Wolves in Costume: Kent Hovind

Author:
Christopher J. E. Johnson
Originally Published: Aug 22, 2015
Updated: Sept 24, 2022

WOLVES IN COSTUME:
KENT HOVIND Exposing the truth behind wolves in sheep's clothing who are deceiving the people with false doctrines and corrupt practices.

This 309-page book is free to read here on our website, or available for purchase in paperback or Kindle from the Amazon Store. Click the image for more details.

Contents:
Introduction Chapter #01 - Was Kent Guilty of Tax Evasion?
Chapter #02 - Kent's False Doctrine on Repentance
Chapter #03 - Kent Yokes With Steven Anderson
Chapter #04 - How Many Wives Does Kent Have?
Chapter #05 - How Kent Treats His Staff and Supporters
Chapter #06 - Kent Does Not Care About the Safety of Others
Chapter #07 - Kent Endorses New-Age Fantasy Novels
Chapter #08 - Kent Flip-Flops on 501c3
Chapter #09 - Kent's Contradiction on Christian Rock Music
Chapter #10 - Kent's Hypocrisy on Christmas
Chapter #11 - Kent's Endorsement of Eugenics
Chapter #12 - My Thoughts And Experiences

Introduction

For those of you who are dedicated followers of Kent Hovind, you will probably have nothing to do with me after you read just the title of this book, and that is acceptable because I know that many will close this page immediately without reading the facts, and despite the backlash, I still wish every one of you health and prosperity in your household by the abundant grace of God. I plead with Christians to take your time and read this, but please do not just skim through it. Take your time and read it all because, quite often, people write me hate mail before looking at all the facts, and so I hope Christians will take their time to read the whole book before responding to it, since the production of this book has been many years in the making.

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
-Proverbs 18:13

As a young Christian listening to Kent Hovind, I remember that he would quote Galatians 4:16 and say that there are many who would make him out to be their enemy, but he insisted that he was not their enemy; he just wanted them to hear the truth. So, I will repeat that same message to dedicated followers of Kent: Many of you might want to make me out to be your enemy, but I am not your enemy; I care enough about you to tell you the truth, and after you hear the truth, what you choose to do with it is up to you.

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
-Galatians 4:16

When I came to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of my sins) and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ back in September of 2002, Kent Hovind was my first teacher; I found his materials the day after I was born again in Christ. What I say next, I do not say lightly: I have spent countless hours not just listening to Kent, but also memorizing word-for-word his seminars, his CSE (Creation Science Evangelism) "college" course materials, and his debates. The reason I am pointing this out is so that readers will understand that I am not approaching this subject as a man who has no knowledge of Kent or his work, but rather, I am approaching this subject as someone with extremely intimate knowledge of Kent's doctrine.
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In fact, for some readers who may have followed my ministry since I started back in 2009, you will remember that I created seminars based on what Kent Hovind had taught. When it came time for me to name this ministry, I had no idea what to call it, but I considered the liberty we have in Christ, and the liberty we are afforded here in the United States to speak freely on religious matters, so I called this ministry "Creation Liberty Evangelism," and so I am sure many of you can see that I used to be a big follower of Kent Hovind.

Many years ago, in various videos, Kent publicly stated that anyone had his permission to download his slides and use them to create their own presentations, and being someone that preferred to take action rather than just talk, I did exactly that. I changed quite a bit, updated the slides, fixed incorrect information, expanded on subjects Kent did not talk about, and the following video is The Age of the Earth, my own version of Seminar #1, and I even developed a DVD for it back in 2015: (You can download this for free by visiting the VIDEOS SECTION here at creationliberty.com.)

At one point, I had completely updated and renovated Kent's seminars #1-5 for my own use. There was about a six-month period in which I was visiting churches to give these presentations, and I was speaking, on average, about three times per week, and to make a very long story short, today, I work primarily on this site, developing new articles, free-to-read books, and audio teachings.

For many years, I firmly believed that Kent Hovind was not only born again in the Lord Jesus Christ, but a strong contender for the faith, and because of this, those who heard my teachings many years ago might think that I would be an avid supporter of Kent to this day. However, many of those former listeners have departed from this ministry because I have told the truth about what Kent is saying and doing, and I want to make it abundantly clear to all readers that the Lord Jesus Christ is my Master, the Word of God is the authority over all the church, and that, despite how many churchgoers tend to treat him, Kent Hovind is NOT the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I have had little personal conversation with Kent Hovind, having only written to him a few times in the past, and I visited his children at his former office in Pensacola, Florida back in 2010 (while he was still in prison). However, I am still very knowledgeable in Kent's doctrine, and for everything else about his personal life and travels in his ministry, I will be relying on testimonies from those who have lived and worked closely with Kent. Christopher J.E. Johnson Eric Hovind Creation Today [creationliberty.com]

Christopher J.E. Johnson Eric Hovind Creation Today [creationliberty.com]

(NOTE: In the years following this meeting, I discovered how many false doctrines Eric teaches, how much lavish and wasteful spending goes on at Creation Today and God Quest Ministries, and how many corrupt and false preachers Eric works with and endorses; thus, we have sanctified ourselves from him because, like his father, he will not hear any rebuke or correction.)

Although I am aware that Kent will probably never read this teaching, and though it is even less likely he will come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of his wrongdoing), I want readers to understand that everything I am writing in this book, I would say directly to Kent if I were in a conversation with him face-to-face. After everything I have heard and seen from the Hovinds in general, most of them are in serious need of rebuke and repentance, and knowing that God gives men repentance to acknowledge the truth, therefore, they are in need of a lot of prayer, but again, the ring leader among all the corruption surrounding the Hovinds, Creation Science Evangelism, and Dinosaur Adventure Land, is Kent Hovind himself.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2 Timothy 2:24-26

It should be noted that I am not the only former-follower of Kent Hovind to sanctify myself from him; there are thousands of others who have departed from Kent after learning the truth about him, but due to Kent's intimidation, lies, backbiting, manipulation, bribes, and bullying (the evidence of which we will see in subsequent chapters), few churchgoers have enough faith in Christ to come out and tell the truth about what they have seen and heard. Sadly, this is often due to the fact that many leavened church building preachers imply that it is a sin to tell the truth when it comes to religious leadership, and they often do this to protect themselves from scrutiny.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Sanctification" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

However, some have faithfully and bravely come forward to give their eyewitness testimony about their experiences with Kent Hovind. For example, Joshua Joscelyn spent many years, and a lot of time and money, to fight against Kent's imprisonment with signs and bullhorns in protests, but a year after Kent was released from prison, he wrote the following:
"I ate meals with his family and observed the awkwardness of the family dynamic. On more than one occasion, I tried bringing up my growing concerns with him, but he quickly changed the subject or acted like it wasn't important. And that is why I am writing this — because Kent Hovind refuses to listen to anything negative I have to say in person. For a long time, he has refused to listen to concerns from me or anyone else. Perhaps he will read this and know why I can no longer support him or his ministry. And perhaps others will pause and reconsider their support for him when they read about why one of Dr. Hovind's most stalwart defenders is disavowing him."
-Joshua Joscelyn, "Kent Hovind's Mistress," Sept 7, 2016, retrieved Apr 7, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/notes/joshua-joscelyn/kent-hovinds-mistress/10154454291453119]

In another example, Hannah Deborah, whose first name was well-known by those who watched Kent Hovind's YouTube videos (since she used to be a part of Kent's inner circle), has spent an enormous amount of time working behind the scenes to organize Kent's question-and-answer series. Hannah has departed from Kent's so-called "ministry," and testified the following: Hannah Deborah Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

Hannah Deborah Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

"This hurts me to say but I myself have thought of many of the same points you just brought out over the last 9 months or so while I was still working for his ministry. I hate to see him be this way. While there are many things I like about him, I have found him to be narcissistic [self-loving and self-serving] in the extreme (except when he wants to put on a humble front for certain things), arrogant, quick to jump to the next topic without fully covering the current one, avoids topics he doesn't like, and like you said, doesn't accept correction; just comes back with a counter-argument to make his point look undeniably right... He was a role model to me and I looked up to him since I was 10 years old. He strengthened my interest in creation and geology and the fight against evolution propoganda [sic] as I grew up. He was my favorite and a hero of mine. But I find him using some of the same arguments and excuses he claims other people make towards the things he says."
-Hannah Deborah, quoted by Robert Baty, "So, Hannah, you realized it was not a joke!" KHVRLB, retrieved Apr 7, 2020, [kehvrlb.com/so-hannah-you-realized-it-was-not-a-joke]

Hannah is absolutely correct on every point she made. If you are unfamiliar with Kent Hovind, do not yet understand why she said that, keep reading because we will cover all those topics.

Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
-Proverbs 15:10

O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.
-Jeremiah 5:3

Roger Swartfager was one of Kent Hovind's right-hand men for over three years, and after leaving Kent's ministry, he said:
"[Kent]'s a lying manipulative ego maniac."
-Roger Dean Swartfager, message posted to Facebook, Apr 27, 2019, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206225783359338&set=a.3576274581347&type=3&theater]

These are some of the most dedicated volunteers Kent Hovind ever had, and he burned them on the way out, meaning that he would lie to and manipulate his audience into thinking these eyewitnesses betrayed him. This is just a taste of what is to come, and we will see more details from these eyewitnesses, as well as others, in later chapters of this book.

Back when I was a young Christian, having a lack of understanding and discernment, I also used to faithfully share Kent's materials, spending my own time and money to promote him, but today, I will not have anything to do with him, nor will I be a student of his leaven (i.e. corruption), and I encourage Christians to stay far away from him. Therefore, I would like to state my three main purposes for this teaching:

That Kent and all his family might know the truth of Christ's Gospel, that they might come to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow of their sin) and true faith so they would be saved.

That any followers of Kent Hovind might come to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow of their sin) and faith in Christ, so they can be saved.

That all who are already born again in Christ might be made aware of Kent's deception, that young Christians with little discernment can understand the truth and sanctify themselves (i.e. set themselves apart from Kent), so they do not waste their time and money with a man who is scamming them.

As I said before, the day after I was first saved, I discovered Kent Hovind's materials, and I did not have any work at the time, so I watched his seminars for around 16 hours a day for three weeks straight. I would fall asleep listening to them, and wake back up to turn them on. I have watched all his debates more times than I could count, and even converted them into audio files so I could listen to them while on the road. I got to the point where I could quote Kent word-for-word out of his detailed CSE Course Series (101-104), and I watched numerous other videos he has produced, including his radio show, and so I would please ask that people refrain from accusing me of not knowing anything about Kent Hovind, because, again, I probably know more about Kent's doctrine and phliosophy (i.e. way of thinking) than most people who will read this.

I really used to like Kent, or at least, I liked the person I saw him to be in front of the camera, but this is not a subject about who we might like or dislike because our personal feelings are irrelevant when it comes to the truth of a matter. This has to do with the doctrine of Scripture, and analyzing what a person says and does in correlation with what he teaches. As Jesus warned us, we need to beware of the leaven (i.e. corruption) of men who are in positions of religious leadership:

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees... Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
-Matthew 16:6-12

Remember that the Pharisees and Sadducees were not just some Jewish religious sects that existed 2,000 years ago, these were the pastors, priests, elders, deacons, and evangelists of that day, and that is who Jesus Christ was rebuking. Therefore, we should investigate any Christian teacher that we read or listen to, and we ought not automatically trust everything they say, which goes for me as well; those of you reading this book should check out the references I have provided, and I encourage you to look at them thoroughly.

To wrap up this introduction, I want to remind Christians that there are MANY people who claim to be of Christ, but they are not of Christ, or in other words, they are false converts. There are also many preachers, evangelists, and pastors who claim to be of Christ, and they will seem very kind, gentle, and giving on the outside, but inwardly, they are false teachers, and so we need to be vigilant when we labor in the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ taught a lot about false converts in the church, and if you do not understand much about that, I would highly recommend you study it out before going deeper into the subject on Kent Hovind.
(Read "False Converts vs Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The Lord Jesus Christ did not teach us that many would find the way to eternal life, but rather, He said FEW would find it:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
-Matthew 7:13-14

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many [i.e. not few] will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

Why did Jesus teach that many were going to come to Him and claim to be Christians who dedicated their lives to Him, but He will turn them away unto everlasting fire? If you want to understand what Jesus said, I have a book called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell, which is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com, and I encourage Christians to read it if you want to learn why so many churchgoers (even many independent, fundamental, KJB, Baptist pastors and churchgoers, like Kent Hovind) are on their way to hell with their hopes in false doctrine.

Let's begin by unveiling the truth behind one of the biggest controversies surrounding Kent Hovind. Please keep in mind that, due to the fact that so many social media platforms have censored users, I am unable to guarantee that the links provided in my references will still exist after I publish this book, but I can testify, with the Lord Jesus Christ as my witness, my quotes are accurate and precise with regard to the information that was available at the time.

#1 - Was Kent Guilty of Tax Evasion?

I did not want to start with this subject because I typically like to start with analyzing a man's Bible doctrine, but Kent is so well-known for his arrest and conviction, and it is debated and questioned so much on the internet, I thought I should address it first before we analyze some of Kent's perceptions on Scripture. At the very least, this will give us a better idea about Kent's off-camera character, some of the deceptive practices he has been involved in, and some of the criminals and other shady people with whom he has been associated.

I used to believe and teach that Kent Hovind was not a tax cheat because I only had half the information, and the reason I only had half the information was, first of all, thanks to Kent and many of his blind followers who kept repeating a narrative without sufficient evidence for their claims, and, secondly, thanks to those who already hated Kent's ministry repeating an opposing narrative without sufficient evidence for their claims as well. In other words, much of what is published in blogs and videos about Kent Hovind's trial is rumor from those with biased opinions (either for or against Kent), but rarely do I see thoroughly researched facts with proper references.

I apologize to anyone that may have heard my old audio teaching on Kent (previously called "Leaven Alert: Kent Hovind") because I had defended him on the tax issue, and even though I had limited access to the full information on him, that is no excuse because I still have a responsibility for the things I taught. However, since I have now analyzed the court transcript for myself, it turns out that Kent was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison based on failure to pay employment withholding taxes (which amounts to money laundering, as we will see later) on his corporate business, and also on premeditated structured bank transactions in effort to cover it up. (And yes, what Kent did was wrong, he had full knowledge of what he was doing, and I will demonstrate it momentarily.)

If a man claims to be a Christian and is set in authority over the church—as a teacher, apostle (i.e. in the sense of a missionary), evangelist, pastor, prophet, etc.—and that man sins without repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of his wrongdoing, then his sin should be exposed and rebuked in the eyes of all, so that others would learn the truth and fear God:

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
-1 Timothy 5:20

Before someone tries to argue to me that I should go to Kent with all this before writing about it publicly, please understand that MANY of Kent's closest family and dedicated followers have ALREADY attempted to get through to Kent on this subject MANY times. By the end of this book, you will understand why they are unable to get Kent to listen to any facts he does not want to hear, and so because Kent refuses correction and instruction on these matters, I will rebuke him publicly for the sake of my brethren.

Once again, I will quote these verses that I quoted in the introduction because Kent refuses almost all correction:

I will soon quote some portions of the court transcript to provide evidence of what I am saying, but to summarize, Kent opened up a business in Pensacola, Florida called Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL), but he claimed it was a "church" and that his employees were "volunteers" and/or "missionaries." Because he called his employees "missionaries," Kent and his board of directors were under the impression the government would have no right to claim they owed withholding taxes to the IRS for employees that were hired under the registered corporation Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises. (CSEE)
(See USA v. Kent E. Hovind, No. 07-10090, 11th Circuit Court, 2008, Justia US Law, retrieved Apr 1, 2020, [law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/07-10090/200710090-2011-02-28.html])

All of Kent's employees at DAL were paid in cash, and throughout the course of four years (1999-2003), Kent instructed his wife (Jo Hovind) to withdraw from their bank (AmSouth) increments of cash under $10,000, which totaled more than $1.5 million over a four-year period. This was to avoid filing paperwork for repeatedly withdrawing cash in an amount over $10,000, which, under normal circumstances, would leave a paper trail by which a government agency (if they chose to open an investigation) could take a closer look at the Hovinds' business transactions, and so Kent was purposefully avoiding the paperwork, not because he did not want to file it, but because he did not want the government to see what he was doing.

This type of withdrawal strategy is called "structured bank transactions," and (as Kent himself will tell you) the laws about withdrawing large sums of money in cash were originally created by the FBI (U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation) to help catch drug dealers; however, what Kent will NOT tell you is that it was also created to help catch money launderers. A money launderer is a person who attempts to disguise criminal business transactions to make it look like the money came from a legitimate source. (e.g. A person dealing drugs might purchase a barber shop and slowly filter sales from drug money into the business cash register to make it seem like they were making a lot of money giving haircuts.) Essentially, Kent was paying employees under the table through something called a "trust" (which we will learn more about later) without reporting it, and on paper, that made it seem like he was doing well in business sales without having to hire employees.

Kent defends himself by simply telling everyone that he was imprisoned for "structuring," which is PARTIALLY true, but as is typical with Kent Hovind, it is only half the truth, and he leaves out the other key details on purpose to cover up the reason WHY he was arrested on bank structuring charges in the first place. As of 2020 (when I completed the first draft of this book), Kent is still speaking in church buildings and making online videos in which he tells a sob story to his audience, but he does not reveal to them that he refused to pay withholding taxes that the IRS demanded on his legally registered business, he does not tell them that he did that for at least four years (if not more), and he certainly does not tell them that he did this to cover up around $1.5 million of transactions.

Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
-2 Corinthians 8:20-21

Of course, Kent will defend himself by saying that these were just "volunteers," not employees, but that is a lie. Some readers may be surprised that I would accuse Kent of lying, but Kent lies frequently whenever it suits his purpose, and we will see many examples of that throughout this book. During the trial, Brian Popp, a Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) employee at DAL who worked with various media and website aspects of the business, gave his testimony:
"Q. Was this part of the job that you were doing at CSE that you got paid for?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, at any point in time, Mr. Popp, were any taxes withheld from any of the wages or the pay that you received from CSE?
A. No. [Later during Popp's questioning...] Q. And did other employees come to work there, other than you and Carolyn Nelson?
A. Yes.
Q. How many people were added over the next couple of years, just an estimate?
A. Between '97 and '99, you're asking?
Q. That would be fine, sure?
A. Ten to 20.
Q. Were these -- these individuals that would come to work, were they paid, to your knowledge?
A. As far as I know, most of them were paid.
Q. You said that a time clock was installed. Did people punch in and out of the time clock?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Did they take regular lunch breaks?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Did they work regular hours?
A. To a large extent, yes."
-Testimony of Brian Popp, USA v Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts, Vol. 2, Oct 18, 2006, [scribd.com/document/256378034/USA-v-Kent-Hovind-Trial-Transcripts-2-of-8]

If you read the rest of the court transcript, it goes on to talk about how Kent gave his employees "days off and vacation time," and that he had originally provided time sheets where people would write in their hours, but eventually he installed a time clock, and this was one of the major ways the prosecution was able to prove Kent was guilty of all the criminal charges brought against him. Just to clarify, Kent started Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises, under which he had a legal business (i.e. a store), where he sold books and DVDs, and he hired employees under this corporation, paid them, but called them "volunteers," and refused to follow the regulations under a standard corporate business contract concerning employees while he was receiving a corporate profit on DAL.

If you ever hear Kent say these people were "missionaries" or "volunteers," now you can know for certain he is LYING to you. We all know that missionaries do NOT get paid leave or sick pay, and we all know that volunteers do NOT get vacation days, nor do they have to punch a time clock.

Furthermore, Kent had provided a small amount of money paid into life insurance for what he called "any full-time employee." Despite the fact that Kent told his listening audience and the court that they were missionaries and volunteers, when he was among his inner circle of workers at DAL, Kent called them "employees," as you can see in the following quote where paperwork from DAL was read aloud for the court record:
"Any unused days will be paid as a bonus in the first week of January. CSE will pay $200 a year into a life insurance for any full-time employee. They must present proof of policy to CSE."
-Testimony of Brian Popp, USA v Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts, Vol. 2, Oct 18, 2006, [scribd.com/document/256378034/USA-v-Kent-Hovind-Trial-Transcripts-2-of-8]

Kent always called his workers "employees," but after he was arrested, he LIED to the court to save himself.

Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.
-2 Corinthians 13:7

Many fans of Kent Hovind that refuse to hear the truth (who I will hereafter refer to as "Hovindites") claim this is an issue about whether or not there is a law that requires individuals to file an income tax return, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this court case. The fact is that Kent had a corporate business under which he had employees, he was under legal obligation in his corporate business to pay IRS employee withholding taxes (just like every other business in the U.S.), and he refused to do so.
(NOTE: Greg Dixon, another of Kent's supporters, also got in trouble over the same issue, racking up around $5 million in debt to the IRS because he was an unrepentant liar and thief who refused to pay the taxes he owed on behalf of his employees through his 501c3 corporation; Read 501c3: The Devil's Church here at creationliberty.com for more details about the childish, unbiblical tantrum he threw on the matter.)

Kent also refused to get proper building permits for Dinosaur Adventure Land, even though he was within Pensacola's city limits. A building permit would have taken a small amount of time, and (at the time DAL was first opened) would have only cost about $50, but he refused to get it, spent five years fighting it, was handed a fine of $675 by the county court, and ordered to cease all activity at DAL until the fine was paid and a permit was established, which is why DAL was forced to close its doors in April of 2006.

Kent should be embarrassed that the Pensacola County Commissioner at the time had to publicly rebuke him to the press:
"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit,' County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said."
-William Rabb, "Park could face extinction, Lack of building permits closes dinosaur museum," Pensacola News Journal, Apr 7, 2006, retrieved Apr 22, 2020, [https://bit.ly/3eExD6d]

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
-Matthew 22:17-21

Of course, taxes and tribute are not the same thing, but taxes (i.e. what the Bible calls "custom") should be paid:

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
-Romans 13:7

Some may argue that IRS withholding taxes is not Constitutional, and that businesses should not be bullied into doing it, but the problem is that once you sign up a business as a corporation, the IRS has something called carte blanche privilege (given to them by the U.S. Congress), which means the IRS has full discretionary power to demand whatever they please. Of course, I believe this is wrong and wicked; Congress can strip the IRS of its power at any time, and I believe they should do so and shut the IRS down because the IRS is one of the most corrupt government organizations that has ever existed. However, that being said, IRS withholding taxes falls under the category of 'tribute', not custom (i.e. taxes), and this is why it is so important for Christians to understand the difference between them.

In Scripture, the Roman Empire was conquering countries (like Israel) and demanding a yearly tribute, which was a collection taken among all the people and given as a gift to Rome, which, if a country did not give tribute, it was taken as an offense by Rome and seen as a declaration of war. Therefore, the question that was being brought to Jesus Christ about tribute was not a question of money, but rather, it was a question about authority, and so when it comes to things like tribute or withholding taxes, which are not good or fair, Jesus said to go ahead and give it to them anyway so they would not be offended.

However, that is not Kent's philosophy, and he does not agree with what Christ taught. I can understand where he is coming from because I can understand the evil things the IRS does, but protesting should be done through the lawful due process of Congress, not by rejecting the commandments of Christ in rebellion.

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
-1 Samuel 15:23

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
-Luke 6:46

As we continue to see the testimony of Brian Popp, we can see that Kent's philosophy departs from the Word of God:
"Q. During this period of time, did you become aware of any problems that Mr. Hovind was having with the county?
A. Yes.
Q. What problems did you become aware of?
A. At a certain point in time, we stopped getting permits for building new construction.
Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Hovind as to why he was not getting permits to build buildings?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. That as a church, we were not subject to man's law.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
THE WITNESS: Man's law.
THE COURT: Thank you."
-Testimony of Brian Popp, USA v Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts, Vol. 2, Oct 18, 2006, [scribd.com/document/256378034/USA-v-Kent-Hovind-Trial-Transcripts-2-of-8]

The Bible never says that the church is not subject to man's law. The church is not subject to a law that violates the Word of God, meaning that, for example, if the government gives us an order to abort (i.e. murder) our children in the womb, we can reject that order, and have the blessings of God in doing so. Withholding taxes on employees of a corporate business might be a vile and self-serving thing that Caesar is demanding, but giving it to him is not a violation of God's Word.
(Read "Abortion: Paganism, Satanism, Sacrifices, and Witchcraft" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. [i.e. the government] For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
-Romans 13:1-4

Kent fought the 58 criminal charges brought against him, but a jury found him guilty of all of them, resulting in 120 months (10 years) in prison, and over $600,000 in fines. Jo Hovind, Kent's wife, also pled "not guilty" to all the charges against her, and she was fined and sentenced to 366 days in prison.

I would like to add in my opinion about Jo Hovind after reviewing all the details of this case; I personally do not believe that Jo wanted to go in with a "not guilty" plea, but I believe she was convinced to plead "not guilty" by Kent, his board of directors, and his law team, and because she did not understand the details of what was going on, in addition to the fact that she was scared and confused, she trusted them and went along with it. In fact, in a conversation Jo had with Kent while they were both incarcerated, Kent was dictating a letter he wanted his wife to send to the judge, and after writing it all down, Jo told Kent, "I don't want to send this, but I will." She was a completely obedient and dedicated wife, and Kent used her for his own ends. If Jo had pled "guilty" to the charges and explained to the judge that she was just following her husband's instructions, then it was likely she would have been given some fines and no jail time (because her initial sentencing ranged from zero to six months, and it was unlikely a first-time offender would be given max), but if she had done that, it would have destroyed Kent's case since he pled "NOT guilty" to the same charges.
(NOTE: I do not have much evidence to support that theory because Jo has not come forward with a testimony of her own. It is only my opinion that I deduced after trying to put all the pieces of the story together. See Kent & Jo Hovind, "Kent Hovind - County Jail Telephone Calls," ExtantDodo, retrieved May 14, 2020, [https://youtu.be/NBOfqyenPDc?t=1291])

Nonetheless, if anyone is going to say that the people operating Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) are faithful, born again Christians after reading all of this, then I think you have a gross misunderstanding about what a Christian is supposed to be. Either these are the most ignorant, foolish, rebellious, and blind Christians that have ever existed, and are in serious need of rebuke and repentance (i.e. godly sorrow of wrongdoing), or they are not of Christ in the first place because they are not exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit of God, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
-Galatians 5:22

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
-1 John 1:5-6

Instead of repenting (i.e. having grief and godly sorrow for his wrongdoing), Kent chose to continue lying to everyone. He claimed that he had no knowledge about avoiding the $10,000 structuring law, and that he did not owe the IRS any money, as he said on his show in 2015, after he was released from prison:
"It was unusual what happened. I was arrested for structuring, which I had never heard of, and for not withholding taxes for employees, which we didn't have to do; they all paid their own."
-Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - End Times - Jew Anti-Christ, Ron Wyatt, Future of DAL, Repentance, The Shack" Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Aug 21, 2015, retrieved Apr 1, 2020, [https://youtu.be/tGJ5kxD7OII?t=44]

I have seen numerous videos in which Kent claims he did not know about the structuring laws, but he still made sure to withdraw under $10,000 on a weekly basis for over four years, or in other words, I simply do not believe that Kent slipped on a financial banana peel and accidentally fell head-first into dodging structuring rules for almost half a decade. When all this first happened (i.e. back when I was a dedicated student of Kent), I remember Kent testifying that the IRS seized around $80,000 out of his house, and I was angered by that at the time, but what I did not know back then was that the seized funds had accumulated over years of withdrawing increments of less than $10,000 every week, and Kent was storing that money in his house to pay employees under the table as needed, which means he KNEW about the structuring (i.e. it was premeditated), and avoided it on purpose to keep investigators from taking a closer look at his business.

The reason I am being so detailed about this is because the average Hovindite will trust everything Kent says without investigating the facts. (And again, I used to be a Hovindite too, so I know how they think.) They will blindly believe that Kent is innocent and that the evil government railroaded him, but the fact is that the county and the IRS were VERY longsuffering with Kent, while he rebelled and lifted himself up in his pride, refusing to listen and understand, just like many of his followers still do to this day.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18

One of Kent's dedicated supporters, Jen Fishburne, thoroughly documented what she saw and heard at Kent's trial:
"Kent claimed that based upon the advice of Glen Stoll, who now controls Creation Science Evangelism, he did not take out more than $10,000 cash from the bank at any one time, using the cash to pay his missionaries who preferred cash and to pay for the expenses of the ministry... Although Kent repeatedly stated that he was not a tax protester, the judge insisted that the evidence was to the contrary, being especially persuaded by the fact that Kent had given control of his ministry to Glen Stoll of Remedies at Law, apparently someone toward whom judges in tax fraud cases have very little charity."
-Jen Fishburne, "Kent Hovind: Maxed Minus One," Jen's Gems, Jan 19, 2007, retrieved Apr 1, 2020, [jensgems.blogspot.com/2007/01/kent-hovind-maxed-minus-one.html]

Before I provide details on Glen Stoll, I want to mention that Kent was also lying to the court in a way that the court did not realize because Kent was (at the time, and still is) a tax protester, rebelling against paying taxes. I know what Kent is doing, and I know what these people are like, because I got brainwashed into the same false doctrines of such rebels for a short time, and thank God, He saved me out of their deception so I could live Biblically according to Christ's doctrine.

For example, Chad Hovind, Kent's nephew, wrote a short testimony on his own blog about his time around his dad and his uncles:
"Ocassionally [sic], someone mistakes me and my family with my eccentric uncles. [sic] My uncle Kent is a world famous (at least among the solo Baptist churches that lean fundamentalist and among the atheists who hate him) creationist who spoke hundreds of times a year until he was jailed for tax evasion 6-7 years ago. I have rarely spoken to my uncle Kent over the years; and the few times we talked were at family gatherings or vacations where he was trying to convince family members that social security was optional, paying income tax was unconstitutional, and his twenty year battle with the IRS was going well."
-Chad Hovind, "You can Pick Your Friends, But Not Your Family (Chad Hovind and Kent Hovind)," retrieved Apr 22, 2020, [beliefnet.com/columnists/godonomics/2011/09/you-can-pick-your-friends-but-not-your-family-chad-hovind-and-kent-hovind.html]

Of course, it is true that social security and income taxes are unconstitutional, meaning that they oppose the directives of the U.S. Constitution, but I will not be discussing the details of that subject in this book. I say that only to point out the fact that there are errors and misunderstandings both from Kent and his family on this subject, but that being said, just because something is unconstitutional does not automatically mean that it is unlawful (even though those regulations should be unlawful, but because our government has corruptions in it, laws and taxes now exist that contradict the U.S. Constitution), and therefore, we Christians are instructed to follow the laws of the land, even if we do not like or agree with them.

So based on Chad's testimony, we can see that Kent's own family believes he is guilty as well, and the way Chad wrote it, it seems like he was unsurprised that Kent was thrown in jail for tax evasion. This is because, from his early memories of family gatherings, Kent was preaching anti-tax doctrine, and so when Kent told the court he was not a tax protester, once again, he was lying.

Chad ended his post by saying:
"Over the years, I've tried to keep the old advice, 'If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all.' I wrote this blog simply because a few have confused me with other family members with my two books coming out last July. We can pick our friends, but not our family. Even when family members do the wrong thing and we want to distance ourselves, the Bible reminds us to love the unlovable, visit the prisoner in prison (even if you think they've reaped what they've sown),"
-Chad Hovind, "You can Pick Your Friends, But Not Your Family (Chad Hovind and Kent Hovind)," retrieved Apr 22, 2020, [beliefnet.com/columnists/godonomics/2011/09/you-can-pick-your-friends-but-not-your-family-chad-hovind-and-kent-hovind.html]

By Chad's choice of words, it was very easy to see the bad things he "did not want to say." We can see that, to begin with, Chad and his family do not have anything good to say about Kent, secondly, Chad believes Kent got what he deserved, and finally, Kent's own family sees him as an "unlovable" person they are trying to love, and when we get to later chapters in this book, you will be able to see the whole truth about Kent's off-camera character, which will provide more reasoning as to why Chad said this.
(NOTE: I do not trust Chad Hovind either, simply because Chad is very much into mainstream church-ianity, which means there is a long list of false doctrines he teaches because he has little understanding of God's Word.)

Getting back to Glen Stoll, he is the man Kent hired to build a trust for Creation Science Evangelism (CSE), and Stoll is not looked upon favorably by the courts because, for many years, he was running something called "sham trusts." A trust is a legal way for an individual (referred to as a "settlor") to distribute another person's assets on his/her behalf to certain beneficiaries (e.g. a man dying of illness might start a trust to distribute his assets to his children), but a sham trust is an invalid trust, meaning that the settlor running the sham trust only gives the outward appearance of intending to distribute assets to beneficiaries to avoid taxation, but in reality, they have deceptive intentions, intending to keep all the money (either for themselves or their trustee), or in other words, sham trusts are money laundering schemes, and Glen Stoll is a con artist who has had a history of working with churchgoers who are trying to avoid taxes.

The following is a Department of Justice Court Bar from the State of Washington against Glen Stoll:
"The Justice Department announced today that a federal court in Seattle has permanently barred Glen Stoll, of Edmonds, Washington, and two of his businesses, 'Nonprofit Commercial Enterprises' and 'Director and General Counsel for Remedies at Law,' from selling tax-fraud schemes that use sham trusts to help customers evade federal income taxes. In entering the order, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington also ordered Stoll to provide the government his customers' names, mailing and e-mail addresses, telephone and Social Security numbers, and to post a copy of the injunction order on his website.
The court found that Stoll, who falsely claimed to be a lawyer, and his businesses sell a fraudulent 'corporation sole' and 'ministerial trust' scheme, falsely telling customers that conducting their business activities and funding their lifestyles through a so-called ministerial trust eliminates their obligations to file federal tax returns and pay federal tax. The court found that one customer, after being contacted by the IRS for an audit, voluntarily filed two delinquent tax returns showing more than $40,000 in taxes due. The court also found that despite IRS audits of many of the defendants' customers, the defendants continued to promote the fraudulent scheme, for which they charged at least $4,000, plus $120 for seminars and hourly consulting fees."
-U.S. Department of Justice, "Court Bars Washington State Tax Scam - Edmonds Man Sold Phony Trusts," July 6, 2005, retrieved Apr 1, 2020, [justice.gov/archive/tax/txdv05362.htm]

That was published in 2005, the year before Kent and Jo were arrested, and Kent defended Stoll both during the trial and in later interviews, so it is no wonder why the judge did not trust Kent, considering how much Kent lied, and how much he defended a con artist like Glen Stoll. Kent could have easily said he did not know what Stoll was doing and pinned the entire thing on him, which, if that were true, I believe would have led the judge to be much more lenient with Kent, but Kent instead chose to yoke together with Stoll's criminal activities, and that provides more evidence of Kent's deception, and his anti-tax protesting over the past few decades. (i.e. It means the judge on Kent's case was correct in her assessment of Kent.)

And as of 2019, Glen Stoll is still being prosecuted for fraud:
"A federal grand jury in Portland has returned a seven-count indictment [accusation] charging Glen Stoll, 68, a resident of Washington State, with multiple crimes stemming from a scheme whereby he organized, promoted, and marketed fraudulent tax avoidance strategies. Stoll made his initial appearance in the District of Oregon today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. Stoll is charged with one count each of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and making a false statement on a loan application and three counts of tax evasion."
-U.S. Attorney's Office, "Washington State Man Accused of Marketing Fraudulent Tax Avoidance Schemes Disguised as Churches, Other Entities," U.S. Department of Justice, Apr 19, 2019, retrieved June 3, 2020, [justice.gov/usao-or/pr/washington-state-man-accused-marketing-fraudulent-tax-avoidance-schemes-disguised]

In many of his videos, Kent also claimed that, by keeping his bank transactions underneath $10,000, he did not violate any law, but the following quote is from the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and it points out that bank structuring (which is what Kent was arrested for) does not need to exceed $10,000 to be considered a violation because it includes avoidance of filing paperwork in any manner:
"'In any manner' includes, but is not limited to, the breaking down of a single sum of currency exceeding $10,000 into smaller sums, including sums at or below $10,000, or the conduct of a transaction, or series of currency transactions, including transactions at or below $10,000. The transaction or transactions need not exceed the $10,000 reporting threshold at any single financial institution on any single day in order to constitute structuring within the meaning of this definition."
-The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989, p. 394-395

Any transaction for any reason could be considered "structuring" under those terms, which is why so many Americans fear the IRS; they have far too much power to interpret any case in their favor, especially if the business owners being investigated have done nothing wrong. However, in many situations, it simply comes down to intent, meaning that a man that makes multiple bank withdrawals for $9,900 in cash to purchase things he wants to buy does not break any laws by avoiding the paperwork because he is not hiding any illegal activity. The structuring law ONLY applies in cases where someone is trying to hide illegal activity. The bank structuring law is somewhat of a discretionary law that simply allows investigators to add another piece of evidence that a district attorney can use to help them in the prosecution of criminals, such as Kent Hovind and Glen Stoll, who were hiding illegal activity.

Of course, the IRS has been rebuked by Congress for many years, due to their practice of seizing funds and freezing bank accounts without bringing charges against the people they are harassing, and that is based on their carte blanche (i.e. discretionary) power to interpret a situation as they please, without having to provide hard evidence as one would typically have to do in a court of law. As of 2015, Congress has begun to hold the IRS accountable for ruining the lives of thousands of law-abiding American business owners over structuring:
"Pressured by Congress, the IRS said Wednesday it is changing its policies and apologizing for seizing bank accounts from otherwise law-abiding business owners simply because they structured bank transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements. Their alleged crime: routinely making bank deposits of less than $10,000. That allowed the business owners to avoid reporting requirements designed to catch drug dealers and money launderers. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress that the IRS is changing policies to prevent the seizures, as long as the money came from legal means. 'To anyone who is not treated fairly under the code, I apologize,' Koskinen told the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. 'Taxpayers have to be comfortable that they will be treated fairly.' By law, bank transactions above $10,000 must be reported to the IRS. It's a felony, called "structuring," to manage transactions to avoid the reporting requirement, even if the money is legally earned. In some cases, the IRS seized and held bank accounts for years without bringing charges."
-Stephen Ohlemacher, "IRS apologizes for using bank secrecy law to seize accounts of law-abiding small businesses," Associated Press, Feb 11, 2015, retrieved Aug 12, 2015, [usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/02/11/irs-apologizes-for-seizing-bank-accounts-of-small-businesses]

There are two problems with this, the first being that an IRS apology does not give restitution for the damage they have caused to thousands of honest American business owners that had their lives ruined by structuring accusations, and conveniently, no one at the IRS lost their jobs over this matter. To clarify, please notice that the IRS Commissioner said that they were changing their policies, "as long as the money came from LEGAL means," and so the second problem is that Kent IS guilty of structuring because he WAS covering up his refusal to pay withholding taxes, which means that this apology does NOT apply to Kent's case.

Kent also claimed the IRS ordered the immediate seizure of all copies of DVD #5 (i.e. The Dangers of Evolution), and in 2016, a year after his release, Kent gave a presentation at a church building in Washington in which he said:
"It's the most bizarre thing. The IRS came and raided our ministry with a SWAT team [U.S. Special Weapons and Tactics] and they said 'Get every DVD #5 you can find.'"
-Kent Hovind, "Kent Hovind in Spokane, WA - Part 2," Pilgrim Slavic MB Baptist Church, Nov 26, 2016, retrieved Apr 3, 2020, [https://youtu.be/zMSLeB2WjVE?t=411]

Again, this is another LIE coming from Kent to try and persuade people to support him. I remember this being talked about many years ago after Kent got arrested, and I was enraged when I heard about it, but I made the mistake of trusting Kent without checking out the facts, and I got fooled. The video seized was NOT Kent's seminar #5, but rather, it was an anti-tax video that was taped on location at CSE's offices with a man by the name of Joe Sweet.

I will reveal more information about Joe Sweet in a moment, but first I want to establish the evidence that he was involved with Kent and CSE. Daniel Nelson, a former employee of CSE who was one of the few people present at the filming of that video back in 1998, testified in court about its creation:
"Q. At some point in time, prior to January of 1998, did you attend a videotaping event?
A. Prior to '98?
Q. Prior to 1998. Let me throw out a name and see if this means anything to you. Joe Sweet.
A. Yes, I know Joe Sweet.
Q. Did Joe Sweet give any talks or lectures at CSE?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the subject matter of his talks or lectures?
A. I think it was Good News, was the title of the speech.
Q. What was the subject matter?
A. Taxes.
Q. What about taxes?
A. Whether or not they were --

[Objections are made and discussions at the bench take place, then questioning resumes...]

Q. All right. Tell me about the circumstances -- before you tell me about what Mr. Sweet was saying, tell me about the circumstances surrounding the taping, who was there, who was doing the taping, where was it.
A. It was on the gazebo at the headquarters. Mr. Sweet wanted a video copy. We had the equipment to be able to do that for him, and Mr. Hovind offered to allow the recording to happen so that he could have it for his own ministry. Several of -- friends and family and stuff like that were invited, just so that there would be an audience for audience shots.

[Later during the questioning, and after more objections and bench discussions...]

