WHY KENT HOVIND HAS POOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE by Rook Hawkins (essay for reposting)

Rook_Hawkins's picture

This may be reposted anywhere on the internet as long as you attribute it.

WHY KENT HOVIND HAS POOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE

By Rook Hawkins

“We can now say with considerable confidence that
the Bible is not a history of anyone’s past.” – Thomas L. Thompson[1]

Some of you know (and if you don’t know, please look into it immediately) of the recent problems with Creation Science Evangelism (CSE), specifically that relating to the Youtube videos that have been pulled down and removed due to false copyright submissions based sent to Youtube by the Hovind family or (business?) whatever CSE is. Not only is the concept of creation flawed scientifically, but also from a historical and cultural perspective, the creation account in Genesis could not have happened.

I’ve decided to weigh in on this issue, mainly because I know so many Christians are ignorant of the problems in Genesis, and what scholarship now concludes on the narrative itself. There will be some lengthy discussion of the subject of the Old Testament in general in my upcoming book, however it was necessary to take some time from my book to complete this specific refutation of Hovind’s ministries and some of the poor arguments they use to try to prove the validity of the Genesis account.

I am going to attack this from a few fronts, so before I start let me explain my methods. The first front will be to discuss the internal problems of the Genesis creation account, and digress a little as to why there are problems and contradictions between especially that of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. Kent claims the bible is inerrant and perfect. He as stated to his son, “The wind changes often, God's word never does.”[2] No doubt Kent has an intimate knowledge of 2 Timothy 3:16, which claims that the Bible is inspired by God.

This is a problem right from the get go, as not only does the Bible contain errors, but specifically it is known throughout modern scholarship that the reason why this is so, is because different people wrote the different books, under different socio-cultural periods in history, in different locations and with different influences. This is the second front I’ll be attacking. As knowing how and in what way we have the Old Testament today is important, including going over the various theories among modern scholars as well as some of the influences on the Genesis accounts.

Finally, the third front is how Hovind specifically dodges key points and ignores a vast amount of other points necessary to provide a case against the problems listed above, including censorship and ignorance on the part of not only himself and his family, but also his constituents. These problems listed here are not going to idly go away simply because Hovind wishes they would, nor will they be left behind by the many skeptics and atheists and freethinkers who seriously seek to gain knowledge and understanding, where Hovind and his ilk have done nothing but stamp out ones ability to seek truth.

That being said, here we shall begin.

1.1 Contradictions in Genesis: The Abridged Version

Kent has a series of contradictions listed on his website that he feels his friend has supposedly answered. He lists them in his Articles section of the CSE website, and of the thousands of contradictions one could utilize, he only seems to answer a small few. And even those he doesn’t seem to answer, but rather respond to. (And there is a difference)

I’m not going to spend all my time debunking every one, because I already have, as well as others.[3] Instead, I will focus on one of the most obvious contradictions, even in light of Kent saying “There are no contradictions.”[4] Also, as stated earlier, a lot of this information will be covered in my book, and retyping it to demolish a dishonest tart like Hovind is not high on my priority list. Rather, if the Bible is perfect as Kent claims, there should not be one error in the Bible. If we find one error, contradiction or fallacy, then the Bible is not perfect. Case closed.

The most prominent contradiction in the first few pages of Genesis is the problem with which came first. No, not the chicken or the egg! (By the way, a Creationist says the chicken came first, somebody who accepts evolution would say the proto-egg came before the Chicken) I am referring to man or beasts. Genesis 1:24-25 has animals being made first.

“There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen. 1:23-27)

It should be clear from this passage that the events happened in this manner: The fifth day ended. The sixth day starts, God creates animals. Then God specifically says “and let them rule over the fish of the sea and…the birds of the sky and…the cattle…ect…” which should be clear that God created man AFTER he created all of these beasts. It is pretty obvious just via reading. So why then does Gen. 2:19 state that the opposite happened? Specifically, that animals were made after man?

“Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.” (Gen. 2:15-20)

Now the Christian (and Hovind’s) response to this is thus, “Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them and select a wife.” But a quick look at the verses exposes Hovind’s poor thinking abilities and his dishonesty. First the claim that this is a second batch of animals is incredulous. Nowhere in the chapter does this appear, and seems to have just been made up by Hovind on a whim. Unfortunately, this isn’t how critical study is done. One can’t simply insert whatever they want into the text when they don’t like what it says initially. That is called deceit, and the Bible seems to be pretty certain where deceitful people are going.[5] It is written in 2 Peter 1:20 that “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Perhaps Kent needs to brush up on his reading?

Further, the passage before the animals are created God specifically says man is alone. (Greek: monos)[6] It didn’t say that man was feeling lonely. (Greek: duseremos; ekpatios; oiophron) Why would God need to recreate animals for Adam? Didn’t he already have the animals there to choose from? (According to Hovind, yes…) It seems redundant and unnecessary, it doesn’t fit the context (which seems to following a very specific set of events). And this seems to be the only part of Genesis that has this sort of problem. No where else do we see this sort of paraphrasing of an earlier chapter in the way we see it here.

It also says God formed every beast of the field and bird of the sky. Every. (Greek: pante) It doesn’t say “God created other beasts of the field” (Greek: allos) or “created distinguished beasts of the field” (Greek: diadelos). It specifically says “every,” which makes a case for an additional group of beasts to be made impossible to coincide with the text itself.

God then brought the beasts before man. So obviously man had to be around in order to name them, right? So the context clearly confirms that chapter 2 of Genesis has man coming before animals, and chapter 1 has man coming after animals, and God can’t seem to make up his mind. So either God has planted a contradiction in his holy book, or there is another more practical reason why this contradiction exists. This is where we get into the next part. (I sense the segue coming.)

(More Coming)
-----------------------------------------

Endnotes:

[1] Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past (1999), p. xv

[2] Article on the CSE Website, Created and Made, Kent Hovind (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=45)

[3] Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy; Rook Hawkins, http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/47

[4] Hovind Article, Contradictions in the Bible? (01) (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=88)

[5] St. Augustine defined lying as consisting “in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." (De Mendacio 4, 5: PL 40, 491) Indeed, the Bible seems to denounce lying as the work of Satan, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 4:88) It also states very strongly in the eighth commandment that it IS a sin. Jesus states “Defraud not!” (Matt. 19:16-18; Mark 10:17-19; Luke 18:18-22) as one of his additional commandments (which incidentally he breaks his own laws by adding to the law after he said nobody should in Matthew 5:17-21) A lie, no matter it's intentions, are a direct act of dishonesty, and according to your Bible, it is against the law of God. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." (1 John 1:6) And God doesn’t like it one bit, Kent. Didn’t you know? "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord; but they who deal truly are His delight." (Prov. 12:22).

[6] I use the Greek because it is what was commonly used by Christians during the stages of their development as a cult. It is also easier to read and understand then the Hebrew, and it is more precise. It is interesting that translators of the Hebrew into the Greek chose these specific words to replace the Hebrew translations. All my definitions can be checked in the LSJ 9th Edition.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)

todangst's picture

So, in order to avoid the

So, in order to avoid the clear contradiction that comes from the fact that Genesis obviously has two different creation accounts, Hovind has to try and hide behind reinterpreting the English translation to fit his fevered attempt to rationalize the problem away...

But, as bad as this attempt it, it gets worse when you turn to the greek and see that the greek translation plainly  points to a real contradiction.

No wonder Hovind loves the King James bible... it allows for all sorts of equivocations, whereas an understanding of the greek kills his apologetics...

Nice work! 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

A gentle correction.

Hi, I am a Christian.

Sometimes I enjoy looking at atheist web sites (along with other sites I disagree with) just to see how people are arguing against Christianity.

The first thing is something relatively minor. I don't know if you are using the LXX Greek or what but the original was written in Hebrew so quoting the LXX Greek won't do you any better than the King James (which I admit isn't perfect either).

Second, If that is Hovind's explanation of the order of events, he didn't do a good job because a correct explanation is not that hard to find. You did not bring up the possibily that the order the events are put in the text in Gen. 2 is not necessarily the chronological order. Look at the text that way and it will make perfect sense.

Third, how can he be alone when the animals are there? You know the answer because you are clearly a smart guy. The point is, Adam needs another human. Which makes perfect sense. Let me illustrate, if you were living in a house alone in the woods with a bunch of pets you'd probably feel alone.

