Bill Nye The Science Guy VS Ken Ham The Creation Museum Guy

Bill Nye The Science Guy VS Ken Ham The Creation Museum Guy

        There was recently a Creationism VS Evolution debate where over 2.5 Million watched live streaming online (according to Ken Ham on Living Waters recent episode Feb. 7th). I watched this debate live and it was exciting yet I was left unsatisfied with the way the debate worked out. The format was 30 mins of presentation then 5 minute responses. Then there were audience questions which were about 2 minute long answers and a 1 minute rebuttal. I just don’t think there were enough satisfying answers given on both parts because the time did not allow it. So much was covered in such a short time people did not have enough left to respond properly.

Watch the entire debate here: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham HD.

        I admire Ken Ham for standing up for young earth Creationism during a time where liberal evangelicals are trying to accept evolution as a biblical viewpoint. Bill Nye’s overall responses were lacking and certainly not the least bit compelling. All he did was act high brow and belittled Creationists as less-than-intelligent people who cannot at all be considered scientists, despite the fact Ken Ham introduced several top scientists who are Biblical Creationists with video clips (including the inventor of the MRI scanner).

        Overall this debate is not one about science but more on the validity of the Bible. Bill Nye obviously is ignorant in every single way about the Bible including how it is interpreted and its history so his comments were pretty foolish (especially how he kept saying “interpreted into American English” and used the telephone example).

        I do think Ken Ham did a decent job defending Creationism as a valid belief for scientists to have. Unfortunately the atheists will not hear the logic of Ken Ham’s presentation about the difference between observational and historical science as well as the facts that there are actually highly qualified scientists who are Young Earth Creationists.

        Also, Bill Nye brought up the age of trees and ice to refute a young earth but in reality he has nothing on biblical Creationism as his interpretation of the age of such things through counting layers and also using carbon dating are not 100% matter of fact reliable and has various times presented contradicting evidence.  I just wish Ken Ham could have taken advantage of such arguments better and more aggressively.

        Either way the debate was fun to watch and I hope more exciting live streaking events happen. I wish there would be follow up debates as well. We can only hope.

Here are some Wretched TV video clips responding to some of Bill Nye’s arguments:

6 thoughts on “Bill Nye The Science Guy VS Ken Ham The Creation Museum Guy

  1. The objection of “interpreted into American English” is a valid one. Anyone who cannot decipher the Hebrew text of the Bible (omitting the Greek Bible of Christianity since I am not Christian) has no idea what the Bible actually says. Those who do not possess even an elementary understanding of Hebrew are at a loss when it comes to acquiring a true sense of the Bible’s essential meaning. The Hebrew language which comprises the Bible is like a code and unless one understands the code then they cannot perceive the message. The first chapter of the Bible beginning with the word b’reishit has an almost Finnegan’s Wake feel to it in the Hebrew because it consists of archetypes that are redolent with meaning.

    The first verse of B’reishit (Genesis) is commonly translated as, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” However, this translation is an impossibility from the Hebrew text. Further, this statement is also unintelligible- a “beginning” of time and space is as unthinkable as their non-beginning. The Hebrew narrative does not have a “hey” as a prefix to the word reishit and thus there is no “the beginning” possible in the text and those who have translated the verse thus into the English language have not even attempted to be true to the original Hebrew narrative. If translators have failed to correctly translate the second word of the Bible then what hope does that provide that the rest of the English Bibles are any better?

    Another example of Hebrew differences from the English texts is in the first chapter of Genesis wherein the phrase “God said…” repeatedly occurs. There is no such word or equivalent of the word “God” in the Hebrew narrative. The Hebrew phrase is “v’yomer Elohim…” and read according to its letters presents an idea of cosmic energy evolving into the human psyche or the psyche of existence. Read according to its letters the text is impossible to accurately translate into English. Elohim represent a process whereby Aleph becomes Yod in evolutionary existence and the term yomer (yod, aleph, mem, reish) is the process of emanation of both Yod and Aleph in a state of existence and life. How do you adequately translate this into English?

