Kent Hovind v. Eric Hovind/Paul Taylor & his legal problems!
- There was an interesting posting from Kent Hovind today regarding his problems with his son, Eric Hovind, and Paul Taylor who has taken over the family business and renamed it Creation Today; including references to his legal problems.
Mostly Kent complains that they don't understand and accept his canopy theory.
See what you think:
From: Kent Hovind
Date: Monday, February 25, 2013
Part I of 4
Open letter to Brother Tom Ish -
Editor of Creation Illustrated (CI) Part 1
I must object to an article in your Winter 2013 issue:
> "Creation Day 2"by Paul Taylor.
In this article Mr. Taylor objects to the teaching of
a canopy above the atmosphere in the original creation.
I don't recall ever having met Mr. Taylor but when I
was given my "extended vacation" by the feds
(for some illegal, bogus and hotly contested reasons
you can read about on www.2peter3.com if you wish)
I asked my son Eric to manage the Creation Science
Evangelism (CSE) Ministry in Pensacola, Florida until
Within a year he began a new ministry called Creation
Soon thereafter he hired Paul Taylor to come from England
and join his team and they have been doing a great job of
spreading the creation message.
I in no way wish to hinder anyone's outreach for the Lord
or harm their reputation or hurt anyone's feelings but I
also cannot sit silently after reading the many errors in
These errors and the flawed premise they are based on may
not only cast doubt in the minds of your readers about what
I believe and teach on other issues since I teach about
the canopy in Seminar #2.
They may also adversely affect my son's thinking (and your
readers) on two critical topics as I will explain below.
I try to be constantly alert for false doctrine.
I understand it can come from ANY source - even within
myself - and it spreads quickly like a virus and can
infect healthy organisms if not stopped and treated in
After all the years and money I invested in my son and
the creation ministry in Pensacola I've got to stay
vigilant as God gives me strength and insight to be
sure it is not undermined or derailed in my absence.
I have paid a HIGH price for my convictions and won't
let anyone destroy them now.
Jesus rebuked Peter (Mt. 16:23) when he taught something
Peter seems to have received the rebuke and correction.
I pray Paul and Eric will receive mine.
Beating up a "straw man" image you set up does NOT mean
you have beaten the real man.
His article starts with a false dichotomy when he says,
> "What I am about to suggest to you may beObviously this type of statement gives two false choices
> argumentative to some while others will
> wholeheartedly agree with my research."
and makes it look like you either:
A - argue with him or
B - agree with his "research."
The obvious third option is that his "research" has led
him to the wrong conclusion or the forth option is that
he researched the wrong canopy model or a fifth option
that he was using the wrong Bible to study this topic.
I fully agree with Paul when he says that
> "No opinion on it (the canopy) should beHe also says,
> elevated to the status of biblical inerrancy."
> "God's Word is unchangeable andI actually REALLY believe that but from his frequent
> never up for review."
use of other versions and his criticism of the King
James I don't think he really does.
Ya'll can do what you want, and you will, but I'm not
going to sit by and let ANYONE change ONE letter in my
Even if NO other creation ministries want to take a
stand on the Bible version issue I WILL!
Any ministry I have will not only "defend the Bible
from the very first verse" but will be able to hand
you a copy of it.
"Heaven" is SINGULAR in Gen. 1:1 in the REAL unchangeable
Word of God and THAT is a beginning point for discussing
the canopy. "Heaven" is used 7 times in Gen. 1 in the KJB.
If God's Word is "unchangeable" how did it change from
singular to plural found only in a few corrupt Catholic
Which is right?
Before we get into a discussion or debate about God's
Word .... we must first be sure we are all on the same
page and talking about the same Bible!
For about 28 years of my Christian life I used, promoted
and defended many of the new "Bible" versions. I have a
huge collection of them at home. About 15 years ago I
devoted hundreds of hours to the study and I was forced
by the overwhelming evidence to agree with millions of
other Christians before me that God preserved His very
Words (as He promised in Ps. 12:6-7) for the English
speaking world in the King James.
So, I agree with Paul that God's Word is "never up for
review" but I take it further and can actually hand you
a copy of God's Word.
I don't think Paul or any of those who use other modern
versions can do that.
Part 2 of 4
Problems with Paul Taylor's article
on the Canopy Theory.
Please DON'T fall for any of this!
This is why I have been harping for 15 years now that
we must first find God's Words BEFORE we can claim we
are defending them!
Defending WHAT EXACTLY?
Is it heaven or heavens?
I remember sitting on my bed with my Bible in hand
> "This is it!I got down on my knees and told God I was sorry for doubting
> I'm holding God's Words."
