The Bible as a Prop: Examining Ken Ham’s Pattern of Misusing Scripture

Introduction

Over the past few years, I’ve been tracking how Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis handle the Bible. The pattern I’ve seen bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the rhetorical tactics used by some Islamic da’wah preachers: selective quoting, historical revisionism, and a reliance on followers accepting every claim without testing it against the source material. Ham himself has joked on multiple occasions that his followers tell him they enjoy hearing him speak no matter what he says—often because of his accent. (1) While he presents it humorously, the comment reveals a startling truth about the mindset of his demographic: a culture of personality‑driven trust rather than Berean‑style discernment.

In Ham’s rhetoric, “God’s Word” almost always means the written text of Scripture, and in practice, 99% of the time it means Genesis 1–11. On the rare occasion “God’s Word” refers to other passages, it is typically in service of defending his interpretation of those opening chapters. References to Jesus as “the Word” (John 1:1) are exceedingly rare, and references to “God’s Word” as God’s literal spoken command are rarer still. This reflects a strong form of biblicism—one Ham openly promotes—in which the written text is treated as the absolute authority in all matters of life and thought, and positioned as the foundation of what he calls the “biblical” or “Christian worldview.” The result is a myopic focus on Genesis that shapes his entire reading of the Bible: every text is filtered through his Young Earth Creationist apologetic, even when the passage has nothing to do with creation chronology. From blog posts to museum exhibits, books, interviews, and social media, verses are routinely lifted out of context, edited, or reframed to serve AiG’s narrative—often in ways that distort their original meaning.

A Sampling of Misuse

• Proverbs 13:22 — Altered in AiG’s museum with “[legacy]” inserted to fit their branding. The original contrasts the righteous and the sinner; Ham’s version turns it into a slogan about passing on AiG’s message.

• 1 Corinthians 11:19 — Used to claim that division in the church can be good if it’s over “the right reasons” (like AiG’s Genesis interpretation). In context, Paul is rebuking factions, not endorsing them.

• 1 Corinthians 14:8 — Quoted as a call for unity in AiG’s stance on Genesis, though the passage is about clarity in worship, not creation debates.

• 1 Corinthians 2:14 — Applied to suggest that only those with the Holy Spirit will accept a young earth. In context, Paul is talking about receiving God’s message, not calculating the age of the universe.

• 2 Peter 3:3–6, 9 — “Scoffers” are said to be those who reject AiG’s creation and flood model. But Peter’s scoffers doubt Christ’s return, not creation itself.

• Job 38:4 — Ham uses “Were you there?” to dismiss old‑earth views, claiming Genesis is God’s eyewitness account. In Job, God is humbling Job, not giving creation details.

• Genesis 7:11 — Reads “the fountains of the great deep burst open” as a literal, scientific description of catastrophic tectonic activity to support his flood model — but in the same verse, treats “the windows of heaven were opened” metaphorically. Literal when it helps the model, metaphor when it doesn’t.

• Genesis 3:14 — Takes “you shall crawl on your belly” as literal proof snakes once had legs, but dismisses “and you shall eat dust” as metaphor. Again, literal when it fits, figurative when it doesn’t.

• Matthew 7:13 — Applied to explain why most scientists reject Young Earth Creationism (“broad is the road that leads to destruction”). In context, Jesus is warning about the way of life that leads away from Him, not about scientific consensus.

• John 3:19 — Used to suggest that those who accept evolution “love darkness rather than light.” In context, Jesus is speaking about rejecting Him as the Light of the world, not about positions on the age of the earth.

• Matthew 19:4 — Cited to argue that God made humans “from the beginning” and therefore the earth cannot be millions of years old. In context, Jesus is affirming the creation of male and female as the basis for marriage, not giving a chronology of the universe.

• Matthew 25:41 — Displayed in the Creation Museum as a condemnation of certain cultural groups, but stripped of the following verses about neglecting “the least of these.” The omission changes the focus from neglect of mercy to culture‑war targets.

• Jude 3 — Paired with the (misattributed) Edmund Burke quote about “the triumph of evil” to rally Christians into culture‑war activism. In context, Jude is warning about false teachers and ungodly behavior within the church, not unbelievers or politics.

• Jeremiah 10:14 — Quoted (“Every man is stupid and without knowledge”) to dismiss human reasoning on creation, climate, justice, and more. In context, Jeremiah is rebuking idol‑makers, not humanity in general.

• Colossians 2:3 — Tied to Jeremiah 10:14 to claim true wisdom comes only from starting with AiG’s interpretation of God’s Word. In context, Paul is speaking of wisdom found in Christ Himself, not in a specific apologetic model.

• Joshua 1:6–9 — Used to warn against “compromising” with outside ideas about creation. In context, God is commissioning Joshua to lead Israel into the Promised Land, urging courage and obedience to the Law of Moses. It’s a specific covenant leadership charge, not a general prohibition against engaging with scientific or historical evidence.