Q. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Nelson. I was asking about generally the subject matter of the lecture that Mr. Sweet gave that was recorded.
A. It was about taxes.
Q. And what position was Mr. Sweet taking on taxes?
A. That it was not necessary to pay them.
Q. And did you receive money from CSE, from the ministry?
A. Through a trust fund, yes."
-Testimony of Daniel Nelson, USA v Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts, Vol. 3, Oct 19, 2006, [scribd.com/document/256378034/USA-v-Kent-Hovind-Trial-Transcripts-3-of-8]; See also Hovindology, "Kent Hovind Frequently Asked Questions," retrieved Apr 3, 2020, [hovindology.com/?page_id=103], or [dropbox.com/s/f8jgy8ofm69zbdz/Trial%20Transcripts%20Vol%20III.pdf?dl=0]

If you read the entire transcript, Mr. Nelson goes on to explain that he was told that all money would have to go through the trust fund, and that it was all non-taxable. Again, that is Glen Stoll's sham trust because they were paying employees under the table through the trust to cover up their tax evasion.

Joseph (Joe) N. Sweet is a Florida resident who, in 2010, was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to ten years in prison for running tax-avoidance scams, in which, through the customers that hired him, he stole $3.8 million in legally-owed taxes by these businesses:
"A jury convicted Sweet, 66, in March of conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, corruptly interfering with the IRS and contempt of court... Sweet began marketing and selling so-called tax-defier books and strategies in the mid 1990's... They claimed people who bought their materials could legally avoid paying federal income taxes by putting income and assets in 'sham' trusts sold by their businesses,"
-Richard Danielson, "Guru of income-tax avoidance sentenced to 10 years in prison," Tampa Bay Times, Oct 15, 2010, retrieved Apr 3, 2020, [taif.rssing.com/chan-2218729/all_p117.html]

Once again, let me state my position on this: The withholding tax issue is complicated, deceptive, and unconstitutional, and I hate the fact that it exists. Furthermore, things like income tax, Medicare tax, and social security tax are ALL unconstitutional because they are not properly proportioned (i.e. distributed evenly among all who pay), and our own government has usurped power they do not have on this matter. However (as of 2020), when someone files a corporate business, they sign a contract (i.e. they give their word) that requires them to legally comply with IRS regulations, and the solution to the problem is NOT to get in business with scam artists who run sham trusts to secretively rebel against the contracts these people signed with the government.

The above article points out that Sweet lied when he was questioned; federal investigators demanded to get the names and details of his clients, and even though Sweet said he did not have any information on them, when they searched his house, they found all the customer records they were looking for. He could have said he had them, but refused to hand them over, and yet, he chose to lie, and that does not speak well for his character. The point is that this is one of the men who Kent invited to CSE to teach and record seminars (which were made into tax evasion videos that were sold to churchgoers so Kent could profit from it, because he was making money on the video tapes he sold), but Kent has never once repented (i.e. had godly sorrow) of his wrongdoing.

Does all this sound like standard practices that should come from a Christian ministry?

As I quoted earlier, during a 2016 seminar (i.e. ten years after his trial), Kent claimed to a large audience that the IRS seized his Seminar #5, The Dangers of Evolution. Kent knows full-well that the tape in question was the Joe Sweet video, not Seminar #5, but Kent continues to lie to everyone to try and gain sympathetic support.

The following is from the court case in which they were discussing the VHS tape that they "seized from the search warrant," and this is the same video that Kent was saying they took from his house when they arrested him:
"You remember the videotape that Rebecca Horton testified about. The videotape was the videotape that alerted Mrs. Horton that there was a problem at CSE, which led to her concluding that none of her students should work there. Dan Nelson [the witness who testified about the Joe Sweet video in the court transcript] testified that he witnessed such a tape [i.e. the Joe Sweet anti-tax video] being created there at CSE. So for whatever reason, for whatever purpose CSE was created, I imagine from the creationist's viewpoint, this is something that occurred on the premises that was specifically not related to creationism, to the very purpose that Mr. Hovind claims to have created this business. And admittedly, most of the business that occurred there had to do with creation versus evolution. This is something different. This is something that was anti-tax and anti-government that Mr. Hovind produced right there on the premises. What does that tell you? That tells you that his belief, again, is insincere, whatever belief that he claims to have that caused him not to pay his taxes, to not withhold income taxes and FICA [Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or federal payroll] taxes from his employees, is an insincere belief. It is based on his underlying tax protestor attitude, anti-government, anti-tax. He just doesn't want to participate, even though he knows the law requires him to do so."
-USA v Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts, Vol. 9, Nov 2, 2006, [https://www.scribd.com/document/256378028/USA-v-Kent-Hovind-Trial-Transcripts-8-of-8]

The court transcript shows us that the video that was "seized from the search warrant," was the Joe Sweet anti-tax video that Kent Hovind recorded on site at Creation Science Evangelism (NOT Seminar #5, The Dangers of Evolution), and whether or not you approve of the government confiscating those videos, you can now know for certain that Kent Hovind is a LIAR. If any Hovindite wants to demonize me for pointing this out, that is their business, but God will judge all these things. (Mat 12:36) This is not up for debate or interpretation because Kent was still making these statements when I completed this book in 2020, 14 years after the trial had ended, which means if Kent was ignorant of anything, he is WILLINGLY ignorant, or as he used to say in his seminars, he is "dumb on purpose."

In his Seminar #5, Kent used to say:
"They [the founding fathers of the USA] kept talking about the right of the people because of the fact they were created by God. When you get a bunch of people together who believe they were created, they don't make good slaves. They are going to throw the tea in the harbor and start a big war."
-Kent Hovind, "Seminar 5 The Dangers of Evolution, part c," 2003, retrieved May 13, 2020, [wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-seminar_part5c_2007.html#nwodeclarindepend]

The story of the Boston Tea Party was that some founders dressed up as the American natives (i.e. commonly referred to as "Indians") to steal and destroy tea on a merchant ship because they were angry about the tax on the tea. This was NOT a Biblical action by any means because, first of all, Christians do not go around stealing and destroying other people's property, and secondly, if we committed a crime, we would not sneak around like a coward and try to pin our crimes on someone else.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
-Romans 13:12-13

The Boston Tea Party was NOT necessary for the independence of the original thirteen American colonies for many reasons that I will not discuss here; however, Kent Hovind is still teaching this unbiblical concept today, and I have heard him express his desire for Americans to have another "Boston Tea Party" again. In the pride of his heart, Kent does not want to confess his wrongdoing because he has no grief and sorrow for his sin against God and the pain he has caused everyone around him, most especially his own family, and that lack of repentance brings us to the next topic...

#2 - Kent's False Doctrine on Repentance

Not only does Kent teach repentance in error, but he has changed what he used to teach to something entirely different, and now his doctrine has become worse then it was beforehand. Part of the problem is that he has been influenced in recent years by another corrupt preacher (i.e. a wolf in disguise) by the name of Steven L. Anderson, and we will discuss more on Anderson and Hovind's relationship in chapter three, but for now, I want to point out that, today, Hovind is teaching doctrine that aligns with the heresy of Anderson.
(Read "Wolves in Costume: Steven L. Anderson" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Before I continue, it is important to understand that the word 'repent' in Scripture does NOT mean "to turn from sin" or "to change one's mind." It is a very common false teaching in church buildings around the world, but the Bible never defines the word 'repent' in that way. The word 'convert' means "to turn" or "to change," but the word 'repent' generally means "grief" (or sorrow) that one experiences in the heart, and in terms of the salvation of mankind, it means "grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing."

In the beginning of the Bible, God defined repentance as "grief in the heart."

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
-Genesis 6:6

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
-2 Corinthians 7:9-10

The doctrine of repentance is directly tied to the doctrine of salvation, and anyone who teaches otherwise is in very serious error.

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
-Luke 13:3

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance [godly sorrow of wrongdoing] and remission [forgiveness] of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:44-47

If anyone would like to learn more about this subject, I have a teaching called "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com where you can get more details, and if you do not understand that subject matter, I would highly encourage you to go read it or listen to the audio teaching before you continue with this chapter. The following video is a series of audio clips I retrieved from YouTube host "LoneStar1776," whose real name is Rudy Davis, and though we will mention more about him later, for now, we only need to know that he did video uploads of interviews while Kent was in prison, and this will give us more information about Kent's doctrine on repentance:

DAVIS: "Okay, the next one [question] is from Josh. Josh says, I have a Bible question for Dr. Hovind relating to repentance and the Gospel. Why did Jesus let the rich young ruler die and go to hell? Wouldn't this story indicate that God is NOT—and 'not' is capitalized—wouldn't this story indicate that God is NOT so eager to save that He will cheapen the Gospel to the point of not including repentance from sin?"

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

Before we continue to go over the interview, it should be noted that the author of the question (i.e. Josh) does not understand the meaning of repentance. In every instance where the word 'repent' has a preposition attached to it in a sentence, the Bible uses the phrase "repent OF," not "repent FROM," and there is a very important distinction there.

When we use the word 'turn' in a sentence, we use the preposition 'from' after it, so for example, "Sally turned from the house," which indicates direction and location. The Bible uses turn in the same way, namely, "turn from." I want to point out that the word 'repent' is never used that way in Scripture. Notice that when the word 'repent' is used in the Bible, it is always followed with the preposition 'of', which is an indication of a relationship between two things (i.e. grief and the heart), but today, most pastors and churchgoers use the phrase "repent from" all the time, despite the fact that it is not how the Bible uses it.

For example:

Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
-Jonah 3:9-10

In these verses, it says if God will "turn away FROM his fierce anger," and that the people of Nineveh "turned FROM their evil way." In the next part, it says that "God repented OF the evil" that He was going to do to them. The prepositions change for the word 'repent'. 'From' is used in context of distance, region, or position, but 'of' is used in context of the source, author, or object. The words 'repent' and 'of' are based on the person, whereas the words 'turn' and 'from' are based on the direction.

Therefore, in nearly all cases, when you hear someone use the phrase "repent FROM sin," you can deduce that they carry a false definition of the word 'repent' because they believe it means "to turn" or "to change." In this case, it is very likely that Josh holds on to a false definition of repentance (i.e. he believes in the false definition that 'repent' means "to turn"), and that being said, let's continue to hear Kent's response:

HOVIND: "Hmm, well, there is a couple of built-in assumptions in that question. I don't think it's 'cheapening the Gospel' to not include repentance. I just talked to Matt about that, and he played the video tape of me at the end of my seminar where I talk about repentance. I don't know that I've changed my mind. I guess I haven't analyzed it, but I think salvation is much simpler and freer than we wish, or than we think. I think there are at least a hundred verses in the book of John that talk about 'believe', and in Numbers—I think it's chapter 14—Moses made the brass serpent, lifted it up on the pole, and when people got bit, he said 'Look at it, and you'll be fine.' There's a song in our song book: 'Look and live, my brother, live'. And Jesus referred to that incident in John 3:14, he said, 'Even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up.' And then, in John 3:15 and 3:16 and John 3:36, it talks about 'believe'. There are at least a hundred verses that talk about 'believe' to be saved. There are a few, maybe two, that add the word 'repentance' in the same sentence with believe. There are one or two that add the word 'baptize' in the same sentence. For instance, Mark 16 I think it is; 'believe and be baptized'. You see, if you lined up all the verses about salvation, you would find all of them talk about belief, one or two of them add the word 'baptism' in the same context, and one or two add the word 'repent' in the same context.
My first question would be: If repentance or baptism (either one) is part of salvation, why isn't it in every verse dealing with salvation?"

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

Let's pause and go over some of these statements because Kent has made some wildly deceptive arguments that need to be explained. Remember, Kent has done thousands of hours of public speaking over many decades, and so he knows how to appease a crowd more than he has understanding of God's Word, and though many of these statements might be swallowed up by the average layman, anyone who has Scriptural understanding and discernment by the Holy Spirit will be able to quickly see through his facade.

For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:13-14

First of all, counting instances in which a particular word is mentioned in Scripture has to do with keyword searches and counting numbers, but doctrine has to do with context and understanding. To say "The Book of John talks mostly about belief, so therefore, repentance is not required for salvation," is a statement of ignorance that ignores the rest of the Gospel.

There are four Gospels for many reasons, and one of those reasons is correlating information that gives more details. For example:

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
-Matthew 18:21-22

Because many churchgoers have only read or heard this verse, I have often heard them say that you should forgive anyone of anything no matter what, under any circumstance. However, they leave out the doctrines of rebuke and repentance because they do not study correlating verses:

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
-Luke 17:3-4

So that is the danger of not studying correlating verses, and it creates false doctrines that lead people away from Christ and into suffering from trying to uphold standards that God never set for us. Unless a man has been humbled with a heart of grief and godly sorrow, the Lord God will not forgive him and give him grace, and according to these verses, He does not require us to do so either. (i.e. We are not required to openly trust and accept a man back among the fold if he has no humility and sorrow for his wrongdoing.)

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6

Secondly, Jesus and His disciples all went out preaching repentance to the people, as we can see if we take a look at the early days of Christ and the New Testament church. John the Baptist was a man who was prophesied to precede the coming of Jesus Christ, and his message was repentance for the remission of sins:

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance [grief and godly sorrow of sin] for the remission [forgiveness] of sins.
-Mark 1:4

John pointed to Christ, and the first thing Christ taught when He started His ministry was repentance:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
-Matthew 4:17

The first thing Jesus taught His disciples to go out and teach was repentance:

And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits... And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
-Mark 6:7-12

The first thing Christ's disciples and the early church taught the people was repentance, and Paul said that is also what he taught, and taught others in the church to do:

But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
-Acts 26:20

This is not to say that a man should not look to Christ, as Kent indicated, nor is this to say that a man should not have faith in Christ, which is how a man receives grace (Eph 2:8-9), but the Bible also teaches repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) in many places where the word 'repent' is never used. The problem is that preachers who rely on keyword searches rather than studying doctrine will not be able to see these instances because they do not have their discernment exercised in the Holy Spirit, being natural men who cannot understand the spiritual things of God.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

For example, if a man wants to know who God draws close to, and who God saves, the book of Psalm makes it very clear:

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

Remember, the definition of 'repent' means "grief and sorrow," and you will find that the words 'broken-hearted' and 'contrite' mean the same thing. For example, Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary (i.e. the definitions of which are based on context of the KJB) also defines these words in that way:

repentance (n): sorrow for any thing done or said; ; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct
broken-hearted (adj): having the spirits depressed or crushed by grief or despair
contrite (n): broken-hearted for sin; deeply affected with grief and sorrow for having offended God; humble; penitent
(See 'repentance', 'broken-hearted', & 'contrite', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 20, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

To provide another example, the Lord Jesus Christ gives a parable about two men, and He tells us which one goes home justified (i.e. saved):

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
-Luke 18:9-14

As you can see, the humble man in the back, being a generally despised man (i.e. because a publican is a tax-collector, who was hated by society), had such pain, grief, and sorrow of his sins within himself, that he beat on his chest because of the inward repentance. This repentant man, as Jesus said, went down to his house with salvation, even though these verses never mentioned the words 'salvation' or 'repentance'.

It gets even more interesting when we read verse 8, which prefaces this parable:

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
-Luke 18:8

This indicates that true faith only comes from those who have a heart of repentance, meaning that they came to grief and godly sorrow of their sins. If someone claims to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but has never been humbled to repentance, they have a fake faith, and as Jesus also taught in what commonly known as "The Sermon on the Mount," they will be turned away from Him to everlasting fire.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many [not few] will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied [taught/interpreted the Word of God] in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23
(Read Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

There is so much more that could be said here, and again, I encourage readers to go read the article "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com to get more information. There is a lot of doctrine that Kent is missing because he is spending more time counting words than studying them, and without the Holy Spirit of God, he cannot discern the truth of these subjects.

As a side note, Kent has not taught repentance in this way in years past, and I know that because (as I stated at the beginning of this teaching) I used to be one of Kent's most dedicated students. The reason he is more recently teaching repentance in this way is because he was visited in prison by Steven Anderson who has taught him these things (i.e. they spoke numerous times in years prior to the those recordings), and Hovind swallowed Anderson's false doctrines, but we will discuss more on the yoke between Hovind and Anderson later.

Now, let's answer Kent's question: "If repentance or baptism (either one) is part of salvation, why isn't it in every verse dealing with salvation?" Since Kent enjoys translating the meaning behind the questions of scoffing evolutionists, allow me to do the same for what Kent is actually asking: "Why didn't God write Scripture the way Kent Hovind would prefer to have it?"

The question is deceptive, arrogant, and lacking in understanding in many aspects, but to address it directly, God explains to us not only how to study His Word in Isaiah, but also why He structured it in the way He did:

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little... that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
-Isaiah 28:10-13

The word 'precept' means "commandment," and so commandments should be compared with other commandments to get a full understanding. The phrase "line upon line" means that you must read the Word of God in the context it is written, and "here a little, and there a little" means that you will not find every part of a doctrine in one location because God most often reveals the fullness of a doctrine in pieces.

So why did God not set up His Word in such a way that everything was organized alphabetically like a dictionary, and has an index at the end where you can sort everything by topic? Why did God not repeat the exact same phrases in every instance to make it easy to copy and paste? The Lord God did things this way so that false preachers like Kent Hovind would trip over themselves in their doctrine, having no understanding, and fall backwards, so that way the children of God (who have been given the blessing of the Holy Spirit for understanding) would more easily be able to see the difference between the sheep and the wolves, and can mark and beware of them.

In short, my answer to Kent is this: You are not God. He does not exist to meet your personal preferences, and furthermore, He did it that way on purpose so you would go around teaching false doctrine on repentance, and that we would clearly see that you do not understand the Gospel, so we can avoid you.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
-Romans 16:17

We can see Kent's arrogance in what he says next, in which he claims that the Bible (i.e. God Himself) is wrong for not structuring His Word in the way Kent would prefer it to be:

HOVIND: "It would seem wrong for it not to be in every single verse, if it is indeed part. Secondly, is baptism, or repentance—either one—is that a work that man does? Are we adding our works to God's finished salvation?"

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

This is also very deceptive because Kent is doing the same thing that he accuses evolutionists of doing in live debates I have watched. Many times, I have watched Kent talk to evolutionists in which they say words like 'evolution', but then not specify whether they mean "micro-evolution" (small changes) or "macro-evolution" (giants leaps, like the fantasy of lizard to bird), and then they keep switching the definition whenever it suits them.

In this instance, Kent has done the same thing by redefining repentance to mean "turning from sin," which is not what the Bible teaches us. He then rightly calls "turning from sin" a work, but then says we cannot earn our way to heaven, which is also correct, but then ends by claiming that repentance has no part in salvation, and that is the sleight-of-hand by which he (like a magician) fools his captivated audience.

As we have already seen, the Bible defines 'repentance' as "grief and sorrow," and nowhere does the Bible call that grief of wrongdoing a "work" of any kind, but rather, the Bible says that repentance is a gift from God:

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2 Timothy 2:25

If repentance was just "good works" as Kent asserted, then good works (according to this verse) would have to be the gift of God, and therefore, the wages of sin being death (Rom 6:23) would be God's fault for not giving us the good works of "turning from sin," or in other words, it is a false doctrine that would essentially blame sin on God. That is nonsensical and contradictory to everything else in Scripture. Rather, God gives men godly sorrow, by which they recognize and confess their lost and vile condition, and that leads them to Christ, who (by grace through faith) converts them (i.e. turns them from sin and changes their minds) and heals them.

convert (n): to change or turn from one religion to another, or from one party or sect to another; to turn from a bad life to a good one; to change the heart and moral character
(See 'convert', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 26, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-Acts 28:27

Kent brought up the book of John and how the word 'repent' is never mentioned in the book of John (which is his parroting of the Steven Anderson argument), but did you know that the word 'love' is never mentioned in the book of Acts? If Kent's argument were true that repentance had no part in salvation because it was not mentioned in the book of John, then we would also have to conclude that love has no part in the church because it was not mentioned in the book of Acts, but we who are of Christ know that is absurd because we have correlating Scripture to verify these things:

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
-1 Peter 1:22

And likewise, we have correlating Scripture to verify that repentance IS a requirement for the justification of saving grace, as Jesus taught:

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
-Luke 13:5

Thus, instead of worshiping the Lord God, and kneeling before His Word, Kent worships his own brain, and says to God in his heart: "Why can't you think more like me?" Personally, I find Kent's arrogance sickening, but I suspect there were not many who listened to these interviews who caught his prideful error.

Kent continues to deceive his listeners by comparing repentance to baptism:

HOVIND: "I think baptism is important, and I got baptized after I got saved, and I've tried to repent of all my sins. I have not succeeded at that yet; I won't tell you what the rest of them are, but I'm still working on that."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

So we can see that Kent is using the word 'repent' to mean "turn from sin." It does not make any sense for someone to say that they have "tried to have godly sorrow of all their sins" because it is not a matter of effort (i.e. it is not a work), but rather, it is a matter of conviction, and when anyone sees someone alone and crying in grief, we never call that a "good work" because there is no work involved, which is why the Bible tells us that we should bring forth fruits meet for (or worthy of) repentance:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
-Matthew 3:8

The fruits Jesus is talking about are the good works we do (and sound doctrine we preach), so should we say that Jesus told us to turn from sin and bring forth good works meet for turning from sin and bringing forth good works? Or, should we say that we should bring forth good works meet for a heart of godly sorrow of wrongdoing? For Christians, the answer should be clear by now, but Kent will teach the opposite because he cannot understand, and that is also because he has never come to that repentance, and we will see more evidence of that later.

HOVIND: "That's quite an issue today among Christian circles, and I would come down—at least now—my current understanding after 46 years of studying that book, is that repentance is something that comes as a result of salvation. You don't want to sin anymore. You're born again, but it's more in the works category than in the faith category."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

This is not just a problem with Kent Hovind, but also with many churchgoers, in which they believe that simply believing on Jesus makes a person not want to sin anymore. If that were true, then Catholics (for example, who claim they believe on Jesus, but are not Christians) would not sin as much as they do, so that argument is absurd and nonsensical.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

If what Kent is saying was true, then there would be no reason to spank a child in discipline. Parents know very well that when a child is being rebellious against the commandment of the parent, the solution is not to tell them to believe and trust in the parent, but rather, the solution is a spanking, by which the child may come to repentance (i.e. grief and sorrow) of his wrongdoing, and while in tears of repentance, he would develop a desire to be obedient.

Without that repentant heart, the child will continue to act in disobedience, doing whatever he pleases, and care nothing for what the parents tell him. With that simple understanding, the Word of God should become clearer to those who have faith and understanding in Christ:

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 18:4

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
-Mark 10:15

Blessed are the poor in spirit [i.e. those who grieve in their hearts]: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5:3

Repent ye [come to godly sorrow of your wrongdoing] therefore, and be converted [turned from your sin and your mind changed], that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
-Acts 3:19

And again, I want to quote from First Corinthians to explain that a man can study the Bible for hundreds of years, and never have understanding of the doctrine unless he has his understanding opened by the Spirit of God. Sadly, many preachers put their faith into their own minds, rather than on the Holy Ghost.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:13-14

Before we read the next part of what Kent teaches, I want readers to understand that Kent's old website, drdino.com, is operating again, as has his old name for his ministry "Creation Science Evangelism." However, before he re-adopted CSE and drdino.com, his site was called 2peter3.com, and I want readers to keep this in mind because it will be important for what we are about to read:

HOVIND: "The Bible clearly says the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, I understand. There seems to be quite a conflict among Christians these days of exactly: what must I do to be saved? And this has kind of always been the thing, coming to the head again now like it does every twenty or thirty years. Is it easy-believism or is there a series of steps we have to take. Someone here gave me a book, an article, to read two days ago saying, 'Ooh, you gotta' do—probably most of the people who think they're saved aren't, you know, you don't just say a prayer'. The other side of that coin is 2 Peter 3: 'God is not willing that any should perish!' He wants everybody to be saved."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

It is fascinating how willingly blind and deceptive Kent Hovind is because, not only has he quoted from 2 Peter 3 MANY times in his seminars and debates (i.e. so many times that I now have many verses from the chapter memorized), and not only did Kent name his blog after 2 Peter 3, but when he preaches that repentance has no place in salvation, and that God wants everyone to be saved, Kent WILL NOT FINISH quoting verse 9. Kent quoted a portion of it, but not the entire verse, and I KNOW he did that on purpose because I know for a fact that he has most of that chapter memorized. Kent's False Converts [creationliberty.com]

Kent's False Converts [creationliberty.com]

(See Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind's Official Website," Internet Archives Wayback Machine, May 30, 2016, retrieved Mar 26, 2020, [web.archive.org/web/20160530054854/https://2peter3.com])

Read the verse for yourself:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2 Peter 3:9

I am not saying that God does not want everyone to be saved because I believe God DOES want as many as possible to be saved, but that verse says that He wants everyone to come to REPENTANCE, which is how they can be saved in the first place because repentance is a vital component to salvation, as the previous verses I have quoted have proven. This also correlates with another verse from Jesus Christ I quoted earlier:

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
-Luke 13:3

Kent knows there is a contradiction between what he is teaching and what the Bible says, which is why he does not finish quoting 2 Peter 3:9. Therefore, I can confidently say that Kent does NOT believe the Lord Jesus Christ on the doctrine of repentance, nor does he trust what 2 Peter 3 says.

One of the primary reasons Kent rejects the doctrine of repentance is because, if what the Bible says about repentance is true, it would mean that, not only has Kent Hovind not been given repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) to acknowledge truth, but most of those thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people over the years who claim they came to Christ because of Kent's ministry, would have become churchgoers, and not Christians. That thought is so abhorrent to Kent, he would rather believe a lie than to face the truth, namely, that not only has Kent created countless false converts, but that he himself is not saved.

For example, many of those who Kent claims were converted under his prison ministry are not saved because they believed his false gospel. They repeated after Kent and said a "sinner's prayer," but most of them never had godly sorrow in their hearts to be humbled unto the Lord God. The name of Kent's prison ministry is very fitting because it is called "Kent's Converts," and I believe that makes sense because they are not converts unto Christ, but converts unto Kent. Kent's False Converts [creationliberty.com]

(See Kent Hovind, "Kent's Converts Prison Ministry," retrieved Mar 26, 2020, [kentsconverts.wordpress.com])

The audio interview changes over to a host named Matt, who plays a clip from Kent's seminar series and asked him about his doctrine on repentance. Sadly, Matt also believes in the false doctrine that 'repent' means "to turn from sin."

MATT: "There's some people who watched the outro on your creation videos where you say that to be saved you have to repent. Repent means turn; turn as to—two definitions. It means turn from sin, and turn to God. Could you maybe explain why you said it that way?"
HOVIND: "Well, I don't know exactly what I said. I haven't seen any videos at all in eight years, but I don't remember that specifically. I may have. I think, if so, it may be that I hadn't thoroughly researched the implications of all of that... Ray Comfort, for instance—good friend of mine, great guy, godly man, loves the Lord—he's real strong on repentance, but I don't think it's possible to remember all your sins. What if you forget two of them? You know, then what? What if you forget one of them?"

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

The problem with his question should be clear by now because repentance does not mean that you must remember every wrongdoing you have ever done, but rather, it means you come to godly sorrow of your vile and wicked state, in which you have generally offended and hurt God. Furthermore, those who have come to repentance in Christ understand that they do not have to remember every sin they have ever done because they know they are guilty of all sin.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
-James 2:10

Furthermore, Ray Comfort is deceptive too because he flip-flops on the subject (i.e. he contradicts himself). On the one hand, Ray teaches that repentance is godly sorrow, but then turns around in other places and teaches that it means "to turn from sin," and furthermore, in 2014, Ray confessed that he has never come to repentance. If you would like to learn more about that, I have quotations from Ray Comfort along with references in my teaching "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com. (To clarify: I do not support or recommend Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort.)

HOVIND: "I'll have to go back and look and see what I said and see, you know, would I say it again? [i.e. He is asking himself if he would teach repentance unto salvation.] Probably not. I would say that would come after salvation. You're asking a dead man to be hungry. He's not hungry. After he gets alive, born again, then the hunger will come, and the desire to want to serve God. Yeah, I'll review that when I get out. Good point. Don't have an answer right now."
MATT: "Would you like me to play the quick clip for you, just so you can hear it?"
HOVIND: "If you'd like, sure."
MATT: "Okay."

HOVIND [RECORDING FROM SEMINARS]: "Let me explain what you need to do to go to heaven. The Bible says we're all sinners. We've all broken God's laws. We've disobeyed the creator. We've done wicked things. We're sinners. Some are worse than others in man's eyes, but we've all broken God's laws. The Bible says you have to repent. The word repent means 'to turn'. It actually means two things: to turn from your sin and turn to God."

MATT: "If you heard that, I guess that's what was raising a lot of controversy from people."
HOVIND: "Ah! Okay. Well, that might be from my influence from Ray Comfort, Living Waters, who I still gladly recommend and love in the Lord. I've stayed at his house and consider him a friend. Hmm... I know he's much stronger on that and emphasizes that. Yeah, I think I will change that. [i.e. remove repentance from his salvation message] I think it is—salvation's a free gift. It's not something I work for. If the question is: 'Is repentance a work?' Then I think, probably yeah. It falls into the category of a work... I doubt anybody is honestly being hindered from being saved by that statement 'cause I don't say you gotta' list out all your sins or anything like that. It's like telling somebody, 'Stand on your right foot and pray this prayer.' They may wonder, 'Why do I stand on my right foot?' I don't think it's going to hurt, but I think it may be overkill. It may be unnecessary."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Rejects Repentance," retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/8bu0-TzRux0])

In short, Kent asked himself if he would teach repentance and remission of sins, which is what Jesus instructed His disciples to teach. (Luke 24:44-47, which I pointed out earlier in this chapter, namely that repentance is godly sorrow and remission is forgiveness of sins.) Kent's answer was that he would "probably not" teach that ever again, he thinks it is "overkill" (i.e. it is unclear what Kent meant by that), and he does not believe anyone has been hindered from the Gospel of Salvation from removing repentance, but again, even if Kent did not make these statements and taught repentance, he would still be teaching it wrong because he is teaching a false definition of 'repent', claiming that it means "to turn from sin."

In Kent's seminar message, everything was fine up until he mentioned the definition of repentance. The message about sinning against God was fine, although I would critique it to say that he never mentioned anything specific about the law itself, meaning that he never mentioned specific things like "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and other such laws, which are important to convert one unto Jesus Christ. (Gal 3:24) However, when Kent mentioned someone having a "hunger," that is the result of a repentant heart, meaning that someone is not going to be passionate and dedicated "to turn from sin and turn to God," unless he has been given a heart of godly sorrow, which is why Paul told the Corinthian church that their godly sorrow had given them such dedication to the good works of God:

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! [i.e. revenge is not in the sense of getting back at someone, but revenge in the sense of wanting to see justice done for the protection of the innocent] In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
-2 Corinthians 7:9-11

Without the humility of repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing), a man will have no desire or passion for righteousness because God will not give that prideful man grace, no matter how many hymns he sings about Jesus. (Jms 4:6, Amos 5:23-24) And once again, the Bible does not define repentance as a work anywhere in Scripture, but rather, God defines repentance as a gift:

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2 Timothy 2:24-26

Hopefully, Christians should now be able to see how little understanding Kent has of the Gospel of Christ. Kent has built his house on sandy ground during a storm, and there are consequences to that.

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
-Matthew 7:26-27

#3 - Kent Yokes With Steven Anderson

Now let's look at Kent Hovind yoking himself together with Steven Anderson. Any reader who has followed my ministry for some time knows that Steven Anderson is not a Christian in any sense, and is a dangerous and deceptive wolf who is leading astray his religious cult in Arizona.
(Read "Wolves in Costume: Steven L. Anderson" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Before I show the evidence of Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson yoking together, and before I show Kent Hovind lying about it, let's get an idea of the kind of vicious and hypocritical things Steven Anderson says and preaches. Viewer discretion is advised, specifically for parents, as you may not want some of your young children to hear (or repeat) the things Anderson says in this video:
The following is a transcript of what Anderson says in the video, and keep in mind that these are a series of clips played back and forth. The way I designed this is that, in one clip, Anderson would preach on a verse, and then in another clip, you can see him acting and speaking in opposition to the doctrine he was preaching to his church building, so I will try to distinguish between those clips in the text:

ANDERSON PREACHING ON BRUCE JENNER: "Listen to me, I hate him with a perfect hatred. I have no love—NO LOVE!!—for this Bruce freak! I hope he dies today! I hope he dies and goes to hell!"
ANDERSON PREACHING ON BARACK OBAMA: "You've probably never heard a sermon like this before. Actually, you probably have if you've been going to church here for a while, but you know what? Here's my sermon: Why I Hate Barack Obama... I'm not going to pray for his good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm gonna' pray. You say, 'Are you just saying that?' No! When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell."

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "What I'm going to preach about tonight is, treating other people the way you would like to be treated..."
ANDERSON SCREAMING AT HIS CHURCH CONGREGATION: "I'm sick and tired of what Faithful Word Baptist Church is turning into! This is a GREAT CHURCH!! [I need to activate my caps lock for the rest of this because he's screaming so much.] THIS IS THE BEST CHURCH I'VE EVER BEEN TO!! AND I DON'T LIKE WHAT IT'S TURNING INTO! [*Anderson forcefully slams a document down onto the pulpit*] 'CAUSE I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT'S TURNING INTO: [*Anderson points his finger at everyone sitting in front of him*] IT'S TURNING INTO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!!"

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "... and being good to other people, and 'loving thy neighbor as thyself.'"
ANDERSON SPEAKING TO A PUBLIC CROWD: "Shut your damn mouth and listen to me!... Shut your faggoty mouth and let me say something!"

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "Christ received us in our sinful condition, did he not? Did we have to clean up our lives before He would receive us?"
ANDERSON PREACHING ON BRUCE JENNER: "And then people are like, [*Anderson uses a mocking tone*] 'Oh, we need to pray for him that he finds Jesus.' [*Anderson gives a scoffing look to the audience*] I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell! [Anderson's congregation says: 'Amen!'] Are you serious?"

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "... in order to be saved we had to give up this sin or that sin; or did He just receive us as we were?"
ANDERSON SPEAKING TO A PUBLIC CROWD: "Dude, you're too gay man, I don't want to talk to you... Shut your faggoty mouth and let me talk to the guy I'm talking to."
WOMAN IN CROWD: "Why would you call for the mass execution of a people though? Why are you calling for mass execution if you're supposed to love—"
ANDERSON: "Because I believe the Bible and you don't!"

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "Because look how many scriptures there are that are saying the same thing: 'Love one another, love one another, love'—and then another thing that keeps coming up—'Forbear one another, forbear, forbear!'"
ANDERSON'S YELLING AT HIS CHURCH CONGREGATION: "Hey! You know what? Get the hell out of here if you don't like this kind of preaching! If you don't like to hear the truth, then GET THE HELL OUT OF MY CHURCH!"

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "Put up with things. Forgive, forgive. Be good to one another. Be gentle."
ANDERSON SCREAMING AT HIS CHURCH CONGREGATION: "THE KIND OF PERSON WHO'S TOO LAZY TO READ THE BACK OF THE CHURCH TRACT IS THE SAME KIND OF PERSON WHO'S TOO LAZY [*Anderson forcefully slams his foot onto the side of the pulpit*] TO READ THEIR BIBLE COVER TO COVER!!!!"

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "Be kind. Be nice, is what our modern vernacular [language]... Ephesians 4:2, with all lowliness and meekness..."
ANDERSON PREACHING ON BARACK OBAMA: "Yet, you're gonna' tell me that I'm supposed to pray for the socialist devil?"

ANDERSON'S HYPOCRITICAL PREACHING ON HOW TO TREAT OTHERS: "What's that talking about? Being humble, lowliness, meekness; not thinking that you're a big shot, not thinking that your better than the people around you."
ANDERSON SPEAKING TO A PUBLIC CROWD: "Well, it's more than this little twinkie has done. At least I have the balls to say what other pastors are afraid to say."
ANDERSON PREACHING ON BARACK OBAMA: "Let me tell you something: I HATE Barack Obama! You say, 'Well, you just don't like what he stands for.' No! I hate the person! You say, 'Well, no you just don't like his politics.' No! I HATE HIM!!"

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Yokes With Steven Anderson," published Au 18, 2015, retrieved Mar 19, 2022, [https://youtu.be/MRo-NbRYm3s])

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the preaching of Steven Anderson, this may be quite surprising to you, but this is the preaching of a hypocritical and railing wolf in disguise. The Bible gives those of us in Christ's church clear instructions on what we are to do with railers.

rail (v): to utter reproaches; to scoff; to use insolent and reproachful language; to reproach or censure in opprobrious [contemptuous and hateful] terms
(See 'rail', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 27, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1 Corinthians 5:11-13

If anyone calls himself a Christian, as Steven Anderson does, but he is a railer, then we should not keep company with him (i.e. do not befriend him), we should not sit down to a meal with him, and we should kick him out of the church. We often converse and eat with sinners, and there is no problem with that because we preach the Gospel of Salvation to them, but we are instructed specifically not to do it with hypocrites who call themselves Christians, who speak and act in a contradictory manner to Christ. The important thing to note here is that the Bible teaches us NOT to yoke together with railers like Anderson.

yoke (v): to couple; to join with another; a bond of connection
(See 'yoke', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 27, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

A yoke is a piece of wood put over the backs of oxen to bind them together while they both plow the same field together, keeping them in line so they will go the same direction. Therefore, we should not befriend and work together with such wicked men of darkness, who call themselves Christians, but preach in hypocrisy, and lead men into hell and the lake of fire.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees [i.e. religious leadership, like Steven Anderson], hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land [travel around the world] to make one proselyte [convert them to a religious belief], and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
-Matthew 23:15

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
-2 Corinthians 6:14-18

However, because Kent Hovind is a false preacher, he has no conviction from the Holy Spirit about yoking together with false preachers. Let's continue to quote from the clips in the above video:

HOVIND FROM PRISON: "I don't know Steve Anderson very well. He did come to visit me in Colorado, and drove all the way up there from—I guess you could figure the distance—Phoenix, Arizona to Florence, Colorado, probably four or five hundred miles. [He] spent the weekend, we had a wonderful talk. I think he [Anderson] loves the Lord, I think he's trying to do what's right."

This is a very strange comment because, after reading or listening to Steven Anderson, do you honestly believe he "loves the Lord" and is "trying to do what's right?" Obviously, Kent Hovind does not have as much discernment as I thought he did when I was a young Christian because if I had more understanding of God's Word back then, it would have taken very little time for me to discern Anderson, especially since he teaches so many heresies.

So why is it that Kent has allegedly been saved for so many decades and cannot see the obvious? Where is his discernment? Again, let's go back to the Scripture because God gives us the answer:

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles [prophets] of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

HOVIND FROM PRISON: "As far as 'kill all the homos', I don't know what he said, if that's been taken out of context. You'd have to deal with him on that. I would be glad to talk with him. I consider him [Anderson] a friend. I do not know what he believes on all issues, and I do not know that I agree with him on all, or even any, issues.""

Most people listening to Kent probably do not realize that he just lied. It was after meeting with Steven Anderson that Kent began to regurgitate Anderson's false doctrine about repentance, and Kent's arguments were almost word-for-word what Anderson teaches. So yes, Kent knows he agrees with Anderson on some issues, but then lies to everyone in this podcast and tells them that he does not know that he agrees with him on any issues, but at the same time, claims he is "a friend."

In my experience and observation, a friend is someone that you share some commonality with, whether in philosophy, interests, or activities. Therefore, if Anderson is a friend of Kent, then Kent knows about some of Anderson's doctrines, but Kent lies about it because he hates correction and does not want to be held accountable.

In another clip in the video, after Kent had gotten out of prison and started doing podcasts on YouTube, he said:

HOVIND: "[Reading a question from a listener:] Does it concern you that you yoked with Steve Anderson for a rapture video?... I'm not yoked with him."

And yet, Kent Hovind IS yoked with Steven Anderson because that is the definition of 'yoke'. Remember, that statement was made AFTER he was released from prison, so now let's go back to the audio clip BEFORE Kent was released from prison, and we will see that, yes, he is indeed yoked with Anderson:

HOVIND: "Even if Steven Anderson and I disagree on some things, so what? There's a bigger picture to look at here. There is a bigger common enemy we have to fight."