His ability to preserve His Words and I thanked Him for letting
me have a copy!
I pray you and Paul come to that point one day soon.
Paul is right that some older models of the canopy theory
have serious flaws and are most likely unworkable but
don't be too hasty here!
After 1,000 failures at making a light bulb Tom knew
1,000 ways that didn't work so he knew he must be
closer to finding the right way!
Ditto the canopy.
Part 3 of 4
THE ORIGINAL CREATION-HOVIND'S CANOPY THEORY
Here is the "Hovind version" of the "canopy theory."
I believe God created everything in 6 literal 24 hours
days exactly as recorded in Genesis 1 in the KJB.
In verse one there was just the earth and one "heaven."
Starting in v. 6 God began dividing the heaven into 3
heavens by placing a "crystalline sphere" above the
first heaven (atmosphere) and then another one above
the second heaven where the stars are (Ps. 148:4).
The first canopy fell down or condensed at the flood
and the second "canopy" is still there beyond the
The entire universe that we marvel at is probably a
little snow globe on God's dresser.
In the Wizard of OZ the witch watched Dorothy in
one of those.
Satan always imitates the Most High.
This first canopy made in Gen. 1:6-7 was probably
super cold (-450F?) perfectly clear crystalline ice
about 3 inches thick and maybe 10 miles above the
ground but containing all the atmosphere.
The second "Canopy" is probably also clear crystalline
ice beyond the stars and is still there today.
No one knows where space ends.
The Bible clearly teaches there was water UNDER the
crust of the earth in Ps. 24:1-2; 33:7; 136:7.
This water under the crust came gushing out like water
out of a womb (Job 38:8) when the fountains of the
great deep broke open in Genesis 7:11.
THIS is where the flood water AND the 40 days of rain
More about the waters under the crust in Appendix 2
of my book "What on Earth is About to Happen for
Heaven's Sake?" (due out in March, 2013) or in
Creation Seminar Part 6 and in Dr. Walt Brown's book,
"In the Beginning".
Dr. Walt Brown offers convincing evidence that 10 miles
of rock on top of the subterranean waters would jet
water, mud and rock into orbit!
The canopy of ice may have been destroyed and collapsed
at this time.
Part 4 of 4
Tom, thanks for reading this LONG post.
I'm sorry the article by Paul made me give this public
response. I'd sure much rather solve differences without
the whole world watching if possible but it was too late
for that this time.
Eric (and Paul and any who have ears to hear), the two
MAJOR reasons some otherwise intelligent fellow creationists
do NOT believe there was a canopy above the originally
created atmosphere is because:
1. they are not studying the right Bible and
2. they have the wrong canopy model.
As we have seen, some don't believe they have God's exact
Words to even begin to evaluate the canopy topic or, if
they have His Words they don't trust them or feel that
they must submit to them.
In every article I have read by those who oppose the idea
of a canopy above the atmosphere the author is always
changing the words in Genesis from the KJB to fit his
theory rather than changing his theory to fit the Word
You will NEED a SOLID WORD to hold to in the tribulation
time that is coming here soon.
Somebody is WRONG!
Ditto with the canopy teaching.
The Bible could not be more clear when it says there was
water ABOVE the firmament (Gen. 1:6-7).
If there was no canopy what does that mean?
If the Word says it, we are to believe it even if it
has no scientific explanation.
I believe in the creation, resurrection and all the
miracles WITHOUT any scientific explanation.
It is the same with the idea of "water above the firmament."
I believe it because it says it.
Now, with that said, that does NOT mean I cannot try to
study and understand HOW God did it. He WANTS us to "study
to shew ourselves approved unto God."
I try HARD to do that!
I think anyone is authorized to give their "opinion"
or "theories" about what God's Word says and means
(but keep James 3:1 in mind!) but they are NOT
authorized to "change the Words" themselves and THEN
give their ideas about what THEIR translation says
The Word says there was water above the firmament.
That issue is closed for me.
This Bible version issue is MUCH more serious than
PLEASE seek His face on it Eric and Paul
(and all others!)
They are studying the wrong model.
I think Paul may have rightly criticized flaws with
some older canopy models but he threw out the baby
with the bath water.
More and more evidence is coming in to support the
idea of a 3" canopy of super cold ice above the
This would be true to the Bible AND answer loads of
questions about the world and the pre-flood world.
I may not have all the details about the water above
the firmament perfect myself.
I would gladly hear any reasonable criticism of my
It may need to be adjusted and modified many times.
That is fine if it stays in the parameters of God's
I started with assumption that I held the perfect Word
and sought for a model that would stay true to that