• Isaiah 66:1–2 — Quoted to suggest that “trembling at God’s Word” means rejecting any interpretation of Genesis that incorporates extra‑biblical data. In context, God is contrasting His transcendence with human attempts to impress Him through temple‑building, and affirming that He looks with favor on the humble and contrite. The focus is on posture toward God, not on a particular stance in modern creation debates.

• 2 Corinthians 4:6 — Used to frame AiG’s Young Earth Creationist reading of Genesis as the “light” Christians must shine into culture. In context, Paul is speaking about God’s act of shining the light of the knowledge of His glory in Christ into believers’ hearts—pointing to the gospel, not to a specific interpretation of creation chronology.

• Matthew 5:14–16 — Applied to argue that “letting your light shine” means publicly promoting AiG’s Genesis teaching. In context, Jesus is calling His disciples to live in such a way that their good works lead others to glorify God—again, the focus is on visible Christlike living, not on persuading unbelievers to adopt a particular creation model.

The Through‑Line

The list of passage goes on and on, but the pattern is unmistakable:

• Editing or omitting inconvenient parts of verses.

• Reframing rebukes as endorsements.

• Applying unrelated passages to Genesis debates.

• Switching between literal and metaphorical readings within the same verse to fit the model.

• Implying that disagreement with AiG equals spiritual deficiency.

This pattern would be troubling from any teacher, but it is especially so in Ham’s case. He has positioned himself as a definitive biblical authority despite having no formal training in theology or biblical studies, no ordination, and no seminary education. His background is in applied science and education, and his “doctorates” are honorary degrees from institutions aligned with his ministry. There is nothing wrong with being self‑taught — I am as well — but I am transparent about my background, acknowledge my fallibility, and invite my audience to fact‑check me. Ham does not. Instead, he often brands those who disagree with him as “compromising the authority of God’s Word with the fallible ideas/word of man,” while his followers, drawn to his persona and confidence, frequently accept his teaching without question.

What we see here is not merely one man’s interpretation, but a consistent pattern of treating the Bible as a prop for a pre‑determined message rather than allowing the text to speak on its own terms. When Scripture is bent to fit our agenda, we are no longer submitting to God’s Word; we are making it submit to us — the very opposite of honoring its authority.

For that reason, we must hold ourselves and our teachers to a higher standard. Handle the Scriptures with reverence, care, and context. Test every claim against the whole counsel of God’s Word, not just the verses someone strings together to make a point. Do not be swayed by a silver tongue or by words that merely scratch our itching ears. Love the truth enough to follow it wherever it leads, and demand the same integrity from those who teach the Word.

Only then will we shine the light of Christ — not the dim reflection of our own agendas — into a world that desperately needs Him.

Son of God, Not the Offspring of God: Understanding Jesus' Divine Sonship

 

Introduction: The Misconception of Jesus as a Demi-God

Throughout history, various interpretations of Jesus' identity have emerged, some of which misunderstand His divine nature. One such misconception is the claim that Jesus was a demi-God—a being who is literally the biological offspring of Yahweh and Mary. This view, often influenced by Greco-Roman mythology, distorts the theological framework of Christian doctrine and contradicts biblical scholarship. Additionally, echoes of ancient heresies continue to shape modern religious perspectives on Jesus, particularly among Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Furthermore, some scholars, such as Michael Heiser, argue that Genesis 6:1-4 presents a unique case where divine beings interacted with humans, producing the Nephilim. While this passage does describe supernatural beings engaging with humanity, it is distinct from the Greco-Roman demi-God concept. Jewish theology typically rejects divine-human hybridization, but Genesis 6 reflects an Ancient Near Eastern worldview where rebellious divine beings corrupted creation, distinct from pagan myths of heroic demi-Gods.

Similarly, misunderstandings about Jesus' death often lead skeptics to incorrectly claim that God killed "His Son" in an act of divine child sacrifice. Instead, Christian theology teaches that God Himself, in the person of Jesus, took on flesh and bore the punishment for sin.

Religious Groups That Hold This View

Certain sects and religious movements have propagated the idea that Jesus was a demi-God. Some fringe Christian groups, influenced by Gnostic traditions, have suggested that Jesus was a hybrid being—part divine and part human. Additionally, some skeptics argue that early Christian theology borrowed from pagan myths, equating Jesus with figures like Hercules or Perseus, who were believed to be the offspring of gods and mortals.

While mainstream Christianity affirms the doctrine of the Incarnation, some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses hold views that reflect ancient Christological heresies.

Mormonism and the Influence of Arianism

Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the literal spirit son of God the Father, distinct from Him in being, and was created before coming to Earth. This closely resembles Arianism, an ancient heresy that taught Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father but a created being—the highest of all creatures, yet subordinate to God.

Arianism: The Denial of Christ’s Eternal Divinity

• Origin: Arianism was founded by Arius, a 4th-century presbyter in Alexandria.

