue with English translations?) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

[a_haworthroberts]

My email from 8 March:


''Groups like Answers in Genesis insist the Bible is infallible (not simply God's true Word but also scientifically and historically complete and without error), tend to advocate a 'plain' reading of scripture, and whenever appropriate urge Christians to take the meaning of texts literally rather than in some other way.

So their treatment of Matthew 4:8 in that article by Danny Faulkner is somewhat interesting.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
''Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.'' (New International Version.)

We know (conspiracy theorists may differ) from observations made from eg the International Space Station and Apollo 8 that Earth's shape is a sphere. And that from the top of Everest you would not be able to view all the kingdoms on Earth. (That might be possible if the planet was a circular flat disc and the planet was small enough and the mountain of vast height, perhaps reaching to the 'sky'.)

So Faulkner - because he knows Earth is a sphere but still would insist that every verse of scripture is infallible (including scientifically) - has to try and get around the problem of this verse and how its text suggests that the writer did assume Earth was flat (if the meaning was intended to be taken literally).
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

Faulkner questions whether the mountain mentioned in Matthew 4:8 actually exists (maybe he's suggesting that Jesus was taken 'up', as mentioned in Luke 4:5, higher than the summit of any very high mountain): ''However, if this mountain of Matthew 4:8 with its view of the entire earth is literal, then where is it? Those who pursue this line of reasoning have never determined the location of this hypothetical mountain.''

So the 'infallible' Word of God says Jesus was taken by the devil to a very high mountain (to the summit?) and shown all the kingdoms of the world. And Answers in Genesis are questioning whether the mountain in question exists (because it is not named and has not been conclusively identified)! It seems that even the most determined fundamentalist Christians struggle to uphold every single Bible verse as 'infallible' in the sense that they might define the term.

Faulkner (copied in but I suspect all AiG staff block my emails; they never respond) tries to ignore the obvious meaning of Matthew 4:8 by comparing it with Luke 4:5 (which mentions no mountain):
''But does this verse truly imply the visibility of the entire earth from the peak of this mountain?''
He reaches what I believe is an erroneous and unconvincing conclusion:
''As mentioned above, one might incorrectly infer from Matthew 4:8 that there actually is a mountain so high that the earth’s entire surface is visible from it, but by interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture, one can see that this is incorrect.'' It looks correct to me. Maybe Luke 4:5 is incorrect (or at least incomplete) in failing to mention the mountain. Luke 4:5 still says that Jesus was shown all the kingdoms of the world after being taken 'up'.

And then we come again to Ken Ham's eye-catching statement yesterday. ''Nothing in observational evidence will ever contradict the history in God’s Word because that history is true—from the very first verse.''
But to make Matthew 4:8 'true' in the way AiG insist Bible verses are all true his colleague has been forced to question whether the mountain mentioned in this verse really exists (because Earth is a sphere and you simply cannot view all the kingdoms of the world from anywhere very high up - even though, conceivably, you might be able to do so if Earth was a flat circular disc). We have observed - we have the photographic evidence - that Earth is a sphere (but you would not learn this reality from Matthew 4:8, taken literally).''


Remember - Answers in Genesis BLOCK my emails and REFUSE to answer (maybe they only answer people who are already convinced YECs) any of the questions I regularly send to them using this form:
https://answersingenesis.org/forms/inquiries/

[a_haworthroberts]

What's the betting they either ignore Matthew 4:8 or perform gymnastic contortions to make the verse not point to a flat disc of an Earth?
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... cumentary/
(But I don't intend parting with some money in order to find out.)

[a_haworthroberts]

My email from 8 March:


''Groups like Answers in Genesis insist the Bible is infallible (not simply God's true Word but also scientifically and historically complete and without error), tend to advocate a 'plain' reading of scripture, and whenever appropriate urge Christians to take the meaning of texts literally rather than in some other way.

So their treatment of Matthew 4:8 in that article by Danny Faulkner is somewhat interesting.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
''Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.'' (New International Version.)

We know (conspiracy theorists may differ) from observations made from eg the International Space Station and Apollo 8 that Earth's shape is a sphere. And that from the top of Everest you would not be able to view all the kingdoms on Earth. (That might be possible if the planet was a circular flat disc and the planet was small enough and the mountain of vast height, perhaps reaching to the 'sky'.)

So Faulkner - because he knows Earth is a sphere but still would insist that every verse of scripture is infallible (including scientifically) - has to try and get around the problem of this verse and how its text suggests that the writer did assume Earth was flat (if the meaning was intended to be taken literally).
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

Faulkner questions whether the mountain mentioned in Matthew 4:8 actually exists (maybe he's suggesting that Jesus was taken 'up', as mentioned in Luke 4:5, higher than the summit of any very high mountain): ''However, if this mountain of Matthew 4:8 with its view of the entire earth is literal, then where is it? Those who pursue this line of reasoning have never determined the location of this hypothetical mountain.''

So the 'infallible' Word of God says Jesus was taken by the devil to a very high mountain (to the summit?) and shown all the kingdoms of the world. And Answers in Genesis are questioning whether the mountain in question exists (because it is not named and has not been conclusively identified)! It seems that even the most determined fundamentalist Christians struggle to uphold every single Bible verse as 'infallible' in the sense that they might define the term.

Faulkner (copied in but I suspect all AiG staff block my emails; they never respond) tries to ignore the obvious meaning of Matthew 4:8 by comparing it with Luke 4:5 (which mentions no mountain):
''But does this verse truly imply the visibility of the entire earth from the peak of this mountain?''
He reaches what I believe is an erroneous and unconvincing conclusion:
''As mentioned above, one might incorrectly infer from Matthew 4:8 that there actually is a mountain so high that the earth’s entire surface is visible from it, but by interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture, one can see that this is incorrect.'' It looks correct to me. Maybe Luke 4:5 is incorrect (or at least incomplete) in failing to mention the mountain. Luke 4:5 still says that Jesus was shown all the kingdoms of the world after being taken 'up'.

And then we come again to Ken Ham's eye-catching statement yesterday. ''Nothing in observational evidence will ever contradict the history in God’s Word because that history is true—from the very first verse.''
But to make Matthew 4:8 'true' in the way AiG insist Bible verses are all true his colleague has been forced to question whether the mountain mentioned in this verse really exists (because Earth is a sphere and you simply cannot view all the kingdoms of the world from anywhere very high up - even though, conceivably, you might be able to do so if Earth was a flat circular disc). We have observed - we have the photographic evidence - that Earth is a sphere (but you would not learn this reality from Matthew 4:8, taken literally).''


Remember - Answers in Genesis BLOCK my emails and REFUSE to answer (maybe they only answer people who are already convinced YECs) any of the questions I regularly send to them using this form:
https://answersingenesis.org/forms/inquiries/

Oh look - Ken Ham, who lies a LOT especially about current rapid global warming, fails to consider the obvious implications of Matthew 4:8 read literally as YECs are supposed to read such verses:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... lat-earth/
Will that reassure those flat earthers who also follow Ham's brand of pseudo-science?