Saturday, June 28, 2014

Six Days by Ken Ham

Ham believes it is essential Christians believe in and defend a six day creation. To help us to that end, he clarifies what science really is and how it differs from historical science. He defends the 24 hour understanding of yom. He helps us distinguish eisegesis (reading into the text one's own ideas) and exegesis. He critiques theories that attempt to reconcile an earth billions of years old with the biblical account of the earth, including evolutionary ideas. He reveals the problems with rejecting a global flood and identifies the necessity of believing in a historical Adam.

Ham writes, “This book is about the decline of the Church's view of Genesis 1-11, which has led to a catastrophic decline in believing in the absolute authority of the Word of God in the Church.” (121) He is clear that a person's view of origins is not a salvation issue. But it is an authority issue and a gospel issue, he adds. (122)

He argues that this issue is not one where Christians can hold differing views, such as eschatology. It matter, he writes, “because it matters what God's Word clearly teaches.” (124) Ham is adamant: “The authority of Scripture is what's at stake here.” (131)

The strength of this book is emphasizing the ramifications of not believing Genesis 1-11 as presented in the Bible. It is a philosophical or theological work, not a scientific one. When he critiques the scientific view of the age of the earth, for example, he merely refers to man's fallible dating methods based on unproven assumptions.

This book will make you think about the literal days of creation, a global flood, and a historical Adam. It will also make you think about how the authority of science has been accepted over the authority of the Word. You will be challenged by Ham's call to return to the authority of God's Word – all of it.

Ken Ham is an international speaker, author and CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. You can find out more at

Master Books, 256 pages.

No comments: