The Serpent's Lie

“The very first attack, what I call ‘the Genesis 3 Attack,’ was on God’s Word: ‘And [Satan] said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said?’ (Genesis 3:1). Satan used the ploy to get Eve to question God’s Word, thus creating doubt that ultimately led to unbelief. That same attack on God’s Word has never let up and continues each day.” (1)

~Ken Ham
“Choosing to Resist ‘The Genesis 3 Attack’”
01/25/2017
Accessed via answersingenesis.com 03/28/2025

“Now, the ‘lie’ is more than evolution or millions of years. It speaks to a deeper issue—one that has plagued humanity since Adam and Eve took that first bite of the forbidden fruit.

“It begins with the question, ‘Did God actually say?’ (Genesis 3:1). I like to call this the ‘Genesis 3 attack’ of our age—one that causes people to question what God has revealed to us in his Word. We are warned in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that Satan will use this same Genesis 3 attack on us as he did to Eve—to make us disbelieve the Word of God.” (2)

~Ken Ham
Facebook Post
03/27/2025

In essence, this is correct. The serpent in Genesis 3 did ultimately succeed in convincing the man and woman to doubt God's character and break His command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And it is certainly true that the “lie” of Genesis 3 is much deeper than the creation-evolution controversy. However, I would present to the reader that while the serpent's deception indeed begins with a question in Genesis 3:1, the actual lie itself is found in Genesis 3:4-5. That being said, there is much more in Genesis 3:1-7 that warrants our attention.

First of all, it should be noted that the “serpent” in Genesis 3 is not a normal member of the animal kingdom. Nor is he ever called Satan in the Old Testament. This is a later development. In Genesis 3 the word translated “serpent” is “nachash” [נָחָשׁ]. This word has multiple meanings in Hebrew including “snake/serpent,” “divination” or “burning/shining [one].” As the late Hebrew scholar Dr. Michael Heiser notes, within the cultural context of the ancient Near East, this language implies that the serpent in Genesis 3 was a divine being—an “elohim” [אֱלהִים]—and not a normal snake at all. (3) This explains why Eve and her husband (who was present with her according to Genesis 3:6) were comfortable speaking with the nachash in the first place as well as why they were so trusting of him.

Second, while certainly disingenuous, the nachash's baiting question in Genesis 3:1 was not an outright lie in itself. He did not accurately represent what God had said (see Genesis 2:16-17), but he also did not claim that this was in fact what God had commanded. The question itself is framed as a harmless request for clarification, veiling his nefarious intentions: “Did God really say, ‘You can't eat from any tree...?’” Hence Eve was not deceived by this question. She understood that this was not what God had said and corrected the nachash saying, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it…’” However, she also took things a bit further than this and added “...or touch it, or you will die.” This means that the first person to actually change God’s Word and attribute said change to God wasn’t the nachash—it was Eve. She did not deny what God had commanded by removing something from His Word—she added an additional commandment instead. 

Third, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden?’” is not the lie the serpent used to seduce Eve. It isn’t accurate to what God said, as previously noted. But the first lie he told Eve was in Genesis 3:4 when he openly denied God's warning that mankind would be sentenced to death should they choose to disobey and eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (see Genesis 3:22-24). Even so, it was his following comments in Genesis 3:5 that sowed the seeds of doubt in God's character and trustworthiness and ultimately seduced the woman, “...God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God [elohim], knowing good and evil.”

The serpent's lie wasn’t “Did God really say?”. It was that God was untrustworthy, and that mankind could become like God (or gods/divine beings). This was the same lie the nachash told himself before he ever tempted Eve.

In Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 the human kings of Babylon and Tyre respectively are compared to a non-human, divine rebel in Eden who became proud and sought to exalt himself above the throne of God—to become not only like the Most High, but greater than Him. The original lie, therefore, is that a created being can usurp the authority of Yahweh and become like the Most High.