What Kent is saying here is that it does not matter what the disagreements are, he believes that Steven Anderson is a born again Christian who is working the same work as Kent Hovind, and they are both plowing the same ground together. More evidence can be seen of that in the video interview Steven Anderson did with Kent Hovind to promote Anderson's documentary and Hovind's book together: Kent Hovind Steven Anderson Interview [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Steven Anderson Interview [creationliberty.com]

(See Kent Hovind & Steven Anderson, "Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson Talk After the Tribulation," framingtheworld, Jun 21, 2019, retrieved Mar 27, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=ooymWEBeKuk])

As a side note, Rudy Davis (who is interviewing Kent Hovind) agrees with his every word, and does not care if they are yoked together, and at the end of Kent's contradictory statements and his defense of Anderson, a woman, who is presumably Rudy Davis's (i.e. LoneStar1776's) wife (i.e. Erin Davis), interjects:
"I just want to add my two cents: I'm a big Steven Anderson fan."
-LoneStar1776 interview with Kent Hovind, "Kent Hovind Yokes With Steven Anderson," Aug 18, 2015, [https://youtu.be/MRo-NbRYm3s]

This is unsurprising to me because, as we will see later, Rudy Davis (LoneStar1776) makes more willingly ignorant statements which defend Hovind and Anderson on other issues. Please do not misunderstand; this does NOT mean that Hovind and Anderson agree on every issue because they argue on a variety of issues (sometimes Hovind is wrong, sometimes Anderson is wrong, and sometimes they are both wrong), but they defend one another and yoke together, which is clear as day once you see Hovind visiting Anderson's congregation to give a presentation at Anderson's request. Kent Hovind Steven Anderson [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Steven Anderson [creationliberty.com]

(See Steven Anderson & Kent Hovind, "Dr Kent Hovind visits Faithful Word Baptist Church!" Shawn Barnish, Feb 18, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=5bol0R-1-6g]; Despite the fact that Anderson and Hovind have fought hard against one another in recent years, they still consider each other Christians, even though neither are Christians, and both teach a false gospel.)

If you read "Wolves in Costume: Steven L. Anderson" here at creationliberty.com, you can see how Anderson lies to everyone by saying that Jack Hyles was not his mentor, when, in fact, Anderson has taught Hyles' teaching on repentance almost word-for-word, and Anderson attended Hyles' College in northwest Indiana. Anderson, to this day, still passes out Jack Hyles books and materials. Jack Hyles was a wicked, false preacher who lusted after money and underage girls, forming a huge cult following under false pretenses, and it turns out that, just like Steven Anderson, Kent Hovind also endorses Jack Hyles, as he mentioned during a teaching he gave on Psalm 23:
"Before we go into the story, and a couple of verses about this, Jack Hyles, pastor of First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana—huge church, great church, started Hyles-Anderson College—I spoke there at the college once, and at the church once."
-Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind 5-8-17 Ps. 23", Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, May 9, 2017, retrieved Apr 9, 2020, [https://youtu.be/qdns_sx80dA?t=355]

Of course, as the years have gone by, Hovind and Anderson have been at odds with each other, both making teachings in which they claim the other is wrong, and often, they are both wrong. However, the point should be clear that Kent had absolutely no discernment about Steven Anderson upon meeting him, and even after hearing the truth about what Anderson teaches, Kent made excuses for him, which is nothing more than a compromise to increase his standing and popularity with zealously patriotic churchgoers who will blindly follow him.

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
-Matthew 15:13-14

Anderson has also helped Kent spread out his lies and false accusations, and we will find out more about that as we continue to learn about Kent's three wives...

#4 - Does Kent Have Three Wives?

This was the title of this chapter as of 2020 when I decided to first write this chapter, because it was a very popular question on internet searches surrounding Kent Hovind, since many churchgoers who supported Kent did not know what was happening behind the scenes. As of 2021, the answer to this question is "no" because Kent has actually had FOUR wives now, and I will cover more details on that as we go through this chapter.

For those of you who (like myself) are very familiar with Kent Hovind, you will know that he was originally married to his high school sweetheart Jo, and soon after Kent got out of prison, they divorced. According to an article in Forbes:
"His homecoming was not quite what he had had in mind, as he ended up in a bitter dispute with his family about control of property and also in one of his TMI [too much information] bursts he let everybody know that he and Jo were not sharing a room. They divorced and Kent moved to Lenox Alabama where he is building a new Dinosaur Adventure Land."
-Peter J. Reilly, "How Tax Resistance Can Hurt Your Marriage(s) - The Kent Hovind Saga," Forbes, Sept 5, 2018, retrieved Mar 31, 2020, [https://bit.ly/3axYQ7P]

In order to get a full understanding of Kent and his marriage to four women, we need to understand what caused him to divorce from Jo. Once we understand the deceptive things Kent has done behind the scenes, we will better understand why Kent has been married to so many women within a five-year period.

According to his testimony, Kent alleges that emotional distancing of the Hovind family took place about one year after he was sent to prison because he claims Jo and Eric (his eldest son) stopped having contact with him, and they conspired to take all his businesses and assets (which he claimed to be around $2 million) by selling them to Eric for $6,300. As a disclaimer, knowing the corruptions and false doctrines of Eric Hovind from personal experience with him, I do not trust Eric any more than I trust Kent; however, that being said, I do not trust Kent on almost anything he says on this matter because there is plenty of evidence that contradicts his version of the story, and frankly, Eric's testimony makes more sense in this instance.
(See Kent Hovind testimony, "Kent Hovind Ruined By Wife and Son," Devon Phoenix Rothschild, June 6, 2016, retrieved Mar 31, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=x6WrynTOlRo]

During a phone call with a concerned Hovindite (which supposedly took place in April of 2016), Kent said:
"KENT: He [Eric], as manager of CSE for me, claims he sold everything to himself as president of God Quest for $6,300. And that's when he became the provider for my wife and everything else, and she pretty much left me and stopped coming to visit, stopped writing, stop encouraging, just... this divorce, you know, I came home my first day nine months ago, had a party, welcome home dad, and I walked down the hallway 10:30 at night, and she said, 'By the way, you're sleeping in there now'...
CALLER: "It seems like, obviously, you're okay with people talking about it, but I'm not going to do that. It's not my place. But I want you to know that—"
KENT: "Just one more thought there. All through the Bible, you read the phrase 'feared the people'. I bet it's in there 20 or 30 times. I've never checked, but people modify their behavior, either they did something or did not do something, because they feared the people. I think both my wife and my son need to get the public pressure. Say, 'What are you doing? What is wrong with you?' If they start getting public pressure, they may say, 'Well, we think maybe we are on the wrong side.'... Herod was going to kill Jesus one time, but he didn't because he feared the people. That's the only thing that's going to get Eric back and Jo back to common sense. I mean, it's got to be done sweetly and kindly, but I'm done tip-toeing through the tulips. It's time to pull back the curtain and here's what's really going on here. They [Jo and Eric] conspired to take away everything CSE had, and they did. I came home to nothing... I left him [Eric] with probably, you know, if you count up everything, two million dollars' worth of assets, lawnmowers and tools, and he thinks he bought it all for $6,000... it's bizarre, I can't believe it. I'm not worried. People should make it public. It needs to be done."
-Kent Hovind, "Kent Hovind on thief Eric Hovind - From the Horse's Mouth," Max Bauer, July 2, 2016, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/kiQjlN7UX_A?t=27]

Under normal circumstances, my heart would go out to Kent because a lot of men in the U.S. are taken advantage of by their families while in prison or the military, and if any readers want to learn more about that, I have a free-to-read book called Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com where you can get a lot more details. However, this does NOT apply to Kent's situation, and my heart does NOT go out to him because he was the cause of his own problems on this matter, and he lied to many people about many things.

Please note that the caller said that he would not talk about the subject publicly because it was not his place, and that he was respecting Kent's privacy, as well as the privacy of his family. However, Kent interrupted him to say that he was not worried about the story going public, and that he DESIRED for public pressure to be put on his family.

After Kent had said that the information should go public, the caller released the conversation on YouTube, and wicked, warmongering, false preacher Steven Anderson (who, on most topics, does not do very much research before he opens his mouth) decided to go public with all of it, released it to his Andersonite followers, and it spread like wildfire. Anderson repeated the exact same things that Kent had said in the phone conversation I quoted above, and then proceeded to burn Jo as well, accusing her of a long list of things, including, but not limited to, being "wicked," claiming she was "garbage," and accusing her of being a "feminist."
(See Steven Anderson, "Eric Hovind = Absalom," sanderson1611, Apr 26, 2016, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/YbYloy0Mhl8]; See also [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXnwz5wUkU] and [https://telleyz.com/eric-hovind-absalom])

And now for the facts, beginning with Kent's claim that Eric and Jo were not having any contact with him while he was in prison, which is simply not true. Kent lied to everyone in order to create a sob story to make people feel sorry for him, so he could get some support. Eric and Jo were in contact with Kent, but could not often visit him because he was moved around the country (from prison to prison) so frequently, and thus, there would sometimes be six or nine-month periods in which they would not be able to visit him, simply because they did not have the time or money to travel those distances.

Secondly, a private meeting between Eric, Kent, and some mediators was recorded (at Kent's request), and during the meeting, Eric brought up the video in which Kent had said that he thought his listeners should take his accusations against Eric and Jo and "make it public." Eric and the other mediators at the meeting knew the accusations were false, but Kent never apologized, nor was there any remorse in his voice during the audio recording, but rather, he doubled down on his lie:
"I would not have said anything, or I would have told him, look, I want you to pray for us, but this is not for public consumption. This is going to give Satan things to glory in, and drive a wedge even further."
-Kent Hovind, quoted in "Kent Admits to Destroying His Family on Purpose," Lies of the Devil, Apr 10, 2020, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/x18lD63f73A?t=156]

As we read earlier in the phone conversation with his concerned follower, what Kent just said was absolutely not true. Kent had every intention for that information to go public, and even stated that it should be made public, but when having to sit in a room full of people who were holding him accountable for his actions, he quickly changed his story to save face.

The conversation continues:
ERIC: "When you say on the phone, 'No, my wife and son need to be exposed', and then you say—"
KENT: "True. You're right."
ERIC: "And right now you say, 'Look, I'm sorry.' I go, 'You know what—'"
KENT: "I did say that to the guy. I did not know he was recording. I did not know he was going to post anything. I am not telling him to go do that. I do think what happened in this situation is wrong. It might be legal, like homosexuality is legal in some states, but it's still not morally right."
MEDIATOR: "Right, but as far as what you said, you feel like what you said was that you shouldn't have said it—"
KENT: "No. What I said was completely accurate, but—"
MEDIATOR: "You feel like you shouldn't have said it."
KENT: "Well, I never would have said it if I knew he was going to post it."
MEDIATOR: "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait..."
ERIC: "It's okay for him to tell somebody, and that OTHER person put it out there, but not for him to put it out there... I talked to Steven Anderson. [Eric is directing this to Anderson] 'What would you do if some—if you had a YouTube channel, and someone was railing on your wife like that. You'd go on YouTube and you would call them out. You would ABSOLUTELY GRILL them.' [This was an attempt to reason with Anderson, and try to get him to see that this was part of Kent's plan, and that his words/actions are suspicious, or in other words, why did Kent not speak out against all the railing, hateful, and false accusations Anderson made against Jo?] But, I think, in his [i.e. Kent's] heart, he really wants that out there. He wants what he thinks is exposure, and he thinks it's going to help, and all it's doing is hurting his ministry."
MEDIATOR: "Yeah, yeah. I mean, obviously, we can see the proof of what's going on; it's dividing the family."
KENT: "Keep in mind, the family was divided before any of that happened. The family was divided many years ago."
ERIC: "Hang on—"
KENT: "Way before Steven Anderson said anything. I had never heard of YouTube until I got home."
ERIC: "Yeah, Steve Anderson saying—I called Steve Anderson after he made a video about two years ago, saying, 'They never even visit their dad!' I called Steven Anderson, and said, 'Steve, would you be willing to correct the things that aren't true?' He said, 'Well, I don't think I said anything that's not true.' I said, 'Well, you said I never visit my dad.' I said, 'Every time I've had an opportunity, we've made the effort'"
-Kent Hovind, quoted in "Kent Admits to Destroying His Family on Purpose," Lies of the Devil, Apr 10, 2020, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/x18lD63f73A?t=420]

I understand why Eric was trying to reason with him, but trusting Steven Anderson to do the right thing is laughable once you understand the corruptions of Anderson, as we covered in chapter three. For that matter, Kent could have made a public video to set the matter straight, but trusting Kent Hovind to do the right thing is laughable once you understand his corruptions.
(Read "Wolves in Costume: Steven L. Anderson" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

To further demonstrate how Kent deceives others, according to email testimony from Eric, after Kent was released from prison, Kent had his financial advisor and trustee, Ernie Land, demand 50% of the sales from the bookstore to be given to CSE. Anyone who has ever owned a business knows that such a request is wildly insane because no business could survive under such a rigid financial burden. Eric informed him that was not possible because the total sales that year were $50,000, but the profit was only $20,000, and thus, to give 50% (i.e. $25,000) would mean that Eric would have to lose $5,000 a year on the business just to appease Kent.
(See Eric Hovind, quoted by Theodore Valentine, "Kent's Psychosis Revealed by Family and Friends," Lies of the Devil, Apr 16, 2020, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/gbUY4k72yGQ?t=315])

Not only was this a completely unreasonable request, but Kent also claims he took a vow of poverty back in the 1980s. A vow of poverty comes from the corrupt Catholic Church. It is a renouncement of personal worldly possessions and communal sharing of resources, but taking such oaths is not mentioned anywhere for the New Testament church to do, namely because Christ commanded us not to swear such spiritual vows and oaths.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-Matthew 5:33-37

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
-James 5:12

However, despite the fact that it is a Catholic tradition, and despite the fact that Jesus told us not to do it, in an affidavit that he wrote to the Foreman of the Grand Jury overseeing his trial in 2005, Kent claimed that he took a vow of poverty in 1989. He wrote: (Click Image for Larger View)

"In 1989, I took a vow of poverty and to commit all my resources to spreading the word of God and the truth about His hand in creation."
-Kent Hovind, "Affidavit of Dr. Kent E Hovind For the Foreman of the Grand Jury," Sept 15, 2005, p. 4, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://bit.ly/36tLlF9]

If that is the case, then why did Kent go to war against the State to keep his property (which he is not supposed to own), and why did he go to war against Eric to get his property back (which he is not supposed to own)? Please do not misunderstand, and I will say again, I do not trust Eric any more than I trust Kent because Eric teaches his own false doctrines and does his own deceptive deeds, but hopefully, Christian readers will now begin to see that what Kent says and what actually goes on behind the scenes are two very different things.
(Read 501c3: The Devil's Church for more information on some of Eric's corrupt practices and deception.)

Before we continue, I want readers to understand WHY we are going to dig into this topic because some people might think this is prying into someone else's life, that it is equivalent to gossip and is none of our business, and in most instances, I would agree and not talk about any of this, but that is not necessarily the case in this instance. There are three basic reasons why we are going to cover this:

Many followers of Kent are concerned about these matters, and genuinely want to know how they can help, or if they should be doing anything to help him and his family.

Kent has taught doctrine on marriage and charity, and so we need to assess if he believes what he is teaching to make sure he is consistent in his doctrine. Elders and preachers need to be held accountable to the church because they are supposed to be servants of Christ to the church, otherwise, they are found to be hypocrites.

Many of us have spent a lot of time, money, and energy in support of Kent and his ministry, and therefore, we have Biblical justification to know if he is doing something against Scripture. If he is doing something in error, he needs to be rebuked, and if he refuses correction because of the sin of his heart, then we can know he is leavened (i.e. corrupted, as a false preacher) and we should sanctify ourselves from him.

(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Sanctification" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In his Seminar #3, Kent said:
"God invented marriage and family and sex and God made them male and female. He understands it pretty good, and he put some rules down."
-Kent Hovind, "Seminar 3a: Dinosaurs and the Bible," Apologeet, retrieved May 14, 2020, [apologeet.nl/evolutie-schepping/hovind_transcripts/seminar_3_transcript]

Kent is always happy to preach those rules to other people because it makes him look good in the sight of churchgoers, but he personally does not care about those rules, and contradicts them without any remorse or concern.

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
-Matthew 23:3-4

For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
-Ephesians 5:8-13

I do not want new Christians to be deceived by this man, and it is the duty of those of us who are veterans in Christ to protect those young Christians who do not yet have their senses exercised to spot wickedness and deception. I want to make sure that, if at all possible, young Christians have a place where they can look up information on Kent and get the full story, so they can more easily discern the truth to separate the good from the evil.

Sadly, I am often having to take this information from second-hand sources because there is little documentation about any of this online. I can only gather information from the few brave people who have been personally involved with the Hovinds and spoken up about it because, on the one hand, Kent is a consistent liar, and on the other hand, the people previously involved with him (understandably) want nothing more to do with the Hovind spotlight, and (like Jo) tend to disappear without a word so they can escape the constant pressures and ridicule of the public eye.

I contacted Eric Hovind in May of 2020 to see if I could get a statement or any other information from him to confirm these things, but he wrote me back a quick public relations message that was completely useless. (In fact, it seemed like it was copy & pasted.) I pointed out to him that I was writing this for the purpose of protecting young, unsuspecting Christians who Kent is taking advantage of, but Eric showed no concern for them; rather, in his letter, the only thing I saw that he cared about was making sure people supported and donated to his leavened so-called "ministry," Creation Today. I suspected he would do that before I wrote to him because Eric is just as much about the money as Kent is, and in order to protect his business at Creation Today, he will not come forward and provide the information I already know he has (i.e. in written documents, emails, and audio recordings), and instead Eric feeds everyone a heaping spoonful of propaganda so he can make more money.
(Read Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil here at creationliberty.com to learn more about public relations, and how many companies, ministries, and governments use public relations/propaganda to manipulate the public.)

According to text messages shared by Theodore Valentine (a former volunteer and business partner of Kent Hovind), a mediator (whose name Valentine kept anonymous) was summoned to the Hovind's home in 2016 to try and bridge the split that had been created in their family. Because Kent will not come forward with the truth, many readers might be surprised to learn that the family was essentially at war with each other:
"Dear all, I've been receiving the group texts over the past several days. The texts grieve me. They've escalated in tone & are clearly the precursor to a trainwreck should you meet... When I was first made aware of a family division, I initially didn't know that it was this deep, entangled, or complicated. At first glance it was obvious that Kent Hovind and the family needed transitional assistance after nine years of being separated. I got involved to help with that. When I flew down to Pensacola for a day & the police showed up, I understood that things were worse than they had been portrayed to me... Then the [sic] it became obvious in that same meeting that there was deep mutual disrespect between Kent and Jo that Jo alleges began the first day of the marriage. Kent says differently. In fact, there are very few historical events within the marriage that both agree on. According to Jo, the marriage operated (until recently) similarly to the proverb that not only children but women should be seen and not heard as well... Jo has identified critical junctures in the marriage where she was seen and not heard. Kent disagrees and offers a completely different picture when Jo was submissive. What's of particular interest is how Jo felt blindsided by their sudden, joint arrest. That day, she claims, was preceded by countless efforts to get Kent to tone down his rants against the government and to stick with his specialty: Creation Science Evangelism. She recalls her discomfort about taking follow-up calls from people who learned through Kent's tapes/seminars that IRS income tax was voluntary. According to Jo, she had no forewarning about the state of affairs with the IRS or how imminently pending federal action was before the arrest. These events were a source of humiliation, confusion, and fear for Jo. There is no sin in that. According to Jo, the day before the joint arrest, she and Kent had been to see a marriage counselor & that counseling session did not end well. It was the worst time in the marriage for an arrest to happen that next day."
(See Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing," Lies of the Devil, June 30, 2017, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [https://youtu.be/ribftV_2IPw?t=511])

The following verses are concerning elders in the church. A 'bishop' is simply an elder, and the Bible uses those two terms interchangeably.

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
-1 Timothy 3:1-7

As we are going to see, Kent is not blameless, he is not of good behavior except when he is in front of a camera, and he does not rule his own house well. Furthermore, Kent is NOT the husband of one wife, as we are about to find out in this chapter, and therefore, he does not desire that good work, which means Kent Hovind has NO Biblical grounds to be in any form of leadership in Christ's church.

Kent and Jo Hovind Jail Divorce Marriage [creationliberty.com]

Kent and Jo Hovind Jail Divorce Marriage [creationliberty.com]

In the photo, I wrote, "This is not Kent's wife, this is just a picture of her." This was intended to be a satirical response to Kent's seminar series, in which he would begin his talk by making a joke to lighten the mood by introducing his wife on the slide presentation, but now, I plan to use his joke against him to expose his iniquity.

According to this marriage counselor's testimony, the day before they were first arrested, Kent and Jo had attended a marriage counseling session that, according to Jo, did not end well. Being arrested the next day left her with a lot of humiliation, confusion, and fear, and therefore, some of her actions (including divorce) made logical sense, even though it was not Biblically justified.

Back when Kent was arrested, I was infuriated that someone had released his private conversations with his wife onto YouTube because I believed those conversations should have remained private (because it is their business, not ours), and I refused to listen to them, but many years later, after I found out the whole truth about what was actually going on behind the scenes, I finally decided to pull them up and take a listen. The recordings are between Kent and Jo while they were both incarcerated, what I heard just made my heart drop to my stomach for the sake of Jo Hovind, because she was in a hopeless situation.

The following quotes provide supporting evidence that Kent and Jo's marriage was in a bad state LONG BEFORE they were arrested: "KENT: So cheer up. It's going to be fine. Can you do that?
JO: "I want—for me, it's even just having a hope. I just don't have that right now. I don't have a hope that it's going to be different in our marriage when you get out because I'm just hearing things that sound ALL the same, you know? And that—"
KENT: "Maybe I need to change. Or, maybe you need to change and accept it. Say, 'Hey, that's the way he is. That's the way God made him, so I'm going to love him that way.' I mean, that's the other hope. Your hope is always that I will change. Maybe the hope ought to be that you will adapt."
JO: "Yes, sir."
KENT: "That's another option, you know."
JO: "Yes, sir."
KENT: "Just say, well, Mrs. Martha Washington had to adapt to her husband. This guy wants to go fight the British. Okay. I'll just go to camp with him."
JO: "Well, sometimes, I mean, I just can't, you know, get past the unresolution—[call was cut off]"
-Kent & Jo Hovind, "Kent Hovind - County Jail Telephone Calls," ExtantDodo, retrieved May 14, 2020, [https://youtu.be/NBOfqyenPDc?t=372]

There were other people involved in trying to help heal the Hovind family after Kent came back, but mostly due to Kent's unwillingness to listen, these attempts were a waste of time. Kent went right back to his old ways as soon as he returned, doing the same things that got him thrown in jail the first time, and Jo had finally had enough because, since Kent would not protect her (as is his duty as a husband), she wanted to protect herself from going back to prison for things that Kent was solely responsible for doing.

By January of 2016, after months of trying to reason with Kent, Jo had threatened to file for divorce if Kent did not amend his ways. Kent would not listen, and in March of 2016, Jo handed Kent divorce papers, and by June of 2016, a Florida judge declared the divorce final.

As a side note, many years ago, I saw a video in which Jo Hovind was helping to advertise a coffee shop called The Drowsy Poet, but I was not able to document that video, and I cannot find a copy of it online; if any readers find that video, please send me a link. I am not certain why she would help advertise that company unless she was one of the nine founding investors, and uncoincidentally, William Nadolny is listed on Creation Today's "About" page as Vice President of Eric Hovind's God Quest Ministries and the owner of The Drowsy Poet Coffee Company, which leads me to believe Eric and Jo have branched out businesses under the God Quest corporation as a source of income for her after the divorce, so I trust that she is well taken care of in her old age.
(See William Nadolny, "About Creation Today," retrieved Mar 31, 2020, [creationtoday.org/about/at-a-glance])

As far as I understand it, as of 2020, Jo Hovind has not remarried. I cannot say these things for certain because I am simply relying on hearsay, but based on testimonies from people who have known her, she wants to remain Biblical in her relationship to her former husband (i.e. Kent), honoring God's commandments on marriage (knowing that their divorce was not Biblically sound), and that despite Kent's stubborn and unloving nature, she still cares about him. (i.e. It is difficult to provide hard evidence of all the facts when Jo does not write out a testimony of her own.)

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
-1 Corinthians 7:11

According to testimony from one of the volunteers that worked for Kent the summer of his divorce (we will read more about that volunteer's testimony in the next chapter), Jo had filed for divorce because of the advice of her lawyer. Jo's lawyer had warned her that, because Kent started down the same path that got him thrown in jail the first time, if she continued under a marriage license, she may potentially end up in prison again, and to avoid that, she followed through with divorce.

As a side note, this is one of the many reasons I encourage Christian couples not to file for a marriage license. Not only does the license create a contract that renounces God having any part in the marriage, but there are many dangers that go along with it that the average couple is completely unaware of, and if any readers want to learn more about that, you can find my free-to-read book The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage here at creationliberty.com.

Though I do sympathize with her situation, and understand why she divorced him, it was not the correct thing to do. In the book, The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage, I pointed out that, according to Scripture, there are only three reasons a divorce could be justified, and Jo's situation was not one of those reasons.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
-1 Corinthians 7:10

Instead, Jo could have contacted an IRS agent, and put herself on the record stating that she was not involved in anything Kent was doing, and that she would be fully cooperative with them if they chose to investigate him further, which would have been strong evidence in support of her innocence in court if anything went wrong in the future. However, out of fear, she chose an unbiblical path, even though, after everything I have now learned about Kent, I believe that if she had just waited a bit longer, Kent would have cheated on her eventually, and that would have given her a Biblical justification for divorce.

Kent Hovind Mary Tocco Immodest Apparel [creationliberty.com]

Despite the shady dealings of the Hovind family against one another, Kent quickly found himself another woman to marry. Kent was wed to Mary Tocco, on Sept 24, 2016, only three months after divorce from his wife of 43 years. As someone who avidly studied the doctrine of Kent Hovind as a young Christian, the name Mary Tocco caused me immediate surprise and a bit of suspicion because I recall that Kent used to promote and reference to Mary Tocco's health-based website in his old seminars.

The image provided is from a beauty pageant/contest in which Mary Tocco won the "America's Outstanding Mom" award, and I am emphasizing the point that she wears revealing clothing. This type of revealing clothing is not befitting of a woman who claims she is of Christ, and there are many such photographs online where Mary obviously makes effort to boost her popularity with her physical beauty, which I find quite deceptive.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
-1 Timothy 2:9-10

While I was doing some research on Mary Tocco, I heard that she was secretly an evolutionist, and I felt like I needed to address that. I started hunting down the source of this information, and little to my surprise, it came from Steven Anderson, who put out a video sermon (in his usual railing, brutish manner, Jer 10:21) against Kent Hovind for many of the ridiculous claims Kent made about his marriage to Mary. During his screaming rant, Anderson accused Mary of believing in hundreds of thousands of years of evolution based on a Facebook post she made, and so I hunted down the original post:
Mary Tocco Evolution 100,000 Years Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

Mary Tocco Evolution 100,000 Years Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

"The Hadza have been living peacefully, happily and sustainably.. without vaccines.. in the Great Rift Valley of East Africa for at least 100,000 years."
-Mary Tocco, post taken from the Mary Tocco Official Facebook Group, May 3, 2016, retrieved Apr 9, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/MaryTocco1/posts/1245046128858478]

Steven Anderson proceeded to mock Kent and Mary, claiming that she does not believe in a young (6,000-year-old) earth. Perhaps it is true that Mary does not believe in the Biblical account of creation, however, this quotation does not provide evidence of that, and I wanted to set the record straight because if you actually go to the article she shared, and read the first sentence, it says:
"The Hadza have been living peacefully, happily and sustainably in the Great Rift Valley of East Africa for at least 100,000 years."
-Return to Now, "The Hadza: Freest People on Earth Face Extinction," Feb 11, 2016, retrieved Apr 9, 2020, [https://bit.ly/34o2VJL]

Thus, Mary was not making a statement about a tribe being 100,000 years old, but rather, she was quoting the article, and the article Mary was quoting from was NOT about vaccines, nor did it mention vaccines, but it was, at the time she posted this, a new article that was speaking of a people who had lived in a particular area for a very long time. The point she was making was that they survived just fine without vaccines, but nowhere did she indicate that she believed in hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionism.
(Read "The United Vacci-Nations" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Because vaccines are often supported by evolutionists, it actually makes sense why Mary would publish this post in this way. Since they believe in the laughable idea that mankind has evolved over millions of years, and they believe that this tribe of people has lived in this region for at least 100,000 years, then that should provide evidence to them that vaccines are not only unnecessary, but dangerous.

I am not familiar enough with Mary Tocco to say that she does not believe in millions of years of evolutionism (i.e. I have no idea if she does or does not), but if she does, there is NOT enough evidence from this post to prove that matter, or even to indicate it in any way. She was simply copying and pasting the first line of the article in order to add in her emphasis that these people never once had vaccines administered to them, so I hope Christians will double check the information they are hearing to verify the truth. (And be sure to triple-check that information if it comes out of the mouth of a false preacher like Steven Anderson, who, most of the time, does not do proper research.)
(Read "Wolves in Costume: Steven L. Anderson" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

That being said, I want to express that the following is just my assessment about what took place between Mary and Kent because, once again, there is not a lot of information available about what is going on behind the scenes, but something does not sit right with me when I look at this situation because we have a man who just got a divorce from his wife, and now a woman he used to talk about in his seminars marries him twelve weeks later. When I first heard of this, my right eyebrow was furrowed, while my left eyebrow was raised in suspicion. This Mary Tocco situation seemed VERY odd to me, and it got stranger when I heard Theodore Valentine say in passing that he received emails from Eric Hovind, testifying that the family found out that Mary Tocco was scheduled to come out and visit Kent on July 11, 2006, the very same day Kent and Jo were arrested, and just after Kent and Jo had gone through unsuccessful marriage counseling.

In fact, Theodore testifies that, shortly after Kent was released from prison, he was asked to go babysit Kent, and to keep him away from Mary Tocco:
"Kent Hovind knew Mary Tocco before he went to prison. Okay? People have said that. People have said that they remember him knowing Mary Tocco before he went to prison, and that he's actually—Mary Tocco is actually in his slide shows. [This is true because I memorized Kent's slides thoroughly.] In fact, one of the board directors [of CSE] called ME! Okay? And told ME to go with Kent Hovind when he went to North Carolina—or wherever she lives—to go to the event that he went to where Mary Tocco was going to be at, so I could stop him from making a mistake because the pastor that was at that church saw Kent Hovind with Mary Tocco before he went to prison. My wife knows that! She was with me when this happened!... Mary Tocco admitted she was talking to Kent while he was in prison to try and get him out of prison. Okay? And then when he got out of prison, Mary Tocco—I was there. Every event from Texas, from when he first started speaking again, all the way to his marriage, he was on the phone with Mary Tocco while he was married to Jo Hovind, on the phone with Mary Tocco, talking to her—do you know what I'm saying here?"
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind Exposed by His Former Assistant: Theodore (Pt1)," Science Enthusiast, Apr 20, 2017, retrieved May 27, 2020, [https://youtu.be/rPSoaC59L-A?t=1650]

At first, I was not suspicious of Mary near as much as I was suspicious of Kent because on the surface, I did not have any evidence to say otherwise, but the more eyewitnesses I have listened to, the more Kent and Mary's testimony does not add up, and I wish there were more eyewitnesses who would stop hiding and publicly come forward to clear up this matter. (Although there is a legal reason some have not come forward, and I will discuss that more in the last chapter.) Mary wanted to marry Kent despite the fact that she was wrongfully divorced from her ex-husband, Sam Tocco, and Kent wanted Mary despite the fact that he was still married to his first wife Jo Hovind, and this was all happening from the late 90s (soon after Mary's divorce from her husband) through 2016.
Kent Hovind Mary Tocco Sam Ex-Husband Divorce [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Mary Tocco Sam Ex-Husband Divorce [creationliberty.com]

(See Marry Tocco, "About Mary Tocco," Childhood Shots, retrieved May 27, 2020, [childhoodshots.com/about-mary]; Based on the timelines given in this article, it indicates that Mary's divorce from Sam took place around 1998.)

If you investigate all the currently available facts of this case, after a lot of heated fights, it seems that Jo threatened to divorce Kent in January of 2016 due to the fact that he would not change his ways that caused her to be jailed in 2006, and also, due to the fact that Kent had been flirting with Mary for many years. A few weeks later, in February 2016, Kent called up Mary Tocco to start working together with her on a video series, but Jo did not go through with filing any divorce papers until March 24, 2016, and the divorce was not officially complete until June, and so the point is that Kent told everyone that God had told him to contact Mary in February, but I do not believe that for a second because they were in contact with each other long before then. In summary, I believe that Kent had his wicked heart set on Mary (and likewise, Mary had her heart set on Kent), so Kent was already planning his next wife BEFORE Jo threatened him with divorce in January of 2016, and he likely wanted Jo to do it so he could look good on the way out.
(See Joshua Joscelyn, "Kent Hovind's Mistress," Facebook, Sept 7, 2016, retrieved Mar 31, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/notes/joshua-joscelyn/kent-hovinds-mistress/10154454291453119])

Just to clarify, Mary came to Kent's house in April of 2016, while he was still married to and living with Jo, and they filmed a bunch of videos together in his living room. I am not saying that Mary was intimately involved with Kent during this time, but there was definitely uncomely behavior that was causing other people to talk, and the evidence all points to Kent's desire for a relationship with Mary before divorce papers were ever written up, and he was waiting for his chance to get away from his wife. For three months (i.e. March to June of 2016), Kent had the opportunity to contest Jo's divorce, and according to Florida statutes, a judge would have demanded marriage counseling before granting divorce, but Kent did NOT contest Jo's claim for divorce (meaning that, according to the courts, it would be legally taken to mean that Kent agreed with Jo on all counts of the separation), and the judge finalized the no-contest divorce on June 24, 2016.
(See Wood, Atter & Wolf, "Is Marriage Counseling or Family Counseling Necessary in a Florida Divorce," Jacksonville Divorce Lawyer Blog, June 21, 2012, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [jacksonvilledivorcelawyerblog.com/is_marriage_counseling_or_fami])

As I pointed out in my book, The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage (which is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com), most divorce is strictly unbiblical. There are a few instances in which a divorce is Biblical, and there are a few instances in which remarriage is allowed in Scripture, but those are very narrow circumstances, and unless Jo was seeing someone behind his back (which there is no evidence to indicate that), then Kent's divorce from Jo was not Biblically sound, nor was his remarriage to Mary, so in short, Kent is simply following the lustful desires of the flesh; he is certainly not following Scripture.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

Kent Hovind Mary Tocco Marriage [creationliberty.com]

Avoiding a very long and detailed story, for the next year, Mary Tocco fervently defended Kent in everything he said and did, and this is public knowledge based on videos they made together; however, what is not in the videos is Mary's doubts about the ethics concerning the business practices surrounding Kent's newly constructed Dinosaur Adventure Land in Alabama. Mary began to notice a lot of inconsistencies, and feared that there were many unethical things being done behind the scenes by the DAL board, but the board would not listen to her, and neither would Kent, so she separated from Kent briefly so she could go find a third-party licensed expert to help her understand the matter.

This would eventually result in Kent leaving Mary Tocco in secret, and I will address those details in a moment, but first, I want to quote some excerpts from Mary Tocco's testimony that she wrote in August of 2018, which was about eight months after Kent broke things off with her completely:
"In July of 2017, I made the decision to leave my husband, Kent Hovind, and Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL) where we had been residing together. My initial intention was to create a brief separation that would expedite the immediate correction of what had become a list of my serious concerns based on the things I had learned after just fifteen months in my husband's life. The day I left I truly had no idea that I would never return... Rightfully, my five adult children were very concerned about my association with Kent. They are all wholeheartedly in support of the mission of his ministry, but the fact that his former wife was sentenced to jail caused enough apprehension for all of us that my final marriage decision was determined after a series of meetings that were able to satisfy the most serious of concerns for my freedom and safety."
-Mary E. Tocco, "Why I Had to Leave Kent Hovind," Aug 21, 2018, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/mary.tocco/posts/10217394397270793?__tn__=K-R]; See also Robert Baty, "Mary Tocco on Leaving Kent Hovind!" retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind]

As we can see from Mary's testimony, her fears about her marriage to Kent were the same fears that Jo had with her marriage to Kent as well. However, Mary's separation from him was not a divorce like Jo had, and Mary had every intention to return after she did some investigation, but Kent would not hear reason on the matter. We now have two wives (Jo and Mary) distancing themselves from Kent on the grounds of his illegal activities behind the scenes, and as we are about to see, Mary is going to have the same argument about Kent's deceptive business practices as Jo had expressed.

Mary continues:
"During this 'due diligence' process I consulted with attorneys, experts in accounting, and owners of 501c3 organizations. The summary of all of our communication was that they collectively were one hundred percent, completely committed and dedicated to handling every single aspect of Kent's ministry in absolute compliance with all laws and regulations. I relied completely on the promises made during meetings with Kent and the members of the DAL board. At that time, it was not appropriate to demand privilege to review all internal documents, business and non-profit filings, bank and financial records, nor do I personally have the expertise in all applicable areas of study to conduct that type of investigation. However, we did speak explicitly about the structure of DAL; about proper handling of donations; about book keeping and accounting; about payment to staff; and most importantly about the team of experts, including attorneys and finance professionals, who were said to exist for the sole purpose of making sure everything was conducted to provide longevity, security and safety for the ministry. At some point, I had to make the decision. And that decision was to accept Kent's marriage proposal and to leave my family to relocate my whole world to Alabama, and to temporarily take focus off of my career to become his wife, to create our home, and to support him as a wife should. I made those sacrifices easily, happily and willingly but with one, single, non-negotiable, permanent expectation that was clearly communicated multiple times verbally and in writing to Kent and his whole team: I have absolutely no compromise with my expectation that all things related to Kent and his ministry be handled in compliance with all laws, IRS tax codes, ethics, honesty and transparency."
-Mary E. Tocco, "Why I Had to Leave Kent Hovind," Aug 21, 2018, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/mary.tocco/posts/10217394397270793?__tn__=K-R]; See also Robert Baty, "Mary Tocco on Leaving Kent Hovind!" retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind]

It makes sense for Mary not to ask that the DAL board hand over all their financial records because it was not her business. Imagine you were marrying someone whose father owned a business, and before you get married, you demand that the father hand over all his business's financial records for you to assess; that is a very awkward request, and one that likely would be refused because that is private information, so it is not that Mary did anything wrong in that aspect.

However, it is sad to see that Mary had such little regard for the Word of God that she agreed to marry Kent without looking into the unbiblical grounds of his divorce from his wife (which should have been her first priority), and she was instead more concerned about his business practices, but that being said, Mary agreed to marry Kent on the condition that his business and ministry abide by all the state laws and regulations, which is reasonable. The major mistake Mary made was taking Kent and the DAL board at their word (instead of making them sign a contract with her first), trusting them under the assumption that all these people are Christians dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ, but again, this teaching is called "Wolves in Costume" for a reason.

Mary continues:
"My agreement to marriage was permanently tied to trusting Kent that the ministry be handled 'above-board' and in full adherence to the law. Satisfied with our mutual understanding and agreement, our life began. I worked hard as his partner and wife and loved it very much. It was happy and peaceful. But it wasn't long before I began noticing certain things that didn't seem to add up. My list of concerns started slowly, and then began to grow. Finally, I requested the opportunity to address these concerns in a meeting with Kent and the trustee of the DAL board. I had learned enough to be able to ask specific questions about how the business was being conducted. Much to my dismay, their side of the discussion was a terribly [sic] disappointment, and more accurately appalling. I shook my head in disbelief as I heard statements repeatedly such as, 'well, that's a gray area' and 'I think we could explain it this way to defend ourselves, if we had to in court'. I was told to forget my concerns because they would likely be civil issues anyway, not criminal. It was one of the most unacceptable discussions I have ever witnessed, especially given the past of the men speaking. Looking back, I was most alarmed at the Kent's response when I questioned a particular, serious matter that could create severe consequence: 'The board doesn't answer to you, Mary.' That was when I realized the lesson they had strategically waited to try to teach me - there is a veil of secrecy between Kent and the board of DAL. The wife of the ministry's patriarch is not allowed to penetrate that veil and has she no business questioning the board's decisions. And that was when Pandora's box was opened. After two weeks of intense discussions, consultation with professionals and further research, I had to remove myself from the premises until specific changes were in place for my safe return. My terms were very clear and reasonable. Furthermore, I challenged Kent and the board to please find a single professional in the area of law or finance who would disagree with my demands or indicate they were unnecessary. I begged Kent to find just one, single, a licensed expert who could explain to me that I was wrong and that current practices of Kent and the board of DAL were not likely to jeopardize our personal lives and the entire ministry. I prayed that Kent would and could do that. I thanked God for opening my eyes but prayed that somehow, I was wrong about what I was seeing."
-Mary E. Tocco, "Why I Had to Leave Kent Hovind," Aug 21, 2018, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/mary.tocco/posts/10217394397270793?__tn__=K-R]; See also Robert Baty, "Mary Tocco on Leaving Kent Hovind!" retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind]

To most readers, this should sound familiar to Jo's situation; meaning that it was not right for Mary to pack up and leave, but it was also not right for Kent and the DAL board to deceive her. This not only backs up the testimonies given in court during Kent's trial in 2006, but it also backs up Jo's testimony that we read earlier from the marriage counselor. (i.e. The testimonies against Kent are all correlating together.) In short, Kent and his board of directors betrayed Mary's trust, and it was one of the conditions she had for marrying Kent in the first place.

