I read where one of you said something about being upset with these two because of something they were arguing about?? I would like to know more. Is there a link somewhere? I did read that Ken was removed from the convention speaker list, but I don't understand why. I have to say tho, from my prior knowledge of these two, if I had to choose between them and their curriculum it would have to be Ham, because he is not wishy washy like Wile has become. Does anyone know what has transpired between these two? Is there a link?
I'd start with the response from Great Homeschool Convention
Then, here is the link to Wile's blog where he asks Ken to chill out!
The rest can be summed up in my opinion like this:
Imagine that I am hosting a large party at my house. I invite a lot of A list people and they accept! wow!!!!! cool.
Person 1 (ham in my analogy) and Person 3 (Peter Enns) have a bad history with each other. I ask Person 1 if he can be nice during the party. He says "probably not".
Person 2 (wile in this case) says "let me talk to him and see if he'll chill out and still come. We all like him and want him there... maybe he'll listen to me."
And that doesn't go well.
The party arrives, Person 3 is there. I know I don't agree with his old earth stance but he says he is a Christian and I welcome him to join the party. Person 1 draws part of the party goers and says "person 3 and his associates are compromisers! and issues a danger will robinson danger danger" approach to it. He creates a problem at my party!
Take your fight outside, I ask. and don't come back until you can behave nicely to my invited guests.
So, next party, I invite someone else in his place to deliver a message on young earth.
Meanwhile, Person #2 (wile) stood in the dog house with person #3 and said "I'll listen to you..... I don't agree with everything you think but let's talk and listen to each other as brothers in Christ"
Does that help any, Susie?
The boys are in a cat fight. They dragged it from blog and opinion into the convention center and one of them was asked to leave for his spirit of attack.
I don't think wile is wishy washy or that his curriculum has changed?
I use some Ken Ham stuff. I use some Wile stuff. love the Creation Museum. Love the conventions.
and because of the controversy, I bought the "dangerous" bible curriculum and read it. LOL LOL. If that's what the problem is really about,..... giggle giggle.... meow meow meow...
I also found this:
I have not read Wile's (I am about to) but I stand 100% with Ham on this. We all needed to be warned.
Yes, Crystal that does help . (I am just seeing your post). I do understand what you are saying. But let me add a quote from Ham's blog:
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:
I know for a fact that Wile is wishy washy. I have read post by him on his blog a few months back. They were his words and not someone elses.
It is your opinion that Jay Wile is wishy washy based on how you view it. You, nor anyone, can say that interpretation is "fact".
Ken Ham has said he has not read the book that is warning about as a homeschool Bible curriculum which is not published by Biologos (which I don't agree with them)
It is published by someone one and the publisher has responded here...
I have read it. So far there is only volume 1. It's for first graders and is a once a week, hand on projects to share about the miracles of Jesus. The other volumes are not yet written. So, huh?
the parent book is just an explanation of why he starts in the "grammar" stage with Jesus, then in the Logic stage with Genesis to Revelation overview. Then higher level in rhetoric stage.
I don't understand the warning about this book. I don't agree with Peter Enns on the topic of young earth.
Please read the other links I've given you.
You might stand for the ideals of Ken Ham and being alert. I stand for that as well. However, with more of the facts in the picture, I'd prefer that he show the heart of love first to a believer and then mind to others....
so that's the essence of it.
Basically the camps over here are the standard line up:
those who see it that Ken Ham did nothing wrong and can never do anything wrong and think he spoke in love and truth.
those who say "he spoke truth, but where is the love? we saw the snark. we saw the lack of grace...."
edit to add this side note: (that's how Jay said on his blog that Nancy and I linked to on a comment.... quote"Mr. Ham’s motives were quite right. He honestly believes that he is “protecting” the “unsuspecting.” However, you can’t do that if you are not treating your brother in Christ properly. "
so that's the pro Wile side :
so that's what it boils down to......
don't rush to pick a side.....
This post was edited on Mar 25, 2011 02:20 AM
I did read the links you posted. And while I would never believe that anyone is above sin, those two links just reaffirms what I already feel. I have met Ham and have seen him (vids) and heard him on a number of occasions. I have never seen him be snarky. Maybe he was being stressed?? I am still glad the he is standing up for the truth when most people wimp out.
In Wile's blog it sounds like he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. As far as the convention having Ennes as a speaker to begin with leaves me scratching my head. As a person who never compromises on what she believes I would never ever have anyone speaking at my convention if he didn't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Regardless if they call themselves Christians or not, because it is guilt by association so to speak. It says we don't have a problem with this.
Thank you both for the links. I am glad to know what is going on. I didn't know of this latest, and it helps me to weed out future curriculum purchases.
I own and will use for Fall the Dr. Enns book that Mr. Hamm is so up in arms about. It is completely about Jesus, His miracles and teachings. There is nothing in it about Creation.
I can think and research for myself, I don't need someone "warning" me about what curriculum I should be using.
I'm a YE Creationist and I can tell you that this whole business has me decided that I will never use any of Ken Hamm's materials.
This post was edited on Mar 23, 2011 08:00 PM