This is the lie that seduced Eve according to Genesis 3:6: “The woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it…”

Adam and Eve did not fall because the nachash said “Did God really say?”. They fell because they believed that they could become like God/gods. Eve was the first one to add to God’s commands out of a desire to obey them. And it was the desire to become like God/gods, knowing both good and evil, that led the man and woman to sin.

Ultimately, this is what all sin is. When we sin, we reject the authority of God in our lives and choose instead to live by our own subjective moral standards. In so doing, we raise ourselves above the throne of the Most High and become gods in our own eyes. That is the original lie. And it is just as potent today as it was in the beginning. 

 

Were Behemoth and Leviathan Dinosaurs?

Prior to the 19th century, the prevailing view was that Behemoth and Leviathan were not literal creatures. Many Church Fathers and other early Christian writers such as Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, Vincent of Lérins and John Cassian, believed that the creatures described in Job 40-41 were allegories for the devil, devils (demons) and sin–particularly Job 40:16 ("Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly") which they quote extensively and exclusively in the context of sexual sin and temptation. (1)

Behemoth and Leviathan were also treated as allegories for powerful governments and people standing in opposition to Christ and his Kingdom throughout the early history of Christianity and reformation. This interpretation is also consistent what we find in passages like Isaiah 27:1 where leviathan is used as an allegory for Babylon.

In both instances, this non-literal approach to Job 40-41 is consistent with the ancient Near Eastern cultural context in which Job (and the rest of the Old Testament) was written, wherein Behemoth and Leviathan represent primordial forces of chaos who are in turn subdued by, and are subservient to, Yahweh.

It wasn't until after the enlightenment and the advent of Darwinism–which subsequently resulted in the birth of Fundamentalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries–that we see a dramatic shift from metaphorical and/or allegorical interpretations to strict literalism when it comes to Job 40-41. In the American Church today, the majority of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists believe Job 40-41 to be a literal description of living animals, whether that be hippopotamus, elephants and crocodiles or dinosaurs. This 180-degree shift from metaphorical to literal interpretations in such a short span of time is surprising and is–in my opinion–indicative of a reactionary response. In other words, the view that Behemoth and Leviathan are and/or were living animals is a recent response to advancements in the field of paleontology and evolutionary theory and actually stands in stark contrast to the metaphorical interpretations held by Christians for over 1,800 years–to say nothing of the various Jewish interpretations which preceded them.

So then, are Behemoth and Leviathan dinosaurs? The short answer is no. The descriptions we see in Job are stock motifs for the primordial forces of chaos and cosmic darkness common to the ancient world. This is well attested in both the archeology and literature of the ancient Near East. (2, 3, 4)

Ultimately, the meaning of Job 40-41 is that Yahweh is sovereign over all creation–even chaos and the forces of darkness who rise up and oppose His rule. Thus, the theological truth claims underpinning the Book of Job remain true regardless of whether or not Behemoth and Leviathan actually walked the earth.

Is Answers in Genesis a Cult?

The BITE Model, developed by Steven Hassan, is a framework used to understand how cults and high-control groups manipulate and control their members. "BITE" stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control. Here’s a brief overview of each component:

Behavior Control: This involves regulating an individual’s physical reality, such as dictating where they live, who they associate with, and how they spend their time. It also includes strict rules, rewards, and punishments to enforce conformity.

Information Control: This includes controlling the information members receive, often through censorship and propaganda. Cults may restrict access to outside sources of information and discourage critical thinking.

Thought Control: This focuses on manipulating how members think, often by using loaded language, thought-stopping techniques, and indoctrination to suppress dissent and promote group ideology.

Emotional Control: This involves manipulating emotions to foster dependency and loyalty. Techniques include love-bombing, inducing guilt or fear, and creating an "us vs. them" mentality.

For many evangelicals it is easy to see this pattern in other religious organizations and groups claiming to be Christian but who have deviated from orthodoxy. But what happens when we apply this same model to mainstream organizations that we typically consider to be trustworthy? Take Answers in Genesis for example.

Behavior Control:

Does AiG exert behavior control over people's physical reality?

Not exactly. They do discourage people from sending their children to "state-run educational institutions" and encourage them to treat higher education and non-AiG-approved scholarship with suspicion. But they don't tell people where to live or who to associate with, etc. Nor do they use a rewards/punishment mentality to enforce conformity per se. However, as of January 2023, they have begun diverting more and more attention to destroying the credibility of other Young Earth Creationists who do not accept their particular views verbatim, branding such people "Young Earth Evolutionists (YEEs)." (1)

As for strict rules, this has more to do with the "creeds" and interpretive stance of AiG. (2) As noted, deviation from the party line is enough to get you blacklisted by AiG even if you are a Young Earth Creationist. So, in a way, they do seek to control people's physical reality. Albeit indirectly though subtle manipulation and suggestion. (i.e., "Don't trust sources or associate with people who don't share our views or your trust in the authority of God's Word may be compromises and you might end up abandoning the faith.")

Information Control:

Does AiG control the information its followers have access to?

Yes. Again, this is done through subtle manipulation and censorship. (3) AiG presents their materials and resources as a trusted, Christ-centered alternative to mainstream education which they claim is riddled with "evolutionary ideas." (4, 5, 6, 7) As a result, AiG provides most of the information distributed to their followers either through physical publications or online resources. Those publications which do not originate with AiG directly come from sources approved by the organization and subsequently share their views. Further, AiG leadership regularly discourages people from investigating critical sources insisting that these sources are merely "the words of fallible men" whose "minds are clouded by the lie of evolution and millions of years." Instead, their followers are encouraged to trust in "the authority of God's Word" alone (by which they mean their interpretation of God's Word) (8) lest they succumb to the serpent's lie: "Did God really say?" (9, 10)

Thought Control:

Does AiG manipulate how its members think using loaded language, thought-stopping techniques, and indoctrination?

Absolutely. AiG's mantra is: "If you can't believe Genesis, then you can't trust the rest of the Bible." (11) They (and many other YEC organizations) also teach that they know that their interpretation is correct because they possess the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit informs both their reading of Scripture and their understanding of empirical science. (12) Additionally, AiG materials regularly encourage their followers (especially young children) to "never take off their bible glasses," (13, 14) by which AiG means their particular interpretative framework is never to be questioned. Those who disagree with AiG’s interpretation have "taken off their bible glasses" and clearly do not possess the Holy Spirit. (Which would imply that they are not saved per Romans 8:9.) This rhetoric discourages critical thinking and uses fear to keep AiG's target audience in line.

Emotional Control:

Does AiG manipulate emotions to foster dependency and loyalty by employing techniques like love-bombing, inducing guilt or fear, and creating an "us vs. them" mentality?

Yes. AiG celebrates people who abandon their "evolutionary upbringing" in order to accept Christ. (We should absolutely rejoice when a person comes to Christ. But nowhere in Scripture is the Gospel tied to a person's acceptance or denial of evolution and deep time.) As previously outlined, AiG absolutely uses guilt and fear in their materials to keep people from critically assessing AiG's claims. And they without a shadow of a doubt create an "us vs. them" mentality in their followers. If you were to pick up any given resource produced by AiG today, you will find it rife with pejorative language directed not only at critics of Christianity, but fellow Christians as well. Christians who do not hold AiG's views verbatim–even other YECs–are called "compromisers," "scoffers," (15) "wolves in sheep's clothing," "fallible human beings/men" whose "minds have been clouded by evolutionary lies" in nearly every single book, article, social media post and video produced by AiG. Perhaps worst of all, devout followers of Christ who question YEC hermeneutics are frequently compared to the serpent in Eden and are in turn condemned by AiG and its followers for "calling God a liar" and "encouraging people to doubt the authority of God's infallible Word." Additionally, AiG has also begun to teach that the only way to make families and the church "woke-proof" is to accept their interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as literal history. If one rejects the idea that Genesis 1-11 is literal history, then that person has allegedly taken the first step down the slippery slope of doubt into wokeism. (16, 17, 18) Suffice it to say, this rhetoric is especially effective against AiG's premier target audience–the homeschool community. Well-meaning parents, fearful of the curet culture war, will gladly purchase any AiG materials marketed as a spiritual vaccine against Marxism and radical gender ideologies. Even though Scripture clearly teaches that it is not the YEC interpretation of Genesis that gives the believer a sound mind and power over sin, but the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26, 2 Timothy 1:7).

