Click here for the original source of this great article by Ken Ham – a Facebook note. Ken’s Facebook note is followed by many insightful reader comments.
Recently I wrote a blog about Dr. Peter Enns who was speaking at the Homeschool conference in South Carolina, and will also be speaking in Cincinnati and Pennsylvania where I will be speaking. Check out the previous blog at: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/15/another-compromiser-speaking-at-homeschool-conventions/
Well, Jay Wile, also well known in Homeschool circles wrote a blog very critical of me for doing that:
And on March 18, Jay Wile wrote a glowing report on Dr. Peter Enns:
I would encourage you all to be like the Bereans in Acts 17, and carefully check out what Peter Enns teaches versus Scripture. To do this, I suggest you go to the Biologos website–Peter Enns works with the Biologos Foundation. Now be warned–this is a very liberal site–in fact, it is an organization set up to try to get the church believe in evolution and millions of years. However, it is much more than this–if you read many of the articles and their answers to questions you will find them basically shaking their fist at God’s Word–it is a site that undermines dreadfully the authority of Scripture. Don’t be led astray–but read for yourself at:
Check out my previous blogs on Biologos at:
Here is just one of many examples of Peter Enns rejecting the plain teaching of the Bible and undermining God’s Word–He totally rejects a worldwide Flood: (Note that ultimately, it is because of what he calls the ‘geological record, at least as interpreted by mainstream scientists,’ that he rejects a literal Genesis-not just the Flood, but a literal Adam etc as you will find in his other writings).
“…It is virtually certain that one or more local floods in Mesopotamia—perhaps around 3000 B.C. according to some scholars—provide the historical basis for all the flood stories that come from that area. But the geological record, at least as interpreted by mainstream scientists, discounts any notion of a “worldwide” flood that killed every single creature on earth, save a few (Genesis 6:7; 7:21-23), a few thousand years ago.”
“…To interpret the Genesis flood as a complete global catastrophe is a modern imposition onto an ancient story. Ancients simply did not think of the earth in that way. This is where “Flood Geology” gets off on the wrong foot. Apart from the well-documented scientific problems with this approach, it expects a worldview that Genesis is not prepared to deliver.”
“…The presence of flood stories from various time periods in other parts of the ancient world (e.g., Asian, European, Mayan) does not support a global flood, as some Christian apologists try to argue. These stories simply reflect the ubiquity of floods in antiquity and the devastation that massive ones would bring. The fact that the world flood stories are so different from each other reflects how each culture told the story of their local floods in their own way.”
“…For both contextual and scientific reasons, the biblical flood story is clearly not a statement of vital historical information. It is a powerful expression of theological identity among the other peoples of the world”
Note he is saying that a literal Genesis is an ‘hypothesis.’
“…A position that claims the necessity of historicity throughout Genesis is not the default position of faith. It is an hypothesis, as much as any other, only without much explanatory force given the current state of knowledge.”
To attempt to overcome the fact that the New Testament in a number of places (eg 2 Peter 3) refers to the Flood as obviously a literal global event (and Jesus refers to the Flood as a literal event eg: Matthew 24), he states this:
“To nip in the bud a predictable objection: the slippery slope argument does not hold here. To say that the flood story is fundamentally more story than history does not mean that the crucifixion and resurrection are also unhistorical. Genesis and the Gospels are different types of literature written at very different times for very different reasons. Failing to make such basic genre distinction is perhaps at the root of some of the conflict over Genesis.”
He recognizes that the if one rejects a literal Genesis, and because the New Testament writers refer to events in Genesis over and over again, then if one rejects Genesis, why not the resurrection. Well, right now he seems to accept the resurrection–but the next logical step is to reject this as literal, regardless of what he says.
By the way, the first time the gospel is preached in Genesis is Genesis 3:15–so I guess the gospel is not to be taken literally???
So sad–that this sort of teaching is now infiltrating the Homeschool movement. Peter Enns is involved (along with Susan Wise Bauer) is involved with the very liberal Biologos group and involved in now producing Bible curriculum for Homeschools. So please be warned.
FOR FURTHER READING
Christine Pack, Answers in Genesis Kicked Out of Homeschooling Conferences (04/01/2011)
Ken Ham, Peter Enns – Mutilating God’s Word (12/14/2012)
Ken Ham, Enns Continues to Promote Heresy – Sponsored by a Baptist Church (04/20/2013)