Ken Ham on William Lane Craig

[eclipsesonic]

As much as I greatly appreciate what Ken Ham has done for Christianity, I wish he wouldn't talk about William Lane Craig in such a way that makes it seem like he's an enemy of the faith. Dr. Craig is saved and he and his ministry have brought many people to Christ and has strengthened many Christians' faith in God and His Word. I wish he would at least acknowledge that, but he never does. At the end of the day, young earth creationism is not an essential belief for one to hold to and what binds us together as Christians is NOT WHEN God created everything, but that HE DID create the Universe a finite time ago and it didn't come about by random chance with no agent behind it. Naturalism is the real enemy here, not old earth creationism.

[Freethinkingtheist]

Ironically it is Ham who compromises on Genesis by reading modern western scientific questions onto an ancient near eastern text. The questions that concerned Moses and the Israelite nation were not the same questions that creationism is interested in. Moses simply wouldn't recognise Ham's interpretation of Genesis.

[dan.lucking]

William Lane Craig is much easier to put down when you just cherry pick soundbites and ignore his actual arguments. I'd love to see Ken Ham try this on him in person..

[anunknownentity]

Craig has done a thousand times more to defend Christianity than Ham. Craig has debated some of the most intelligent opponents to Christianity on the planet. While Ham got pummeled in one of his only public debates on a science topic.

[smartcow]

Pretty sure willam lane Craig would intellectually wreck ken ham, would love to see them debate

[williammcenaney]

I've just been reading St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae where he teaches that the literal sense of a Bible passage is what the sacred writer meant by it. So if that's true and if the Bible's inspired authors weren't talking about young earth creationism in Genesis, Ham's interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is nonliteral.

[fndrr]

The anger is palpable. Fear leads to anger - anger to hate - hate leads to the dark side. I wonder what his midiclorian count is looking like?

[MrTimotheousWard]

Of course Ken Ham would attack Craig. Who I'm sure has a way more effective ministry without building theme parks and roadside attractions.

[Taurion]

I'd like to know how Ham thinks Craig is reinterpreting Gods word, last i checked the bible does not say the age of the earth or that belief in its age is salvation, we have fantastic Christians on both sides that believe the earth is young and some that believe its old and i truly don't see a problem.

[danJesus]

I'll just put this plainly: science and faith are not in conflict at all. You can be a faithful, godly Christian and believe in an old universe, the Big Bang, an old earth & Darwinian evolution. God has given us both the Bible & science & we don't have to pick or choose one or the other.

[Infinity-lqbt]

it's hilarious how literally the first clip of WLC stops right before he explains how the idea that the Earth is billions of years old does not conflict with modern science and indeed science supports the traditional view of an old Earth. nice job there Ham.

[williammcenaney]

I wonder what Mr. Ham would say to St. Augustine because Augustine from the 4th century wasn't a young earth creationist. St. Augustine wrote a book about a literal interpretation of Genesis, but his sense of the word "literal" differed from Ham's sense.

[GeneralZod]

I love watching Christians debate over which brand of faith is the correct one.  I just sit back, watch and smile.  :)

[geras.]

"Let Ken Ham have his young-earthism, and let him go down with it to the footnotes of history after it has gone the way of the flat earth and

Only for the love of God, don't let him drag the gospel down with him!" -Tyler Franckle, The Gospel according to young earth-creationist Ken Ham.

[Voodooblue]

The problem with Ken Ham is regardless of who is correct in this debate, he holds a view where the interpretation of the creation story is treated as essential doctrine. I’d argue that the fall of man is the only essential doctrine in Genesis and even then your interpretation of how that actually plaid out, whether that story is literal or not, is still irrelevant to the Christian understanding the basic concept of man’s sinfulness.

I also don’t understand why he insists on a literal interpretation of a translation that isn’t the original language. People who study Hebrew and Greek can demonstrate how meanings of things have been changed where a literal translation of certain words or concepts didn’t exist.

[Willparr]

I don't think Ken realizes what science is, it's not a belief system, it's something you do, verify, and keep verifying to get consistent results. And then have others do the same and either prove or disprove your theory. It's all about verifying evidence, it's not a belief system lol.

[urbansoundscarllamb]

Oh dear. I'm with WLC, I find Ham and Hovind embarrassing, but what is worst in my humble opinion is this. Irrespective of old earth or young earth, this debate is not central to the Christian faith. I said some time ago, God isn't that bothered where you have come from; but where you are going. We seem to have forgotten this and to find Ken Ham calling WLC out is not very good. In the talks that WLC has given on young earth creationism, I don't think that he names, names! happy to be corrected on this. What I hope we can all agree on is, this life is temporal and in 100 years time none of us will be here. But, God is very interested in where you move to after this temporal existence.

[nkarunytb]

Can I get a link to this entire video ?

[dogmaslayer]

Creation scientist should debate creation scientist.

[MikeJones-ticb]

We must remember that "man's historical science " gave us big bang cosmology which lines up perfectly with God's word. We shouldn't be to quick to make judgment based solely on what other people say. Also the more important thing is this is not a salvation issue, seven days that divide the world written by Dr. John Lennox is a good read on the topic. Though I do believe that debate amongst ourselves is healthy if we can be adults and control our emotions getting hurt and having hard feelings toward one another is surely not what we need.