.jpg)
"Obviously what I’m saying to you is, what the church is doing is taking outside ideas [i.e., man’s word], adding to Scriptures.... It’s undermining biblical authority." ~Ken Ham "Stop Trusting Man's Word: Genesis and Compromise" [DVD] (1:12:59)
Also Ken Ham (emphasis mine):
"I’ve told people that really the ministry of Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, and Creation Museum—that impacts tens of millions of people directly and tens of millions more indirectly each year—is a legacy of parents who taught their children to stand boldly and uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God.
What legacy will you leave for your children?
'A good man leaves an inheritance [legacy] to his children’s children' (Proverbs 13:22 ESV)."
~Ken Ham
October 26, 2023
God's Word:
"A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous." ~Proverbs 13:22 (ESV)
Not only does Mr. Ham take Proverbs 13:22 out of context, remove the second half of the passage and insert "legacy" (along with all of the interpretive connotations he associates with the word) into the text alongside the Hebrew word yan·ḥîl (יַנְחִ֥יל) [inheritance/possessions] he then proceeded to publish this version of the passage on the Answers in Genesis website (A Father's Legacy), his social media feeds (Facebook) and also features it prominently in a large plaque above his father's bible in the Ham Family Legacy exhibit at the Creation Museum (see photo montage in the article: "A Father's Legacy"). What is odd, however, is that there are passages Ken could have cited that do support the point he is trying to make about the importance of raising godly children and leaving a legacy of faith to your descendants–Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Proverbs 22:6, Psalm 78:1-4 and 2 Timothy 1:5 being some of the best examples. So, I honestly have no idea why Mr. Ham opted to ignore passages which clearly support his underlying premise in favor of a verse which does not (at least not in its original form and context).
That being said, I initially thought this was a one-off occurrence. But then I did some more digging and found more examples where Mr. Ham and AiG are openly changing the meaning of Scripture in order to make God’s Word align with their teachings.
"As soon as you allow the world’s interpretations, beliefs, fads, and philosophies to be your standard, true biblical unity is impossible. And those who still start with and believe God’s Word must leave for the health of their congregations.
'For there must be factions [divisions] among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.' (1 Corinthians 11:19)"
~Ken Ham
"Can Division in the Church Be a Good Thing?"
Feb. 12, 2024
"... I encourage people, you need to go back and make sure you're trying to impact your church and your leaders to get them to see this [AiG's interpretation of Genesis 1-11] and use guerilla warfare if you need. Invite people to your home and show videos and do studies there, because a lot of people tell us their pastors don't want this material in their churches because they're worried about division, right?
"I've had conservative pastors tell me I don't want to teach Genesis 1 to11 like you do and that's because it'll create division and I just don't want to create division, you know? Does the Bible say division is bad? It doesn't, actually.
"I know it talks about unity, but also Paul talks about division and that there has to be division to show who's approved of God, he says in Corinthians [1 Corinthians 11:19]. And so, as I say to people, when you shine light in darkness, if you're not creating division for the right reasons, the right sort of division, you need to ask yourself, 'What are you doing?' If pastors are not creating the right sort of division for the right reasons, then what are you doing? Right? Because light is going to create division and it should.”
~Ken Ham
My Faith Votes Interview
Aug. 16, 2022
Here again Mr. Ham removes Scripture from its proper context and adds his own interpretive commentary to the text (indicated by brackets) in order to make the passage say what he wants it to say–which in this case is the exact opposite of what this verse actually says in context.
"But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."
~1 Corinthians 11:17-22 (ESV) [emphasis added]
Paul does not say it is necessary for there to be divisions to show who is genuine/approved of God. In fact, he criticizes the Corinthians for having divisions (schismata [σχίσματα]) in the preceding verse. Mr. Ham has to insert "division(s)" into the English translation of the text in order to make it say what he wants it to say.
The Greek word translated as "factions" in the ESV is "haireseis" (αἱρέσεις). Properly: "a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect (i.e., heresy), discord or contention."
Paul is not lauding the Corinthians for having divisions in their church. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 1:10-14, he addresses this very issue, stating quite plainly that we should not be divided (schismata [σχίσματα]) into different camps over secondary matters (in the specific case of 1 Corinthians 10-14, it was loyalty to different teachers) but that we should all be united in Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:19 is a dual case of Pauline irony and eschatological commentary (as evidenced by Paul’s usage of dokimoi [δόκιμοι]–approved–to denote those who are genuine in their faith). Nothing in the surrounding verses indicates that it is good to have divisions in the church. In fact, Paul literally has nothing good to say about the Corinthians’ behavior in this passage!
The key to understanding these verses correctly is the phrase "in the church." There will naturally be division between the church (i.e., The Kingdom of God/ Body/ Bride of Christ) and the world. Jesus himself stated as much in Luke 12:51-53. But the world is not the church. Sheep are not goats (Matthew 25:31-46). Bad trees cannot bear good fruit (Matthew 7:15-20).
While there will be those within the congregation of believers who are not truly united to Christ, we must remember that it is God, not us, who will ultimately separate the genuine believers from the counterfeit and test the quality of the believers’ works (Revelation 20:11-15, 1 Corinthians 3:10-17). Furthermore, the distinction between those whose faith is genuine and those who are counterfeit is not based on a person’s stance on some secondary issue, but rather their response to the Gospel–whether or not they are known by Christ and have their names written in the Book of Life. We cannot rightly use our personal preferences, interpretations or convictions regarding secondary matters which are not clearly addressed in Scripture as a litmus test to determine who among our brothers and sisters in Christ are truly "approved of God." Yet Mr. Ham, and by extension Answers in Genesis, wants to spin 1 Corinthians 11:19 to imply that we should have–and indeed actively seek to cause–division over "the right things.” By which he most often means his interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and a few other select prooftexts scattered throughout Scripture.