Again, Kent and Mary's word to marriage was still binding in the eyes of God, and the separation was not Biblical. In hindsight, what Mary should have done was return to her husband to be obedient unto God (which, as I mentioned earlier, Jo also should have done), but she also could have been obedient unto God (according to Romans 13) by contacting a local sheriff's office, or finding an IRS agent she could trust, to explain to them what she had done to investigate Kent, and that if they were to investigate him in the future, she was not involved in his business practices, and that she would fully cooperate with them so she would not have to suffer any arrests or convictions.

"I facilitated meetings with totally impartial third-party experts in Alabama to provide an opinion on my concerns, and to help guide any necessary changes. According to Kent, the trustee of the DAL board advised him not to participate and I was informed that the board would not discuss internal matters with any professional unless they determined it was necessary. In the following months, I only received continuous pressure and reprimand and I was told numerous times, 'Just come home and be a Proverb 31 wife.' Kent removed his wedding band three months later. In November 2017, he renounced his marriage to me and informed me he was looking for a new wife. He is now married to his third wife, Cindi Lincoln, who was previously my friend when I lived in Alabama."
-Mary E. Tocco, "Why I Had to Leave Kent Hovind," Aug 21, 2018, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/mary.tocco/posts/10217394397270793?__tn__=K-R]; See also Robert Baty, "Mary Tocco on Leaving Kent Hovind!" retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind]

We will soon discuss Cindi Lincoln, but it should be noted that Kent needs to judge himself first and make sure that he is living honestly in the sight of God BEFORE he judges the actions of his wife.

For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
-1 Corinthians 11:31

After arguments back and forth, Kent asked Mary to come back many times, but, according to accounts from Kent, Mary and her daughter cleaned out his house, taking much of the property on the way out. I do not believe this because not only does Kent often lie, but he also believes that anything that his wife brought into the marriage (e.g. furniture, clothes, jewelry, etc) automatically belongs to him, so if, for example, Mary took her clothing with her when she left, Kent would consider that to be "taking his property." By the end of November 2017, Kent renounced his marriage to Mary, and informed her he was looking for a new wife, and please notice that Kent said he "renounced" his marriage to Mary, not that he "divorced" her, and there is a very important distinction there.

divorce (n): the separation of a married woman from the bed and board of her husband, separation; disunion of things closely united; the sentence or writing by which marriage is dissolved
renounce (v): to deny; to cast off; to reject; to disclaim; as an obligation or duty
(See 'divorce' & 'renounce', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Thus, what Kent was doing was not "divorcing" Mary because that would sound bad to the public. Instead, he was "renouncing" his marriage to Mary, claiming that it was not legitimate in the first place, and that is a flat-out, bold-faced lie. Make no mistake: Kent is lying with full knowledge. As of 2020, Kent still has not written Mary a bill of divorcement, which is what God had originally instructed the Jews to do.

And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
-Mark 10:4

Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few... When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
-Ecclesiastes 5:2-6

At the end of her testimony, Mary said:
"For all of the people who are just bursting with curiosity about why I left Kent Hovind, I will reduce it to one sentence. I decided I don't want to play a lead role in the next debacle."
-Mary E. Tocco, "Why I Had to Leave Kent Hovind," Aug 21, 2018, retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/mary.tocco/posts/10217394397270793?__tn__=K-R]; See also Robert Baty, "Mary Tocco on Leaving Kent Hovind!" retrieved Apr 8, 2020, [kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind]

Again, the Bible does not teach us that such a thing is a legitimate reason for divorce, and there were certainly other ways Mary could have chosen to handle that situation, so she was rebellious as much as Kent was on that matter, but that being said, Mary seemed to enter into this arrangement with more far more honest intent than Kent did. At this point, it is clear to see that the fault of separation was from both parties, and neither of them are eligible for remarriage according to Scripture. Kent was divorced and remarried, Mary Tocco was divorced and remarried, and now both Mary and Kent are separated while still married, which (whether they want to believe it or not) makes them active adulterers who are not repenting (i.e. having grief and godly sorrow) of their sin.

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
-Matthew 5:31-32

Moving on to the "lead role in the next debacle," as Mary pointed out, Kent took on a third wife, Cindi Lincoln, while he was still married to Mary Tocco. When I first wrote about this, some people did not believe it, but as time progressed, and more information came out, the truth became clear.

The following image is a screen shot taken from Kent's video announcing his marriage to Cindi: Kent Hovind Cindi Lincoln [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Cindi Lincoln [creationliberty.com]

(See Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - Testimonies - 3/27/19," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Mar 28, 2019, retrieved Apr 14, 2020, [https://youtu.be/4rR7hzMZEUM?t=442])

Should Cindi have married Kent in the first place? No, it was not Biblical to do so. However, what is done is done, and there is no changing the past. The reason I mention this is to warn other women out there that God had good reasons for laying down certain rules about this, and some of those reasons are for YOUR protection against men like this, so you will not be manipulated in the same way, and thus, I hope some readers can learn from Cindi's mistakes.

According to their testimony, Kent and Cindi were married in July of 2018, just eight months after Kent left Mary. (And again, he never divorced Mary, which means this is Kent's second active wife.) The two did not confess this marriage publicly until March of 2019, another eight months after they had married in secret.

The following image is a screen shot taken from a video from November of 2018, which I included in my original draft of this book as evidence that Kent had married a third wife (because it was unbelievable to many, as I previously stated). Todd Kirkland, (another sympathizer and pastor that Kent has brainwashed) filmed a seminar given by Kent at his church building, Miracle Baptist Church, in La Vergne, TN. At the end of the seminar, Kirkland made an announcement to their congregation, preaching Kent's sob story, pleading with them to give him money, and he said: Kent Hovind Cindi Lincoln [creationliberty.com]

"Today, we took Dr. Hovind and his wife Cindi out to lunch." -Todd Kirkland, "Dr. Kent Hovind at MBC! Creation VS Evolution," Miracle Baptist Church Facebook Group, Video Timestamp 1:48:50, Nov 11, 2018, retrieved Apr 14, 2019, [http://www.facebook.com/miraclebaptistchurch/videos/dr-kent-hovind-at-mbc-creation-vs-evolution500pm-700pm/1101810923331345]

The following images are Kent's pictures of his wife, Cindi, that he published in a video he made on Jan 31, 2020. According to his testimony, they had taken a vacation together on a cruise ship traveling the Gulf of Mexico. Kent Hovind Cindi Lincoln [creationliberty.com]

(See Kent Hovind, "Friday Night Live Q&A," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Jan 31, 2020, retrieved Apr 14, 2020, [https://youtu.be/AGNBxvA95Ww?t=145])

There are some churchgoers making the argument that because Kent and Mary did not get a marriage license, they were never married in the first place, but that is an argument based on ignorance of Scripture because a marriage license from the state is not a requirement to be married, and if you want to learn more about that I recommend reading The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage, a free-to-read book here at creationliberty.com, specifically chapter two, entitled "The Biblical Requirements for Marriage," and chapter three, entitled "The Problem With Marriage Licenses." The fact is that Mary and Kent gave their word that they were married, and in the sight of God, that means they were married, and that also means they are STILL married (because, as far as I know, Kent NEVER issued Mary Tocco a bill of divorcement), and then he married Cindi Lincoln in secret, keeping it from the public eye, knowing that the controversy would cause him to lose a substantial number of his remaining followers, which means that Kent was (and still is) married to two women at the same time.

Kent divorced his first wife of 43 years, and as of 2020, he had two active marriages to two other women at the same time.

I finished the second edition of this book in 2020, but I decided to wait a couple of years before taking this to a publisher to have it printed into a physical book format because I sensed that Kent was going to continue to do foolish things, which would provide more evidence to my arguments. It appears I was right to wait because, as it turns out, Kent has continued with his same pattern of corruption, because as of 2022, Kent has now thrown off Cindi Lincoln and married a FOURTH woman.

I will get to the information on Kent's fourth wife soon, but first, let's take a look at what happened with Cindi Lincoln because, due to Kent's hidden violent nature, he ended up in court again, this time on domestic abuse charges:
"On September 21, Judge Clinton Hyde of District Court of Conecuh County Alabama found Hovind guilty of third degree domestic assault against Cindi Lincoln, Hovind's third wife."
-Peter J. Reilly, "Kent Hovind Half-Billion Dollar Lawsuit Ends As He Faces Domestic Assault Charge," Forbes, Oct 9, 2021, retrieved Dec 21, 2021, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2021/10/09/kent-hovind-half-billion--lawsuit-ends-as-he-faces-domestic-assault-charge]

In December of 2021, Cindi Lincoln contacted me, and in February of 2022, she kindly agreed to do an interview with me to tell her story. I uploaded the 3.5 hour interview onto my Rumble channel for anyone who interested in hearing her eyewitness account of the events: (See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "CLE Interview with Cindi Lincoln (One of Kent Hovind's Wives)," CLE Official Rumble Channel, Feb 11, 2022, [https://rumble.com/vup06r-cle-interview-with-cindi-lincoln-one-kent-hovinds-wives.html])

To summarize the story, Cindi had first heard Kent's seminars in 2016, and went out to DAL for a three week visit. After she came back, she decided she wanted to dedicate herself to being a missionary there, and she even became close friends with Mary Tocco (while Mary was still living with Kent at DAL).

A few months after Mary and Kent separated, Cindi moved from California to Alabama and got married to Kent, and she sold property she had in California to buy a rental property in Alabama. She rented out her new property in Alabama to one of Kent's staff, Steve Lynn. She used the profits from the rental house to pay for her own expenses (so she would not burden the ministry), and often, she paid for Kent's living expenses with that money too.

As a side note, Cindi also entered into a contract with the DAL board to grant them $133,000 of her own money, and it was supposed to be paid back to her over time. They made some of the payments, but after Cindi left DAL, the payments stopped because they claimed that the contract was only supposed to direct payments to "Kent Hovind's spouse, and since they declared that Cindi was no longer "Kent Hovind's spouse, they stopped paying her.

At this point, I want to note that because Kent, as of 2022, has never provided Cindi with a bill of divorcement, it means she is STILL his spouse, which makes their claim a lie. As of February of 2022, Cindi has an ongoing case against the CSE/DAL board for this money, and she won her first case against them in court. (i.e. They are appealing the decision, so more information will not become available on that until the spring of 2022.) Furthermore, whether or not the court recognizes Cindi to be Kent's spouse is irrelevant because all the court looks at is who is owed the money, and so Kent is likely to lose his appeal, and will be forced to pay her everything he stole from her.

In one of the final arguments Kent had with Cindi before she left, she confesses that she was yelling and screaming at him (which is true because I listened to the audio file, recorded and released by Kent Hovind), which she also humbly confessed that she should not have done, but many people do not know what she was going through that led her to lose her temper. She had been threatened by some of Kent's own staff members (and Kent would not defend her), he had his staff install new locks on rooms in her own home so she could not get access to certain areas without his permission, and he even once took a water hose and soaked the sheets and mattress in a spare bedroom, just to keep her from sleeping somewhere else when she was angry with him.

Many other things were happening behind the scenes, like how Cindi testified that she had caught Kent and Steve (his IT guy, who rented from Cindi) altering drug tests to make some residents at DAL appear clean, when they were in fact doing drugs with Steve. She brought this to Kent's attention, and he refused to listen to her because he was complicit in the coverup, while Steve made threats against her.
(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "CLE Interview with Cindi Lincoln (One of Kent Hovind's Wives)," CLE Official Rumble Channel, Feb 11, 2022, [https://rumble.com/vup06r-cle-interview-with-cindi-lincoln-one-kent-hovinds-wives.html])

All these things kept piling up and adding to Cindi's stress, and eventually she yelled and screamed at him, but suddenly, Kent also snapped and body slammed her onto the floor, causing her injuries that resulted in hospitalization. Based on Cindi's own admission, she was at partial fault because she should not have been so wayward with her mouth, which is why she did not want to burden Kent with all the payment for her medical expenses, and in my personal opinion, I find that admirable, even though in reality, all money between the husband and wife is shared anyway. However, Kent decided not to take any responsibility at all, and instead went with the "she-fell-down-the-stairs" style of argument to protect himself, claiming that it was all her own fault, which is typical of manipulative people because they think that by telling part of the truth, they can avoid telling the whole truth, namely that the abuser (in the analogy) guided the woman to the top of stairs in the first place, and stuck his foot out so she would trip and fall.

Cindi testified:
"I asked Kent Hovind since October repeatedly to please pay half my medical bills; that I would take half of the responsibility because I was yelling and screaming at him; but if he would please help me pay half and confess to the truth at least to me as husband and wife; he continued to lie and say that he never bodyslammed me, that I tripped on the rug. I knew was he was a public figure; and it was the only time he had ever physically hurt me; and so I was going to protect my husband. All I wanted was for him to tell me the truth between him and I only and help me pay the medical bill. He refused to do either and went public on campus and on YouTube telling everybody I was lying and that I had to pay all the medical bills myself."
-Cindi Lincoln, quoted by Peter J. Reilly, "Kent Hovind Half-Billion Dollar Lawsuit Ends As He Faces Domestic Assault Charge," Forbes, Oct 9, 2021, retrieved Dec 21, 2021, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2021/10/09/kent-hovind-half-billion--lawsuit-ends-as-he-faces-domestic-assault-charge]

Because Kent would not tell the truth (let alone come to godly sorrow for his own wrongdoing), Cindi had no choice but to file charges, because she was living rent check to rent check, since she had given everything else she had to DAL. She needed a way to pay these hospital bills, and still be able to have food to eat. Cindi wrote up an affidavit, and in case readers may not understand, signing an affidavit is the same as being under oath in court, meaning that if Cindi was found to be lying, she could go to prison for this affidavit, and so she put her life and reputation on the line to make these statements.

Cindi Lincoln Kent Hovind Affidavit Domestic Abuse [creationliberty.com]

Cindi Lincoln Kent Hovind Affidavit Domestic Abuse [creationliberty.com]

On August 4th, 2021, Kent was arrested on domestic abuse charges, and paid a $1,000 bond to get out of jail, so he could go back to DAL and do a livestream to tell everyone that he was innocent until proven guilty. Kent said:
"In our system, you're guilty until proven innocent. All you have to do is make an accusation... but that's the way America's degenerated. Somebody makes an accusation—BANG—you get arrested. Now you've got to prove innocence, okay?"
-Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - Whack an Atheist - Consider the Elephant - [LIVE]," Kent Hovind OFFICIAL, Aug 4, 2021, retrieved Dec 21, 2021, [https://youtu.be/SSAkOxP9iCE?t=92]

Of course, I am not saying that men are never arrested on false accusations because that happens quite often, as I point out in another free-to-read book I wrote called Feminism: Castrating America, but in Kent's case, Cindi's testimony was consistent, she signed an affidavit, and her injuries were not consistent with "tripping over the rug." As Kent Hovind used to say in his seminars against atheists and evolutionists, "He is either ignorant or lying."

Cindi Lincoln Kent Hovind Domestic Abuse Arrest Guilty [creationliberty.com]

Cindi Lincoln Kent Hovind Domestic Abuse Arrest Guilty [creationliberty.com]

"We're going to come out squeaky clean, there's nothing to be concerned about."
-Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - Whack an Atheist - Consider the Elephant - [LIVE]," Kent Hovind OFFICIAL, Aug 4, 2021, retrieved Dec 21, 2021, [https://youtu.be/SSAkOxP9iCE?t=153]

Of course, the "innocent until proven guilty" speech worked on his audience for a few weeks, as it always does. However, it stopped working when the court actually found Kent guilty of domestic abuse against Cindi, but as Kent has always done after the court exposes his lies, he blamed the "evil" judicial system.

Please do not misunderstand; I also believe there are MANY corruptions in our U.S. government (as I pointed out in chapter one), including law enforcement and the judicial system. However, in each case, if you actually look at the facts of Kent's trials, the evidence is piled up against him, meaning that his argument (i.e. "the courts are working for the devil") does not apply in his case.

The judge sentenced Kent to one year in jail for abuse of his wife, but allowed Kent to take an option to serve 30 days in the county jail (which, as far as I know, as of Feb of 2022, has not begun yet because he is appealing his case), and then would serve out the next 11 months of his sentence under "unsupervised probation," which means that if he so much as moves one toe out of line, he will end up in jail for much longer. Kent was also given a restraining order (i.e. he cannot come within 500 feet of Cindi, or he will be immediately arrested), he was ordered to surrender all his firearms to the Sheriff's office for the duration of his probation, and he also had to pay Cindi $2,124 in medical damages, plus court fees.

As I mentioned earlier, in an attempt to save himself embarrassment, Kent uploaded an audio recording of the incident between himself and Cindi that he captured on his phone, but he uploaded an edited version of it to present himself in the best light possible, and in response, Cindi uploaded the entire recording. After listening to the recording, there is not much that can be determined from it because, without being able to see the actions and body language of both parties, it basically comes down to a "he said-she said" situation (which is why I did not include it in this book); however, that being said, other documentation supports Cindi's claims in more ways than one.

The following is a message that Kent Hovind wrote in Jan 2021, a few months after the incident took place, which was a response to Cindi's request for him to help her pay her medical expenses:
(Click Image for Larger View)

"Today, Cindi put her medical bill from Christian Healthcare Ministries for $3797.50 back on my desk with a note saying, 'A husband who provides for his wife pays all her bills. I only asked for half.' I had responded in writing yesterday, 1-22-2021, (see attached) saying that I saw 2 options - 1. I would be glad to pay half this medical bill starting with $500 immediately if she would sign the statement that the accident causing the damage and hence the bills was 100% her fault. She did not address my request. I was trying to leave the house to avoid conflict and she was blocking my way. She had clearly stated that she was trying to get my phone to destroy it. She lunged at me to get it and I turned causing her to trip over my hip and fall hard to the floor. Since this 'incident' last Nov. she has brought it up scores of times claiming that she felt that I had 'slammed her on the floor' causing the damage. I have the entire incident recorded. I did NOT slam her down and I'd like her to admit that in writing before I begin paying on this bill.
If I do give her money toward this bill as she originally worded it as a 'reimbursement' that would carry with it the implication that I caused the damage and owed this to her. I will gladly provide for my wife but only after the record is clear that she admits that I was not responsible.
I also suggested an option 2 that 'Cindi join all her finances, assets and liabilities, with me by donating all to the ministry and the ministry will meet all her needs and pay all her bills 'till death do us part.' She did not respond to that either. Most people find it strange that a Christian pastor's wife has separate investments and income and does not simply blend all with her husband and let the ministry provide all her needs. I reinvest 100% of my royalties from my intellectual property (several hundred thousand/yr) into the ministry and let God provide. As soon as she selects either option 1 or 2 I stand willing to help."
-Kent Hovind, quoted by Cindi Lincoln, "Body Slam Full Audio plus other evidences indicating Kent Hovind lied about his wife Cindi Lincoln," Cindi Lincoln Official YouTube Channel, Jul 20, 2021, retrieved Dec 21, 2021, [https://youtu.be/QABTwV9-Fws?t=2584]

The wording Kent Hovind used in this letter raised many red flags with me, and it will take a bit of explaining to understand why. A man who takes care of his family covers the expenses, no matter who was at fault.

I talked to my wife and asked her if she was alright with me using this example, and she agreed. I wanted to be careful not to share something that she would find too embarrassing, but she agreed it was a fitting example to help explain what men have to go through, and what real men ought to do for those they care about.

Early in our marriage, my wife was a bit rebellious against what I would tell her to do, or not to do, and at that time, I had an old vehicle that I used for work, but I noticed that it was having problems shifting into high gears. Our other car had problems too, and I told my wife to either borrow someone else's car or call off work until we could solve the problems in our cars because it was too dangerous to drive either of them, but in her rebelliousness against me, she chose to take my old car into work.

Later, after her shift, I got a call from her that she was stranded on the road because the car had broken down. (i.e. She had run the car in a low gear all the way there and back in extremely high RPM, and it cracked the engine.) As far as I can remember, on the list of times I have been the angriest with my wife, that is likely in the top three because I was livid.

So I borrowed a car from my parents to go get her and the other stranded car (which I told her not to take to work), and hooked it up to pull it home. (I hooked it up in the wrong place and bent the axel, just to add a cherry on top of the mess.) It took my dad and I six weeks of working on that vehicle to get it back up and running (i.e. we had to install another used engine into it, and jerry-rig the entire system because it was a different year's model from the vehicle frame) because Lorraine and I were broke (barely making ends meet), and had no other choice.

Just to clarify, my wife did not do one ounce of work to help get those cars in working order, nor did I ask her to help. Would it have been fair for HER to do the work since she was at fault for the damage? Yes, but I did not ask her to do it. In the end, this is a man's responsibility, in which he sacrifices himself for the sake of his family, and even though I was not the one responsible for the damages, and despite the fact that I HATE working on cars, and despite the fact that my wife was rebellious and disobedient to my instructions, I still covered for her, no matter whose fault it was.

That is the essence of charity, that a noble man sacrifices himself for a woman, and most especially if it is a husband to a wife, which is an analogy for Christ sacrificing himself for the church:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
-Ephesians 5:25-33
(Read The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is what I mean when I say that even if Cindi had accidentally fallen due to a fit of rage, Kent still should have covered her expenses because she is his wife and he has Biblical responsibility for her. This alone should be giving readers major warning signs about Kent Hovind because the fact that he disputed paying anything at all demonstrates that he has no sense of duty to the Word of God, and no charity in his heart, even for his own flesh (i.e. his own wife).

In the interview I did with Cindi, she stated that she had a total of three lawsuits. The first was a lawsuit against Kent for the hospital bills, and a restraining order because of the abuse, which she won and was granted restitution by the court.

The second lawsuit was against Steve Lynn because when Cindi left, she gave a 30-day eviction notice to Steve because she could not trust him, and knew he was doing drugs in the house. Steve, in a fit of rage, did $10,000 of property damage to her house on the way out, so she sued him for the damages.

Kent's lawyer was representing Steve, but Steve failed to show up to court three times in a row. The lawyer told the judge that he no longer wanted to represent Steve in this matter because Steve would not return his calls, and so the judge awarded his ruling to Cindi by default.

As I stated earlier, the third lawsuit is for the $133,000 loan. Cindi won in court, but Kent's lawyer is appealing the decision, despite the fact that all the evidence is in favor of Cindi, and God willing, she will win that case in the end.

While Kent was going through his legal problems with Cindi, once again, he moved on to the next intimate relationship with another woman by the name of Sandra P. Sawyer, and by Sept 23, 2021, he had announced his marriage to her. This means that, once we do the math, he is now divorced from his first wife, and because there is no evidence of any bills of divorcement (i.e. Kent is just "renouncing" his wives), he is now actively married to three women at the same time, but only living with (and acknowledging) Sandra, which (if we follow the pattern) should not last much more than a year or so before Sandra gets ditched too. (I will likely have published this book before then, so readers will have to do their own research to see if I was right.)

Kent Hovind Four Wives Sandra Sawyer [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Four Wives Sandra Sawyer [creationliberty.com]

(See Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, "Dr Kent Hovind: Matthew 24 - The Future," Sept 23, 2021, retrieved Dec 31, 2021, [https://youtu.be/AavnOvswJ5w?t=1380])

Before I get into the surprising details about Sandra, let's read a statement from Mary Tocco. Mary claims that she was contacted by Sandra and asked some questions, so Mary gave a public response:
Mary Tocco Wife Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

Mary Tocco Wife Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

"His NEW wife sent me a question and this is my answer. To the NEW wife: Hi Sandra, I am sorry I just saw this message. Kent announced that you are his new 'wife' but he is legally married to Cindi and possibly me still! That is a felony charge. I was at DAL for 9 months (Sept. 24, 2016 - July 3, 2017). I married him after 6 months of communication, trusting that he was honest, loving and an innocent man. I had been divorced for many years and had a Biblical divorce and knew I was free to remarry. My 5 kids were raise [sic] with his videos and I thought he was amazing! I wanted a 'Man of God' who I could trust. He 'promised' me that he would cherish me and love me forever. I sold everything and move [sic] it all there to start my new life.
At first, it was blissful. He is funny, knows the Bible, handsome and seemed to just be a wonderful man. Around 3-4 months, I began to see how things were handled financially and realized that Ernie Land was a 'Yes' man and would do what ever Kent wanted. There is no accountability with either of them. Steve Lynn was there on campus working with a guy named Roger (Drug addicts for years) and an active alcoholic. I was very concerned because Kent would let him make financial decisions and again, no accountability. Kent paid them and dozens of others under the table the whole time I was there. I told he and Ernie that was illegal but they ignored me. Now he calls him a subcontractor, trying to cover their tracks.
I left for several reasons. I am VP of a 501C3 non-profit and I know how they are supposed to run. They do many illegal things but he and Ernie lie to cover it up. Reasons:
1. The way Kent handled the money. He said he was a volunteer but he is the reason the money comes in. He was very loose with all this when I was there but now he is really 'protective' with all of this but I have solid proof.
2. He says he is not on the board but he controls the board. He has no planning committee; he makes all the decisions and the volunteer program is really dangerous.
3. Known pedophiles are his friends and they visit often. Kent says they are innocent.
4. People come from all over and they are not properly vetted. He invited anyone and attracts Ex-drug and active addicts, homeless vagabonds in the mix of good, Christian people who are looking for purpose and found his ministry.
5. Good Christians come hopeful and leave very disappointed, I know dozens who could tell you I am being honest.
5. [sic - she meant "6"] When a man who claims to love the Lord can look his 'wife' in the eyes and outright LIE, I have no tolerance and he lied to me and many others all the time, even when my well-being was threatened. He is a master of manipulation, denial, and I believe he is being led by the devil.
He also has a fuse that will go off and he can be violent. I went to AL [Alabama] to testify in court against him on behalf of Cindi. I saw him violently 'body-slam' a 13-year-old boy. Several of us watch [sic] in horror as he attacked this young boy like he went insane. It was very scary. You will be his 4th victim. He uses his child-like charm and sex to woo you into believing he loves you. He will be back in court for many other things he has done. I do not want you to be used for his image and hurt like I was. Run away. Seek God and I am sorry to burst your hopes and dreams."
-Mary Tocco, Facebook Post under group, Kent Hovind's Worst Nightmare (Public)!, Sept 25, 2021, retrieved Dec 31, 2021, [https://bit.ly/3Jwvf0t]

As a disclaimer Mary Tocco has a few facts wrong about marriage legalities (see my book The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage for more details), specifically on the fact that she is DEFINITELY still married to him (as are Cindi and Sandra) but other than that, her testimony is spot on. She mentioned a few names and details I will not go over right now because we will get to those in the next few chapters of this book.

Based on the information Mary provided in her testimony, Kent was an irresponsible spender when he got out of prison, which is something one would think he would be very cautious about, especially after the IRS fiasco. However, my suspicion is that he was treating his release from prison like a vacation, and started spending the donations from his dedicated followers like he was confident it would keep rolling in, but when more of his criminal friends started to get involved, he had to watch his back, so now he is very cautious with his money.

Kent operates his "ministry" in this exact same way many pastors operate their church buildings. In essence, the board of elders is for show because the pastor is the one who really calls the shots, operating the so-called "ministry" like a preacher king ruling over his subjects, and Kent Hovind is no different.
(Read "Is the One-Pastor Church System Biblical?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
-Matthew 20:25-28

When Mary made the comment about "homeless vagabonds," please do not misunderstand this to mean that she is against caring for the poor and needy because this is a different situation. Essentially, a vagabond is a person who purposefully lives the homeless lifestyle because they do not want to work, and if they pay Kent Hovind lip service to make him look good in front of his online audience, then he will let them stay at his compound.

Kent puts these people under his thumb where he can control them under threat of expulsion from the property. It does not take a degree in criminal science to figure out what he is doing, but churchgoers need to start praying that God would give them wisdom and open their eyes. (Jms 1:5) The vagabonds will then agree with Kent's every word, so it will appear that everything he says and does is "good," and that Kent is constantly under attack by the Devil, so online churchgoers will continue to send him donations, which (at this point) are more or less being used to pay for the food and lodging of Kent's brown-nosers and criminal friends.

Finally, Mary testifies that Kent has physically attacked more than one person in his violent outbursts, and after spending a decade in prison, this is somewhat unsurprising to me for a number of reasons I will not go into in this book. This is what I meant earlier when I said that Cindi's testimony can be verified in other ways, or rather, through other eyewitness testimonies, and we will see more evidence of that in later chapters.

With wife #4, Kent made a slightly different choice because Sandra Sawyer has had three prior husbands, and seven children by two of them. The first husband with whom she had children is Steven M. Tabler, who died in April of 2021 while on a hospital ventilator (i.e. it is unclear if it was a Covid-19 hospital ventilator, which is well-known to have been purposely setup to kill many people to increase Covid-19 death numbers), and had been previously arrested and charged with soliciting a prostitute in 2001.
(See Steven Michael Tabler, "Inmate Profile," Polk County Sheriff's Office, retrieved Jan 14, 2022, [https://polksheriff.org/inmate-profile/0100831]; See also Tribute Archive, "Stephen Michael Taylor," retrieved Jan 14, 2022, [https://www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/20632937/Stephen-Michael-Tabler/Auburndale/Florida/Kersey-Funeral-Home])

Sandra did not have children with her second husband, Raymond Furcillo, and was only married to him for a couple of years before they divorced. Furcillo served a year in prison for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
(See Raymond Furcillo, mugshots.com, retrieved Jan 14, 2020, [https://mugshots.com/US-States/Florida/Polk-County-FL/Raymond-Furzillo.1963335.html])

Sandra's third husband was Aaron R. Sawyer, from who she got her surname. Aaron Sawyer has been arrested and charged for many counts of writing bad checks, drunken and disorderly conduct, theft, assault and battery, and an assortment of other motor vehicle violations, and so it is no wonder that Sandra chose Kent, as she is no stranger to having relationships with abusive men with a criminal history.
(See "Sawyer, Aaron Ray," Polk County Sheriff's Office, retrieved Jan 14, 2022, [https://polksheriff.org/detention/jail-inquiry]; See also Aaron Ray Sawyer, Facebook Profile, retrieved Jan 14, 2022, [https://www.facebook.com/aaron.r.sawyer.1])

Please do not misunderstand; there is nothing wrong with marrying someone who has done some bad things in the past. In fact, many of God's children in the Bible were former criminals. However, the problem is the pattern of men Sandra keeps choosing, and the fact that she keeps getting married and divorced without any repentance of her wrongdoing.

According to the research of Robert Baty, there was plenty of indication that Sandra had a relationship with Kent Hovind as early as Sept of 2021, but it was quite possible that they had a relationship long before then. Sandra had kept the relationship very secretive, and Baty had received communication from Sandra's daughter Rebecca, asking what he knew about it, all the while, Kent's faithful (i.e. willingly blind) followers kept calling it a conspiracy theory.
(See Robert Baty, "Sandra Princess Sawyer & Kent Hovind," retrieved Jan 14, 2022, [http://kehvrlb.com/sandra-princess-sawyer-kent-hovind])

Sandra Sawyer Rebecca Kent Hovind Marriage Robert Baty FaceBook [creationliberty.com]

Sandra Sawyer Rebecca Kent Hovind Marriage Robert Baty FaceBook [creationliberty.com]

The reason I am documenting all this is to demonstrate to Kent Hovind's followers that they will blindly believe anything he tells them without checking the facts first. Again, I used to be a Hovindite, so I know how they think, but the facts do not care about our feelings, and we need the Lord God to open our eyes to those facts, or our feelings will blind us.

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

Sandra Sawyer officially announced her marriage to Kent Hovind on Oct 3, 2021, and she has also changed her name to "Sandra Hovind" on her social media. Without documenting a bunch of the posts here, since that time, I have read numerous eyewitness testimonies that Sandra is well-known to have one-night stands and short dating flings with various men, and she refuses to heed anyone's warnings or counsel. I can only pray that God will have as much mercy on her and her family as He has given to me and mine.
(See Sandra Princess Sawyer, Facebook post, Oct 3, 2021, retrieved Jan 14, 2022, [https://www.facebook.com/bcnrmil/posts/10224032033295899])

The following image is a wedding ceremony and party thrown by Kent and Sandra in December of 2021: Kent Hovind Sandra Princess Sawyer Wedding 2021 [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Sandra Princess Sawyer Wedding 2021 [creationliberty.com]

As much as these women are victims, they are also guilty because all of them (along with Kent) speak so highly of Jesus Christ, and yet they ignore His Word when it comes to marriage. Please do not misunderstand, I am not any better than them, and only by the grace of God have I been saved from fornication and adultery (the consequences of which I could have suffered greatly if not for His mercy on me), but without being humbled to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of sin, God will not give His grace of remission.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
-James 4:6-10

Many of these women still, to this day, believe that their marriages to Kent were Biblical (i.e. that he was eligible to be remarried), but what Kent did to his first wife proves that he was NOT Biblically eligible to be remarried. None of the women who have married Kent had a justification from the New Testament to do so, and again, if any readers want to learn more about that, I highly recommend reading my book, The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage, which is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com. If these women (and any future women that might come along) would acknowledge the truth of Scripture on the marriage issue, then none of them would have gotten involved with Kent in the first place, and it would have saved them a lot of time, money, and heartache.

In short, Kent has proven himself to be a liar (because he gives his word and does not keep it), a hypocrite (because he has taught the doctrine of one man and one woman for life), and a deceiver (because he covers up the truth). I just want to remind Christians that God hates lies, and as a young Christian, I first learned most of these verses from Kent Hovind himself:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19

Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
-Exodus 23:1

A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.
-Proverbs 13:5

A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
-Proverbs 14:5

Kent Hovind Three Wives Jo Mary Cindi [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind's hypocrisy goes so much deeper, as Deborah Henderson (a former dedicated supporter and volunteer for Kent's Dinosaur Adventure Land) testified when she talked about her experiences in working with their volunteer staff while Mary was still together with Kent. When Deborah had mentioned to Kent that she was struggling in her relationship with her own husband, Kent's response was "Just get naked," meaning that his shallow mind thought that her stripping for her husband (or sexual stimulation) was going to solve all their marital problems, and despite the fact that it should be shocking to anyone that came out of the mouth of a so-called "Christian evangelist," Kent's hypocritical, raunchy, and secular "advice" never worked to save any of the marriages he ruined.
-Interview with Deborah Henderson, "Deborah Sheds Light On Kent Hovind Kompound ORIGINAL INTERVIEW," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 24, 2017, retrieved Apr 9, 2020, [https://youtu.be/L74w6yTGXkk?t=2029]

Now that we have seen evidence of how Kent treats his wives, and his unbiblical views on marriage, let's take a look at the details about how Kent treats those he works with...

#5 - How Kent Treats His Staff and Supporters

If you were to only look at the videos and publications approved by Kent Hovind and his ministry, then you would never think that Kent was a cruel and self-righteous person, but the reality is something completely different from what he shows everyone on camera. As we have already seen from his previous wives, the wicked heart of Kent is revealed by those who have been closest to him because he has frequently burned and abandoned his biggest supporters.

Before I begin, I want to make a disclaimer that I do not believe everyone who has departed from Kent has done what is right in all instances, and some of them reacted poorly, while others have claimed some things that are not entirely true, and I will talk about that more in the final chapter of this book. That being said, please keep in mind that many of these people were very dedicated to Kent and his so-called "ministry," spending a great deal of time, money, and energy to help him, and when they learned the truth of what he is really like, how he operates and takes advantage of others, they were deeply hurt and confused, and so their reactions (whether good or bad) were completely understandable because, emotionally, it can be very difficult to be betrayed by a man you once looked up to.

It has been surprisingly difficult to get proper eyewitnesses to give valid testimonies about their time with Kent, as many of them still see him as a (if I may borrow the words of Kent) "holy sacred cow," and refuse to come forward with the truth. For those who came forward with tangible evidence to prove what they were saying, I would like to say: Thank you for doing what is right, even if it hurts due to the backlash you may have received from Kent and his Hovindites; your testimonies have certainly helped me, and they will help others who read this.

To begin, I want to refer to Hannah Deborah as a primary example to help readers understand how deceptive, backbiting, and vicious Kent Hovind is in his treatment of others. Over the years in listening to various videos and/or interviews with Kent, I remember hearing Hannah's name mentioned, although I did not know anything about her; all I knew was that Hannah was helping as a secretary to manage all the emails for Kent behind the scenes, a job that requires many long, thankless hours of dedication for the thousands of emails Kent receives on a regular basis.

If you read the introduction to this book, I quoted Hannah's testimony about working with Kent, and I will quote it again so we can refresh our memories: Hannah Deborah Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

"This hurts me to say but I myself have thought of many of the same points you just brought out over the last 9 months or so while I was still working for his [Kent Hovind's] ministry. I hate to see him be this way. While there are many things I like about him, I have found him to be narcissistic [self-loving, self-serving, and self-glorifying, thinking himself better than others around him] in the extreme (except when he wants to put on a humble front for certain things), arrogant, quick to jump to the next topic without fully covering the current one, avoids topics he doesn't like, and like you said, doesn't accept correction; just comes back with a counter-argument to make his point look undeniably right... He was a role model to me and I looked up to him since I was 10 years old. He strengthened my interest in creation and geology and the fight against evolution propoganda [sic] as I grew up. He was my favorite and a hero of mine. But I find him using some of the same arguments and excuses he claims other people make towards the things he says. I cannot wholeheartedly support someone like that...

Kent Hovind Hannah Deborah [creationliberty.com]

I'm glad for my time helping him because it taught me a lot, good and bad! I gained experience in administrative work which is cool and I fought for a cause I believed was right while he was still in prison. But now that that's over there are many things that need to be dealt with but instead of doing that he just keeps doing what he's always done and doesn't care, which disappointed my family and many others...

I'm not sure what to say because I don't want the whole world hearing that and then everyone talks about it because there are people who will spread any tiny bit of gossip among his community, especially about me since he talked to and about me on his videos a lot. I was always one of Kent's strongest supporters and defenders for quite a while so this is a bit difficult to come out with publicly."
-Hannah Deborah, quoted by Robert Baty, "So, Hannah, you realized it was not a joke!" KHVRLB, retrieved Apr 7, 2020, [kehvrlb.com/so-hannah-you-realized-it-was-not-a-joke]

I can understand Hannah's position in all this, but our jobs as Christians are to tell the truth for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the sake of new Christians that might be deceived by Kent. It is good to be patient and charitable with all mankind, but if a preacher claims to be of Christ, and he will not hear proper Biblical rebuke and correction, then we have a duty to the Lord Jesus Christ to protect the young Christians in the church.

Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
-1 Timothy 5:20

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
-Titus 1:10-13

After witnessing much of Kent's deception, and his prideful demeanor, Hannah resigned from the position she held for many years to help Kent and his organization. The day after Hannah left, Kent made a video and responded to her departure by saying: Hannah Deborah Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

"You know, in the Bible, it was a miracle when the dumb spake. Now it's an everyday occurrence. [roars of laughter in the background from Kent's staff, and Kent breaks out into laughter] You can use that one. That's not a joke Hannah."
-Kent Hovind, "Kent Hovind in 'Go On And Sin On More'," Bertus Den Droef, Sept 12, 2016, retrieved Apr 9, 2020, [https://youtu.be/EC5TLO4Itqo?t=100]

Granted, I do not know much about Hannah, and I have only seen things she has written, but she seems to have a quiet and gentle spirit about her, and her long-term and selfless dedication shows that she has performed the duties of a good servant. If nothing else, she loved Kent and did good unto him, and therefore, we can see that Kent Hovind responds to a quiet, gentle, loving, and kind servant with railing and mocking, and personally, it reminds me a lot of Steven Anderson. (i.e. It makes sense why Kent and Steve got along so well when they met.)

We covered the definition of a 'railer' in the chapter on the relationship between Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson, but let's review it again to refresh our memories:

rail (v): to utter reproaches [to accuse by vicious means]; to scoff; to use insolent and reproachful [shameful, hateful] language
(See 'rail', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 15, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

So a railer is someone who would yell and scream at others, or someone who would mock others, when in disagreement with them. I do not believe that Hannah did any wrong to Kent, but even if she did, there was no Biblical reason for him to respond to her the way he did, which makes him guilty of railing, and the Bible tells us VERY clearly what we are to do with railers who call themselves "Christians" and will not come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of their wrongdoing:

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Just to clarify, Paul was not saying that we should avoid sinners in general because that would be impossible, but rather, if any man claims to be of Christ (i.e. taking the name of the Lord upon themselves, which is a claim to represent Him on earth), and is a railer (like Kent Hovind), then we are not to keep company with him, we are not to sit down and have a meal with him, and we are to remove him from the church. Certainly, Kent is not part of the true church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he operates outside of Christ's authority because he is not a Christian; however, Kent runs his own organization, and so the only people removed from Kent's organization are those who dare question him; meanwhile, while in front of a camera, Kent claims to be brethren in Christ so he can gain the support and funding of churchgoers.

In the introduction to this book, I mentioned Joshua Joscelyn, who also dedicated a lot of his time, money, and energy to protest Kent's imprisonment. As a disclaimer, I have watched videos of Joscelyn teaching repentance unto salvation, but then he teaches a false definition of repentance (i.e. he does not use the Biblical definition of grief and godly sorrow, and instead teaches that the word 'repent' means "to turn" or "to change," which distorts the Gospel of Salvation), so whereas he will rightly preach against Steven Anderson's cult and their false gospel, Joscelyn is still in error because he does not understand what repentance really means in Scripture, nor the fullness of Christ's Gospel. Joscelyn has a book out on repentance, but he teaches it in error, so in other words, I do not trust Joscelyn's doctrine any further than I trust Kent or Anderson's doctrine, but, that being said, while Kent was in jail, Joscelyn was very dedicated and outspoken in defense of Kent's innocence.