• Core Belief: Arians taught that Jesus was not co-eternal with God but was a created being, making Him lesser than God the Father.

• Condemnation: The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) rejected Arianism, affirming that Jesus is eternally begotten, not made, and is of the same essence as the Father. (1)

Mormonism’s belief that Jesus was created as a spirit being and is separate from God the Father bears striking similarities to Arianism.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Influence of Arianism & Adoptionism

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God but rather a created being, specifically Michael the Archangel before His earthly life. This belief closely aligns with Arianism, as Jehovah’s Witnesses deny Jesus’ eternal divinity and claim He was the first creation of God.

Jehovah’s Witness theology also bears some resemblance to Adoptionism, an early heresy that taught Jesus was a mere human who was later adopted by God as His Son.

Adoptionism: The Denial of Jesus’ Innate Divinity

• Core Belief: Adoptionists claimed Jesus was born a mere man and was later elevated to divine status by God.

• Condemnation: The doctrine was rejected by the early church, as Jesus affirmed His divine Sonship from eternity, not as a later adoption.

While Jehovah’s Witnesses do not fully embrace Adoptionism, their denial of Jesus’ co-equal divinity with the Father aligns with its core premise.

Scholarly Refutation of the Demi-God Theory

1. Biblical Evidence Against the Demi-God Concept

The Bible consistently presents Jesus as the divine Son of God, not as a demi-God. The doctrine of the Incarnation, as articulated in John 1:1, 14, states that "the Word was God" and "the Word became flesh." This affirms that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, not a hybrid being.

Additionally, Luke 1:35 clarifies that Jesus' conception was a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit, not a biological union between Yahweh and Mary.

2. Historical Context: The Influence of Pagan Mythology vs. Genesis 6

Some skeptics argue that early Christianity borrowed from Greco-Roman mythology, leading to the demi-God interpretation. However, scholars refute this claim by demonstrating that Jewish monotheism generally rejects divine-human hybridization and the concept of demi-Gods, which emphasizes God’s absolute transcendence.

That being said, Michael Heiser argues that Genesis 6:1-4 presents a unique case where divine beings (the "sons of God") interacted with human women, producing the Nephilim. (2, 3, 4) Heiser contends that this passage reflects an Ancient Near Eastern supernatural worldview, distinct from Greco-Roman demi-God myths.

Rather than portraying heroic demi-Gods, Genesis 6 depicts a rebellion of divine beings corrupting humanity, leading to divine judgment (the flood). This aligns more with Jewish and Christian traditions of cosmic conflict, rather than mythological hybridization.

3. Theological Implications: Jesus' Death Was God Taking Humanity’s Place

A common misconception is that Jesus’ death was divine child sacrifice, where God unjustly killed His "Son" to appease His wrath. This completely misunderstands the nature of the Atonement. 

Christian theology affirms that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, a doctrine known as the Hypostatic Union. This means that Jesus' divine nature was not diluted by His human nature, nor was He a hybrid being. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) formally defined the Hypostatic Union, affirming that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, rejecting views that diminished His full divinity or humanity.

Rather, Christian theology teaches that:

• Jesus’ death was not an external being suffering under God's wrath—it was God Himself bearing the penalty for sin.

• Jesus is fully God and fully man—He died in His human nature, but never ceased being God (1 Timothy 6:16).

• He willingly laid down His life (John 10:17-18) and had authority to take it up again (John 2:19-21).

• Jesus bore sin on behalf of humanity (2 Corinthians 5:21), so that sinners might become righteous through Him.

• The penal substitutionary atonement teaches that Christ took our punishment, absorbing God's just wrath so that believers could be reconciled to Him (Isaiah 53:5-6).

Additionally, the article Was Jesus Really the ‘Son of God’? (5) examines the historical context of the term "Son of God" and argues that Jesus did not present Himself as the literal, biological son of Yahweh, but rather as the divine Son uniquely united with the Father, in accordance with Jewish traditions that referred to kings and prophets as "sons of God."

Conclusion: Affirming Jesus’ True Identity

The misconception that Jesus was a demi-God arises from a misunderstanding of biblical theology and historical context. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses, among other groups, propagate views that echo ancient heresies such as Arianism and Adoptionism. Additionally, misunderstandings about Genesis 6:1-4 and Jesus' death contribute to flawed perspectives. However, scholarly research and biblical evidence affirm that Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Furthermore, while Genesis 6:1-4 describes divine beings interacting with humans, Michael Heiser’s scholarship clarifies that this passage reflects an Ancient Near Eastern supernatural worldview, distinct from Greco-Roman demi-God myths. The Nephilim were a product of rebellion, not heroic divine-human offspring.

Most importantly, Jesus’ death was not an external being suffering under God's wrath—it was God Himself taking human form, stepping into history, and bearing the punishment for sin. The profound mystery of the Incarnation reveals Jesus as the eternal Word made flesh, reconciling humanity to God.