In addition to capitalizing on fear to sell their homeschool curriculum, AiG also teaches that there is a Satanic conspiracy at work in mainstream science and academia, and that every non-AiG-approved source is actively trying to replace the "true history of the world revealed in Scripture" with the "pagan religion of evolution and millions of years," whether they are consciously aware of it or not. (19, 20, 21) AiG also believes itself to be the vanguard of a new reformation with Ken Ham acting as something of a modern-day Martin Luther. (22) This means that if you do not agree with AiG's interpretation of Scripture or the way their ministry conducts itself, then you are essentially working for the enemy (i.e., Satan). If you claim to be a Christian but disagree with them or their tactics, then they and their most die-hard adherents view your faith as either weak or counterfeit. 

All that to say, I want to be clear that Answers in Genesis is not openly preaching a false gospel. They do conform to Christian orthodoxy on all essential doctrines, and I actually agree with them on many issues. It is their methodology and interpretation of a handful of prooftexts that I disagree with. Furthermore, while they strongly imply that a Christian must accept their views in order to be a "biblical Christian," as far as I am aware of, they have never explicitly stated this is a salvific issue in any of their materials. But the organization has definitely lost its focus in my opinion. They are more concerned with ensuring that Christians all over the world accept their interpretation of Scripture than preaching the Gospel to the lost. So much so that they cannot separate the Gospel from their interpretive dogma. Nor can they distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture–"the opinion of fallible man"–and Scripture itself.

All in all, I have my concerns. While AiG cannot be officially classified as a cult, they are employing cult-like techniques and could easily devolve into a cult if the organization's leadership does not take corrective action.

See Also:

Scoffers and Young Earth Creationism

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis: The word of Fallible Man or the Authority of God's Word?

Scoffers and Young Earth Creationism

 

“We constantly hear from those who scoff at what we do at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and the Ark Encounter. They hate the message. Now, we should not be surprised that so many unbelievers scoff when we stand up for God’s Word because “men [love] darkness rather than light” (John 3:19).

“In 2 Peter we’re warned that in the last days (since God’s Son became a man) there’d be scoffers mocking those who stand on the truth of God’s Word.

“‘Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water (2 Peter 3:3-6).’

“This passage tells us that scoffers in the last days will reject creation and Noah’s Flood—we certainly see that today with scoffers of the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. These scoffers "willingly forget" the truths of the history of God’s Word—they deliberately reject the truth despite obvious evidence.

“But, in this same passage, God’s Word reminds us that He is long-suffering toward scoffers and not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9)—a reminder to pray for scoffers. Will you join us in praying for those who mock and scoff, that they will come to know the truth of God’s Word and the gospel?”

~Ken Ham, Jan. 17, 2016
“Scoffers and the Last Days”
Accessed 2/25/2025
(Scoffers and the Last Days | Answers in Genesis)

According to Mr. Ham and many other YEC proponents, the “scoffers” in 2 Peter 3 are those living since Christ ascended to heaven who “reject creation and Noah’s Flood.” This includes fellow Christians who reject their expanded definition of the word “creation” (cited via the link in the quotation above). If a professing believer accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence for an ancient cosmos or evolution, or if they believe the Flood of Noah was a regional deluge or disagree with any other point in Answers in Genesis’ definition of “creation,” then they are considered to be a “scoffer” who "willingly forget(s) the truths of the history of God’s Word.”