Joshua Joscelyn Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

(See Joshua Joscelyn, "Steven Anderson Mob Accosts Repentance Street Preacher!" TruthMercyBaptist, Sept 1, 2018, retrieved Apr 15, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=Y4N1nAbmpLw]; See also "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" and Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell here at creationliberty.com for more details; last I saw, Joscelyn was part of Sam Adams' church, and Sam Adams teaches the same false, works-based doctrine, claiming that people have to turn from the sin to be saved, because he does not understand what repentance is.)

Like myself, Joscelyn spent many years memorizing Kent's materials, so he was quite dedicated to Kent's teachings, and he spent a great deal of time volunteering to help Kent. However, after Kent was released from prison and Joscelyn got to spend time with him and his family, the reality about Kent's true character began to take shape:
"Many will recognize that I have been one of Kent Hovind's staunchest [most loyal and committed] supporters over the years, and have even stuck my neck out for him. It pains me to write against him, and I have put it off for quite some time. I grew up watching Dr. Hovind's creation seminars and practically memorized their content. Eventually, I was honored to work at Dinosaur Adventure Land as a park guide and later as the head of apologetics and publications for Creation Science Evangelism...
I have written about my shock at the negative attitude towards Dr. Hovind that I found among his own family members and those who had worked under him. I didn't understand then what I understand now. When Dr. Hovind was transferred to the nearby Santa Rosa County jail for his second trial, I began visiting him monthly. I wanted to encourage him and also discuss with him some concerns I had about his removing repentance from his gospel presentation. But what I had come to suspect from corresponding with him over the years was confirmed by these visits. Kent Hovind does not respond to correction. He will not listen to it for even a few seconds...
Many are familiar with my aggressive defense of Dr. Hovind and how I bull-horned the courthouse for his release throughout the second trial. Kent Hovind had no better friend than myself. But something I now knew about him worried me. When he came home, I spent some time with him, noticing the curious, makeshift bedroom he had set up adjacent to his office. I ate meals with his family and observed the awkwardness of the family dynamic. On more than one occasion, I tried bringing up my growing concerns with him, but he quickly changed the subject or acted like it wasn't important. And that is why I am writing this — because Kent Hovind refuses to listen to anything negative I have to say in person. For a long time, he has refused to listen to concerns from me or anyone else. Perhaps he will read this and know why I can no longer support him or his ministry. And perhaps others will pause and reconsider their support for him when they read about why one of Dr. Hovind's most stalwart defenders is disavowing him."
-Joshua Joscelyn, "Kent Hovind's Mistress," Sept 7, 2016, retrieved Apr 7, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/notes/joshua-joscelyn/kent-hovinds-mistress/10154454291453119]

At the end of his testimony, Joscelyn stated that, after he wrote his testimony, he was "physically threatened" by Ernest (Ernie) Land, one of Kent's most trusted advisors, and that Kent Hovind "attempted to blackmail" him. Joscelyn also stated that he would provide the documentation if anyone requested, so I contacted Joscelyn, and he was true to his word; he sent me the following conversations between himself, Ernie, and Kent: (Click Image for Larger View)

If you read the texts and posts, you can confirm that Ernie Land did indeed send Joscelyn something that could be considered a threat, and in my opinion, it did seem like a threat:
"Your offences are beyond preaching or teaching. It's easy to hide on social media, but you sir will witness a coward when we once again meet. I will uphold my family name and I will stand for what I believe."
-Ernest Land, conversation with Joshua Joscelyn in September of 2016, sent to Christopher Johnson via Facebook Apr 15, 2020

Of course, Ernie, in his rage, did not take the time to slow down and consider his words because that could be open to misinterpretation, to mean that he was in agreement with Joscelyn, meaning that Joshua would witness Ernie, (seemingly referring to himself as) a coward, when they met again. This is because it is not possible for Joscelyn to witness himself (i.e. he can only witness Ernie), which means Ernie would be confessing his own cowardice, but putting aside the grammatical inconsistencies, this shows us that Ernie's religion is vain because he does not have a bridle (i.e. rein) on his tongue, and this is the kind of man Kent Hovind yokes himself together with.

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
-James 1:26

Ernie Land Kent Hovind Joshua Joscelyn [creationliberty.com]

In a separate post, Kent Hovind addressed Joscelyn by saying:
"Joshua Joscelyn of all people should drop his stone and quietly go away! Does he want his and his wife's secret past proclaimed publicly?... If picking on or belittling a man of God makes you feel more spiritual I suggest you pick on a different one."
-Kent Hovind, conversation with Joshua Joscelyn in September of 2016, sent to Christopher Johnson via Facebook Apr 15, 2020

Just to clarify, blackmail is a type of coercion:

blackmail (v): to extort money from a person by the use of threats; to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.
coerce (v) to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition
(See 'blackmail' & 'coerce', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Kent threatened to reveal personal information about Joscelyn and his wife if Joscelyn did not stop speaking the truth about Kent. That is blackmail and coercion, by definition, and later, I will reveal more evidence that Joscelyn is not the only person Kent has blackmailed and coerced into doing his will. Viewing the conversations from the outside in, what I see in the communication from Kent and Ernie is a lot of railing accusations and self-righteous justifications, in which (despite what they believe) they are not speaking in a Biblical manner, but rather, they are only excusing themselves and quoting Scripture they believe justifies them while hypocritically ignoring the beam in their own eye.

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
-Luke 16:15

All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
-Proverbs 16:2

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-Matthew 7:5

There is a lot you can discern about a man by the company which he keeps, that is, by the friends who are closest to him. Ernie Land is one of Kent's closest colleagues, and he is a fine example of Kent's willful blindness and railing attitude, and if one was so inclined, an entire exposé could be written about Ernie alone.

Just to give a brief example, Ernie had personal correspondence with blogger Peter Reilly, in which he was attempting to justify Kent's "sham trusts" (which we covered in chapter one), and he said:
"Jesus established his Church on Peter and in the Holy Land,"
-Ernest Land, quoted by Peter J. Reilly, "Even Ernie Land Cannot Get Kent Hovind To Shut Up About Some Things," Apr 25, 2016, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [ytmp.blogspot.com/2016/04/even-ernie-land-cannot-get-kent-hovind.html]

I find that interesting because that is what the Catholic Church teaches, not what the Bible teaches. The Lord Jesus Christ established His church on FAITH in Christ and the rock upon which the church rests is Christ, not on Peter.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism - "Chapter 7, The Pope: Throne of an Antichrist" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-Matthew 16:18

For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?
-2 Samuel 22:32

He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
-Psalm 89:26

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
-1 Corinthians 10:4

This is just to give one example of many strange things I have noticed written/spoken by Ernie Land, and after reading a number of things he has written, it is clear that he does not have a good understanding of Scripture. Ernie loves to repeat the mantra of mainstream church-ianity every time Kent is called out on his sin, by saying "judge not that ye be not judged," believing that no one should judge his words and actions.
(Read "Unbiblical Cop-Outs: 'Don't Judge Me!'" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But Jesus taught us:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

And Paul taught us that we who are in the church of Christ should judge all spiritual matters:

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1 Corinthians 2:15

When Jesus was preaching what is commonly known as the "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew 7, and he said "Judge not, that ye be not judged," He was NOT teaching people that if they avoided judging anyone that they would never be judged (i.e. that is absurd and contradicts the rest of the Bible), but rather, He was teaching them not to judge as hypocrites, and to keep in mind that the righteous judgment (according to Scripture) by which we would judge another man will also be applied to us, and therefore, we should judge ourselves first BEFORE we judge others.

For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
-1 Corinthians 11:31

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
-2 Corinthians 13:5

For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
-Isaiah 61:8

Thus, Jesus was preaching against hypocrites who judge in unrighteous judgment because they will not examine themselves, and therefore, He said unto them:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-Matthew 7:5

In Ernie's conversation with Joscelyn on Facebook, he told Joscelyn that "You sir do not get to judge," trying to justify himself with Matthew 7, and then immediately compared Joscelyn to "snakes and vipors [sic]," which means that, if Ernie truly believed that judgment should not be taking place, then Ernie is a hypocrite because he judged when he should not have done so. (i.e. Ernie Land does not follow his own doctrine, and as a side note, I thought Facebook had spell-check features—??) Ernie challenges Joscelyn to say these things face-to-face, and then when Joscelyn agrees to do so, Ernie calls him evil and acts like meeting Joscelyn face-to-face is beneath him, and then Ernie proceeds to threaten Joscelyn, which further demonstrates Ernie's hypocrisy.

Not only does Kent keep close company with railing hypocrites like Ernie Land, but Kent also defends Ernie's false accusations and hypocritical judgments. Kent believes that the vile things coming out of Land's mouth are in faithful loyalty to Kent, and I agree, his words are loyal to Kent, but not loyal to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees [religious leadership who claimed to serve the Lord God], hypocrites! for ye compass [travel across] sea and land to make one proselyte [a convert to a religious belief or organization], and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
-Matthew 23:15

Please understand that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the scribes were religious leaders who claimed to serve the Lord God under false pretenses. It is amazing how often churchgoers throw around the term "Pharisee" without understanding that pastors, deacons, elders, and other such leadership, like those in the position of Kent Hovind and Ernest Land, are the ones who are in the position of religious leadership, and that, under false pretenses, they claim to serve the Lord God; in short, they are in the very position of the Pharisees, while calling others a Pharisee in hypocrisy.

Before I move on, Theodore Valentine, former friend and volunteer of Kent Hovind, released an audio clip of a conversation he had with Ernie Land over the phone, and Ernie admitted that Kent hides large donations given to CSE and DAL, and he transfers that money to himself or other people, meaning that there are large portions of donations to Kent that do NOT go to CSE or DAL:
"Kent's only legal ramifications are the things he will try to hide. For example, if they can catch Kent taking donations and not turning them into the ministry, and not going on record with it, that would be harmful to him. If they could actually—and you know how those guys work. [I am assuming he means the IRS.] They could do that. They could put a plant in the church that makes a large cash donation, and see that it never comes in. They can reconcile the books, back and forth, and—they've got all my records. I mean, I say all MY records, excuse me. They've got all the ministry records, and all the for-profit records. So, there are many things they could do to manipulate Kent, to catch him, personally, in acts that we all know he's doing."
-Ernest Land, "Ernest Land Admits Kent Hovind Hides and Transfers Money," Lies of the Devil, June 16, 2019, retrieved May 15, 2020, [https://youtu.be/cpsZ9Zwe3Bw?t=700]

Obviously, this should be a resounding warning to all readers that you should NEVER send money to Kent Hovind and his so-called "ministries," but furthermore, if Ernest Land is supposedly a "man of God," why is he still working with Kent, knowing that Kent is committing fraud?

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
-Ephesians 5:11

All I know for certain is this: Ernest Land has no business judging anyone else until he judges himself first. He has no justification to say any of the things he said to Joscelyn because if Ernie suffers the crime under his supervision, then he is no better than the criminal in the eyes of God, and the IRS WILL come after him if they read this testimony.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:28-32

Kent Hovind Sierra Hammond Smits [creationliberty.com]

We will see more evidence of Kent using money for selfish purposes as we take a closer look at the testimony of Sierra Hammond (now Sierra Smits), who was 18-years-old in the summer of 2016 when she moved out to Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land to volunteer. She did not know what she could do to help, but she saw a listing that they needed a cook for the men who were working on the site, and she knew how to cook, so she stayed at DAL and worked from June to August of that year.
(See Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html])

Sierra states:
"When I arrived, the crew was very small still... perhaps 14 or 15 people at most. I was warmly welcomed and all of the guys appreciated my presence. I was the only girl there, aside from Lady Di, a sweet older lady who works in the office. I enjoyed the work and it was a sweet spirit of fellowship. We worked together, and everyone was grateful for everyone else.
I did all of the domestic work that would ordinarily be associated with running a household, but for the camp, not just however many people you may have in your home. This included menu planning, grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning the kitchen, bathrooms, and dining area, doing laundry, etc. As I was there longer and longer, the group size would get bigger and smaller. I think at most I had 50 people to feed, but the average was between 20 and 25."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

Before I continue, it should be understood that, even for the lower end of twenty people, for one person to do all those daily tasks for them is a HUGE amount of work. Those of you who have not worked in the food service industry may not understand this, but it would not be surprising that she would need to be working 16-hour days at minimum, 7-days a week.

It should also be noted that Sierra had to work in a one-room shack. As we will find out in a moment, she only had a small stove, a microwave, a shop sink, and two refrigerators, all in an extremely small space, making it almost impossible to feed that many people. (Having worked many years in the food industry, I am surprised she managed it.) Kent Hovind Sierra Hammond Smits [creationliberty.com]

(See Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind Cheated on Jo Hovind," Lies of the Devil, Dec 31, 2019, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [https://youtu.be/lEi3DM2QK20])

Furthermore, the reason that the total amount of people was fluctuating to such a degree is not because of scheduling for volunteers, as some might assume. Rather, this is due to the fact that there is a metaphorical revolving door at CSE and DAL, in which the true born again Christians who visit as volunteers find out who Kent really is off-camera, and what is really going on behind the scenes, and they leave, but because few of them are willing to come out and give a testimony (like Sierra has faithfully done), more and more Christians keep getting deceived by Kent.

Sierra goes on to describe some of her initial experiences with other people on the site, as well as some of the life-long friends she made there, but after that, she goes on to say:
"However, as time went on, things began to change around DAL. The peaceful atmosphere became stressed as we all got tired, and began to become overworked. The Bible studies changed too. They became less of an actual Bible study, and more of a big commercial for Doctor Hovind's bookstore. He would talk about the books nearly equal to as long as he would the actual Bible. Here, you can see that for 7.5 minutes (from where the video begins at 3:10) he talks about his books, Mormons, and Muslims. Then for about 8.5 minutes he chats about 4 Bible verses, then for an additional half a minute, he talks about the bookstore."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

In her testimony, Sierra provides a link to one of Kent's recordings in August of 2016. I went to the video and took a look at it, and Sierra is correct; Kent spends most of the time promoting books to increase his sales, and bragging about his "award-winning seminars" because his primary focus is NOT the Word of God, but rather, his focus is on his first love, fame and fortune.
(See Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind Bible Study Aug. 1, 2016 Matthew 9:1-3," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Aug 2, 2016, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [https://youtu.be/m748jJK6KaY?t=190])

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
-2 Peter 2:3

She goes on to talk about how she was a volunteer, unpaid for her work, and eventually, they put her on the payroll, as officially paid staff. There were certain classes of people that got paid different scales; ranging from the lowest, which was $500 a month, to the highest which was $2000 per month, and needless to say, Sierra got the lowest amount.

Now we will read the part of her testimony where things really start to turn dark because, as soon as she was being paid a measly $125 a week (or less than $18 per day, and with 16-hour days, it would work out to roughly $1 per hour) for her extremely long and stressful work cycle, things began to change:
"Their treatment of me began to change rapidly. What I was doing, and the way I had been doing it became scrutinized and I was treated like an employee. I was told I could delegate my work, and to manage others as well, but I was the only young lady who was reliably there to do the domestic work. My friend Beth helped me a lot, but was not there the whole summer. Just before I left, they expected a hot breakfast at 6 am (muffins or something made the day before were not acceptable. They wanted bacon, eggs, toast, etc. every morning--meaning I needed to be in the kitchen by 4:30 am), a hot lunch prepared at noon, and a homemade dinner at 6 pm. If you were doing this for a small number of people, that would perhaps be possible, but as mentioned before, I was the only girl there most of the summer, and I would have anywhere from 14-50 people to feed... usually around 25. We would also have a 'mandatory meeting' at 7 am every morning and 8pm every night, to do the bible study, and have a general meeting. The 8pm meeting sometimes could run an hour or more, but breakfast was still expected bright and early every single morning, without fail, in addition to the other two meals, and cleaning around the camp, kitchen, bathrooms, and dining areas. When Lenae Valentine (then Byers) arrived just before I left, she helped me a lot... we would trade off which meals we would prepare to give each other breaks. That woman was an amazing blessing to me, but it was still far too much for two people on their own."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

Sierra mentioned a woman named Lenae, and Lenae would later become the wife of Theodore Valentine, who I mentioned earlier was there volunteering with the rest of the staff. The duties left to Sierra, on top of all the pointless, mandatory meetings she had to attend on a daily basis, would force her to go to sleep very late, and be up before the crack of dawn, all for Kent's "oh-so-generous" $18 per day.

Sierra continues to describe one of the men who spent his off-time in the evenings helping her get caught up on dishes, and this was the man who would later become her husband:
"I did most of the work by hand. I did all the dishes for all the people by hand. Sometimes people would help (I had one friend in particular who helped me nearly every night for the 5 or 6 weeks he was there... I appreciated him so much!) but more often than not I was doing them alone. One night, the evening before my friend I mentioned was scheduled to depart, I did not catch up all the dishes. I was sad he was leaving, and planned to do them in the morning, so I could spend that evening with him. Doctor Hovind was gone for the week preaching somewhere, and Steve, his right hand man, was left in charge. I went to sleep that night and planned to do it immediately in the morning. Around 4:30 am, Steve came into the girl's bunkhouse where Lenae, myself, and a friend of mine from Ohio were sleeping, angry that the dishes were not done. He brought me to the kitchen, and using extremely colorful language ill-fit for a man of God, basically told me I better run this kitchen like an industrial kitchen and keep it clean, 'or they would find some one else who could.' I was shocked. I did my best to keep up, but it was a very big job for anyone to try and tackle alone, and yes, had left the dishes undone for the night to spend time with my sweet friend. I was also appalled that he went into the girl's [sic] bunkhouse early in the morning uninvited. We could have been in any array of undress. I was also upset at the expectation to run it like an industrial kitchen. If I had an industrial kitchen to work with, of course I could. But I had far from that...just a stove, a microwave, a shop sink, two refrigerators, and a hope of the promise that they would build me a proper kitchen in the pole barn. I spent hours a day simply trying to keep up with the dishes. 25 people times three meals a day without a dishwasher is very overwhelming."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

First of all, the man named Steve is the same Steve Lynn who we read about earlier (i.e. he was involved in drugs, doing property damage to Cindi's house, and Cindi testified that when her rental house was cleaned out, he had BDSM (i.e. sexual bondage gear) and gay porn all over his room. It needs to be emphasized that he had no business barging into the girls' dorm, likely taking advantage of such a situation to appease his lewd and lustful heart, and that should be a warning to any women that might be thinking of volunteering for Kent's so-called "ministry," since these are the kind of men Kent puts in charge.

Secondly, Theodore Valentine also testified that Steve was a foul-mouthed man who was obviously not of Christ, and it is common for Kent to have such people working for him because he does not vet the people who work at CSE and DAL. Kent only requires his followers to obey his every command, and since Steve dedicated himself to be Kent's obedient lackey, Steve received protection and support from Kent to be a slave-driver in his absence.

But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
-Colossians 3:8

Steve Theodore Kent Hovind [creationliberty.com]

Valentine also testified that Steve was Kent's video editor, and that he spent a lot of his time playing video games while others were out working. Just based on my own deduction, it is likely Steve was up throughout the night playing games and wanted a snack, he could not find a clean plate or cup that he wanted to use, and instead of doing some dishes (i.e. actual labor), he had a major outburst of rage over the matter that got aimed in Sierra's direction.

"After I started getting paid, I had an online class I started taking. It took me about half an hour each day. Usually from about 2:30 or 3 pm (when I finished the lunch dishes and cleanup) until 4:30 pm (when I had to start dinner) I had a bit of "free time" and worked on the class then. However, one afternoon, Doc came in and discovered me working on the class in the kitchen. I was told (paraphrasing) that, 'We need to come up with a policy regarding online classes and such. If I give you a half an hour now to work on it, then [*name redacted by Sierra*] will want to take half an hour to work on his house in the afternoon, and [*name redacted by Sierra*] will want to take half an hour to take a nap every afternoon. You should be scrubbing the floors or the cupboards or something.' While I can understand where he was coming from, in the evenings when the men had a bit of a break for the day, I was still busy in the kitchen, preparing dinner and cleaning up afterwards, doing more dishes. I did not get an evening break like they did, but suddenly was not permitted to work on my class online. Wait... what happened to volunteer?"
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

This gives us a better idea of how stressful the environment was for a woman that was essentially making pennies on the hour, and furthermore, she was only supposed to be a volunteer. (And remember, we learned in chapter one that Kent claimed to the court that they were all "volunteers," which we now know is a lie.) If a volunteer wanted to take thirty minutes out of her day to do her online classes, then she was at liberty to do so, but they were treating her as a poorly paid slave.

"The treatment of women was atrocious. [wicked, cruel, poor] I would be told I may delegate some of my (extensive) tasks to others, but I would then be told that I could not make any of the men help me, because it was 'women's work' and that if they wanted to help me after they put in a day's labor, that would be okay. Obviously there were not very many men willing to help, as they were all tired and worn down by the end of the day. Doctor Hovind was extremely stubborn about it, to the point that he would come into the kitchen and ask for a drink, but would not get it himself if Bethany, Lenae, I, or any other girl was there to do it for him, and after meals, he would not even bring his plate to the sink. The behavior spread to the other men, and soon several of them were leaving their plates behind for me to clean up. He also suggested that the men give me their laundry to do, and I would do it for them. I obviously was already very busy each day, and on top of that, at first we only had one washing machine. We eventually got a dryer as well, but most of the summer [we] had to line dry everything. We never got more than one regular household washing machine, with which we were expected to keep up with the whole camp's laundry. Lady Di personally did all of Doctor Hovind's laundry for him."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

So now we can see what kind of attitude Kent has toward those around him. In his heart, he believes these people are there to sacrifice themselves for him and his cause—nothing more—and he has no consideration for anyone who questions his ruling authority because he will get rid of them and bring in some other unsuspecting person to replace them.

"Another issue I encountered was an extreme attitude of wastefulness. Many things were wasted, like food, money and materials. If I had to spend the day in Pensacola or Monroeville to go grocery shopping, I would usually either slow cook a casserole in the oven, or make some sort of a crock pot meal so they would still have something to eat. However, when I would come back, even if it was late in the evening, there were always dirty dishes everywhere, food left out (and sometimes gone bad), and a general disarray in the kitchen, with the exception of one time where they made sure to clean it well after I was in Pensacola for a full weekend helping Lady Di move fully to Lenox. It was a very common sight to see tools, wood, nails, screws, and other materials out laying in the dirt then getting rained on because no one took care of things when they were finished. Money was never spent in a manner I would've considered wise, especially with a baby ministry. Some weeks the budget was so tight (or non existent) they would tell me I could not go grocery shopping, and to make due [sic] with what I had in the pantry and pray for donations. Then in the evenings, they would go out and buy large amounts of ice cream and sweets and such (see a video of that here). Also, I would regularly be told that they were building me a proper kitchen in the pole barn. I couldn't wait! The small kitchen I had was hot and cramped and not properly equipped for what we were trying to do. I found out that $6,000 had been donated to the ministry. Surely the long awaited kitchen could be installed now! But I quickly realized that no...they would not be using that money for the kitchen. Instead, they would use it to build a luxurious wedding gazebo. Which brings me into my next point: Doctor Hovind's divorce, wedding and marriage to Mary Tocco."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

I will put a URL in the reference at the end of this paragraph to the video Sierra was referring to. In the video, you can see Sierra, the older woman they call "Lady Di," and the group is eating ice cream while they are chatting, even though they did not have money for such things, but Kent would wastefully spend whatever they had because he takes advantage of the donors.
(See Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind July 29th Ice Cream Social and Testimonies," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, July 30, 2016, retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=uYvoIXxsx2g&t=338s])

It is for such reasons that Kent Hovind yokes together with men like Steve Lynn, who was burdening Sierra, and Steve sticks with Kent, because lazy men are close buddies with great wasters:

He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster.
-Proverbs 18:9

At this point, it should be mentioned that Sierra is writing this testimony in May of 2017, and she is writing about her experience the previous summer, which would have been June of 2016, the month Kent and Jo divorced, to Aug of 2016, the month before Kent married Mary Tocco, and this timing is very important for what she is going to say next:
"Doctor Kent E Hovind and Jo D Hovind got divorced on June 21, 2016. It was finalized on June 24th... She filed for divorce from him, on advise [sic] from her lawyer to protect her from potentially going to prison for this man again. I am no expert on the situation, but before the divorce was even finalized, Doctor Hovind began talking about Mary Tocco. One night, again, before the divorce was even finalized, Doc [i.e. Kent] mentioned that Mary might be the "next Mrs. Hovind." I was surprised, and asked him how he could justify remarriage the next day. He quoted 1 Corinthians 7:10-13, which says,
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. KJV
Obviously this passage of scripture deals with a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, and when an unbeliever seeks a divorce. So I asked Doctor Hovind if he believed Jo Hovind to be an unbeliever. He said he did believe that she was/is saved, so I asked how he could apply that passage of scripture. He did not give a clear answer, but instead changed the topic, and quoted Genesis 2:18, which says,
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
He then said that he talked to 15 Christian pastors, and 14 of them told him it was okay for him to get remarried. (I later found out that the pastor who hosted the meeting where I first contacted him about working with them was the 15th pastor who said it was unbiblical.) I mentioned that going with the crowd instead of God's way is how Barabas [sic] got released instead of Jesus. He would not discuss it any further with me."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

And Sierra is correct on this point, namely, that majority opinion is not a justification for sinful actions, and in fact, shortly after I was first saved back in 2002, the first person I ever learned that from was Kent Hovind. The following website offers a transcript of Kent's old seminars, and in his "Age of the Earth" Seminar #1, Kent stated:
"A lot of scientists think the earth is billions of years old, but that does not make it billions of years old. You do not change facts by majority opinion."
-Kent Hovind, "Seminar 1: The Age of the Earth," Apologeet, retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [apologeet.nl/en/evolutie-schepping/hovind_transcripts/seminar_1_transcript]

In Kent Hovind's famous "3 vs 1" debate, in which he debated three evolutionist college professors at the same time, he said:
"If evolution is true, how do we tell right from wrong? Anytime tonight, I would like any one of these gentlemen to answer the simple question, if evolution is true, how does anybody tell right from wrong? If I wanted you to make a list of ten things that were wrong, before you put anything on the list, I want to know how are you deciding? Are you deciding right from wrong based on what Osama Bin Laden thinks? Do we decide right from wrong based on what Congress thinks? Do we decide right from wrong based on the majority?"
-Kent Hovind, "Debate #19: Three on One," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Nov 17, 2013, retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [https://youtu.be/PqHgrUu4ZWg?t=459]

And in Kent's Seminar #7, he stated:
"So first, it's not true that all scientists believe in evolution. Secondly, even if they did, that's not how you establish truth. It doesn't matter what the majority believe. The majority has a long history of being wrong... There was a time when they used to teach that big rocks fall faster than little rocks. It was taught for 2,000 years, and it's wrong. So the majority can be wrong."
-Kent Hovind, "Seminar 7, Questions and Answers, Part A, 2005," retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-seminar_part7a_2007.html#allscnbeleiveevol]; See also "The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (7a of 7): Questions & Answers," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Nov 6, 2013, retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [https://youtu.be/6cEUXYlc-Q0?t=270]

Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
-Exodus 23:2

Kent clearly taught that majority opinion is not how right and wrong is determined, however, when it comes to justifying his sin, Kent is more than willing to gather up a bunch of pastor buddies (who obviously have little discernment, or are involved in Kent's scandals), and use their majority opinion to decide right from wrong. To say the least, Kent's hypocrisy is clear to see, and it is very disturbing.

Furthermore, according to emails that Theodore Valentine received from Eric Hovind, the majority of those who Kent counseled with on this matter told him that he was NOT Biblically justified to divorce his wife, and his family all told him the same thing. In other words, Kent LIED to everyone when he said that most of them told him that he was allowed to divorce. Kent Hovind Divorce Counselor [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Divorce Counselor [creationliberty.com]

-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Thinks He Is Jesus Christ," Lies of the Devil, Apr 9, 2020, retrieved May 8, 2020, [https://youtu.be/04Pdey97hBI?t=557]

Sierra goes on to testify that, shortly after Kent's divorce from Jo, photos had found their way online showing Kent and Mary holding hands together in their car. In her testimony, Sierra links to a YouTube video Kent made, but sadly, the video has since been removed from YouTube (likely by Kent, so he could cover up the scandal):
"In Doctor Hovind's next video here, starting at 8:27 [the video has since been taken down], Mary will claim that they were not just holding hands, and that they were praying. I am shocked and saddened that she would say that. I took the pictures. That is not true. I was in the car and took all of these photos. They held hands all the way home from a church meeting on August 7th. There were 7 of us in the van... Doctor Hovind and Mary, me, a man named Jim, and my friends, Sam, Joshua, and Rheten. They were not praying, they were romantically holding hands. Then again on August the 8th, they went to a town called Fairhope for a date. I went along because I needed to go grocery shopping and they would drop me off at a SAMs Club along the way. My friend Joshua also came to help me, and because he needed to make a phone call to another timezone and did not have good enough cell reception at the camp. I took the photos on the way home, and they held hands most of the time. They were not praying. I was extremely surprised and disappointed that they would say that."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

I hope that, one day, Sierra will learn to use the Biblical term "lie" to describe what Kent and Mary were doing when they provided a false witness to the events. I understand Sierra's sadness and disappointment, but the truth is that they LIED because they are unrepentant LIARS (i.e. Kent and Mary have no godly sorrow of their wrongdoing), and those things which are spoken from the mouth come forth from the heart, which means that Kent and Mary's hearts are wicked, by which they follow after their father the devil.

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
-Matthew 15:18-19

(Click Image for Larger View)

You can obviously see in this image that they are not praying together. Mary is looking behind her in one of the photos, and in another photo, it is clear she is having a conversation with Kent; they are not praying.

Sierra continues:
"In the video they posted (linked above) they tried to say they were praying, and that is [sic, she meant 'it'] wasn't a romantic thing. As a witness to it, that is not at all what happened. It was very romantic. In addition, before and after Mary came to DAL, Doc [Kent] would spend hours at night on the sand dunes talking to her on the phone. Within days of their date in Fairhope, Doc began construction on the wedding gazebo. While Mary was in Alabama, she and I scoured all of the property at DAL to find the perfect location. They very much knew they wanted to get married then. On August the 18th, Doc went out to the partially constructed wedding gazebo to 'practice his kiss' with a mannequin. I was asked to delete these pictures, but saved them because I found them amusing. I never dreamed I would have to use them as proof that Doc and Mary were indeed romantically involved in August."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

Remember earlier that Sierra testified about the extremely poor conditions she was forced to work in, and that the team had given her their word that they were going to build a new kitchen area, but Kent LIED again. Instead of building the desperately needed kitchen area to relieve the stress and work load of a faithful volunteer, he blew thousands of dollars to buy a completely useless wedding gazebo for himself.

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
-Philippians 2:4

(Click Image for Larger View)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 7:12

Sierra ends by saying:
"The wedding gazebo was chosen as a priority over the new kitchen. I left on August 28th because the expectations were too high for me (or any sane human being) to tolerate. My friend who was there part of the summer with me, Bethany, visited at the end of April 2017, and told me they were still using the small kitchen, and never completed construction on the industrial kitchen. Overall, my experience at DAL was chaotic. I had a wonderful time in some ways... I even met the man I will one day marry. It was, of course, all worth it to me. But I would not go work for Doctor Kent Hovind ever again. I was also over worked and tired, and got caught up in doing so much 'good' I could barely take care of myself anymore."
-Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html]

It is heart-breaking how they treated Sierra, and I would guarantee that Kent and his band of volunteers continued to treat other female volunteers the same way, including the fact that (as of the spring of 2017) they had still not constructed a proper working environment for the kitchen staff, despite the fact that they said they were going to do it. (Mostly due to the fact that Kent wastes money on whatever he feels like doing without consulting anyone, and even Mary later testified against him on that, which we read in the previous chapter.) I hope and pray that Sierra and her husband will be richly blessed by God with all their needs, and that Sierra will come to understand the fullness of Christ's Gospel, namely, that Jesus taught a lot about false converts, and that Kent is not a Christian.
(Read "False Converts vs Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

I would also like to cover some of the testimony of Deborah Henderson because she and her husband volunteered at DAL in 2016. Before I begin with her testimony, it should be noted that Deborah's witness of these events is a bit hard to follow because her presentation was somewhat unorganized, and I believe that is due to the fact that she often goes back and forth between details (which is somewhat because of her expressive personality, and also because it was her first attempt at making videos), making it difficult to map out a timeline; that being said, I will attempt to summarize her story.
(See Deborah Henderson, Deborah Sheds Light On:, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [youtube.com/channel/UChMMyDge28Kc1Jw0UJRUAJA])

There was a time that Deborah had visited Steven Anderson's church building in Arizona (Deborah no longer associates with him, as she has informed me in one of the comments of her video that she had considered making a video exposing Anderson as well), and Anderson had done a long sermon on marriage surrounding Jo divorcing Kent. Deborah listened to Anderson's teaching, she felt really bad for Kent, and talked to her husband about going to Alabama to help Kent and his ministry.
(NOTE: This is the same video mentioned in chapter four, in which Anderson repeated Kent's lies and deceived many people.)

Deborah and her husband went to Alabama on two separate occasions to help at DAL, and during their early visits, they handled their own sleeping arrangements off-site. Deborah made a number of friends while working at DAL (some of which have been previously mentioned in this chapter), and Kent was very pleasant towards Deborah because she was donating money to him and following all of his orders.

The third time Deborah visited DAL, it was agreed that she would stay on the site in one of the bunks that they would reserve for her and her husband (i.e. Randal), and Deborah verified this by showing her Alabama Driver's license, which had the address for DAL on it. However, on arrival, Steve Lynn insisted that Deborah and Randal would not be sleeping in the same bunk together, and that Deborah was to stay in what some of Hovind's staff called "The Hen House." (Cindi Lincoln also testified that they called the women's bunk "The Hen House.") Kent Hovind Deborah Henderson [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Deborah Henderson [creationliberty.com]

(See Deborah Henderson, "Deborah Sheds even more light on Kent Hovind PT 2 with audio proof," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 6, 2017, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [https://youtu.be/jMhfk6CLikg?t=1316])

As a side note, Kent claims that Deborah was not a resident because he had her sign a document that stated that no one has residency at DAL, but what Kent does not understand is that contracts do not automatically overturn state law. The volunteers that Kent has at DAL are only supposed to be on the site during normal business hours, and if they are there longer than that (i.e. more than 14 days), then they are considered by the courts to be a resident of that location (most especially if they receive mail at that address), no matter what contract Kent has in place, and if he does not figure that out, someday, an Alabama judge may end up explaining it to him in a courtroom while he/she instructs him to pay damages to one of his former residents.
(See Jimmy Moncrief, "When Does a Guest Become a Tenant?" Roberts Rental Blog, June 6, 2016, retrieved March 25, 2022, [https://robertsrentalsblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/when-does-a-guest-become-a-tenant]; See also Lucas Hall, "Alabama Rental Laws," Landlordology, Apr 10, 2019, retrieved May 28, 2020, [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112012210/https://www.landlordology.com/alabama-landlord-tenant-laws/])

Soon after arriving, Deborah started noticing some strange things happening. For example, the large gate for DAL was being designed, and Mary Tocco (Kent's new wife at the time) had suggested painting her and Kent as "Adam and Eve" in front of two tall dinosaurs on the front of the gate, to which Kent agreed.

The original design was to paint Kent in a sort of tribal toga (i.e. like Tarzan or George of the Jungle), and to paint Mary in a leaf bikini, and according to Deborah, even "Lady Di" (i.e. Kent's personal assistant) said that it was disturbing. A lot of people volunteering for Kent had a serious problem with this design because of the lewd way in which the woman was being depicted on the front gate, which was not in accordance with Scripture (1Ti 2:9-10), and also not appropriate for the many children who would visit the park, but Deborah testified that everyone told her she should not talk about it and just accept it because they knew that Kent could not be reasoned with, and there would be consequences if she mentioned it.

As a side note, the gate to DAL would eventually change, but only the outfits; meaning that the man (designed after Kent) and the woman (designed after Mary) would be wearing a safari shirt and slacks. However, according to Deborah's testimony, Kent originally wanted them designed in clothing that was modeled after the cartoon series The Flintstones, which was extremely confusing to me because The Flintstones was a horrible cartoon that preached corrupt evolutionism and feminism philosophies, so why would Kent ever want to model things after that show? Kent Hovind Mary Tocco Gate Dinosaur Adventure Land [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Mary Tocco Gate Dinosaur Adventure Land [creationliberty.com]

(Photos by Abigail Megginson, "Dinosaur Adventure Land Grand Re-Opening," Your Tax Matters Partner, Apr 22, 2018, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [ytmp.blogspot.com/2018/04/dinosaur-adventure-land-grand-re-opening.html])

There was also the matter of Kent's attempt to rally his supporters together to sign a petition and file a motion to impeach the judge who sentenced him to prison, which was unbiblical because, as I pointed out in the first chapter, Kent was guilty of his crimes. Deborah used to work for a courthouse, and from her experience, she knew it was not a good idea to do what Kent was attempting to do. She took one look at the paperwork and urged Kent not to file it because not only was it a terrible idea to anger the judge in the first place, but also, due to the shoddy way it was structured, it would have quickly been thrown out. (e.g. Deborah testified that it did not even have something as simple as page numbers.)

Believing that she and Kent were on friendly terms, and believing that she would have some voice on these matters since she was a resident and trusted employee at DAL, Deborah openly addressed Kent on these matters during the DAL mandatory meetings. I confess that I cringed a little inside myself when I heard her testifying that she did this during their public meeting, because I knew that Kent's arrogance would not suffer this from her, and that this was an unwise way to approach the matter, but based on Deborah's testimony, I believe she was somewhat naïve, and did not fully understand that Kent would react viciously. At that point, Deborah learned the hard way why everyone urged her not to object to any of Kent's decisions.

On a Monday morning, Kent and Deborah had a private meeting in which he demanded that she leave DAL. He offered her $200 to leave within an hour. He told her she should keep quiet and not talk to anyone, and he had already ordered everyone at the compound not to speak to Deborah on her way out. According to Kent's testimony (recorded in secret by Theodore Valentine), their conversation lasted 90 minutes, but according to Deborah, it lasted about 25 minutes, and though this seems like an unimportant detail, we need to understand that Kent lies about such things to his staff so he can seem like a reasonable person, who spent an hour and a half trying to reason with Deborah, when, in fact, this was a meeting to get her off the property as quickly as possible so he would not look bad in front of anyone for making foolish and unbiblical decisions.
(See Kent Hovind, recorded by Theodore Valentine, "Deborah Sheds Light on Kent Hovind PT 3: Releases Audio of Kent Hovind's Kult" Deborah Sheds Light On, May 9, 2017, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [https://youtu.be/CbJxH8tSS5k?t=211])

When Deborah attempted to reason with Kent, and tell him that she and Randal were residents at that location, and that an hour was not enough time, he finally stood up over her, got right in her face, and screamed "GET OUT!!!" According to Deborah, that was the first time she saw the devil in Kent, and she packed her and her husband's things as quickly as she could, but Kent elected to call the local sheriff to have Deborah escorted off the property.

After Deborah and the deputy had departed, Kent called an emergency meeting, and as I mentioned earlier, it was recorded. The emergency meeting was an attempt to calm the growing concerns among the volunteers about why Kent kicked their friends (i.e. Deborah and Randal) off the property.

During this meeting, Kent opened with a prayer, and during the prayer, he called Deborah and Randal termites:
"Let's pray. Thank you for your amazing grace. Thank you for letting us be a part of your family; part of this ministry. Lord, we, all along, predicted termites would destroy this ministry before the woodpeckers do. Give us wisdom, Father."
-Kent Hovind, "Deborah Sheds Light on Kent Hovind PT 3: Releases Audio of Kent Hovind's Kult," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 9, 2017, retrieved Apr 23, 2020, [https://youtu.be/CbJxH8tSS5k?t=12]

Contextually, Kent was claiming that Deborah was a termite that was come to destroy his ministry, and again, this is railing accusation, which Kent commonly allows to proceed out of his mouth. I listened to another video in which Kent tries to claim that he was talking about a termite infestation they had on the property, but that was NOT the subject of the meeting, that was NOT context of what he said he "predicted" as the meeting progressed, and that is NOT the impression everyone else had during the meeting because, according to the testimonies of the people who were there, they all knew EXACTLY who Kent was referring to when he used the word 'termites'.