Yes, I agree with Mr. Ham and Answers in Genesis that we should not celebrate or tolerate sin within the church (something which is plainly stated in 1 Corinthians 5) and that we cannot be united in Christ with individuals who deny or subvert essential Christian doctrines. But I strongly disagree with AiG's position that the creation vs. evolution debate is a "division [made] for the right reasons." Contrary to Mr. Ham, stirring up divisions over secondary and tertiary issues is not a mark of God's approval–it actually contradicts God's Word on several counts (Proverbs 6:16-19, Titus 3:9, Romans 16:17-18, etc.). More recently, Mr. Ham has cited 1 Corinthians 14:8 on social media (Facebook, February 26th, 2025, February 27th, 2025) to suggest that the Church must be unified in his understanding and presentation of Genesis 1-11 and has encouraged his followers to meditate on the meaning of this verse. The problem is this verse is specifically about the use of the gift of tongues. It has nothing to do with the interpretation and presentation of Genesis 1-11. Furthermore, verse 12 of the same chapter actually speaks to the necessity of building up the Church, counter Ken's previous comments on creating division over Genesis 1-11.
"Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy. For the person who speaks in a tongue is not speaking to people but to God, since no one understands him; he speaks mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the person who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation. The person who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. I wish all of you spoke in tongues, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up.
"So now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you with a revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? Even lifeless instruments that produce sounds—whether flute or harp—if they don’t make a distinction in the notes, how will what is played on the flute or harp be recognized? In fact, if the bugle makes an unclear sound, who will prepare for battle? In the same way, unless you use your tongue for intelligible speech, how will what is spoken be known? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different kinds of languages in the world, none is without meaning. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker will be a foreigner to me. So also you—since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, seek to excel in building up the church."
~ 1 Corinthians 14:1-12 (CSB) [emphasis added] But perhaps the most alarming example I have seen from AiG to date are their comments in the article entailed How Do I Stay Humble When I Know I'm Right? In this article AiG states that "the real difference between the young-earth creationist and someone like Stephen Hawking [an atheist] or Neil deGrasse Tyson [an agnostic] is the Holy Spirit" and "the real reason they [young-earth creationists] know the earth is young is because the Holy Spirit taught them the truth." This is literally a gnostic appeal to supernatural secret knowledge. Furthermore, the clear implication is that non-YECs do not possess the Holy Spirit. Which, according to Romans 8:9, would mean that those who reject AiG's interpretation of Genesis 1-11 are not even saved. Additionally, this same article cites 1 Corinthians 2:14 as a prooftext to support the claim that those who reject AiG's interpretation do so because they are spiritually blind and cannot understand the world around them without the Holy Spirit's guidance. Which is again a gross misinterpretation of the text.
First of all, Paul could have used any number of words when he said that the natural man (those without the Holy Spirit) doesn’t receive (accept) the things of God. Instead of using the common word "lambanó" [λαμβάνω]– which broadly and generally means "to take" in any number of senses, Paul used the word "dechomai" [δέχομαι]. Dechomai is a precise term that implies the acceptance of a requested offering. In other words, Paul is not saying that the natural man is incapable of understanding the natural world or practicing science. He is saying that the natural man can understand the meaning of God’s Word. But he is willingly choosing to reject its message.
Secondly, the term translated "foolishness" (mória [μωρία]) is used again by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:19 ("For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God…"). Clearly, Paul does not mean here that God is incapable of intellectually understanding the so-called wisdom of the world. God rejects the wisdom of the world because it is untrue. Again, this is a matter of acceptance, not intellectual understanding and has no relation to our understanding of the natural world or science.
With this understanding of the Greek in mind, let's look again at 1 Corinthians 2:14.
When Paul says that the "person without the Spirit does not receive (is unable to know) what comes from God" because it is "evaluated (appraised) spiritually," he is saying that the unbeliever cannot accept or apply the teachings of Scripture into their lives. They are capable of understanding Scripture intellectually. And they are certainly capable of understanding the natural world through empirical study. But they cannot move into an experiential knowledge of God or His Word without the Holy Spirit. The natural man needs the Holy Spirit to fully appreciate the value of God’s Word not science. It is not the role of the Holy Spirit to teach people the meaning of a given text or to give them special insight into the scientific mysteries of the cosmos. This comes through study. Rather, the Holy Spirit helps believers accept Scripture as true and to apply its teaching to their lives.
All that to say, if a teacher has to remove Scripture from its proper context or literally insert their own interpretation or ideas into the text in order to make it say what they want it to say, they are not a teacher of God's Word. That Ken Ham and AiG's hypocrisy here is so public and so well attested is alarming, to say the least. But what is more worrisome is the fact that Mr. Ham has seemingly conditioned "tens of millions" of his followers to accept whatever he says about Scripture without question.
This is very alarming and very dangerous. We should never allow our leaders to rise so high in our eyes that they are above reproach or correction. There must always be accountability for those who claim to teach God's Word. This is how we safeguard both the Gospel and the church (i.e., the individual people) from those who would abuse them for personal gain.
As troubling as this may be to hear, Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, by and large, are not teaching God’s Word. They are teaching Mr. Ham’s personal convictions (i.e., "man-made ideas") as if they are God’s Word, and are selectively citing passages that can be spun to fit his narrative. This is not good. And people who support Ken Ham and AiG should hold him and his organization–which lauds itself as "teaching people to stand boldly and uncompromisingly on the authority of God’s infallible Word from the very first verse"–accountable for their public mistreatment of God’s Word. See Also: Six Non-Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth Scoffers and Young Earth Creationism Is Answers in Genesis a Cult?