This makes Mr. Ham's following comments all the more telling.

“…in this same passage, God’s Word reminds us that He is long-suffering toward scoffers and not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9)—a reminder to pray for scoffers. Will you join us in praying for those who mock and scoff, that they will come to know the truth of God’s Word and the gospel?”

Since the word “scoffer” here essentially refers to anyone who does not hold YEC views–including professing Christians–this statement indicates that Mr. Ham views non-YECs as being under God’s judgment. Furthermore, he asks his followers to pray for such people, “that they will come to know the truth of God’s Word and the gospel.” The clear implication here is that he believes those who reject his interpretation of Genesis 1-11 are unsaved (or at the very least, deceived or spiritually immature).

But what of 2 Peter 3? Does this passage actually say what Mr. Ham and other YEC teachers claim?

“Dear friends, this is now the second letter I have written to you; in both letters, I want to stir up your sincere understanding by way of reminder, so that you recall the words previously spoken by the holy prophets and the command of our Lord and Savior given through your apostles. Above all, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days scoffing and following their own evil desires, saying, ‘Where is his ‘coming’ that he promised? Ever since our ancestors fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation.’ They deliberately overlook this: By the word of God the heavens came into being long ago and the earth was brought about from water and through water. Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded. By the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

“Dear friends, don’t overlook this one fact: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord does not delay his promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed.”
~2 Peter 3:1-10 (CSB)

When read in context, 2 Peter 3:3-6, 9 does not say what Mr. Ham and other YECs seem to think it says. First of all, the end of verse 4 clearly states that the scoffers in question do not deny that God or a god created, “‘...Ever since our ancestors fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation (ktisis [κτίσις]).’” This is consistent with the supernatural worldview of the ancient world. Philosophical naturalism was a non-issue at the time 2 Peter was written–everyone believed that the natural world came to be through supernatural means. So, Mr. Ham’s claim that “scoffers in the last days will reject creation,” is refuted by the very passage he cites to support it.

Secondly, if these scoffers already believe in a supernatural creation, then what exactly are they scoffing at? Obviously, it has to be Noah’s Flood, right? Wrong. According to verse 3 and the first part of verse 4, these scoffers are specifically mocking Christ’s return: “Above all, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days scoffing and following their own evil desires, saying, ‘Where is his [Jesus’] ‘coming’ that he promised?’”

According to God’s Word, in the last days (i.e., the period of time between Christ’s ascension and return) scoffers will arise who will scoff at the return of Christ because of their evil desires and misplaced belief that life will continue just as it always has since the world began until the end of time.

But what of verses 5-6? Surely these verses support the view that these scoffers in particular are those who deny the global flood, correct? Wrong again. Verse 7 adds clarity to the point Peter is trying to make: “By the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”

The reason why the flood is mentioned here is because the flood (regardless of its extent) was an act of divine judgment against human wickedness according to Genesis 6:11-13. What the last days scoffers of 2 Peter 3 are “deliberately overlooking” is God’s role as the supreme creator and judge of all mankind. God judged the ungodly people of the ancient world for their wickedness (see also 2 Peter 2:1-10) and He will judge again.

In conclusion, 2 Peter 3:1-10 teaches that people living in the last days will mock the return of Christ, deliberately overlooking the fact that God is both their creator and judge and will scoff at the idea that they will be held accountable for their sins if they reject Christ.

2 Peter 3 closes with the following comments, which I also feel are a great way to close things out here:

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, it is clear what sort of people you should be in holy conduct and godliness as you wait for the day of God and hasten its coming. Because of that day, the heavens will be dissolved with fire and the elements will melt with heat. But based on his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

“Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found without spot or blemish in his sight, at peace. Also, regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some things hard to understand in them. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

“Therefore, dear friends, since you know this in advance, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of lawless people and fall from your own stable position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity.”
~2 Peter 3:10-18 (CSB) See Also: Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis: The word of Fallible Man or the Authority of God's Word?