A few minutes later, while speaking about Randal, Kent said:
"I talked to her husband for an hour and a half—or, for a half hour, today... He had an ear lobe to say, but it's not for you to hear, about what it's like living with her."
-Kent Hovind, "Deborah Sheds Light on Kent Hovind PT 3: Releases Audio of Kent Hovind's Kult," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 9, 2017, retrieved Apr 23, 2020, [https://youtu.be/CbJxH8tSS5k?t=215]

In one of her videos, Deborah was on the phone with Randal while he was at work because he wanted to testify about what Kent had said:
"DEBORAH: He [Kent] says he talked to you for half an hour, and you had an ear lobe to say, can you explain that?"
RANDAL: Kent Hovind never talked to me for a half hour on the phone. That day he called me, he interrupted me at work, and the conversation lasted about five minutes. It was no longer than a five-minute call.
DEBORAH: Okay, and what was the ear lobe you had to say?
RANDAL: I didn't say anything. He said that you had to leave the property immediately, and you were packing everything. He said that he offered you 200 dollars to leave. I told him you didn't need 200 dollars. You [Deborah] have your own money and the car; you would probably end up with your grandmother—or great aunt,"
-Randal & Deborah Henderson, "Deborah Sheds Light on Kent Hovind PT 4. My husband gives a brief Testimony," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 12, 2017, [https://youtu.be/-hAEuArqN_g?t=225]

As you can see, what Kent Hovind says, and what actually happens, are often two different things. Kent only provides a portion of the truth, and then lies about the rest to make himself look good. If he offers someone a small amount of money, like $200 (which is nothing compared to the $1 million that Cindi Lincoln testified that they bring in annually), then he can go on camera and put on a show by telling everyone how charitable he is by giving them funding to help them on their way.

Randal mentioned a $200 offer, and Deborah also mentioned that Kent had offered her $200 if she packed her things and left the property within the following hour. This was a bribe to leave the property quickly, and not talk to anyone about what she had seen and heard.

"He called my husband while he was at work, like my husband admitted, and he was too busy. He couldn't really talk because he was working, but he [Kent] was telling him that I had to pack up... he wanted to give me $200, but I wouldn't take it. I'm not going to take money that is donated to the ministry. That's not his money to give, and I told him that, and he bribes people left and right."
-Deborah Henderson, "Deborah Sheds Light on Kent Hovind PT 5.1: Video Commentary on Emergency Meeting," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 12, 2017, retrieved Apr 23, 2020, [https://youtu.be/Jaw3LTCKOLc?t=449]

Of course, it is very difficult for Hovindites to accept that Kent would bribe people, but Deborah's testimony matches other testimonies I have seen; for example, a few times in this book, I mentioned Kent's IT guy, the drug addict Steve Lynn, who is also Kent's right-hand-man at DAL, and I have also heard the name "Roger" many times when listening to eyewitnesses. (Deborah mentioned Roger in her testimony as well.) I never heard much testimony about Roger, however, Roger was there at the time all this was taking place, and after more than three years of service, Roger left Kent and DAL in November of 2018, and he left with the following post, which I have censored due to his strong language (because this man is not a Christian; meaning that Kent does not care if the people working for him at DAL are Christians): Kent Hovind Roger Dean Swartfager [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Roger Dean Swartfager [creationliberty.com]

"So I'm sure some of you are wondering what the f*** happened. So yeah finding yourself is a b****. Yeah I went thru a hardcore religious stage in my life. I know that my stick removal operation is a recent development on Facebook but the stick has been out of my a** for a few years now. I had to keep up the image while I was an upper [i.e. high-level member] in a cult. I was getting paid while secretly convincing people to get the f*** out of there. It was getting to [sic] crazy so I moved still trying to convince a couple of lost causes. But my hands are completely free from that now. So [emoji of flipping middle finger and devil hand sign]"
-Roger Dean, message posted to Facebook, Nov 3, 2018, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/roger.swartfager/posts/10205600249921393]

Roger openly confesses that he was paid to pay off people to keep them quiet, and to get Hovind's "unwanted" guests off the property. Obviously, many dedicated Hovindites would not believe him, so Roger provided more evidence a few months later in April of 2019: (Click Image for Larger View)

"Proof I was in a cult lol there's the leader kent hovind and the nug [censored] face is my ex business partner another upper [high-ranking member] he was the one everyone talked to [likely Steve Lynn] I was the one no one ever wanted me to talk to them lol even tho I became more or less in charge of security I actually became a threat in hovind eyes because people were coming around asking about me. Wasn't great for his ego lol he made it a challenge to try to exodus people out of there. That was at his 2nd wedding I believe he's in his 3rd but secret marriage lol its [sic] been awhile since I gave a s***."
-Roger Dean, message posted to Facebook, Apr 27, 2019, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206225783359338&set=a.3576274581347&type=3&theater]

In the comments under his post, when speaking to another user in reference to Kent Hovind, Roger states in no uncertain terms:
"Dude he's a lying manipulative ego maniac."
-Roger Dean, message posted to Facebook, Apr 27, 2019, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206225783359338&set=a.3576274581347&type=3&theater]; The 'ego' does not exist, but rather, it is the sin of pride; See Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil here at creationliberty.com for more details.

After digging around a bit more, I found a video from Aug 13, 2016, in which Kent was not available, so Roger Swartfager led the teaching. Again, Roger was not, and still is not, a born again Christian, and yet, he was put in charge because he faithfully followed Kent's instructions without question. Kent Hovind Roger Dead Swartfager [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Roger Dead Swartfager [creationliberty.com]

-Roger Swartfager, "Dr. Kent Hovind August 12th Devotion Feat. Roger Swartfager II" Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Aug 13, 2016, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=51fteFvP9BY]

I documented all that to make sure readers understood that multiple eyewitnesses have testified of Kent bribing people at DAL. Getting back to Deborah's testimony, Kent Hovind had called the local sheriff to have Deborah removed:
"I called the sheriff. They all know our ministry and love us. They came out, and I said, 'Guys, here's what I predict: She's going to drag this on for an hour.' And the one black cop said 'Oh, not with me she ain't!' Well, she did anyway."
-Kent Hovind, "Deborah Sheds Light on Kent Hovind PT 3: Releases Audio of Kent Hovind's Kult," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 9, 2017, retrieved Apr 23, 2020, [https://youtu.be/CbJxH8tSS5k?t=430]

Again, Kent tells part of a story, and then lies about the rest. The "one black cop" was Lt. Henry Jones of the Conecuh County Sheriff's Office, and Lt. Jones rushed Deborah off the property, but not for the reason Kent described:
"I said, 'Why did you rush me off the property like that?' And he [Lt. Henry Jones] said I could quote him. He said, 'Because they could have had us disappear. They had enough witnesses to say we were never there. I was afraid for my safety, the safety of my deputy, and for your safety. So for the safety of everybody there, we had to rush you off the property. We could care less about the law at that moment.'."
-Deborah Henderson quoting Lt. Henry Jones of the Conecuh County Sheriff's Office, "Deborah Sheds even more light on Kent Hovind PT 2 with audio proof," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 6, 2017, Apr 23, 2020, [https://youtu.be/jMhfk6CLikg?t=1530]

The only reason I included this quotation was because it came from Deborah, and I wanted to document what she has said, but I called the Conecuh County Sherriff's Office and spoke directly to Lt. Henry Jones, and during the phone conversation I had with him, Jones told me that he never gives anyone permission to quote him. Jones refused to listen to the quote, so he did not confirm the quote, but he did not deny it either, so that left me without any way to verify if this was true.

Though I did not get permission to quote him, I will paraphrase that Lt. Jones told me that their office knows about the existence of DAL, their office has never had any problems with DAL, and that he was unable to comment further about their organization, and because I have taken Deborah to be an honest person, I am left to believe that either Deborah received that quote from someone other than Lt. Jones (which is unlikely considering the descriptions), Deborah was confused about what Lt. Jones said, or that Lt. Jones has since changed his mind (i.e. gone back on his word) and refuses to give out quotes, but that is based on assumptions, and there is no way to tell at this point. (This means that neither Kent or Deborah could provide evidence from the sheriff's office on that matter without a deputy willing to verify the details.)

Continuing on with the story, Kent said he wanted Deborah out of there within the hour, and he tried to convince everyone that Deborah was spreading drama and purposefully dragging out the process of leaving, but that was not the case. Deborah, according to her testimony, had personal items around the property, not just in the "Hen House," which also included the laundry area, the kitchen area, the main bathroom area (and this was verified by other eyewitnesses I read/heard), and because Kent would not allow anyone to speak to her or help her, there was no way she was going to get out of there within an hour.

Deborah goes on to talk about her meeting with the local detective because they wanted details about what is going on at DAL. Again, these details are not verifiable, but I will document was Deborah said:
"They wanted me to come in and meet with the sheriff because they wanted to know what's going on there. They said it was a very creepy thing that they have going on in their town, and they are not liking it. So that's just another lie, another bold, straight lie from Kent Hovind because they even told me that Kent called the sheriff like a dozen times, insisting on meeting with the guy, and the guy [the sheriff] is like 'Who is this? Why do I need to meet with him? I don't even know this guy.' The sheriff did not want to meet with him. He didn't care; he could care less. Then when he finally... met with him, he said, 'The guy was creepy.' Now, this was coming from a quote from the detective that met with me for over an hour to find out what was going on in that compound. And trust me when I tell you, people in Evergreen, and Repton, and Lenox [towns and cities nearby DAL in Alabama] are not comfortable or happy with him [Kent Hovind] being there. Just go up there. Go up there yourself and feel the tension. Go up there and sit in one of those after-bible-study meetings that are mandatory; just sit there and see how he speaks to you, how he speaks down to you, how he calls you names."
-Deborah Henderson quoting Lt. Henry Jones of the Conecuh County Sheriff's Office, "Deborah Sheds even more light on Kent Hovind PT 2 with audio proof," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 6, 2017, Apr 23, 2020, [https://youtu.be/jMhfk6CLikg]

In short, Kent did not like the fact that she told him the truth, especially in front of his staff, and he was bullying her while he kicked her out, all while lying to his staff to keep up appearances. According to a number of former staff members that have given testimonies, the community surrounding DAL is not happy with the place, and they are very uncomfortable having Kent's compound there; whether local law enforcement is suspicious of Kent and DAL, we cannot yet verify—all I can say for certain is that there are many conflicting testimonies, which means, in one way or another, something nefarious is going on somewhere in this place.

In summary, Kent had volunteer after volunteer after volunteer come to him, some of whom have given up years of time, money, and effort to help his ministry, and not only does he treat them like garbage, but he backbites them on the way out to try and destroy their reputation so he can save face. It is my prayer that this information can help new and young Christians, that their discernment would be sharpened, and that they would avoid false teachers so they would not have to suffer the same hardships as these people.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:17-18

Kent refuses to hear correction, he rejects any instruction, and then when people finally have enough of him and depart, he acts like the victim. However, the true victims are those who involve themselves with Kent in the first place because they have no idea that he cares nothing for their welfare.

#6 - Kent Does Not Care About the Safety of Others

In 2018, an Alabama.com news article was published that provided a somewhat neutral report on Kent Hovind and Dinosaur Adventure Land. At the end of the article, the author said:
"Hovind's four-wheeler has a squeaky horn on the front shaped like a dinosaur head. He took off through the woods, his wife on a four-wheeler close behind, her long hair streaming out behind her. There were no helmets... The sun was out completely by the time the ATVs crested the tallest sand dune on the property. Hovind turned around, calling out over the roar of his four-wheeler to ask if everyone was OK with following him over the highest, steepest slope on the dunes. They were. He revved his engine, thumbed the throttle and roared over the edge."
-Anna C. Vollers, "Alabama's Dinosaur Adventure Land teaches that evolution is 'dumbest religion in the history of the world'," Alabama.com, Sept 19, 2018, retrieved Apr 24, 2020, [al.com/news/2018/09/alabamas_dinosaur_adventure_la.html]

Some readers may not see a problem with Kent and his staff not wearing helmets while riding four-wheelers around the property and flying through the air on their dirt ramps. However, the reason they do not see a problem is because, first of all, most of them do not realize that DAL does not have insurance, second of all, the park is missing a lot of safety and security features it should have in place, and finally, they do not understand Kent's lack of concern for his volunteers, staff, and guests.

In the last chapter, I mentioned Deborah Henderson, and she had testified that DAL is lacking safety and security protocols, and as a former security guard, I understand the importance of such things, especially in an open park like DAL that has many activities that could be quite dangerous for children. Deborah provided a testimony from a man named Matt Stockeland (who legally changed his name to Tiny Dragon for understandable personal reasons I will not mention), and being a former soldier in the U.S. Army, he said: Deborah Henderson Matt Stockeland Kent Hovind Security Safety [creationliberty.com]

Deborah Henderson Matt Stockeland Kent Hovind Security Safety [creationliberty.com]

"I am a security expert who was at DAL for a week in Sept 2016. Not only do I agree with you but I can validate some of what you say. Kent has no interest in the safety of the people at dinosaur adventure land... Kent has no care or concerns for the people there period... You can quote me. On September 11, 2016 Kent baptized me. He was very robotic and he cared about being on camera more than the baptism itself."
-Matt Stockeland/Tiny Dragon, testimony written to Deborah Henderson, Apr 27, 2017, retrieved Apr 24, 2020, [https://youtu.be/jMhfk6CLikg?t=689]

I reached out to Tiny (aka Matt Stockeland) in April of 2020, and he got back with me. He gave me his word that he would send me a full testimony over email, and seemed eager to do so, but to date, I have not received anything from him.

Originally, I had not planned to write about this matter because I thought some of these things were simply small issues at DAL, but it was not until later (during my research on other topics surrounding Kent) that I found a lot more correlating evidence of much bigger problems in the DAL compound due to Kent's negligence concerning safety and security. For example, Deborah shares a story about a boy who was abducted on the DAL property:
"That family I was telling you about from the Ukraine, they packed up all their stuff, they came down to Dinosaur Adventure Land to stay there for a period of time—they were going to stay there for quite some time, but what happened was... their son had been abducted on the property. The next morning, we show up, and he's [i.e. Kent was] having a morning meeting. He [Kent] starts talking about the child being abducted, and he gives all these theories on what happened, and he came to the conclusion that the child faked his own abduction. Now, there's no way a five-year-old child is going to fake their own abduction, and then have all kinds of bruises and scratches all over him. The child was over by the lake, they were going to pick him up on the ATV, and somebody came from out of the woods—or who knows where, or somebody that was on the property—nobody knows because the child described a black mask and blue eyes. So when they couldn't find the child, everybody took off in different directions, and started chasing this child. Somebody took off running in the woods, and he was never caught, or something—I don't know exactly what the details are, but the police were notified. The Conecuh County Sherriff's Department came down and took a report, so this is on record... They found the child walking, like aimlessly, out of the woods, and he was all scratched up and had bruises and stuff on him. So, obviously, a child is not going to fake his own abduction. The next morning, we get there and Kent is talking about the incident, and telling everybody that he came to the conclusion the child faked his own incident; his own abduction. Well, he went to have a meeting with the daddy that morning, and they came out, and the daddy was obviously upset still. His nerves were not calmed. They ended up packing everything they had, and left... We thought that was very suspicious that Kent Hovind didn't care. The family came all the way from Pennsylvania, originally from the Ukraine, and they ended up packing up everything that they had, and they left the next day, and they were not very happy."
-Deborah Henderson, "Deborah Sheds even more light on Kent Hovind PT 2 with audio proof," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 6, 2017, retrieved Apr 24, 2020, [https://youtu.be/jMhfk6CLikg?t=490]

As a side note, I did reach out to the Conecuh County Sherriff's Office to retrieve any public records of this event. Sadly, they are not allowed to share those records for privacy reasons, and so I could not gather more details.

Deborah's testimony was a bit scattered, and so I will try to summarize it to the best of my ability. A family originally from the Ukraine took up residence in Pennsylvania, and they planned an extended stay at DAL in Alabama to help Kent Hovind with his ministry. Soon after Randal and Deborah arrived, the Ukrainian family's five-year-old son was kidnapped by a man with blue eyes, wearing a black mask.

The volunteers at DAL spread out to look for him, but (as we will find out in a moment) they had no proper communication (like walkie-talkies) to coordinate the search. The police were notified, a report was made, and the search continued, but soon after, the boy emerged from the woods with bruises and scratches on him.

For the duration of the incident, Kent seemed to have an uncaring attitude about the safety of the child, and in effort to save face, Kent told everyone that the child had made the whole thing up and lied to everyone about what happened to him. Obviously, the boy's father was infuriated by Kent's lackadaisical attitude, as well as Kent's lack of concern for safety at DAL, and thus, the father had his family pack all their things to leave the compound as soon as possible.

To the average reader, it may be somewhat shocking for Kent to be so unconcerned when a potential pedophile/rapist/murderer could be lurking around on the property. However, for those who know who he really is, this will be unsurprising, and we will find out later that Kent protects and defends his pedophile buddies.

So as you can see, little things like not wearing helmets while riding four-wheelers (i.e. ATVs) might not seem like much, but once you add up all the details, it becomes a heaping pile of evidence that points to one thing: Kent Hovind could not care less about the safety and security of his staff and his guests. The only time Kent seems to care about such things is if he is on camera, but as we have seen many times in this book, when Kent is off-camera, he is a completely different person.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
-James 1:8

Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psalm 12:1-2

To help demonstrate how careless Kent really is, Deborah goes on to testify that he ignored the efforts that other volunteers took to help create a more safe and secure environment:
"So after that incident, my husband [Randal] decided to get some walkie-talkies because not only was it the child, but the chaos on the compound—nobody knew where anybody was, nobody knew what time dinner was, nobody knew how to get in touch with each other, and Kent could care less!"
-Deborah Henderson, "Deborah Sheds even more light on Kent Hovind PT 2 with audio proof," Deborah Sheds Light On, May 6, 2017, retrieved Apr 24, 2020, [https://youtu.be/jMhfk6CLikg?t=719]

Even though Randal had purchased these expensive walkie-talkies for the staff to use at DAL, later testimonies from others say that they would almost never use them. The only way that would make sense is if Kent did not care about others because there is literally no reason to NOT use such helpful equipment to keep open channels of communication with everyone.

Theodore Valentine testified that, while he was working at DAL, children were getting serious injuries:
"A child was abducted at DAL... a child had a nail slammed through his arm. One was bit by a dog."
-Theodore Valentine, "Child Drowns at Kent Hovinds Dinosaur Adventure Land," Lies of the Devil, Mar 28, 2020, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=-I2S_lyEcRI]

Of course, children get injured because that is a part of life. Unexpected things happen to people, and there is no avoiding that. However, the reason these things keep happening is because Kent does not care about implementing safety standards for his compound.

Theodore Valentine also testified that his wife, Lenae, is a registered nurse, and that she had pointed out to Kent that there were not sufficient medical supplies on hand at DAL, nor were there any properly trained staff members to handle emergency situations:
"My wife, who is a registered nurse, confronted Kent about not having an adequately-stocked first-aid kit and emergency plans. Due to Kent's apathetic attitude to our concerns, my wife and I purchased medicines, medical bandages, and supplies from our own savings."
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY)," Lies of the Devil, June 30, 2017, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [https://youtu.be/ribftV_2IPw?t=4260]

Theodore also goes on to share the testimony of Billy Summers, a former supporter of Kent Hovind. A number of people shared the videos of Billy Summers when they were published, but he ended up deleting his YouTube channel, making it hard to find the testimonies, but in the summer of 2021, he re-uploaded some of the audio recorded discussions he had with Kent.
(See Truck Drivin' Kid Billy, "Chris Jones Call/Voicemail(From When This Started): With Added Commentary," July 8, 2021, [https://youtu.be/2Ql85KDs4n0])

Summers used to help Kent combat the testimonies of people like Theodore Valentine and Deborah Henderson because he did not believe them, but once Summers got to know who Kent really is, he came out with his own testimony, and exposed the safety problems at DAL. Specifically, Summers was shocked when Kent had asked him to work with a man who had been imprisoned for child molestation:
"It's not that Kent Hovind—they're presenting a 'Kent Hovind' that I don't know [i.e. Summers did not initially believe the testimony of Theodore and Deborah]... It accumulated [sic] to me and my wife going down to Dinosaur Adventure Land for the weekend... It was after church on Sunday, and we were coming back from a tractor supply, he tells me about a fella' [i.e. a man]. This fella' played strip poker with two little boys, ten and eleven years old."
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY)," Lies of the Devil, June 30, 2017, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [https://youtu.be/ribftV_2IPw?t=4308]

Summers goes on to describe that this man had played strip poker with these two boys, and they were stripped down to their underwear. However, despite this, Kent felt that this man was unjustly accused, and he wanted to bring this man in to work around children in DAL.

Summers concludes:
"If Kent doesn't see nothing wrong with what the guy did, I don't want to know what he's okay with... And that brings up a very big question about whether or not there was a child abduction there, and I'm not trying to start stuff up..."
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY)," Lies of the Devil, June 30, 2017, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [https://youtu.be/ribftV_2IPw?t=4368]

What Summers meant by that last statement was not questioning if a child was missing because there is no question that some sort of abduction took place. What he is questioning was whether or not the abduction of the child was planned by someone who worked at DAL, and whether or not Kent knew about it ahead of time, but that is purely speculation, and I will not make such an accusation unless I have more evidence; the point of documenting this is to show that, before going to DAL, Summers was completely dedicated to Kent, and after leaving DAL, Summers joined the rest of the tragic testimonies of former volunteers at DAL, specifically on the note that DAL is not safe for children.

It is not just unsafe for children because of the lack of security in the compound, but it is also unsafe because Kent protects and defends those who would do harm to children. For example, there is a man named Christopher Jones who is a dedicated supporter of Kent Hovind, and the following is a Facebook post in which Kent defends him: Kent Hovind Christopher Link Jones Pedophile [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Christopher Link Jones Pedophile [creationliberty.com]

"I, Kent Hovind, was just criticised on a YouTube channel for standing up for my long time friend Chris Jones. He was falsely arrested, beaten unconscious in jail and sentenced to years in prison for no crime at all. I happen to know well from first hand experience that some in our justice system are corrupt to the core and will lie and falsify evidence to cover their back."
-Kent Hovind, June 2, 2017, quoted by Robert Baty, "Billy Summers, Kent Hovind, & The Pedophile!" retrieved Jan 15, 2022, [http://kehvrlb.com/billy-summers-kent-hovind-the-pedophile]

The fact that Kent, his staff, and his organization have been brought to court for criminal activity, and the fact that they have lost ALL of those cases (i.e. they were sentenced and fined), I would say that comment speaks strongly in favor of Chris Jones being guilty of what he did. However, association alone is not sufficient evidence to prove a man's guilt, and I believe we should look at some more evidence before drawing any conclusions.

Jones was in prison for sexual misconduct against minors, but Kent defended Jones by saying that Jones was setup by the government to take the fall for those crimes because Jones had exposed the Bohemian Grove after being employed there for a time, and the Grove members wanted revenge to silence him. (If you do not already know what the Grove is, I am not going to explain it in this book, but there are evil things that go on in that organization.) However, for some of the charges on which Jones was convicted by a jury, the events took place BEFORE he ever got a job at the Bohemian Grove.

The court documentation (which Kent Hovind conveniently does not tell his listeners about) gives us quite a different story, and the following excerpt is from law website Leagle's overview of the charges of child sexual molestation against Chris Jones:
"The charges against defendant arise from allegations involving different children over several years. These allegations are presented here in rough chronological order, not in the numerical order of the counts. Defendant was convicted of offenses arising from some incidents, but acquitted of offenses arising from others.
J.B. Defendant taught Sunday school at a Yorba Linda church. He befriended the family of two of his Sunday school students; J.B. (age 7) and Z.B. (age 6). After church one day in 2001, defendant drove the two boys to a restaurant and the park, where J.B. got mud on his clothes. Defendant took the boys to their house so J.B. could change his clothes. Defendant and boys went to J.B.'s room, and J.B. got undressed. While J.B. was naked, defendant put him over his lap and hit him on his buttocks.
A.L. and T.S. Defendant befriended A.L. (age 10) and T.S. (age 11), who were staying with his neighbors during the summer of 2003. The two boys and some friends visited defendant to watch boxing. Defendant had the boys bet on each round of the fight, with the losers required to run around in their underwear. Two of the friends stripped down to their underwear. A.L. started to pull down his pants, but stopped halfway because 'it felt kind of weird.'
Defendant would take A.L. for rides in the limousine he drove for a living. One time, defendant told A.L. to pull down his pants. A.L. pulled his pants and underwear down to his knees, exposing his penis. Defendant looked down at A.L.'s 'waist area' and placed his hand on A.L.'s thigh. During another limousine ride, defendant played 'truth or dare' with A.L. and T.S. Defendant dared A.L. to show him his underwear, which A.L. did.
A.L. and T.S. once ran into defendant at a county fair, where the boys and some friends had watched a hypnotist. Defendant later claimed he could hypnotize the boys. He tried to hypnotize A.L. into taking off his clothes. A.L. stripped down until he was naked.
A.L. and some friends visited defendant, finding pornographic magazines in his bedroom. They looked at the magazines while defendant watched. Another time, A.L. and T.S. looked at pornographic magazines in defendant's bedroom while he showered. A.L. and T.S. also visited defendant at his parents' home, where defendant showed them pornographic videos and pictures of naked women on the computer.
Alex M., Anthony M., and E.G. - Defendant lived with a friend and his two sons, Alex M. (age 11) and Anthony M. (age 9). Defendant would get the boys ready for school while their father was at work. The friend dated and eventually married a woman who had a son, E.G. (age 12). One time, defendant showed pornographic pictures on the computer to Alex M. Another time, defendant woke up Alex M. and asked him, 'Would you sleep with me for a couple hours. I'll let you play video games on the computer.' Alex M. went to sleep next to defendant in defendant's bed. Defendant also took naked pictures of Anthony M. and E.G.
One day in 2004, defendant drove the three boys to his parents' home to play in the pool and watch the movie "Gladiator." Defendant told them before they watched the movie, they had to play strip poker. Defendant produced a deck of cards and explained the game to the boys. He dealt the cards, told the boys who won or lost each hand, and directed the losers to take off some clothes. The boys did as instructed. Alex M. remembered he and Anthony M. stripped down to their underwear. Anthony M. remembered only himself getting naked. E.G. remembered the other two boys stripped him naked and took off their own shirts. During the game, E.G. noticed defendant's 'dick was getting larger and you could see it through his pants.'"
-Leagle, "PEOPLE v. JONES," G040344, Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, Dec 22, 2009, retrieved Jan 15, 2022, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20100122013]

In summary, Chris Jones had numerous inappropriate lewd encounters with a variety of young boys, ages ranging from 6-12, and there was some photographic evidence presented in the trial, as well as correlating eyewitnesses. Some of the charges were dropped due to a hung jury for lack of enough evidence, but they convicted Jones on other charges.

The jury acquitted Jones (i.e. found him innocent) on the limousine charges, as well as for showing pornography to T.S., and the jury failed to reach a verdict involving the hypnosis incident. Outside of those three counts, Jones was found guilty by the jury on everything else:
"The jury convicted defendant on counts 4, 5, and 6, the lewd acts arising from the strip poker game. It also convicted defendant on count 7 of the lesser included offense of battery arising from spanking J.B. It found true the multiple victim allegation... The court sentenced defendant to three concurrent low terms of three years in state prison for the lewd act counts, and 65 days in county jail for the battery count."
-Leagle, "PEOPLE v. JONES," G040344, Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, Dec 22, 2009, retrieved Jan 15, 2022, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20100122013]

Here is another quote from Kent to clear up any confusion about where he stands:
"Chris Jones has been a friend of mine for many, many years. I've known Chris—he was railroaded, completely, by the system... The people who are reporting the story do not know the facts, and the people who think that I am somehow wrong for defending a child molester do not know the facts. He is not a child molester—never has been."
-Kent Hovind, "Kent Hovind and Chris Jones," Atheist Jr., June 27, 2020, retrieved Jan 15, 2022, [https://youtu.be/YiAeFfPPbaE]

(Click Image for Larger View)

The reason I wanted to cover the Chris Jones case in such detail was not only to demonstrate that Kent Hovind is (again, to use his own words) "either ignorant or lying" (i.e. he either never bothered to look at the court trial documents, or he is covering for Jones—or both), but also to get readers to understand that Kent Hovind DEFENDS pedophiles! Furthermore, Chris Jones HAS visited Dinosaur Adventure Land, and I would urgently caution churchgoers to stay far away from DAL because this is a trainwreck waiting to happen.

Kent Hovind Seven Year Old Boy Drown Dinosaur Adventure Land [creationliberty.com]

If pedophiles and abductions were not bad enough, children have been killed at DAL. Over the years, former volunteers have continued to warn as many Christians as possible not to get involved with Kent Hovind and DAL for their own safety, but sadly, few are willing to listen, and in the spring of 2020, a young boy drowned at DAL:
"A 7-year old boy from Indiana drowned Sunday afternoon at the Dinosaur Adventure Land park in the Lenox community. According to Conecuh County Coroner Michael Lambert, ambulance workers with Conecuh EMS were dispatched to a reported drowning Sunday around 4:30 p.m. at Dinosaur Adventure Land, which is located at 488 Pearl Lane at Lenox... Lambert identified the drowning victim as Steven Alexander."
-Lee Peacock, "Child drowns at Dinosaur Adventure Land," The Monroe Journal, Mar 19, 2020, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [https://bit.ly/2yaG0G3]

The drowning took place on a Sunday in March of 2020, but Kent recorded four shows throughout the week, and never mentioned what happened. During the week, more information was coming out from various news sources, which led Kent's listeners to question what was going on, and so under pressure, Kent was forced to comment on the matter. On his fifth show that week, Kent spent approximately 40 seconds addressing the subject of Steven's death in a very nonchalant (i.e. casual) manner that not only showed little concern for the fate of the young boy, but he shamelessly turned it around by saying, "the kids had a blast here, and the dad wants to bring all the kids back and loves the place."
(See Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - Acts 18," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Mar 20, 2020, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [https://youtu.be/WKCJ5vbpJbk?t=258])

The coroner confirmed the child died from drowning, but there was a gash on his forehead, which led many to suspect that he may have slipped on the docks and hit his forehead, and that may have knocked him unconscious as he fell in the water. However, the main point to take away from this is that, soon after I published the first edition of this book, Kent Hovind gave out the name of the father, Randall Alexander, a city council member in Lake Station, Indiana, which is just outside of Chicago, in effort to use the death of a child to boost his own popularity because that is all Kent really cared about, and Alexander is foolish enough to continue to support Kent, despite Kent's apathy and negligence.
(See Kent Hovind & Randall Alexander, "God truly has blessed Dr. Hovind and DAL - Testimonies from Volunteers!" Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, June 5, 2020, retrieved June 8, 2020, [https://youtu.be/QtWguEFTt6E?t=390]; See also Carole Carlson, "Three new faces to join city council in Lake Station," Chicago Tribune, Oct 31, 2019, retrieved June 8, 2020, [https://bit.ly/3haISVg])

Only con artists like Kent Hovind have the ability to turn a tragedy into a self-promoting advert.

Not only for the sake of the family of Steven (i.e. the young boy who drowned), but also for the sake of any readers who might have suffered damages at Kent Hovind's compound, I want everyone to understand that Kent's efforts to legally protect himself are NOT sufficient barriers to keep injured parties from winning lawsuits against Kent and DAL. In order to protect himself, Kent posted a sign at the entrance to DAL, thinking this would ward off any attempts to file a lawsuit against him, and it states:
Kent Hovind Dinosaur Adventure Land Notice Disclaimer [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Dinosaur Adventure Land Notice Disclaimer [creationliberty.com]

"Creation Science Evangelism does NOT have any liability or health or injury insurance to cover you for injuries or theft of any other kind of loss or injury that you may suffer. This includes, but is not limited to any needed safety equipment, and/or training for any items to include 4 wheelers, heavy equipment, zip lines, water activities, natural disasters, dangerous wildlife and the like. You enter this property at your own risk. You must use your own insurance to protect you from any losses which you might incur. We have not had our site evaluated for risk or loss. You enter this property at your own risk. We do not have any insurance to cover you for injuries or theft of any other kind of loss or injury that you may suffer. By entering the premises you agree to carry your own insurance or take care of any loss of any kind you may suffer."
(Photos by Abigail Megginson, "Dinosaur Adventure Land Grand Re-Opening," Your Tax Matters Partner, Apr 22, 2018, retrieved Apr 21, 2020, [ytmp.blogspot.com/2018/04/dinosaur-adventure-land-grand-re-opening.html])

Here is another sign posted at DAL: Dinosaur Adventure Land Risk Danger Negligence [creationliberty.com]

Dinosaur Adventure Land Risk Danger Negligence [creationliberty.com]

"We reserve the right to revoke your invitation to be here at anytime and for any reason. *Note: You enter the park at your own risk. We do NOT carry insurance."
(See Gospel Street Mission, Facebook post for March 20, 2020, retrieved June 8, 2020, [https://bit.ly/2XJC0Xa])

Of course, as a property owner myself, I can understand the perspective of not wanting to be held accountable if someone else chooses to do something foolish on my private property. However, I knew there was something wrong with these signs when I first read them because I know the responsibilities of a property owner in the eyes of the court, and therefore, I also know that these signs are not sufficient protection to prevent Kent from being sued in a court of law for negligence, meaning that Kent, as the property owner, knows that people are going to visit, he knows what facilities and equipment they are going to use, what activities they will be involved in, and what dangers are involved in everything he has available, but takes no precautions for anything.

This demonstrates Kent's lack of charity to love his neighbor as himself. As Christians, we ought to treat others the way we would want to be treated, and that means warning others about potential dangers, especially when it comes to the safety of the children.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 7:12

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
-Romans 13:8-10

As I continued to research, I found a lawyer that specializes in property law, and specifically, drownings and other aquatic-based injuries. He wrote an article about the situation at DAL after the young boy drowned:
"A news item appearing in the Monroe Journal reported that the child apparently fell unnoticed from a dock adjacent to a small pond on the property and drowned in 3 feet of water. The same article reports that, although lifejackets were available near the accident site, the victim was not wearing a personal flotation device when his body was discovered. The Journal also noted that no lifeguards were on duty at the time of the accident. If the online and Journal reports are true, it would appear that Dinosaur Adventure Land could be held liable for this child's death on the grounds that Dinosaur Adventure Land was grossly negligent in 1) not having a trained lifeguard on duty, 2) failure to monitor the activities of visitors (especially children) when near water, and 3) failure to provide adequate training in water safety for staff and volunteers... As we have noted in other posts, it is a well-established principle of law that the owner of a property is responsible for the consequences of any accidental injuries occurring on that property. In law, this is known as the doctrine of premises liability and is generally accepted by the courts of every state. Since the accident happened on property controlled by Dinosaur Adventure Land, the owners of that property could be held liable in a wrongful death lawsuit."
-The Doan Law Firm PLLC, "7-Year-Old Drowns at Dinosaur Adventure Land," Mar 25, 2020, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [drowningaccidentsattorney.com/drowning-accidents-blog/2020/march/7-year-old-drowns-at-dinosaur-adventure-land]

The author continues to point out that Kent's negligence could be proven in a court of law on the grounds of allowing numerous guests to have free access to the lake without a lifeguard or other monitor on duty, on the grounds of insufficient general monitoring of DAL guests, and on the grounds of Kent's open-ended agreement to allow anyone to visit, stay, and volunteer at DAL, while failing to properly train staff and volunteers for safety and emergencies. Concerning Kent's "enter at your own risk" statement, this lawyer also points out:
"Even though Dinosaur Adventure Land did not charge admission, it did imply that, by notifying visitors that they (visitors) were responsible for their own conduct, the facility could not be sued. In general, the courts have rejected such claims on the basis that the right to claim damages following an accidental injury is a fundamental human right of every citizen. Therefore, since a fundamental right cannot be waived under any circumstance, these warnings are no defense in a lawsuit alleging negligence."
-The Doan Law Firm PLLC, "7-Year-Old Drowns at Dinosaur Adventure Land," Mar 25, 2020, retrieved Apr 29, 2020, [drowningaccidentsattorney.com/drowning-accidents-blog/2020/march/7-year-old-drowns-at-dinosaur-adventure-land]

With the growing number of accidents, as well as the growing number of testimonies about Kent's negligence, it is only a matter of time before a serious lawsuit is filed against Kent and DAL. I am not the sort of person that wants to cause a controversy for the sake of controversy, because I want to live peaceably with all men (Rom 12:18), but for the sake of the children visiting DAL, I hope the families of one of the victims will come forward soon and file a lawsuit against Kent, so the government will discipline him to enforce safety measures that will protect the unsuspecting visitors to DAL.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
-Matthew 22:37-39

If Kent will not love his neighbor as himself, maybe someday soon, the government will force him to do it. Until then, if you are planning to visit DAL (and no amount of evidence can change your mind), I would urge extreme caution, especially since (according to eyewitnesses who were there at the time), Kent seems to have no sympathy or grief over the injury, kidnapping, or death of children.

Another man named Steve (i.e. this is a different Steve, not Steve Lynn), along with his wife and two children, was at DAL for three months, and he stayed in the bunk next door to the family of the child who died:
"The day that it [the drowning] happened, what they don't tell you is, I've seen Kent go on the video, and what really upset me was that, you know, the parent was just three feet away, which is a total lie. You know, the kids are all swimming in the lake. The mom is at her cabin. The dad is in the pavilion playing pool; shooting pool with a couple of others. Now, occasionally, he's [the dad is] peeking his head out the door, but he's not three feet away... So that's the biggest lie he tells, that the one child was three feet away from the dad, no one knows how it happened. Well, how it actually happened was, we started hearing shouts come from the water. We were down there grilling. We started this fellowship on Sundays and Mondays that we were trying to keep going with the community; we'd all grill out down there. So we hear this screaming coming from the water, and it's their oldest son, and he's starting to drown. So the dad rushes out there, and is able to save the oldest son, and in the meantime, he's taking count of his kids and realizes there is an additional son missing. So we all scatter to try and find him, and that's when we did find him, the dad found him under water, and put him on the dock. He was in there, underwater, for so long that he was blue. His lips were blue. I mean, you could just tell he had been underwater for a while. So they almost lost TWO sons that day, while Kent lies and says—and tells stories about how close the father was. You know, if the father is three feet away, how do you almost have two children drown, much less one? Keep in mind, there's no safety precautions in place for the lake at this time. There's [sic] no warning signs. As a matter of fact, my friend and I are the ones who had to put up the swim at your own risk signs ourselves, and that was only put up about three weeks ago [May 2020] for a fishing tournament. So there are no warnings to swim safe, nothing telling you the depth of the lake—nothing."
-Steve, interview with Theodore Valentine, "DAL Child Drowning Cover-Up & Cult Spying," Lies of the Devil, May 25, 2020, retrieved June 3, 2020, [https://youtu.be/p3ULUsKdR7E]

Steve's testimony in court would help prove negligence, and Kent would be liable for his uncaring attitude towards his guests. Steve goes on to testify that the family did not bring any swimwear, so the boys went into the lake in their jeans (which is dangerous because jeans are quite heavy when wet) without any adult supervision, and furthermore, the bottom of the makeshift lake at DAL is sandy, which means that if they chose to swim underwater, they would be pulled under by the weight of sand and clothes, which is likely one of the contributing factors to how the young boy drowned, and thank God the young boys' father was able to save one of them because the other boy almost drowned as well.

As a side note, Steve also states that there is now a security camera system in place at DAL, but do not misunderstand, it was not implemented to help monitor the property as a safety precaution. Kent has those cameras placed around the living quarters of DAL to monitor the residents, so he can keep track of everything they say and do.

Steve continues:
"Now back to the hospital part of the story with the family who came from Indiana, while they're still in the hospital room grieving over their son because he had just been pronounced dead, right before they got that pronunciation ['announcement'], a group of us showed up in the other DAL van. We're all praying and waiting, and as soon as it's all confirmed lost, we all start praying. We're all crying. Doc [Kent Hovind] is walking around shaking hands with people in the hospital emergency room, passing out DAL fliers. 'Come to DAL!', telling them about DAL. This other family is on the other side of the wall, and they just lost a son at DAL. Doc [Kent] is so uncompassionate at that time, he's trying to advertise for more visitors."
-Steve, interview with Theodore Valentine, "DAL Child Drowning Cover-Up & Cult Spying," Lies of the Devil, May 25, 2020, retrieved June 3, 2020, [https://youtu.be/p3ULUsKdR7E]

Again, I warn all readers that you should exercise extreme caution if you decide to visit Kent and DAL. This is not a safe place for you and your family. If anything tragic happens, Kent does not and will not care because he uses people for donations and free labor.

Even if we just consider how Kent treated Cindi Lincoln, it should be a giant warning to stay away from DAL, or anything that is owned and operated by Kent and his board of directors. Even if Kent's testimony about Cindi's injuries was true (it is an obvious lie, but let's suppose for the sake of argument), you can see how little charity he had towards his own wife, refusing to help her with her medical bills while he siphoned money out of her, so what leads anyone to believe that he would be charitable to visitors (i.e. complete strangers) in their time of need?