My point in easily resolving the "main problem" of the text as you seem to think it is, is not to make you look dumb, but to show you that you're just making excuses for not trusting in Christ and repenting.

Brian37's picture

Daniel Drost wrote: Hi, I

Daniel Drost wrote:
Hi, I am a Christian. Sometimes I enjoy looking at atheist web sites (along with other sites I disagree with) just to see how people are arguing against Christianity. The first thing is something relatively minor. I don't know if you are using the LXX Greek or what but the original was written in Hebrew so quoting the LXX Greek won't do you any better than the King James (which I admit isn't perfect either). Second, If that is Hovind's explanation of the order of events, he didn't do a good job because a correct explanation is not that hard to find. You did not bring up the possibily that the order the events are put in the text in Gen. 2 is not necessarily the chronological order. Look at the text that way and it will make perfect sense. Third, how can he be alone when the animals are there? You know the answer because you are clearly a smart guy. The point is, Adam needs another human. Which makes perfect sense. Let me illustrate, if you were living in a house alone in the woods with a bunch of pets you'd probably feel alone. My point in easily resolving the "main problem" of the text as you seem to think it is, is not to make you look dumb, but to show you that you're just making excuses for not trusting in Christ and repenting.

Even if we agreed with you that Rook is picking an imperfect book or language to go by, what does that say about daddy's ability to get his voice heard? Seems to me that if daddy wanted to do it right there would be only one version ever written. But of course, just like your daddy always does, when something goes wrong, he blames humans and never takes responsibility for it's own actions or inactions. 

What never occurs to you is that mulitiple versions exist, not because of a magical sky daddy exists, but because humans used cultural writing to compete with each other and the result becomes new religions which go on to split into newer books and newer sects of that same religion.

But if you make the case that a sky daddy actually exists then I have an extreem problem with the efficiancy of such a claimed being getting his word out. If a being that can "poof" make the universe in a nanosecond, why did he use falable humans, over 40 authors, with books left out, and 1,000 years to write? Hardly efficiant for a being who supposidely "poof" made the universe in a nanosecond.

"You got the wrong version" is missing the point. I dont care about which version you use, donkeys dont talk, snakes dont talk, the earth wasnt made in 6 days, ghosts dont knock up girls and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis after 3 days. 

It scares you that science is debunking the magical claims of the bible so insted of facing reality, you use pointless distractions to avoide the fact that you have no evidence for the magical claims of the bible. All you have is "God did it". And then you attempt to fill this deficit with the shell game, "you got the wrong version".

Pick any version you want and in the end you still have no justification for hocus pockus claims. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Daniel: He actually

Daniel: He actually addresses languages a bit in a previous entry.  Thought you might enjoy the read.

 http://www.rationalresponders.com/biblical_languages_and_dating

Clarification.

You assume too much in this response for me to respond to all of it. For instance, you say, how did he use fallible human beings? Well, IF God DOES exist, then wouldn't it be that he could overrider their infallibility? So that is not an inconsistency with my world view. You first have to prove that God doesn't exist but you can't because you know he does since the world around us bears witness to his existence (and I am not talking about cheesy arguments like where did it all come from because I believe that the proof from creation is immediate not mediate)

As to whether the Greek is the original or not I will have to read the article but it was clear that Daniel, for instance was written before Greek was the common language which is why parts of the original Hebrew text of Daniel are actually in Aramaic (it makes sense because Aramaic was the common language during the time he probably wrote it from the evidence in the book so there are proofs that it wouldn't have been in Greek because he probably didn't live to the time of Alexander the Great.

Even if it is in Greek, his arguments don't stand up anyway. The order in Gen. 2 is not necessarily chronological and Adam being "alone" is with respect to humans not anything else like animals or trees which is perfectly exeptable even in our own usage in English.

"You first have to prove that God doesn't exist..."

Daniel, you' right! I wholeheartedly agree that what can't be proven not to exist...must exist. That includes unicorns, satyrs, sea monsters, dragons...etc. (all of which are mentioned in the bible). I am not saying that these things are real. I'm just saying that the bible says they are.