Thanks, stilis – I agree to a point. However, both Psalm 19 and Romans 1 say that creation does speak to God’s existence and power. Pascal’s problem was that he tried to prove God instead of starting with God. Trying to prove God does not work, and we will be ineffective in our message as long as we think that we are responsible for doing so.

Thanks, Steve – I don’t think that’s what he meant either. But you could hear it in Bill Nye’s voice and see it in his face that he took that point. Which is sad, because Ken Ham could have used those two minutes to promote what “literal” means when approaching figures of speech, prophecy, poetry, etc. from a grammatical-historical perspective.

Unfortunately, the good part of the response about different laws for Israel and Christians was completely overshadowed by the mistake which Nye picked apart.

Thanks, Monte. I know that it sounds like semantics, but I think it goes deeper than that. I have not contacted Mr. Ham on this, but I noted that it could have been that he simply stumbled over his words. As a pastor and teacher, I tend to do that a lot!

Here’s my definition of “literal” from the post and how it answers your specific questions:

every word should be taken in the sense it was written – its literal meaning, within its historical context, according to the rules of grammar in its original language.

Particularly important to your examples is the last phrase: “according to the rules of grammar in its original language”.

You asked: “Do you take it literally when it says the moon be like blood?” Yes, I do, because “like” is a simile, a valid use of language. When the text says, “The moon will be like blood,” I take that literally – it will indeed be “like blood.”

There is a major difference between interpreting figuratively and interpreting figures of speed as they were intended. In Mr. Ham’s statement, it sounded like genre determined whether or not he could interpret literally. I heard it that way, Mr. Nye heard that way, and his response was on point.

Again, maybe (hopefully) Mr. Ham doesn’t interpret based on genre. No matter the type of literature we let the text speak for itself in the literal way the writer intended it.

Does that help show the difference between what I mean by “literal” and what Mr. Ham said?

And there’s a difference between literalists and hyper-literalists, which I think is what Ken Ham was trying to point out (unsuccessfully). Should every word in the Bible be taken literally? He started out well by saying, “you have to define the meaning of words.” What do you mean by “literally?” Do the trees of the field LITERALLY have hands to clap? Does God LITERALLY have feathers and wings? No, I don’t believe so. But a literal reading of any text will include figures of speech, which everyone understands are not to be taken literally. When a recipe calls for liberal use of “elbow grease,” we don’t go to the store looking for some.

Should the Bible be taken literally? Yes. Should it be taken hyper-literally? No. And in that, I think you are correct, Daniel, in your assessment of Mr. Ham’s answer. Bill Nye was correct in his comment that Ken Ham’s answer could be taken to mean that some parts of the Bible should not be taken literally, and I can’t believe that this was Ken Ham’s intent.

I personally believe that your response would be easily countered by taking some of the poetic imagery of the Poetical books and claiming that they are intended as scientific teaching rather than using the science contained in the verses to illustrate a truth. I am thinking of Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. While I believe that you, Mr. Ham, and I all agree on the teaching of this verse, I do believe that in the debate context Mr. Nye could easily refute your response in a different way than how he refuted Mr. Ham’s response. (I did not get to see the entire debate as I was on baby sitting duty for part of the debate. Yet I did not get the impression that Mr. Nye had researched the scientific feasibility of the flood let alone much research of the Bible itself.)

I really believe that the difference between yourself and Mr. Ham is semantics. While there are many thoughts and ideas that you have neatly summarized, I believe that both you and Mr. Nye failed to incorporate what Mr. Ham said and intended as he said to take the Bible as it is written. I believe that to be a more accurate way to describe Biblical interpretation. Much of unfulfilled prophecy is in figurative language. Your answer seems to indicate that you would take what God has intended to be figurative and choose to interpret it literally. I really doubt that is what you would do. (Rev. 6:12,13 [12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.)

Does claiming that the Bible should be taken literally when it states that the stars will fall to the earth? Do you take it literally when it says the moon be like blood? Maybe you do take these literally. Maybe you do think that stars will fall on the earth. However, when the Bible uses terms like, as, etc. I believe that we should take it figuratively as it is written and intended. I believe an accurate understanding of these events would be a meteor shower and an eclipse.

I believe that you have taken an inaccurate assessment from Mr. Nye of what Mr. Ham actually said. Mr. Ham said that he takes it naturally as written. Mr. Ham is not willy-nilly choosing to believe certain parts as Mr. Nye accused. I do not agree with you that Mr. Ham encouraged an improper interpretation of the Bible as you have accused him.