Ken Ham, What If the Shoe Were on the Other Foot?

What if Ken Ham’s criticisms of belief in an old earth were applied to a position he held to be true, let’s say, heliocentrism (the idea that the sun is the center and the earth rotates around it)? What would it look like? In this blog, I take Ken Ham’s response (found HERE) to Matt Walsh’s video explanation of why he doesn’t believe in a young earth and re-formulate it to show what it would look like if “the shoe were on the other foot.” As you will see, Ken Ham could be criticized in the exact same way that he criticizes those who believe in an old earth. There was a time when Christians interpreted numerous biblical passages as teaching geocentrism, that the earth was the center of the universe and did not move. It was not until “secular” science came along that Christians reinterpreted such passages to no longer teach geocentrism.

“Recently the popular fundamentalist Bible blogger Ken Ham made a fairly short blog explaining why he was not a geocentrist and why he thinks geocentrists are a stumbling block to the faith of many people. The short blog is filled with strawman fallacies, misuderstandings, and mischaracterizations of what geocentrists actually believe. After reading the blog, I was left wondering if he had even read any geocentric literature discussing the fact that the earth is the center of the universe and not the sun.

Ham’s main points were that the passages in the Bible that explain that the earth does not move and that the sun actually rises cannot mean what they say and that science has proved that the earth moves and actually rotates around the sun! Geocentrists have repeatedly addressed these claims, again making me wonder if he did any research before writing his blog. However, the fundamental point that Mr. Ham is making is that he is more willing to rely on man’s fallible word than to trust God’s infallible Word. Ham repeatedly cites “science” as the reason the earth moves and rotates around the sun. Yet, when observational science is performed, there are mountains of evidence from astronomy, physics, and just plain common sense that the earth does not move. The sun does. Even Aristotle and Ptolemy knew this and the church understood it this way for thousands of years!

By accepting the dogma of secular science, Ham completely ignores the context of God’s infallible Word. It is clear that the Bible teaches that the earth does not move and is the center of the universe and that the sun actually moves around the earth. Psalm 93:1 is very clear: the earth “shall never be moved.” And clearly, it’s the sun that moves: it “comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them.” (Ps. 19:4-6). And we all know that on Joshua’s long day that it was the sun that stood still, not the earth: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies” (Josh. 10:13). In fact, there are so many passages that indicate that the earth does not move and the sun does that the biblical teaching is overwhelming and obvious. It only takes a compromiser of God’s Word and someone who wants to “fit in” with secularists to deny it. Here is just a partial list of biblical passages that shows that geocentrism is true:

Genesis 15:12, 17; 19:23; 28:11; 32:31; Exodus 17:12; 22:3, 26; Leviticus 22:7; Numbers 2:3; Deuteronomy 11:30; 16:6; 23:11; 24:13, 15; Joshua 1:4; 8:29; 10:12, 13, 27; 12:1; Judges 5:31; 8:13; 9:33; 14:18; 19:14; 2 Samuel 2:24; 3:35; 23:4; 1 Kings 22:36; 1 Chronicles 16:30; 2 Chronicles 18:34; Job 9:7; 26:7; Psalms 19:4, 5, 6; 50:1; 93:1; 104:19, 22; 113:3; Ecclesiastes 1:5; Isaiah 13:10; 38:8; 41:25; 45:6; 59:19; 60:20; Jeremiah 15:9; Daniel 6:14; Amos 8:9; Jonah 4:8; Micah 3:6; Nahum 3:17; Habakkuk 3:11; Malachi 1:11; Matthew 5:45; 13:6; Mark 1:32; 4:6; 16:2; Luke 4:40; Ephesians 4:26; James 1:11. [1]

It is very ironic that Ham regularly defends biblical positions such as biblical marriage, human life made in God’s image beginning at fertilization, two created genders and so on, but rejects the foundation for those beliefs. Without appealing to the entire Bible, there is no foundation for marriage. Abortion becomes perfectly acceptable if we don’t accept the infallible Word of God even in the places where it teaches geocentrism. Get rid of spare cats or spare kids–what’s the difference when you believe in heliocentrism? Why should we have two genders if God did not make them male and female in the beginning? The entire Bible provides answers to those questions.

While Ham did not mention it, I wonder what he makes of how Jesus affirmed that the sun moves around the earth in Matthew 5:45? See this is the problem when someone tries to fit heliocentrism into the Bible. It always ends up compromising the Bible in places outside of Genesis too. So either we accept the whole Bible naturally, as it is written, or we reject the whole thing. Trying to fit the Bible with secular heliocentrism just does not work. It wasn’t until modern secular science came along that Christians attempted to reinterpret the obvious geocentric biblical passages to mean heliocentrism.

We geocentrists are committed to answering the questions posed by secularists and compromised heliocentric Christians (like Ken Ham) about what the Bible says. There are thousands of years of scholarly scientific work and theological texts that deal with this.”

The Blade

[1] This list is taken from my co-authored work: Theodore J. Cabal and Peter J. Rasor II, Controversy of the Ages: Why Christians Should Not Divide Over the Age of the Earth (Wooster, OH: Weaver Books, 2017), 29.

This entry was posted in Science & Faith, Worldview. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Ken Ham, What If the Shoe Were on the Other Foot?

  1. Dan Nutley says:

    Nicely done. I’ve made the same argument, but nowhere near so thoroughly.