    The Bible is a lot deeper and richer in its Hebrew context than what an English translation could ever adequately capture. This is not to make an assertion that a study of the Bible in English has no merit rather it’s a statement of a simple fact and an encouragement for those who are serious concerning obtaining a proper understanding of the Scriptures to begin developing some competency of Hebrew language and idiom. Your Bible study will become infinitely deeper and more meaningful. Don’t ever think that your studies of the Scriptures have brought you to a mastery of the texts and their meanings. One who thinks this hasn’t truly understood anything.

    • You sound like how Muslims claim the only way to really truly understand the Quaran is if you speak classical Arabic and can read it.

      I think you are nitpicking. The Word God is used because it makes sense to use it. The concept of God does not contradict the Hebrew.

      You bring up some interesting accusations I would have to research more.

      But the point of Bill Nye was that the Bible cannot be understood or interpreted correctly and is lost in translation. It is not. The English bible is interpreted from the original Hebrew, Greek and the few Aramaic sections. Enough scholars on textual criticism agree the Bible in English is accurate. We have the same books of the bible today as we did in then when each was originally written.

      • I have demonstrated very well my point. I understand your insistence that the English translations are just as good as the authentic textual sources but your opinions on this matter are not relevant lest they are backed up. Muslims are correct as well as Arabic is a cousin language to Hebrew and shares a dynamic richness that English cannot fully capture. It’s not nitpicking to demonstrate precisely how Hebrew and English differ and the linguistiv inability of one to translate to the other. There is no such thing as a literal translation. In order to translate the Hebrew adequately you would end up with a long paragraph at least per verse which would make an English Bible enormous. My reasoning is simple really- If English translators cannot adequately translate the very first word of the Bible then what hope is there that the rest is adequate? It’s a logical question and the implication are staggering for modern devotees. Modern translators typically do not have a frame of reference to understand the Hebrew and those who do have to make a sacrifice for the sake of traditional English rendering which is beloved by many and a work which is concise enough.

        • I think you shoud research textual criticism and dont just read atheist websites. There is enough evidence to point to the fact the BIble in is current translation is extremely accurate and any changes in use of specific language does not change the actual teaching of what the Bible teaches.

          It is not true that someone needs to know the exact language a letter or writing was written in order to understand it if it was accurately translated into another language.

          The Bible was accurately translated into English and many other world languages. It is understandable to everyone. You don’t have to be an ancient language scholar to understand it. But the Christians who translated it and current ones alive today are ancient language scholars and attest to the Bible’s accuracy, not only Christians but secular scholars as well.

  2. I’m not sure what makes you think I am reading Atheist websites. I don’t peruse those sites rather I am speaking from my own knowledge in that I read Hebrew myself. I have demonstrated clearly that the English Bibles are inadequate and at times can be very misleading. For example the word in Gen. 1:1 translated as created is in Hebrew bara. Bara is a verb but is not in the past tense as it is in the KJV. This leads one to incorrectly conclude that this act of creation is something that happened in the past but in the Hebrew its present tense. There are so many thing I can point out such as the false translation “Thou shalt not kill.” The verb “to kill” is laharog but the Bible actually says “lirtzoach” which specifically means to murder thus in the correct context you can’t have people who use this verse to declare themselves conscientious objectors. To summarize my entire point- if you rely on second-hand information then you cannot guarantee its authenticity. One word not correctly translated, elaborated, or expounded upon will change the real meaning. Further, punctuation does not exist in Hebrew and a single comma added to the grammatical structure will change the entire meaning as well. No doubt translators often have the best of intentions but their translations reflect their own inadequacies with the variety of meanings latent within the Hebrew language itself.

    • Hey I was not saying you ONLY view atheist websites. You took me wrong. What I mean was, check out the topic of textual criticism but do not simply view atheist websites about it, and seek out the consensus of scholars.

      The small details of language in various english bibles do not negate the overall, general understanding of what it teaches. It is not too hard, or too mysterious, or too hard to translate correctly.

      I agree that “thou shall not kill” is actually the word murder. I agree with those kinds of issues.

      Overall the Bible is translated accurately in its undestanding and basic teachings. I don’t believe there are any mistranslations, or scholarly freedom one might take in using certain words that will disqualify the understanding of the bible for people.

      But I agree with what you are saying about it. I just don’t agree that they are too much for a proper understanding.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s