Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Kent Hovind v. Eric Hovind/Paul Taylor & his legal problems!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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:

      ---------------------------------------------

      Link:

      http://www.facebook.com/2peter3

      From: Kent Hovind
      Date: Monday, February 25, 2013

      (excerpts)

      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
      my return.

      Within a year he began a new ministry called Creation
      Today.

      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
      that article!

      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
      time.

      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
      wrong.

      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 be
      > argumentative to some while others will
      > wholeheartedly agree with my research."

      Obviously this type of statement gives two false choices
      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 be
      > elevated to the status of biblical inerrancy."

      He also says,

      > "God's Word is unchangeable and
      > never up for review."

      I actually REALLY believe that but from his frequent
      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
      Bible.

      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
      versions?

      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.

      ERIC!

      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
      and saying,

      > "This is it!
      >
      > I'm holding God's Words."

      I got down on my knees and told God I was sorry for doubting
      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!

      Hmmm?
      Go Tom!

      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
      stars.

      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.

      Hmmm?

      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
      came from!

      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

      SUMMARY

      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.

      1.

      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
      of God.

      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
      or means.

      The Word says there was water above the firmament.
      That issue is closed for me.

      This Bible version issue is MUCH more serious than
      most realize.

      PLEASE seek His face on it Eric and Paul
      (and all others!)

      2.

      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
      atmosphere.

      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
      canopy theory.

      It may need to be adjusted and modified many times.

      That is fine if it stays in the parameters of God's
      infallible Word.

      I started with assumption that I held the perfect Word
      and sought for a model that would stay true to that
      standard.

      Kent Hovind

      ----------------------
      ----------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.