In a video Kent produced in April of 2020, he said:
"Could you please give me an example of how I'm a con man? Look up the definition of con man, and tell me how I fit that definition."
-Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - Matt Powell - Whack An Atheist - Prof. Dave and Mark Drysdale," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Apr 16, 2020, retrieved June 3, 2020, [https://youtu.be/JkTJ0F9s6hI?t=2059]

The phrase "con man" is short for "confidence man." Let's look up the definition of 'confidence man' and see what it says:

confidence man (n): a person who swindles others by means of a confidence game; swindler
swindle (v): to cheat (a person, business, etc.) out of money or other assets, to obtain by fraud or deceit; to put forward plausible schemes or use unscrupulous trickery to defraud others
(See 'con man' & 'swindle', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, when a pool shark (i.e. a man very skilled at the billiard table) runs a scam, he starts out by betting a little money on a friendly game of pool, and acts like he is not very good at the game, losing on purpose, in order to build CONFIDENCE in the person who he is scamming, making the victim think he is much better at the game than the con man. The con man then asks to play a second game, this time for a lot more money, and once the victim agrees, the con man runs the table with high skill and precision, thus effectively using the victim's own confidence against him, which is why he is called a "con man."

By definition, Kent Hovind is a great example of a con man and a swindler because he is taking advantage of charitable people, fooling them into being confident in Kent's position as a so-called "Christian" evangelist, and so they keep giving him more money. Kent is happy to have others look to his wants, needs, and desires, and to take care of him, but the evidence is clear that he has no interest in taking care of others in like manner.

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
-Philippians 2:4-5

#7 - Kent Endorses New-Age Fantasy Novels

As I stated before, I started working on exposing Kent Hovind back in 2015, shortly before he was released from prison, and I do not say that to make anyone think that I am some sort of prophet that receives some special visions or dreams. The reason I point that out is to help readers understand that if we look into the doctrines of Scripture, and compare them with the doctrines Kent teaches and promotes, it is easy to see blatant contradictions that cannot be reconciled, and because of that, we can know to stay far from him.

One of the big signs that there was something seriously wrong was when Kent Hovind began to endorse new-age fantasy novels that are filled to the brim with false doctrines that COMPLETELY oppose the Lord Jesus Christ.

endorse (v): declare one's public approval or support of
(See 'endorse', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

In this chapter, we are going to go over Kent's endorsement of a corrupt book called The Shack. Before we get into the anti-Scriptural concepts that are taught in this book, let's take a look at what Kent has to say about it:

KENT HOVIND: "The book 'The Shack', though it certainly has its critics out there, I've read it eight times, and would gladly read it again if I had a copy in here, I think gives the best illustration I've seen of trying to explain the Trinity. It's a classic if you haven't read it. I recommend it, despite of its drawback."
RUDY DAVIS (aka LONESTAR1776): "I'm about halfway through it myself. Very interesting book. I kind of—it's very intriguing and I'm to the part where he's living with the Trinity. The African-American elderly lady is the 'Papa', and the Holy Spirit, and then you have the Jesus, and it's very interesting. I don't think I've gotten to the point where it's actually telling the point of the story, but it's just to the point where he's living with them." HOVIND: "Okay, well you just keep reading brother. [Davis laughs] It's amazing. I wish we could get one [i.e. a copy of The Shack] here."

[Later on another call, after Davis had finished reading the book...]

DAVIS: "Also, I was going to mention to you 'The Shack'. I read The Shack too, and I know you mentioned you've read it a few times, and I was just going to share with you—I know that a lot of people criticize it because it depicts the Trinity in an unconventional way, and I know you've said that it's encouraged you when you were in prison, and so I read the book myself. Here's the one thing I do have to say about it, and it was a very interesting book, and I can see where someone would get encouragement from that, but here's—let me just share with you my thoughts on it and see what your response is. I think it's Luke 17:3, let me find it... 'Take heed to yourselves if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him.' And one of the main themes of this Shack book, and this is just my thoughts on it, and I don't claim to be perfect, but it seemed to be like promoting this idea of unconditional forgiveness. In other words, the guy had his daughter murdered, and he went to the shack, and he was gonna' confront, I guess, whoever sent him the note, which he thought it might be from the murderer, but it ended up being a note from God, right? And then, he has this experience with God, and—the whole theme of the book was that he's going to forgive, I guess, the one who potentially—or the one who did murder his daughter, I guess, and—but there's no repentance, right? It's like, for me, that was kind of the missing piece of the puzzle of the book, and I'm not trying to slam the book by saying it doesn't have some value, because it certainly seemed to be encouraging to you, and praise God for that, but do you think that it's missing a component of it wasn't pushing that any repentance is needed in order to forgive somebody who's done a wrong, and maybe I need to be set straight on that, but interested in your thoughts on that."

As a side note, I want to point out that Davis is a hateful, warmongering preacher who models himself after Steven Anderson. His viciousness goes so far, Davis has even called for the beheading of Barack Obama on national television, volunteering to be the executioner.
(See Peter J. Reilly, "Kent Hovind Asks Supporters For Noise And Light To Defend Him," Forbes, Jan 12, 2015, retrieved May 20, 2020, [forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/01/12/kent-hovind-asks-supporters-for-noise-and-light-to-defend-him/#7d0f01ba52d4])

Please do not misunderstand; I am not saying that Barack Obama is not deserving of execution for high treason and crimes against the American people (and of others around the world), but Obama needs to be tried in a military court, and found guilty through the proper means of the law. However, the following video is a demonstration of Davis's hateful, railing speech, as he screams into the microphone:

DAVIS: "It's a church full of cowards!! Full of white Caucasian cowards that don't know crap, that won't do anything except talk!! WE GOT AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, A FRICKIN' ILLEGAL ALIEN!!!! And I wanna' pray right now that Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbough, Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity... I HOPE THEY ALL END UP IN PRISON!!! JUST GET THIS D*** FOREIGNER OUT OF THE FREAKIN' OFFICE!!! HE DON'T DESERVE TO BE THERE!!! HE AIN'T ELIGIBLE!!!"

The funny thing about Davis's screaming rant is that the "illegal alien" he was referring to was Barack Obama and the controversy about him not being born a U.S. citizen, which is a requirement to become President of the United States. Please do not misunderstand, Barack Obama is a wicked man, and therefore, he was a wicked president, but the allegation of him not being born a U.S. citizen was proven false by Donald Trump's organization, who did find Obama's birth certificate and verified that he was born in Hawaii, a U.S. state. (There are reasons this information may change in the future, specifically about Obama being born in Kenya, but I will not go into the details of that in this book; as of 2021, this was the information available.)
(See BBC News, "Trump 'proud' over Obama's birth certificate release," Apr 27, 2011, retrieved Apr 7, 2020, [https://bbc.in/2URwkZJ])

Getting back to the main topic, I want to point out the hypocrisy of Rudy Davis because even though he rightfully pointed out that repentance is required for forgiveness, he does not apply that to the Gospel of Salvation. Davis has a video called "Romans Road to Salvation" in which he excludes repentance from forgiveness of sin, while he contradicts himself in other videos, teaching that repentance is required for forgiveness.
(See Rudy Davis, "Romans Road to Salvation," LoneStar1776, June 30, 2011, retrieved Apr 10, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=JEa8nnEv4fM]; See also Rudy Davis, "no Forgiveness without repentance and where the hell is my Fatwa?" LoneStar1776, Apr 8, 2011, retrieved Apr 10, 2020, [youtube.com/watch?v=qFfK67iFbCw])

HOVIND: "I didn't see that. I think he was saying 'if people are willing to repent, God is willing to forgive'. I didn't see that at all; I've read it nine times."
DAVIS: "Okay."
HOVIND: "I'm not the world's expert on the book."
DAVIS: "You've read it a lot more than me."
HOVIND: "I believe he's still in Oregon last I heard."

Take note of what Kent did here because this is a very common tactic he uses, namely, when he is called out on something he has done in error, and he does not have a quick one-liner response and/or he does not want to talk about it, he abruptly changes the subject. The author living in Oregon has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic that he was asked about, and Kent feels uncomfortable because Davis, a man who has little to no discernment and understanding of the Word of God, can see the problem and contradictions with the book, while Kent, who claims he has been studying the Bible for decades, cannot see it.

Kent will not say much about the matter past this point, and the only reason he continues to discuss it is because he is being put on the spot, or in other words, he is stalling for time because he does not know what to say next. You will see how he simply repeats what he has already said, which is unlike Kent to do unless he does not have an answer that will help him save face, and once again, he will quickly change the subject.

DAVIS: "Yep."
HOVIND: "Well, I think there is, uh—even if that—no. God is willing to forgive—we cannot sin beyond the grace of God, I think, is the point. So yeah, anyway, I understand. I have Eric ******'s contact info."
DAVIS: "Oh! Okay!"

See what I mean? He changes the subject when he is uncomfortable with the topic. Let's move on to the next couple of audio clips to get the fullness of what Kent is saying about The Shack, and then we will analyze what the book really teaches.

The following is from the second half of the above video. This is a call with a different host, and Kent brings up the topic of The Shack without being questioned about it by the host:

HOVIND: "Have you ever read the book 'The Shack'? Or heard of it?"
HOST: "I've heard of it, yeah."
HOVIND: "I've read it eight times. It is one of the best books I have ever read in my life. It is phenomenal! A couple of theological things I don't agree with, but all in all, it is just incredible. I learned years ago how to eat the meat and spit out the bones. If you don't learn how to do that, you're gonna' choke on something."
HOST: "Right."
HOVIND: "But there is so much good meat in this—the very issues that it deals with—'God why did you allow this?' Why? And so, it's a fabulous book. I recommend you get that."

This reveals a lot more about why Kent is so in love with this book, and it is not for any kind of Biblical doctrine. The reason he likes the book is because it gives him a justification for his crimes against the state, and he thinks it makes him "holier-than-thou" against the courts.

A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face... Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
-Isaiah 66:3-5

As we have already seen, Kent believes he has done no wrong, even though, after reading this book, we can clearly see that he has done a lot of wrong, even many things he has never been prosecuted for (as of yet). So in his mind, since he continues to deny the truth and believe he is innocent (i.e. Kent has no godly sorrow of his sin), he clings to a book that helps give him a self-righteous reason why he suffered a prison sentence, and further strengthens his false hopes that he has pardon (i.e. remission of sins) from God without repentance (i.e. godly sorrow of sin).

The next clip is from Aug 20, 2015, one month after Kent was released from prison. Kent was doing another Q&A YouTube session:

HOVIND: "I got really blasted, I guess may be the proper word, for recommending the book 'The Shack'. I have read the book nine times, okay? There aren't too many books I have read—I don't think there's any books I have read nine times other than my Bible; many, many times more than that. There is a video on YouTube or something that—of about me recommending 'The Shack', saying I shouldn't do that. I did not watch the whole video, so I'm not going to address the points on that one-by-one. I do have some question here though—a lot of people who have asked about my recommending 'The Shack'...
It's a novel. It's a story. Okay? It's not supposed to be true. It's a novel. Jesus told parables, you know, lots of parables. It's a story to teach a truth...
It is, I think, a fabulous book, and if you don't like it, don't read it. Okay? It's real simple. But I think—I know there's some theological issues in there, but the general concept is fabulous. I'll read it again if I get ahold of it. It's probably packed in my property somewhere. Okay. I think it's a touching story, and it has some great lessons to learn... if you don't like it, go somewhere else. There's plenty of folks. Let's see. As far as recommending 'The Shack': Yes! I recommend 'The Shack'. I think anybody with any spiritual maturity can read it and see through any problems. The problems, I think, are minor...
The whole point—you're missing the whole point—is that we need to quit putting God in our box, okay? I think it's a great story. I recommend you read it. Yes, you can quote me on that, and quit watching if you want to quit watching."

Now that we have read and heard all about Kent's love for The Shack, and his excuses to defend it, let's look at what the book actually teaches. By the end of this chapter, we will prove how little discernment Kent actually has, and give you many reasons to stop watching/listening to him if you do not want to be affected by his leaven (i.e. corrupt doctrines).

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
-Galatians 5:9

Author William P. Young wrote The Shack in which he portrays God as a black female, Jesus as a male construction worker, and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman. Young contradicts the Bible throughout the entire book, and gives the reader a false impression and misunderstanding of the True Living God, so let's go over a few quotes from the book to get an idea of Young's deception.

A man named Mack is the main character of the story, and his wife calls God "Papa." Papa (aka "God" according to William P. Young) says:
"I don't need to punish people for sin... It's not my purpose to punish it;"
-William P. Young, The Shack, Windblown Media, 2008, p. 120, ISBN: 9780964729292

This is a direct contradiction against the Word of God, and it is teaching people that God does not issue punishments for sin. In fact, the word 'god' means "judge," and the job of a judge is to convict and sentence criminals. I was so blown away that Young would teach something so obviously wrong that I had hard time knowing where to begin since most of the Old Testament is about God punishing the wicked.
(Read "Unbiblical Cop-Outs: 'Don't Judge Me!'" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

If God did not punish people for sin, then why did He destroy almost everyone in the world with a global flood? God looked into the world, he saw the wickedness (i.e. sin) of man, how great the sins had become, and He repented (i.e. grieved in his heart) that He had made man, so He destroyed everyone except Noah and his family.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
-Genesis 6:5-7

Jesus also warned people about hell, which is an everlasting punishment for sin, and it burns continually without being quenched (i.e. the fire cannot be put out).

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
-Mark 9:43-44
(Read "Hell Is Real and Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked... The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
-2 Peter 2:4-9

The Bible also teaches us that, at the end of this world, those in hell, and hell itself, will be thrown into the lake of fire forever. All those whose names are not written in the book of life (i.e. those who have not been born again in Christ) will be cast into the lake of fire.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
-Revelation 20:10

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
-Revelation 20:14-15

So we can clearly see that Young has no understanding of Scripture, and no concept of who God really is, which means he should not be writing a novel about it in the first place. However, Kent's argument in defense of Young is to claim that it is "just a novel" (i.e. a work of fiction), and that Jesus taught parables when He preached, so it is acceptable for authors like Young to make up stories if they want.

parable (n): a fable or allegorical [figurative] relation or representation of something real in life or nature, from which a moral is drawn for instruction
(See 'parable', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 15, 2022, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Frankly, I do not care if someone wants to write a fiction story, but when it concerns the parables of Jesus Christ, He was not just making up a story so we would all be entertained; the parables Jesus taught us were conveying Biblical philosophy, to preach the truth for our moral consideration, and to help people understand salvation. If someone like Young wants to write fiction, that is his business, but when that fiction teaches false doctrine and corrupt philosophies that lead people to hell, it then becomes a false analogy to compare it to Jesus preaching in parables.
(Read "Fantasy Novels: Invitations to Hell" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

When a so-called "Christian" author writes a so-called "Christian" novel, it automatically comes with expectations that Christian doctrine will be represented by some of the characters in the book, meaning that the author will be expected to properly represent the doctrines and philosophy of Christ in the moral lessons of their story. Young clearly does not have a basic understanding of the New Testament Scriptures, and any Christian worth his salt would put down that book immediately and rebuke it, but as we can see, Kent Hovind does not have the salt he claims to have in his seminars.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
-Matthew 5:13

As we read earlier, Kent said it is a "story to teach the truth," and yet, as we can see, it is not teaching the truth. The Shack teaches the opposite of the truth, and specifically, it is teaching the devilish lie that God has automatically forgiven everyone of all their sins, and so I will rebuke any preacher that would endorse such a book, and if that man will not repent, I will encourage the church to stay away from his leaven (i.e. false doctrine coming from his corrupt heart).

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
-1 Corinthians 5:6

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees... Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
-Matthew 16:6-12
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Sanctification" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In the book, Young also teaches:
"In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship."
-William P. Young, The Shack, Windblown Media, 2008, p. 225, ISBN: 9780964729292

Again, this directly contradicts the doctrine of Scripture because the forgiveness (i.e. remission) of sins is not given to mankind automatically, but it is only given to those who have come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of their sin), and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:44-47

The grace of salvation is not like a free sample at a grocery store, but that is how Kent Hovind, William Young, and many other pastors often treat the matter. They believe that grace is just seeing the sign in the store that says "Free Sample," they take a piece, and then maybe sneak back around a while later to get another snack. I want to emphasize that God's grace is CONDITIONAL, meaning that God does not give His grace to everyone automatically because He withholds His grace from the proud of heart.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6

God only saves (i.e. gives grace to) those who have been humbled to a repentant heart and contrite spirit, having grief and sorrow of their wrongdoing.

The LORD is nigh [draws close] unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

contrite (adj): broken-hearted for sin; deeply affected with grief and sorrow for having offended God; humble; penitent
(See 'contrite', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 10, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

However, Young is teaching that everyone has forgiveness automatically without repentance or faith in God. He is teaching a new-age false narrative that salvation (and the fullness of the Gospel of Christ) is as routine, mundane, and meaningless as walking into a church building and claiming "I want a relationship with God."

Young goes on to teach that unrepentant murderers are the children of God:
"For you to forgive this man [the murderer to who killed his daughter] is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him... He too is my son."
-William P. Young, The Shack, Windblown Media, 2008, p. 224, ISBN: 9780964729292

Please do not misunderstand; I am not saying that God does not save murderers because He HAS saved many. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, was a murderer who persecuted the church at one time, but God saved Paul because he repented and believed. However, if a murderer (or a sinner of any kind) does not repent (i.e. is broken-hearted) of his wrongdoing, then that man is not a child of God.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
-2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Repentance is a gift from God. The Lord God must give us repentance to acknowledge the truth.

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2 Timothy 2:25

Almost any sin can be forgiven, but that does not mean that God has forgiven every sin no matter what someone says, does, or believes because all men must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. The idea that all people are the children of God, no matter the circumstance, is a new-age ecumenical (i.e. one-world) doctrine that preaches an "everyone-goes-to-heaven-automatically" false gospel.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
-John 3:7

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think that the Living God would not be able to redeem a sinner without the help of mankind. God does not need us to "release" anyone so they can be redeemed, as such a thing would fall under the works-doctrine category, and would deny the all-powerful nature of God.

Young continues to teach more heresy:
"Jesus... has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything."
-William P. Young, The Shack, Windblown Media, 2008, p. 99-100, ISBN: 9780964729292

That is absurd because the Bible tells us that the world was made by Jesus, and for Jesus. How did Jesus Christ create this universe without "draw[ing] upon his nature as God?"

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
-Colossians 1:16

Jesus performed many miracles, including healing the lame (John 5:7-9), walking on water (Mat 14:25-27), and raising the dead (John 11:41-44), and that also includes Jesus raising Himself from the dead.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
-John 2:19-21

In his foolishness and lack of any Biblical understanding, Young goes on to teach:
"The first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts himself on our human level and limits himself."
-William P. Young, The Shack, Windblown Media, 2008, p. 88, ISBN: 9780964729292

First of all, Jesus HUMBLED Himself, which is more proof that He is awe-inspiringly kind and merciful in nature. Nowhere does the Bible teach that He limited Himself, as He had the power to call armies of angels with a mere thought.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
-Matthew 11:29

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
-Matthew 26:52-54

Jesus humbled Himself for our sakes, that all mankind might repent and believe on Him, so they could gain the grace of salvation; however, most of them will not do that. We who have been given repentance and faith in Christ should go to the Word of God to learn of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and when it comes to spiritual matters, we should not depart from it, to seek the so-called "wisdom" of men, in which they deceive for their own profit.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
-1 Corinthians 1:17

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's [money's] sake.
-Titus 1:10-11

Even more important, God IS the Almighty, and identifies Himself as such. Not only is He the Almighty, it is the first aspect of God (despite what Young claims), and it is a title the Lord God is FAR beyond deserving of having.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
-Revelation 1:8

Therefore, we (as born again Christians) should identify Him as the Almighty God. What Young is (willingly) ignorant of is that Jesus Christ ALSO identified Himself as the Almighty because, as we find out at end of Revelation, the Alpha and Omega is God the Father and Jesus Christ, who speak interchangeably.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
-Revelation 22:12-13

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
-Revelation 22:20-21

Kent Hovind The Shack [creationliberty.com]

So far, we have seen Young's false goddess (i.e. the black woman in the book) who does not punish sin, has automatically forgiven all men despite the lack of repentance, is incapable of redeeming one man (i.e. the murderer) without the help of another man's forgiveness, creates the idea of a false "jesus" that has never used his power as God (which goes against all Scripture that tells us otherwise), and tears down the holy aspect of God as the Almighty Master. Without analyzing anything else, a born again Christian ought to have nothing to do with the false teachings of this book, let alone endorse it like Kent Hovind does, but because Kent does not have any love for the truth of Scripture, nor does he have any love for the brethren because he is not concerned that they might be led astray, he continues to selfishly do whatever is pleasing in his own eyes.

The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful.
-Psalm 36:1-2

All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
-Proverbs 16:2

Please remember that, in all these interviews, Kent seems to acknowledge that there is some false doctrine in the book, but if you listen carefully, you will notice that Kent NEVER specifies what exactly in the book is false doctrine. He just assumes that everyone will know automatically, and being a teacher (called by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to teach), I can declare with certainty that is NOT the way teachers of Christ should be handling such matters.

Worse still is that Young's false "Jesus" character in the book speaks about the people of the world, and says:
"I have no desire to make them Christians."
-William P. Young, The Shack, Windblown Media, 2008, p. 182, ISBN: 9780964729292

That would be like Jesus preaching that He did NOT come to make disciples after Himself, which is completely opposite to what Jesus taught us in Scripture. The word 'Christian' means "Christ-like," or to be like Christ, in that we study His Word, and follow Him by applying His doctrine and philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) to our lives, which provides evidence to our conversion unto Him.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-John 8:31-32

disciple (n): a learner; a follower; one who receives or professes to receive instruction from another; an adherent to the doctrines of another
(See 'disciple', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 10, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
-Acts 26:28-29

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
-1 Peter 4:16

Yet, despite the fact that The Shack dishonors God and perverts Christ's Gospel of Salvation, Kent Hovind claims the book contains "a lot of meat," and that proves that Kent does not have the discernment to understand what is meat and what is bone. In fact, the phrase "eat the meat and spit out the bones" is a phrase that Kent has repeated countless times in his seminars, and yet, that concept is NOT taught in the Bible because Scripture does not tell us to go absorb anything and everything that we please, but we need to discern truth from lies, and then when we find something that is doctrinally false, we expose it, and then turn from it, not pick it back up and read it eight more times for entertainment.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
-1 Corinthians 5:7

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles [prophets] of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

Author James B. DeYoung wrote a counter-book called Burning Down The Shack, and though I do not recommend DeYoung's book because of his use of the corrupt, new-age NIV, he used to be a friend of William P. [Paul] Young [author of The Shack], and knows much about his personal beliefs. Let's read his testimony to find out what Paul Young actually believes:
"For almost seven years Paul and I drove together to almost every meeting—a trip of about thirty minutes. We would share our latest thinking about a host of things. It now appears that some of the ideas found in The Shack took seed during those discussions. But none... ever rose to the level of heresy as the evangelical church defines the term—not till 2004, that is.
In April of that year, in a 103-page, single-spaced paper, Paul surprisingly presented his embrace of universal reconciliation. It is the Christian form of universalism, not the pagan form. It is crucial to understand this distinction. The pagan form, also called general universalism, claims that there are many ways to God and that Jesus Christ is only one of the many ways to God. This is rightly rejected in The Shack.
So-called Christian universalism, which Paul Young did embrace, insists that all must come to God through Jesus Christ either before they die or after they die. If people do not believe in Jesus before they die, God will use the fires of hell to purge away (not punish) the unbelief of all, even that of the devil and fallen angels, so that hell is finally emptied of all beings and all go to heaven. In others words, after people die, they have a second chance to repent of their sins—actually not just a chance to repent but a certainty that they will. The point is that in the end hell ceases to exist. There is no eternal judgment. This is the form of universalism embedded in The Shack."
-James B. DeYoung, Burning Down The Shack: How the 'Christian' Bestseller is Deceiving Millions, WND Books, 2010, p. xiii-xiv, ISBN: 9781935071846

After preaching for about five decades, how is it that Kent could have read this book nine times, and not discerned these obvious heresies to Scripture? Consider the answer to that question carefully because, without the Holy Spirit, we cannot discern these matters, and thus, Kent is blind to these things because he does not have the Spirit of God.

In addition, Kent says that The Shack is the best way to explain "The Trinity," but the problem is that the modern-day concept that is referred to as "The Trinity" is pagan in nature and origin. The word 'trinity' never appears in Scripture, but rather, we Christians believe in the "Godhead," which is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are one God and three separate entities at the same time.
(Read "The Godhead vs The Trinity" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
-Romans 1:20

Kent would also say that my rebuke of him is "missing the whole point," because he says "that we need to quit putting God in our box," by which, Kent means that we are limiting God to a preconception we have in our minds. If anyone is guilty of doing that, it is William Young because The Shack puts God into a box of Young's own making, and his book ignores the Bible, the very book in which God described Himself.

I am not putting God in a box; I am trusting God's descriptions of Himself in His Word, but Kent Hovind and William Young do not trust God at His Word. What Kent is actually saying is that he does not want us trusting God's own descriptions of Himself, and that we should be open to Kent's personal feelings and opinions about who he wants God to be, which even contradicts the doctrine Kent has taught in his seminars, and that only demonstrates to me that Kent's pride and hypocrisy have no boundaries.

Finally, Kent has already publicly stated, in no uncertain terms, that he will not discuss the matter, so if you want to rebuke him, you will be wasting your time. If you want to object to his endorsement of The Shack, as we read earlier, Kent will tell you that "if you don't like it, go somewhere else," and to that, I say "Amen!" — meaning that I hope as many as possible would depart from Kent's leavened so-called "ministry" and his false doctrines, so they can hear the true gospel, and be saved and sanctified by the Lord Jesus Christ.

#8 - Kent Flip-Flops on 501c3

Before I begin this chapter, if any reader is unfamiliar with the problems surrounding 501c3 incorporated status in the United States, namely that pastors and elders must renounce the authority of Christ over the church to obtain it, and that getting incorporated under 501c3 turns church buildings into U.S. military infrastructures, then I would highly recommend you stop here and read 501c3: The Devil's Church, which is another free-to-read book here at creationliberty.com. It is vitally important that Christians understand that 501c3 is NOT the source of the problem; it is certainly bad for Christians to get involved in, but the source of the problem is the greedy and covetous hearts of wicked pastors and elders who seek their own gain, rather than doing what is right by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
-Isaiah 56:11

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
-2 Peter 2:3

The following video transcript is a combination of two short audio clips in which the hateful, warmongering, foul-mouthed Rudy Davis (i.e. LoneStar1776) interviewed Kent Hovind when he was asked about his position on churches getting 501c3 incorporated:

DAVIS (aka LONESTAR1776): "'I was wondering what your thoughts are on 501c3 churches, specifically Creation Today?' But, I didn't know that was going to be the question, but my response is that maybe Hannah [i.e. Hannah Deborah, former volunteer secretary for Kent Hovind, who was mentioned in chapter 5] should direct that over to the folks at Creation Today, but any response from you sir?"
HOVIND: "Well, it's a difficult situation because the government has purposefully made it difficult. The church has always faced this issue. Same thing in Nazi Germany, Hitler made it very difficult for real churches to exist without Nazi approval, and so that led to Dietrich Bonhoeffer [German theologian]; there was a split in the German church between the confessing church and the German Christians, I think were the two names, and you can read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's stuff on that. So, it's the same thing in China today between the two totally different types of churches. One's called 'The Three Self', and the other is called the—the communist-approved churches—and the other is just the house churches; it's just—God decides the church. So, I think America is headed for the same split among churches that say, 'Wait a minute, does the government decide what is and is not a church?' It's a REAL touchy question, and so, yeah, I am not a legal expert on that. I'm aware that there's a real problem, and I think we should tread softly. Learn the truth. 501c3 is the government telling you, 'Yes, you are allowed to have a church.' That ought to concern people. What are they doing involved in this business at all?"
DAVIS: "Amen, amen!"
HOVIND: "That—Paul would be the one to talk—Paul Hansen would be the one to talk to about that. He's really good at it."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Compromises on 501c3 Ministries," Aug 12, 2015, retrieved Mar 25, 2022, [https://youtu.be/2uLR19DIRfM])

I will get to Paul Hansen in a moment, but there are number of things wrong with Kent's response that the average listener will not catch. First of all, the U.S. government has not created a "difficult situation" because 501c3 has always been OPTIONAL, meaning that there is no law that requires any Christian organization to get 501c3 incorporated.

Secondly, no one asked Kent about Nazi Germany, nor did anyone ask him about the Chinese Communist Party; Kent was asked specifically about Creation Today, which is Eric Hovind's ministry. (i.e. Eric Hovind got 501c3 incorporated, and I talk about that more in my book on 501c3.) Similar to dirty politicians, Kent uses a tactic in which he gives an answer to some other question, or changes the subject entirely, so he will not have to answer something he is uncomfortable talking about.

Thirdly, I have listened to Kent's debates hundreds (if not thousands) of times, and I recall many instances in which he rebuked an evolutionist for dodging questions by saying, "I'm not a geology expert," or "I'm not a chemistry expert." This was a strategy they often used to avoid answering a question so they could save face in front of an audience. In a fine display of hypocrisy, on a topic he has openly spoken about in the past, Kent dodges the question by saying "I'm not a legal expert," so he can save face.

Finally, 501c3 is NOT the government telling you whether or not you are allowed to gather together as a church, but rather, 501c3 is an offer to become an indirect government institution (which then becomes taxable), and once you are under their umbrella, they grant you a tax exempt privilege. (i.e. The church is not taxable any more than a book club is taxable, but in effort to gain more money through tax-deductible donations, preachers seek IRS corporate status.) By the covetousness in their hearts, pastors and evangelists CHOOSE to get 501c3 incorporated because they love money more than the Lord Jesus Christ.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
-1 Timothy 6:10

In summary, Kent was protecting the paychecks of Eric and his other two children by trying to maintain a somewhat neutral position, which is why he dodged the topic about Creation Today, and ended his speech with a rhetorical question, rather than a direct response. The reason Kent did not simply come out and speak the truth on the matter is because he loved his son more than the Lord Jesus Christ:

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
-Matthew 10:37

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
-Luke 12:51-53

Knowing that some of his listening audience would not be satisfied with his lukewarm response, Kent pointed them away from himself and over to Paul Hansen. Hansen has an article he wrote called "Churches Should Never Go 501c3: Reasons to Unincorporate Your Church," and in it, he says:

"This is how the corporation came to the churches. We learned it from the heathen. Churches incorporate for basically three reasons: 1. To avoid responsibility and accountability for their deeds. (liability) 2. To make the church eligible to borrow money and go into debt. 3. To get tax exemption to increase giving. None of these are Scriptural... You can never restore Christ as head of your church as long as your church is tied to the law of an earthly king."

-Paul Hansen, "Churches Should Never Go 501c3: Reasons to Unincorporate Your Church," Paul J. Hansen Blog, Aug 5, 2011, retrieved May 5, 2020, [pauljjhansen.com/?p=389]

This begs the question: Why did Kent not just come out and say that? He knew Hansen's position on this matter, but it was not that Kent was unable to answer the question himself; rather, Kent deferred to Hansen to save face. It should be an embarrassment to Kent that he was so cowardly in this matter that he, as a so-called "Christian" evangelist, had to let his lawyer preach the truth for him.

It should be clear how corrupt Kent has become when he needs his lawyer to preach for him.

In another interview while in prison (which I documented in the video), Kent is forced to speak a little more directly about the matter. If you listen to the audio clip, you can hear the reluctance in his voice, meaning that he does not really want to discuss this matter:

KENT HOVIND: "You're right, we—501c3 churches are basically gagged. There was a guy named Peter Kershaw, years ago, who wrote a booklet about that. A picture of the pastor on the front with duct tape over his mouth. When they become 501c3, they agree not to get involved in politics. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but if they make that, they have made a contract, [agreeing that] they won't do that, which is the purpose of the contract. CSE has never been a 501c3 corporation. When Eric took over, he did start a 501c3 corporation called God Quest, and so, he is, technically, silenced."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Compromises on 501c3 Ministries," Aug 12, 2015, retrieved Mar 25, 2022, [https://youtu.be/2uLR19DIRfM])

First of all, I found it deceptive that he refused to mention the name of Peter Kershaw's book (i.e. In Caesar's Grip) because he used to mention it all the time to various church buildings during his seminars, and I refuse to believe that he just forgot about it. I believe he purposely avoided mentioning the name of it, and part of the reason for that is because he used to sell it in his book store, but Eric would have promptly removed that from their online store after he made the decision to get incorporated under the IRS. (i.e. Kent was protecting himself and Eric, and did not want to mention the book unless he had it for sale in his own store, so he can reap the profits of his endorsement.)

Just to give an example, in Kent's Seminar #5, The Dangers of Evolution (from 2003), he said:
"You know just about every church in America now has become 501(c)(3) incorporated because they want to get government handouts. You ought to get the book Hushmoney or the bigger version of it, In Caesar's Grip by Peter Kershaw, a good friend of mine, if you want to find all the dangers behind 501(c)(3) incorporation."
-Kent Hovind, "Is Dr. Kent Hovind being edited?" retrieved May 5, 2020, [wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-is_being_edited.html#semvgetmuzzle]

Of course, after Eric took over CSE and formed God Quest Incorporated, he still wanted to sell Kent's seminars because they made him a lot of money, but Eric edited some of them. After reading Kent's quote from his Seminar #5, I am sure most readers can figure out why Eric edited the original video, which was originally 177 minutes in length, down to 82 minutes in length. In addition, I think it should be noted that a Swedish man by the name of Michel Snoeck had written out full transcripts of all of Kent's seminars (with full permission from Kent and CSE) before Kent went to prison, and a few years later, Eric attempted to pressure Snoeck to shut down his site by writing Snoeck a false copyright claim. (i.e. Eric does just as many shady things as his dad.)
(See Michel Snoeck, "Efforts to limit dissemination? (Efforts to muzzle me?)" retrieved May 5, 2020, [wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-is_being_edited.html#limitingme])

Secondly, I do NOT recommend Peter Kershaw's book (i.e. Hush Money/In Caesar's Grip) because there is information in his book that is simply made up and contradicts the facts, or in other words, Kershaw gives his opinion, but he writes his opinion as if it is a fact, even though his opinion is not true. If you want see examples of that, you can see my book 501c3: The Devil's Church, which (again) is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com, and that will show you how Kershaw attempts to (as a manpleaser, Eph 6:6) provide pastors with a scapegoat to avoid having to be held accountable for their covetousness and greed.

Thirdly, it is a MYTH that getting a 501c3 contract only silences a church organization when it comes to politics. The gag on political topics is only one of many things that pastors give up because they actually sign away ALL their U.S. Constitutional rights as a preacher under that 501c3 incorporated church building, and become an indirect government employee; again, see my book for more details.

And finally, while Kent was in prison, CSE had never been a corporation, but today, that is not the case. Kent Hovind has incorporated his organization:
"Creation Science Evangelism Ministries, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)3, public charitable status 509(a)2 with a EIN# 81-1424226. Creation Science Evangelism, Inc. is a for-profit Corporation donating profits each year to CSEM, Inc. Dinosaur Adventure Land is a DBA. All serve as ministries with the common mission and goal stated here. We host regular services for the Church body, and therefore are a Church as established by Jesus Christ."
-Creation Science Evangelism, "Terms and Conditions Agreement," retrieved May 5, 2020, [https://web.archive.org/web/20200416221324/https://drdino.com/about-us/terms-and-conditions-agreement]

Again, let me go down a list of points. First of all, 509a2 is simply a status within 501c3 that allows a non-profit organization to receive funds from a for-profit company, or in other words, it allows Creation Science Evangelism's store to receive tax breaks to filter money into Kent's 501c3 so-called "ministry." (i.e. 509a2 is under the same yoke and restrictions as 501c3 and 508c1a.)

Secondly, a DBA is like an LLC (limited liability company), but in simple terms, it is like having a username online, except it is a legal name filed in government paperwork. For example, on our forum, I go by the username "creationliberty," but that is simply a username that represents me, Chris Johnson, and likewise, Dinosaur Adventure Land is another legal name for Creation Science Evangelism Inc.

And finally, it amazes me that Kent has the nerve to claim to be a part of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because he hosts regular services. That is not how the church is defined in Scripture. That is a sleight-of-hand deception (and a complete flip-flop from his old teachings) because there are many church buildings in America that hold regular services and claim to be ministries of Christ, but they are not of Christ.
(See our Wolves in Costume series here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Matthew 15:8

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
-Mark 7:7
(Read "False Converts vs Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

As Kent continues in the recording, he reads a question in a letter he received, about how people who get ordained under 501c3 ministries are getting ordained under something that is not of Jesus Christ, which is correct; pastors, elders, and deacons who get ordained under a 501c3 ministry are ordained under leaven, which is corruption. Kent retorts to this by saying, "I don't think that's a point that then makes you under the government's authority or something like that. That's a church issue."

The problem is that Kent does not understand that by signing the contract for IRS incorporation, you must renounce Jesus Christ as the head of your church/ministry, and instead put the IRS as the sole authority and creator of your church/ministry. That means, by default, Jesus Christ is NOT the head of any church/ministry that has 501c3 status, which also means that, if you are ordained under an incorporated church/ministry, then you are not ordained under Christ's church.
(Read 501c3: The Devil's Church here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate to readers that Kent compromises his beliefs when they affect his bottom line (i.e. his paycheck), and please do not misunderstand; Kent did not just all of a sudden start compromising his beliefs because prison changed him, nor is it that he is getting confused and tired in his old age. These are nothing more than convenient excuses for those who do not want to acknowledge the truth. Kent got 501c3 incorporated because of his lust and greed for money, which adds more evidence to the heaping pile of facts which indicate that Kent was never born again in Christ in the first place.

He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
-Matthew 13:22

Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's [money's] sake.
-Titus 1:11

The subject of 501c3 is not the only place where Kent Hovind compromises. Let's continue on to see more areas where Kent remains lukewarm to avoid controversy...

#9 - Kent's Contradiction on Christian Rock Music

Before we begin this chapter, I have another book (which is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com) called, Christian Music: For the Love of Money in which I go over the many problems with the so-called "Christian" music industry today, and how they teach numerous false doctrines in their songs, as well take advantage of churchgoers to make money and push an ecumenical (i.e. one-world) religious agenda. If any readers are unfamiliar with the deeply corrupt problems in "Christian" music today, I would recommend reading that book first before going into this chapter, and that will help you understand how hypocritical Kent is on this subject.

While still in prison, Kent was interviewed about the subject of "Christian" rock music:

RUDY DAVIS: "[Reading the question from an email:] 'How do you feel about Christian rock/modern worship music being played in a lot of churches nowadays? There are a lot of amazing and talented artists who honestly seem to be spreading the gospel, and not just doing it for entertainment. Such as Casting Crowns, Chris Tomlin, Kari Jobe, and many others. I do believe there is a strong entertainment spirit in many churches today, as well as most of the concerts, even those artists I just mentioned. In my opinion, you do not need a light show to get into it. Anyway, I just wondered how you felt about that.'"
KENT HOVIND: "Well, I love music. My wife's master's degree is in music. I can read music and play the piano with two fingers, but I love music. I think that different countries and different cultures have different styles of music. Music from India for instance, or China has different styles of music. I don't think God is as concerned with that. My only concern with what's called the 'Christian rock' is that the association that's going to be in the minds of some people with the other rock. Somebody driving by your church, they cannot hear the lyrics, all they can hear is the music; what will they think? So, I guess, for me, I avoid it because I don't want the potential confusion of association. I wouldn't fight them. Those that want to do it, great. I preach in lots of churches that do that stuff. They'll have Christian rock music for 30 minutes and then I get up and do my seminar on creation, and I just do it like I would anywhere else. So, it's one of those things I wouldn't fight them, but I wouldn't join them either. I would not do that for fear of the bad association, just like I wouldn't walk into a tavern to order a Pepsi because I don't want people to say 'I saw Kent Hovind going into a bar.' I just don't go in there. Anyway, so that's my answer. I'm thrilled for everybody that uses their rock music talent for the Lord, go for it. Go get them."
DAVIS: "Alright."
HOVIND: "For me, it's just not my cup of tea."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind on 'Christian' Rock," originally Aug 12, 2015, retrieved Mar 25, 2022, [https://youtu.be/tg96Do8umS4])

In Christian Music: For the Love of Money, I expose the dangers of "Christian" rock music, showing that many of the songs they are singing are designed specifically for their entertainment value (not for worship of God), hyping them up in their concerts and music videos to make more money. In fact, in my book, I cover details on all of the so-called "Christian" music artists that were mentioned by the questioner, using facts, not feelings, to demonstrate that not only do these people offer no service or worship to Jesus Christ at all, but that they also teach false doctrines in their music, and lead people to a false ecumenical "christ."

Kent goes on to say that there is a bad association with rock music, but he does not really explain why that is the case. In my book, I go into details about the origin of rock music, and that it was designed to send a message of fornication, which is why it is called "rock," which is short for "rock and roll;" a phrase that was made popular by a U.S. radio show that took it from the jargon of teenagers who would sneak out of their parents' houses at night to have sex in their cars (i.e. rocking), and then drive away (i.e. rolling).

