Pastoral Musings

Some say Ellen G. White, George McReady Price, and Seventh Day Adventism. Joel’s post here is an example.

Cover via Amazon

They are very mistaken.

Dr. Terry Mortenson has written a book based upon his thesis that examines the writings of geologists who were not influenced by Ellen G. White, and who wrote before the birth of Price. That book is “The Great Turning Point.”

Sadly, there will be few who read it due to their prejudice against Answers in Genesis. That does not change the fact that the book truly demonstrates that there were geologists who were young earth creationists before the modern day creation movement.

 Dr. Mortenson has thoroughly documented the work of the Bible-believing geologists in Britain in the 1820–1840 period who resolutely resisted those inside and outside the church who placed human reason above divine revelation, thus undermining the Scriptures and the Christian gospel.

AIG

Even if one disagrees with young earth creationism and flood geology, it is not a good thing to try to poison the well with a false genetic fallacy.

Image via Wikipedia

Ken Ham on the brouhaha about the historicity of Adam and Eve:

The interesting point is that this quote actually does deal with the real issue, and sadly, atheists understand this better than the majority of Christian academics these days. And in this instance, as shocking as it may seem, I agree with the atheists, not the majority of Christian academics. The following is what the atheists say (now I don’t agree with the first paragraph of course, but I agree with the essence of their points as you read them): Chances are, if you’re reading this, you don’t believe in the fable of Adam and Eve and the talking snake. You probably think it’s a story, created out of ignorance, to explain the origin of life. You probably don’t believe that Adam literally ate a fruit, resulting in God expelling him and Eve out of the idyllic Garden of Eden. In other words, you know that’s a myth. Right so far? So if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it. Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin. Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist) Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot. All we are asking is that you take what you know into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it. (http://atheists.org/atheism/Christmas)

via I Agree with the Atheists! | Around the World with Ken Ham.

I’ve not yet read this book, but it received a favorable review from blogging buddy Daniel Mount at the Biblical Bookshelf.

Though the authors watered down their conclusions to some extent, their research is strong and convincing. Though it’s not as strong as it could be, Already Compromised is an incredibly valuable resource for parents with children nearing or in their high-school years.

Shaun Tabbat also links to an interview of Ham, in which he speaks with Kevin Swanson about the book.

Related articles

• Book Review: Already Compromised (Ken Ham, Greg Hall, Britt Beemer) | The Biblical Bookshelf (pastoralmusings.com)
• Ken Ham’s FaceBook Page Attacked by Atheists Including A TSA Agent (pastoralmusings.com)
• Ironically, Ken Ham Says “Think For Yourself” (scotteriology.wordpress.com)
• Ken Ham: Christian Schools Aren’t Christian Enough (livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com)

Daniel Mount reviews “Already Compromised” by Ken Ham.

Though the authors watered down their conclusions to some extent, their research is strong and convincing. Though it’s not as strong as it could be, Already Compromised is an incredibly valuable resource for parents with children nearing or in their high-school years. It receives a four-star rating from the Biblical Bookshelf.

via Book Review: Already Compromised (Ken Ham, Greg Hall, Britt Beemer) | The Biblical Bookshelf.

Image via Wikipedia

On April 10, Bob Seashols, a Coordination Center Officer for the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) at the Richmond International Airport (RIC) and an administrator for Atheists United’s Facebook page, took part in a coordinated effort to populate pornographic images, extreme profanity, and sexually explicit anti-Christian hate-speech on the Facebook page of Ken Ham, an internationally known Christian ministry leader who serves as president of Answers in Genesis-U.S (AiG) and the popular Creation Museum, located near Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sunday afternoon visitors to Mr. Ham’s “public person” Facebook site found pages of sexually explicit commentary aimed at mocking him and deriding Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. The Internet-based Facebook assault, directed from four different Facebook accounts, involved pornographic and sadomasochistic imagery.

When interviewed about his role in what he described as a “blitz” against Ken Ham, Seashols stated: “Somebody posted . . . an asinine statement that Ken Ham made [on an Atheist forum], and that raised our hackles. . . . It was retaliation.”

Mr. Seashols tells us that he has two children of his own, girls who are 10 and 6 years old, respectively. He admitted that he “make[s] sure to keep track of where they go [on the Internet].” Yet when pressed if he would be upset if his daughters stumbled upon the kind of explicit images and commentary he aided in posting to Mr. Ham’s public page, he backtracked: “Not really. When your mother calls you a [expletive withheld] and your father calls you a [expletive withheld] they are words, nothing more than words. Words have never hurt anybody.”

Two observations:

1.  Mr Seashols says that words never hurt anyone, yet he used them in an attempt to hurt Mr. Ham.

2.  I wonder whether Mr Ham’s detractors will take the time to consider that Mr. Ham was treated wrongfully in this matter.  One does not have to agree with him to agree that this incident was unnecessary.  Many of us bloggers moderate comments on our blogs to prohibit this very thing happening to us.