Please do not misunderstand; I am in no way arguing that music is evil or that musical instruments are inherently bad because they are inanimate objects. (i.e. Inanimate objects cannot have moral values.) However, what Christians need to understand is that music communicates a message, even without words, and so if we remain ignorant to the message music communicates, it can control us and shape our way of thinking (i.e. our philosophy) without us even knowing it.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [useless lies], after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings you learn] of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

Furthermore, a lot of rock music is Satanically inspired, and one of the greatest rock and roll icons of the 20th century, Jerry Lee Lewis, agreed with me:

"When Jerry played a 'boogie woogie' rendition of 'My God Is Real' at a church assembly, school administrators sent him packing that night. Years later, a fellow student at the school asked Jerry if he was still playing the devil's music. He said, 'Yes, I am. But you know it's strange, the same music they kicked me out of school for is the same kind of music they play in their churches today. The difference is I know I'm playing for the devil and they don't.'"

-Roderick Biddings, Music to God's Ears, Xulon Press, 2010, p. 139, ISBN: 9781615798728

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
-Matthew 7:18

Over the years, I have had many emails questioning what instruments are acceptable to God, and the people asking me these questions simply do not understand the core problem. The problem is NOT the instrument, but rather, the problem comes from the person playing the instrument because the music they are playing communicates a message, and so what Christians should be asking themselves is this: What message does the music communicate?

Would a group of soldiers want to hear sad violin music when they are about to jump out of a plane into an active warzone? The soldiers do not need to be calmed at a time where they need to be in full combat alert; it would be distracting and unhelpful to their situation. Do people want to hear heavy rock music at a funeral? Such a thing is abhorrent to those who are grieving. Again, music communicates a message, and so the music should be the appropriate communication to accompany the message of the words and the situation that the people are in, and for people to sing songs glorifying the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the blessings of grace through the Holy Ghost, with music that was Satanically inspired for fornication is a contradictory message.
(Keep in mind, I am not saying this was the intention of every rock music artist throughout history. I am simply pointing out the origin of these things, and the contradictions in doctrine and song.)

Furthermore, when people are singing songs that teach false doctrine, they cannot be glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ. Anything that worships Christ must be in accordance with His Word, otherwise, it is not worship; it is nothing more than deception at that point.

Please do not misunderstand, there are many verses in Scripture that speak of singing melodies to the Lord:

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
-Ephesians 5:19

Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises.
-Psalm 47:6

But sadly, most churchgoers see the words "sing praises," and they stop there without continuing to the next verse. We Christians are not supposed to be singing in ignorance and willful blindness, but rather, we are supposed to sing with understanding:

For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
-Psalm 47:7

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
-1 Corinthians 14:15

But churchgoers typically ignore the fact that, when people are singing in hypocrisy and not judging righteous judgment on these matters, God does NOT hear their songs, which means all their efforts and passions are vanity:

Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
-Amos 5:23-24

So Kent did not address the core problems with "Christian" rock, but rather, he said it is not his "cup of tea." (i.e. It is not his personal preference.) He also encouraged those who do it to continue doing it without remorse, and urged them to move forward with confidence to believe that they are pleasing God, despite the fact that Kent has no idea what they are listening to, nor what is being taught in the lyrics of the music.

Part of the hypocrisy of Kent's answer was that he compared rock music to going into a tavern (or a bar) where alcohol is primarily served. In February of 2016, Kent made a video in which he condemned fornication in music, also saying that a man and woman should be married their entire life (even though this was just a few weeks before he signed papers to divorce his wife), and then he went on to describe that Christian hymns should be holy in words and association:
"If the style of music tends to be associated with some of the vulgar stuff, then I would rather stay away. Like, I would not go into a bar to order a Coca-Cola because I don't want people to see me going into a bar. They're not going to know I'm ordering a Coke, they'll think 'Ah, Hovind goes to bars!' A, I don't want that association, and B, I don't want to support that business, so I don't go in there."
-Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A - Darwin Day - KJV Only - Christian Rock Music," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Feb 12, 2016, retrieved May 5, 2020, [https://youtu.be/CteXCvXOkUs?t=1645]

In case you did not catch the contradiction in his analogy, on one hand, Kent teaches that alcohol is bad and he does not want to be associated with any building that is primarily associated with alcohol, so he stays away from it (i.e. he will not go into a bar). However, on the other hand, Kent teaches that rock music is bad and he does not want to be associated with any building that is primarily associated with rock music, but is more than willing to go into a church building with rock music to teach seminars so they will give him money. (i.e. He is a hypocrite that does not live the way he claims to believe.)

On top of that, Kent said he fears others seeing him being associated with things that are evil, which, under normal circumstances, makes sense because we ought to abstain from appearances of evil. (1Th 5:22) However, in previous chapters, we have shown that Kent yokes together and associates with known drug dealers and pedophiles, and yet, seems to have no problem with that association, so long as it benefits him.

Kent has an excuse for everything he says and does, but he is very inconsistent. When I was a young Christian (being saved back in the fall of 2002), I did not have the discernment to see many of these things, but now, after being saved for many years and God giving me understanding by His Word, I can clearly see how Kent compromises his various positions, so he can stay as neutral (i.e. lukewarm) as possible, and riding the fence on such matters allows him to play both sides in order to increase his popularity and paycheck.

#10 - Kent's Hypocrisy on Christmas

If any readers are unfamiliar with this topic, I would recommend another book I wrote called Christmas: Rejecting Jesus, which is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com. Christmas is NOT a Christian holiday in any sense because the entire origin, along with all the traditional elements of it, are based on paganism and witchcraft, which was adopted by the Catholic Church and transformed into the abomination of rituals that are commonly practiced worldwide today.

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
-Jeremiah 10:2-4

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee [run quickly away] from idolatry.
-1 Corinthians 10:14

Therefore, I would encourage Christians to stay away from such paganism, that we would glorify the Lord Jesus Christ in all we say and do, but Kent Hovind takes a much more casual, lukewarm approach to this matter. The following video is an audio clip of Kent's Q&A podcast from August, 2015, discussing his doctrine on Christmas:

HOVIND: "How do you view Christmas? Do you and your family celebrate it? And do you tell the kids there is a Santa Claus? Good question, very controversial. Jesus was not born December 25th. That's pretty obvious, okay? December 25th was a pagan holiday to celebrate the shortest day of the year when they bring the sun back up. That used to be the day of the year—the shortest day of the year, and the priest would do their hocus-pocus and tell the people, 'You give us your, you know, hundred dollars and we're going to bring the sun back up.' Well, the sun's coming up anyway—a little longer day, the next day. That's simple science. My understanding is, the Catholics were trying to evangelize some kind of culture they were meeting to have this particular day as the holiday, so they blended Christmas with their pagan holiday of the Winter Solstice. And there's no question, December 25th, and today, December 21st is the shortest day because of a long, complicated reason. But that's an attempted blending of a Christian holiday with a pagan holiday. Jesus was probably born in the spring. We know the shepherds are not out with their flocks in the field at night in the winter time. It's cold over there. Okay? They pen them up inside and bring them the food. There was a lot of reasons why he was not born at Christmas, December 25th. Now, do I celebrate it? Maybe celebrate's the wrong word. We put up a tree, and have presents, and give the kids presents. We tell them it's the birth of Jesus Christ, and we tell them this is not his real birthday, but we don't know when it was, so we're celebrating it now like the rest of the people so you don't feel like a screwball at school. But no, we don't tell them—we tell them Santa Claus is fake, it's a fraud."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind on Christmas," originally Aug 12, 2015, retrieved Mar 25, 2022, [https://youtu.be/0JgeWbd_QVA])

If you have read the previous nine chapters of this book, it is likely that you will expect there to be a long list of problems with this answer, but in this instance, his answer was fairly accurate, with some minor problems. Kent always tends to give condensed answers to things, which is not necessarily wrong depending on the situation (and as long as you know what you are talking about), but Kent frequently (on many subjects) gives incorrect information alongside the correct information, and his hypocrisy is shocking if you did not already catch the problem with his answer.

His explanation about December 25th is correct; there is no way that Jesus Christ would have been born in the winter months due to various reasons I cover in my book, Christmas: Rejecting Jesus, with regards to the temperature. The pagan celebration (which is called "Yule," where we get the phrase "Yuletide Greetings") lasts seven days surrounding the 21st of December (which is the shortest day of the year), and it is based on the worship of the sun god and trinitarian moon goddess.

It is also true that the Catholic Church adopted the pagan rituals and blended them into their own traditions, in order to create a hybrid that would satisfy many religious beliefs, which is the ecumenical purpose of Rome (i.e. the Catholic Church); to bring all religious institutions under one umbrella that answers to the Roman Pontiff (i.e. the Pope). However, Kent was incorrect when he said the Catholic Church "blended Christmas with their pagan holiday of the Winter Solstice," and that it was "an attempted blending of a Christian holiday with a pagan holiday," because not only is Catholicism not Christianity in any sense, but Christmas was NOT a "Christian holiday" at any point in time; rather, Christmas (i.e. the Christ-mass in the Catholic Church) was already a pagan abomination before they added in other witchcraft traditions, such as the trees, wreaths, ornaments, mistletoe, and other devices commonly used in spellcraft.
(Reads Christmas: Rejecting Jesus & Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In summary, the traditions of Christmas, from putting up a tree, to giving of presents, to ornaments, wreaths, mistletoe, holly, and many other things, are all taken from witchcraft, which is idolatry, and an abomination in the sight of God. That is something that Kent Hovind never mentions, and I believe he left that out on purpose.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
-Galatians 5:19-21

Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
-Romans 2:22

And it should be noted that if you believe that idolatry is only bowing down to worship a statue carved with a face, then you do not understand the fullness of the matter because idolatry in the heart goes far beyond that:

Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent [have grief and godly sorrow of your sin], and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:
-Ezekiel 14:6-7

Next, Kent tries to soften up his listeners to the fact that he celebrates Christmas by saying that he believes the word 'celebrate' might be the wrong way to describe it. Just to clarify, let's look at a modern dictionary definition:

celebrate (v): to observe (a day) or commemorate (an event) with ceremonies or festivities; to perform with appropriate rites and ceremonies; solemnize
solemnize (v): to hold or perform (ceremonies, rites, etc) in due manner; to observe or commemorate with rites or ceremonies
(See 'celebrate' & 'solemnize', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Kent testified that he and his family would put up a Christmas tree, have presents, and tell them it was to solemnize (i.e. to observe or commemorate) the birth of Jesus, but then tries to fool his listening audience to say that he does not "celebrate" Christmas. The reason he does this is because he is trying to play both sides, meaning that he wants to appease those churchgoers who celebrate witchcraft rituals, while at the same time, he wants to appease those who know the truth about Christmas and sanctify themselves from it.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
-Revelation 3:15-16

Kent then goes on to talk about how he justified celebrating witchcraft rituals to his children, even though he just tried to excuse himself by saying that 'celebrate' was the wrong word to describe it. He told his children, "we're celebrating it now like the rest of the people so you don't feel like a screwball at school," or in other words, Kent is telling his family to ignore Scripture and just do what the majority of people are doing so they would feel good about themselves.

Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
-Exodus 23:2

In chapter five, I documented Kent's excuse for divorce and remarriage on unbiblical grounds, and his argument was a majority opinion from a number of corrupt preachers. In his seminars, Kent condemns using majority opinion as a justification for any argument, but again, when it comes to Kent justifying his own sin, he is happy to hypocritically use the majority opinion (ad populum) fallacy to fool unsuspecting listeners.

Although I quoted these in chapter five, I would like to do it again here. The following website offers a transcript of Kent's old seminars, and in his "Age of the Earth" seminar, Kent stated:
"A lot of scientists think the earth is billions of years old, but that does not make it billions of years old. You do not change facts by majority opinion."
-Kent Hovind, "Seminar 1: The Age of the Earth," Apologeet, retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [apologeet.nl/en/evolutie-schepping/hovind_transcripts/seminar_1_transcript]

In Kent Hovind's famous "3 vs 1" debate, in which he debated three evolutionist college professors at the same time, he said:
"If evolution is true, how do we tell right from wrong? Anytime tonight, I would like any one of these gentlemen to answer the simple question, if evolution is true, how does anybody tell right from wrong? If I wanted you to make a list of ten things that were wrong, before you put anything on the list, I want to know how are you deciding? Are you deciding right from wrong based on what Osama Bin Laden thinks? Do we decide right from wrong based on what Congress thinks? Do we decide right from wrong based on the majority?"
-Kent Hovind, "Debate #19: Three on One," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Nov 17, 2013, retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [https://youtu.be/PqHgrUu4ZWg?t=459]

And in Kent's Seminar #7, he stated:
"So first, it's not true that all scientists believe in evolution. Secondly, even if they did, that's not how you establish truth. It doesn't matter what the majority believe. The majority has a long history of being wrong... There was a time when they used to teach that big rocks fall faster than little rocks. It was taught for 2,000 years, and it's wrong. So the majority can be wrong."
-Kent Hovind, "Seminar 7, Questions and Answers, Part A, 2005," retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-seminar_part7a_2007.html#allscnbeleiveevol]; See also "The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (7a of 7): Questions & Answers," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Nov 6, 2013, retrieved Apr 17, 2020, [https://youtu.be/6cEUXYlc-Q0?t=270]

Kent overtly declared that majority opinion is NOT how right and wrong is determined, however, when it comes to justifying his sin, Kent is more than willing to use majority opinion to excuse away his beloved witchcraft holiday rituals, and he taught his children that their final authority in all matters of faith and practice should not be the Word of God, but rather, they should make decisions based on how they feel, and what their friends think. Kent will say whatever it takes to appease the masses because his ultimate goal is NOT to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather, Kent's ultimate goal is to increase his popularity and paycheck.

Eric Hovind Christmas False Preacher Hypocrite Witchcraft [creationliberty.com]

And sadly, because Kent taught these wicked pagan traditions to his children, they continue in them. For a number of years, I rebuked Eric Hovind for sending us his Christmas propaganda, and I eventually told him that we would be having this conversation every year until he took me off his mailing list, and finally, he did so because he did not want to hear the truth, and I am glad he did because I did not want to hear him wish people happiness for a pagan sabbat.

In discussion with Eric, I sent him my book on Christmas, which is free-to-read at creationliberty.com, and sent him links to the audio teaching as well, but in return, he sent me a link to something he wanted me to read, and when I clicked on it, it took me to his store where (at the time) he wanted me to pay him close to $10 to read a PDF book by a leavened author trying to help churchgoers justify their idolatry.

(See Creation Today, "The War on Christmas eBook (PDF)," July 14, 2017, retrieved Jan 18, 2022, [https://web.archive.org/web/20170714084237/https://creationtoday.org/product/the-war-on-christmas-ebook-pdf])

As a side note, the book Eric was recommending was written by Bodie Hodge, who is Ken Ham's son-in-law (i.e. Ken Ham, founder of the corrupt "ministry" Answers in Genesis), and Hodge teaches many false doctrines and comes up with some really wild ideas. For example, in my teaching, "Halloween: Are Christians Lovers of Death?" I demonstrate that the origins of Halloween (i.e. what witches call Samhain, saow-win, or All Hallow's Eve) comes from demonic pagan rituals that included divination (i.e. communication with spirits/devils, which God hates, Deut 18:10), but Hodge claims (without any evidence to support it) that Halloween was a day Noah came up with to remember the people who died in the global flood; I am not joking because that is exactly what he teaches, and I have quotations and references if you check out my teaching on that subject.

The point of this chapter is not about whether or not the Hovinds celebrate Christmas, but rather, it is about Kent Hovind's hypocrisy. He says and preaches one thing, but does the complete opposite, and I am pointing out that it has had a devastating effect on his children, who also now refuse to the hear the truth because they were taught to follow their feelings instead of the Word of God.

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool [i.e. one who cannot be reasoned with]: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

In the end, for Kent, this is all about the money. What Kent says is much less important than making sure people have a good impression of him, so he can continue to bring in donations and sales. (i.e. Both Kent and Eric do the same thing now.) I hope that, one day, Kent and Eric would read these things, and if God is willing, they would be humbled as the Lord God humbled me and brought me to my knees, that they might come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of their wrongdoing), and that Christ would give them a love of the truth, so they would be saved on the Day of Judgment.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
-2 Thessalonian 2:10

#11 - Kent's Endorsement of Eugenics

First, I want to make sure readers understand what eugenics is:

eugenics (n): the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
(See 'eugenics', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Eugenics is an evolutionary-based philosophy that a surprising number of people have adopted over the centuries, in which they believed that a superior race of men could be achieved by special breeding. For example, Adolf Hitler believed that an Aryan race of blonde-haired, blue-eyed people could be achieved by forced breeding of certain German citizens with preferred physical features. On the other side of that coin is the "negative eugenics," which is the belief that by sterilizing certain people who are considered to have less mental capability, it would prevent an influx of negative traits into society.

Some readers may be surprised to learn that eugenics was practiced in some U.S. states in the early 20th century. For example, an organization called Fitter Families was created, and in the 1920s, they had competitions in Georgia, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan, and Texas to see who could get a more perfectly evolved breed of people. Fitter Families for Geogia Eugenics [creationliberty.com]

Fitter Families for Geogia Eugenics [creationliberty.com]

In another example, Franklin College in Franklin, Indiana is about a 30 minute drive from my home, and I used to work down the street from where they still operate today. In 1914, Franklin College had a course on the promotion of Eugenics in which students could earn course credit towards their various degrees. (Click Image for Larger View)

(NOTE: The course was created by the wife of E.H. Harriman, who was executive committee chairman of Union Pacific Railroad, and also controlled many other transportation companies in that day, and was also funded by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, which was founded by Andrew Carnegie, a steel tycoon.)

The philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) was that criminals or certain people deemed mentally feeble were sterilized against their will, which means they received surgery on their reproductive organs that forever prevented them from bearing children. This is a criminal act that cannot be Biblically justified, meaning that it goes against every known law and commandment of God.

Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson got together to do a video recording on this topic, and what they said was very concerning. I will provide quotes from Kent's Seminar #5 from 2005, The Dangers of Evolution, alongside quotes from Kent's interview with Steven Anderson ten years later in 2015, so you can see the contradictions:

HOVIND SEMINAR 2005: "They captured all these Polish officers. They [the Russian military] asked [Joseph] Stalin [Communist leader of Russia] what should we do with the officers? He said, 'Ah, they're just Poles, execute them.' They finally admitted it in 1992. The Russians finally admitted, 'Yep, we killed 14,700 officers at the Katyn Forest; massacred them. Why? Well, if you believe in evolution, you think you're superior because they're just inferior, so it's really best to just wipe them out. It's like pulling weeds; it's all it is. "
HOVIND INTERVIEW 2015: "I think if you look Exodus 21:29, it says if you have an ox that is known to gore people, and to be wild, you're to kill it. I think—the biologists are going to go crazy over this, and crucify me, but—I think there must be something like a mean gene, something in the genetic code that makes animals vicious or mean."
HOVIND SEMINAR 2005: "Darwin believed in inbreeding. He married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He wanted to have a superior stock."
HOVIND INTERVIEW 2015: "I know the Russians did experiments, and are still doing it for over fifty years. They took wild foxes, and said, 'We're going to try and tame the foxes. We're going to select for one trait only; gentleness or tameness in the foxes.' They kept selecting out the tamest of each litter, and after fifty years they had foxes that were just like dogs. They come running up, you can roll over, scratch my belly. Many things changed about these foxes. They only selected for tameness. I think the same thing would be true for viciousness. People can breed dogs to be vicious, like maybe pitbulls or something, I don't know, but I think there is something in the genetic code that deals with the disposition toward gentleness or meanness."
HOVIND SEMINAR 2005: "America, though, during this late 1800s, because of this—the evolution theory primarily—had a large eugenics movement. Eugenics was the idea that we need to purify the race, get rid of the inferior genes, and only let the superior genes produce children. There was actually a sterilization movement. People who were mentally deficient were often sterilized; couldn't have any children. There was a large eugenics movement until World War II broke out. [Francis] Galton was Darwin's cousin, and Galton—Francis Galton— was very influential in the eugenics movement. He said, 'Eugenics is the study of the agencies under social control that improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally.' That's Darwin's cousin. [Galton thought] 'Let's improve the race.' They were going to work really hard to improve humanity by eliminating inferior genes."
HOVIND INTERVIEW 2015: "And I think in God's perfect law, if we would continually eliminate/execute people who do see certain crimes, we would gradually get a much better society of not so many people have this mean gene in them."
HOVIND SEMINAR 2005: "Margaret Sanger started a group called Planned Parenthood. The purpose of Planned Parenthood was to eliminate the inferior species. She thought the Jews, Orientals, and blacks were human weeds."

(See Creation Liberty Evangelism, "Kent Hovind Hypocrisy on Eugenics," originally Aug 12, 2015, retrieved Mar 25, 2022, [https://youtu.be/n7W0JbvXb_0])

To summarize, Kent not only believes there is a "mean gene" in people, but he also believes that "God's perfect law" is to execute those people in order to breed a superior society, and Steve agreed with him on all these points. If you carefully read all the quotes from both videos, you can see that not only is Kent Hovind contradicting himself, but he is preaching a message that is no different from eugenics.

In fact, it could be argued that eugenics was more merciful than Kent's plan. Under eugenics, the "inferior" people were castrated, but under Kent's belief system, the "inferior" are killed, which creates such a twisted philosophical pretzel, it is difficult to know where to begin to unravel it.

First of all, we need to acknowledge what the perfect law of God is according to what Lord Jesus Christ taught us, and we have already covered these verses in previous chapters:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 7:12

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 22:37-40

Both Kent and Steve are blind to the fact that this was also taught in the Old Testament:

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:18

The culmination of the law and prophets is that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore, let's look at Exodus 21 with a New Testament understanding, so we can properly interpret it.

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. [i.e. clear of all charges of wrongdoing; the owner is innocent of any crime] But if the ox were wont [accustomed, doing something by habit] to push with his horn in time past [i.e. the ox has a history of goring things with his horn in a violent manner], and it hath been testified to his owner [the owner was warned about it], and he hath not kept him in [the owner did not bind or cage the beast for safety reasons], but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
-Exodus 21:28-29

To summarize, if a man owned an ox, but the owner does not know of any violent nature in the ox, and the ox happens to attack and kill his neighbor, the owner is not held accountable for a crime because he could not anticipate what the animal would do. However, if the owner was warned about his violent ox, but the owner did not bind or cage the ox to prevent it from harming anyone, and the ox killed the owner's neighbor, then the owner is held accountable as if he personally killed his neighbor (i.e. committed an act of murder) because of what the law today calls "negligence" (as we covered in chapter six), which is knowing about a potential danger, but doing nothing to prevent others from suffering injury from that danger.

The way Kent is interpreting this verse is to say that animals have a "mean gene," which actually contradicts other things he has taught in his seminars. For example, those of you who are like me and are very familiar with Kent's teachings, you will know that he used to teach about a lion called "Little Tyke."

I talk more about this in my teaching called "The Cure for Cancer" here at creationliberty.com, in which I demonstrate the evidence that the cure for cancer has been known for well over a hundred years (i.e. it is a simple vitamin deficiency), and many thousands of people in the U.S. have cured themselves of it easily by changing their diets. Little Tyke was a lion that refused to eat meat or drink blood, and there was a $1,000 reward offered for anyone who could trick Little Tyke into eating meat, but no one could claim the reward because she refused to consume anything that had to do with meat, which is why her best friend was a lamb named "Becky." Little Tyke Lion Vegetarian [creationliberty.com]

Little Tyke Lion Vegetarian [creationliberty.com]

As I remember it, in one of Kent's "CSE College Course" series, he goes into detail about Little Tyke, specifically about Tyke's mother. Tyke's mother was a horrifically vicious lion that no one could control, and thus, under Kent's philosophy, that lion should have been put to death, but from that lion came Little Tyke, and Tyke went on to star in many movies because she was so gentle and easy to work with.

So Kent's "mean gene" theory is not provable, there is contradicting evidence against it, and he contradicts his past teachings by suggesting it, but then takes it a step further to conclude that this "mean gene" exists in mankind, and that people should be treated in a moral sense to the way animals should be treated. This is completely unbiblical, as animals are put under the authority of mankind, not in equivalence to mankind, because we were created to be the sons and daughters of God, if we are redeemed through repentance and faith in Christ.

Some may argue that the Bible says that all mankind is born with inherited sin, and that is true, so they might want to claim the "mean gene" theory has some validity, but the problem is that it is not in accordance with Christ's doctrine. A man might be born with inherited sin, but that is why he must be BORN AGAIN:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
-John 3:3

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
-1 Peter 1:22-25

Even if you execute an animal for being violent, animals cannot be born again because they do not have eternal souls like mankind, and therefore, they cannot be judged in the same manner that animals are judged. Jesus Christ did not come to redeem oxes, but rather, he came to redeem the very criminals and sinners that Kent and Steve would rather just be executed.

Please do not misunderstand; I am very much in favor of executing criminals for violent crimes, and I do not believe that criminals should be sentenced to "life in prison." It creates a situation where, through taxation, the victims and their families are forced to pay for all the living expenses of the criminals who preyed on them. However, that being said, criminal prosecution should be done according to law through a fair court trial with a jury, not according to whoever would arbitrarily conclude that a person had Kent's theoretical "mean gene."
(Read "Should Christians Submit to Governing Authority?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The execution of criminals by a government court for restitution, and the execution of a person to prevent breeding unwanted individuals, are two completely different things. Thus, Kent is not only a hypocrite for teaching in favor of the latter, but also, after we have seen Kent's railing, backbiting, theft, lies, adultery, and negligence, Kent is essentially condemning himself unto death with his own doctrine because if anyone has provided an example of having a "mean gene," it would be Kent Hovind himself.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
-James 2:10

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked... As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
-Revelation 3:17-19

In fairness, concerning Kent and Steve's video, there were some Christian YouTube channels that were making videos claiming that the two of them were teaching that Christians should, for example, kill sodomites/homosexuals. I understand that they are both false preachers, but if you listen to their entire conversation, that is NOT what they said. They stated specifically that they were not teaching or endorsing Christians to execute criminals by any means, but rather, they were saying that the government should be responsible for carrying out the executions, and since so many YouTubers were spreading false information (which, if they are truly Christians, they should be ashamed of themselves for answering the matter before they have heard it, Pro 18:13), I wanted to make sure readers understood the truth so they would not repeat a lie.
(See Kent Hovind & Steven Anderson, "Pastor Steve Anderson interviews Dr. Kent Hovind," LoneStar1776, Jan 10, 2015, retrieved May 8, 2020, [https://youtu.be/W9XWJ3p6vxY])

However, that being said, the true manipulative purpose of that conversation was Steven Anderson's agenda to get all the Hovindites to agree with his own warmongering, anti-Christian "kill-all-the-homos" philosophy. For Anderson, his collaboration with Kent was more a political move to help increase his own popularity, since he is what I prefer to call a "media whore," meaning that he will do anything for media attention, which is his first love, and again, see my teaching "Wolves in Costume: Steven Anderson" here at creationliberty.com if you want to learn more details.

As we read earlier, Kent has condemned the practice of eugenics in past decades, in which men were force breeding the "superiors" and/or force sterilizing the "inferiors" to get a supposedly "superior stock" of people that would create an allegedly "better" society. However, in more recent years, Kent has stated that "if we would continually eliminate/execute people who do see certain crimes, we would gradually get a much better society of not so many people have this mean gene in them."

The main point I want readers to take away from this is not the hypocrisy, because we have already seen a lot of that in Kent, but rather, I want readers to understand that such statements are overwhelming evidence that Kent does NOT understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we were to be judged according to the law of God, we would all be guilty, and so because we are all born with sin, if there were a "mean gene," then ALL of mankind has it, and that would also mean that ALL of us are deserving of death in hell.

And of course, it is true that all of mankind is deserving of death in hell because that is the price for our sin, but the only reason we Christians are given exception (i.e. remission of sins through repentance and faith in Christ that we may be with Him in heaven) is because of the wondrous grace of God, through His Son.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
-Romans 5:12

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

If we were to judge this matter according to Kent's "mean gene" philosophy, Kent (because of his many crimes) should be executed to give us a better society, but I do not teach that Kent should be executed; rather, as a born again Christian, I pray that Kent would hear the doctrine of repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) and remission of sins, and be born again in the Lord Jesus Christ. The core problem is that, while blinded by the pride of his heart, Kent does not judge himself according to the standards he judges everyone else.
(Read "Unbiblical Cop-outs: 'Don't Judge Me!'" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The flesh is corrupt, and so is the spirit, unless Jesus Christ saves a man, and that man receives the Holy Spirit for cleansing and understanding. The Bible uses the word 'sin', which is the corruption of the flesh and spirit (2Co 7:1), but the term "mean gene" is a vague term that does not have a clear definition, meaning that it can be interpreted many ways, and furthermore, since it would be genetic, it would only apply to the flesh.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
-1 Corinthians 15:22

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
-Romans 6:23

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
-Romans 5:15

Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson have both been guilty of many sins, including lying, railing, respecting persons, and many other such evils, which makes them both guilty in the same respect that a sodomite/homosexual is guilty of their sins. The sins are not the same, but they are all just as bad as the others. If they will not come to grief and godly sorrow of their wrongdoing (i.e. repentance), then Anderson will end up in hell with all the homosexuals he wars against so frequently, and Kent will end up in hell with all the atheists and evolutionists he debates against so frequently.

The solution for the sinner is Jesus Christ, meaning that if they will (with a contrite spirit) listen and hear Him with an understanding heart, He will covert and heal them. However, men like Kent and Steve are false teachers that have dulled their ears, and closed their eyes.

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
-John 12:40

For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-Acts 28:27

If the government chooses to execute a criminal, that is a decision that we Christians must accept, as we are also under government authority. (Rom 13:1-4) However, if God shows a man mercy, to allow him to live, despite the man's wickedness, that is the long suffering of God, and we should not question His patience and longsuffering, from which ALL mankind benefits.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
-Matthew 5:43-48

One of the main arguments Hovind and Anderson used during their discussion was Psalm 19:

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
-Psalm 19:7

However, what they are both completely blind to is the fact that the Bible says that God's law is perfect "converting the SOUL," NOT converting the flesh. The problem is that, if Kent truly believes what he is teaching, then he would have to conclude that through execution of people he considers to be the "morally inferior," and only allowing the "morally superior" to mate with one another, we can breed sin out of mankind, and that is one of the most laughably ridiculous notions I have ever heard; I would go so far to say that is MORE absurd than the many absurdities I have heard from the mouth of evolutionists.

As I mentioned in a previous chapter, the Scripture tells us Paul was a known murderer who hunted and killed Christians at one time, and if not for the mercy of God, he would have deserved death by execution. The same goes for me and my sins, as I (in my lifetime) have done things worthy of death by the law of God, and so have many other born again Christians, but the problem is that Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson (in their arrogance and pride) trust in their own perceived self-righteousness, and such men will not receive the grace of justification (i.e. salvation), as Jesus taught us:

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
-Luke 18:9-14

A Pharisee was very similar to what a pastor is today, meaning that he was a man in the position of religious leadership that was seen by the public to be an upstanding, moral person that should be respected; however, the publican was a tax collector, generally hated by the community, and despised in such religious institutions. The Pharisee lifted himself up in the pride of his heart and despised others, but the publican had repentance with a contrite spirit, calling upon the mercy of God, and Jesus tells us that the publican is the man who goes home with salvation (i.e. justification), but the Pharisees, like Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson, do not go home with salvation.

Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly.
-Proverbs 3:34

We need to understand that Kent's heresy is coming from some secular belief that mankind automatically has goodness inside (which is why he separates those with a supposed "mean gene" from those who allegedly do not have it), and must "evolve" into that goodness by selective breeding. In his willful blindness, Kent did not even realize he was teaching evolutionism propaganda in his joint video with Anderson.

Again, if we operated according to Kent's philosophy of eliminating the morally inferior, then according to Scripture, NO ONE would be alive today, and that is why the Lord Jesus Christ taught the following:

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned [she should be executed]: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her... And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
-John 8:1-12

Certainly, when God judges the wicked, things get better. I have no argument against that fact. However, I would first point out that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11), and secondly, when Kent claims there is a "mean gene," I would ask him: "What about the devil-possessed man Christ freed?"

And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
-Mark 5:2-5

Today, most people would label this man "mentally ill," but mental illness does not exist, and the entire field of psychology is one of the biggest hoaxes this world has ever seen. I have heard a number of eyewitnesses against Kent say that he is "mentally ill," but that is not true because there is no such thing as a "mental disorder." The truth is that Kent is wicked in his heart. The phrase 'mental illness' is a way mankind helps themselves justify their sin, and psychology and psychiatry are mankind's way of trying to "fix sin" (and try to deal with demonic possession) without God, which will never work.
(Read Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

How should we Christians judge that devil-possessed man? Should we just say he has a "mean gene" and appeal to the government for his execution, or should we approach the matter in the way Jesus Christ did?

But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many... And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
-Mark 5:6-15

As I said before, I am in favor of governments issuing punishments of execution when they deem it necessary, and sadly, I have heard other preachers online say that violent criminals should not be executed for the benefit of society, but the problem they do not consider is that the victims of a crime end up having to pay the living expenses of the guilty. For example, if a woman was raped, and the guilty party goes to prison, then the woman, through her taxes, is forced to pay for the rapist's food, clothing, lodging, plumbing, electricity, medical expenses, and work programs through the prison institution. That is not moral, logical, or fair in any sense, and so if a government chooses to execute a rapist, then that is the judgment of God, and we should be thankful for His protection of the poor and needy from such criminal activity.

However, the violent criminal can still be saved while he is awaiting execution, and it certainly does NOT mean he is genetically predisposed to hell because of Kent Hovind's lunatic ideas. Again, the problem is that Kent Hovind and Steven Anderson are two false preachers (i.e. Pharisees) that trust in their own perceived righteousness and despise others.

It is not just that Kent does not understand the spiritual things of God, but rather, Kent CANNOT understand them because he does not have the Holy Spirit residing in Him. This is why a man can study the Bible all his life, but never understand it, and he ends up making wildly false and hypocritical claims after decades of studying that book.

#12 - My Thoughts And Experiences

While I was doing research on the Hovinds, poring through countless articles and videos, I discovered many things I really wanted to talk about, but I could not find a place in this book to discuss them. Therefore, I thought it best to make a final chapter in this book to express some other things I discovered, for those of you who are interested in more details.

My original teaching on Kent Hovind was an article titled "Leaven Alert: Kent Hovind," and I released it a month after he got out of prison in the summer of 2015, long before a lot of the eyewitnesses had come forward about his corrupt practices behind the scenes. The reason for that title was because, at that time, I took the position that Kent was not a wolf in sheep's clothing (because it pained me too much to think that of him), but rather, I decided to simply point out his leaven (i.e. his corrupt teachings, false doctrines, and compromising positions), and just told Christians that we ought to stay away from him.

Since that time, I have received many hateful letters from dedicated Hovindites. However, I stood firmly on my conviction that we need to sanctify (i.e. set apart) ourselves from leaven, and Kent was teaching dangerous false doctrines, so despite all the hateful, railing emails I was getting from Hovindites, I "stuck to my guns," which is a line Kent always used to say in his debates, meaning that he would stick to his original argument.

However, as more information kept coming out over the next couple of years, my conviction got stronger to do a full "Wolves in Costume" exposé on him. I was not following Kent, nor anyone else who reported on him, but in passing, as I was doing research on other topics, I started finding more information about what was going on with Kent behind the scenes.

As I stated at the beginning, I used to be one of those hardcore Hovindites, and to me, it did not matter what someone said about him, whether it was true or not, I stood behind him and always made excuses for whatever he said or did. Sadly, a lot of that was partially due to the deception of atheists, because most of them are so hateful in their hearts, they will say any wicked thing about Kent, most of which were not true, which made it more difficult to discern the malicious atheists from the few atheists who were actually reporting the facts about what Kent was saying and doing off-camera.
(Since atheists cannot justify morals, they will say anything, even if it is not true, so they can to justify their beliefs. Read "Everything You Need to Know About Atheism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

I listened to and read many testimonies from people who worked with Kent before he went to prison, and they have reported the same problems as those who worked with him after he was released from prison. (i.e. Prison did NOT change him, as some of his hardcore followers want to believe.) The same type of reports were coming out from those who have worked with him over the past 20-30 years, in which people who met Kent said that they could not have a serious or intimate conversation with him about anything, and that, basically, meeting Kent is like going to a vaudeville show, meaning that he does nothing but run through the same information, explanations, jokes, and routines with every person he meets, every time, every day.

vaudeville (n): a type of entertainment popular chiefly in the US in the early 20th century, featuring a mixture of specialty acts such as burlesque comedy and song and dance
(See 'vaudeville', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, Daniel Johnson worked very closely with Kent and Eric Hovind during the first installment of Dinosaur Adventure Land, a few years before Kent went to prison. Blogger Peter J. Reilly had lunch with Johnson to interview him about his experiences working with Kent in the early days of DAL:
"'It was like he had a vaudeville act every time he met someone.' He would show people how to 'scientifically' eat popcorn, start on the same retinue [series] of stunts, like a comic telling the same jokes every night like a wind up doll. When Johnson and Hovind had occasion to share a meal alone while on the road, after a few attempts to explain to Johnson for the 200th time how to 'scientifically' eat popcorn, if Johnson wouldn't play along Hovind would find himself at a loss for words and had a hard time coming up with conversation. 'It was like he was a disarmed robot when he was out of his routine.' Johnson and the DAL staff found entertainment in triggering responses from Kent Hovind. 'If you said the right thing, you would automatically get [a] specific response, an old saying or action on Hovind's part, dead-on predictable' Johnson said."
-Peter J. Reilly, "Will the real Kent Hovind please stand up? Dr. Dino gets outed by an ex-employee," Mar 27, 2015, retrieved May 19, 2020, [ytmp.blogspot.com/2015/03/will-real-kent-hovind-please-stand-up_27.html]

There are many Christians who have visited Kent in hopes of having an intimate discussion with him, especially concerning Biblical topics, but all they get instead is a dog-and-pony show filled with regurgitated one-liners. One would assume that a man who has spent the majority of his life studying the Bible would be able to have contextual wisdom to share and be able to hold a conversation with most people, but when we understand Kent has spent his entire life trying to entertain people, then the vaudevillian act begins to make sense.

The reason Kent does this is because he does not want anyone to get close to him, and please do not misunderstand, the reason for this is NOT because of any traumatic experience Kent had to go through, nor is it because he has an introverted personality (as he has claimed in past videos). The reason Kent keeps his distance in conversations is because he knows that if people start to see through the facade and get to know who he is, they will see his wicked and manipulative heart, and they will get as far away from him as they can.

Some readers might be interested to know that, while I was working on this exposé, Kent Hovind contacted me via email. Here was his letter:
(Click Image for Larger View)

"Hello Christopher, Kent Hovind here. I'm doing 'Whack an atheist' tonight on ERV's and wondered if you'd like to be on the show (7pm central time) If not maybe next Wednesday. Please call me ASAP. (251) 362-**** Kent Hovind"
-Kent Hovind, letter sent to Christopher Johnson, Apr 22, 2020

If Kent had sent this to me ten years prior to my completion of this book, I would have been thrilled, but because I already knew the truth about him, I was very suspicious of this. My wife and I thought, "Why would he be emailing you at the same time you are exposing his deception?" We sensed a trap and stayed away from it, and after reading all the information in this book, some of you might be thinking about a conspiracy, that perhaps Kent has people keeping watch on my website, and I suspected something like that at first glance, but after I had more time to think about it, I threw out those theories because I believe the truth is a little more simplistic.

I talked to a close friend of mine in our church who is familiar with some of Kent's more recent teachings, and he explained to me that Kent has a 'Whack-an-atheist' show, which is supposed to be like a 'Whack-a-mole' game that people play at fairs and carnivals. Putting aside the fact that I believe that to be a wildly inappropriate concept for a Christian who is trying to preach the Gospel of Christ unto atheists (i.e. I believe it is arrogant to boast of intellectual superiority), after I considered Kent's letter for a while, it occurred to me that the show was supposed to be about ERVs (Endogenous Retro Viruses), and I have an article on ERVs that I had written almost ten years prior to Kent sending me this email.
(Read "Creationist Answer to ERVs" here at creationliberty.com for more details; I originally produced this in Aug of 2011.)

I went back to my old article and looked over it, and I noticed that I mentioned Kent Hovind in it. In context, evolutionists used to claim that I was a "Kent Hovind impersonator" or a "Kent Hovind parrot" (i.e. I would receive hundreds of YouTube comments saying these same things), and so I used that example to expose their philosophical contradiction.

Evolutionists believe that similarities are evidence of common ancestry, not common design, and that is the crux of their argument for ERVs, and by calling me a "Kent Hovind parrot," they contradicted their own belief. I would also often be accused of plagiarism (which I was not guilty of doing in any sense), but they were blind to the fact that plagiarism is based on similarity of design; meaning that if they truly believed in evolutionary random chance, they would never have jumped to that conclusion. Ultimately, they saw Kent Hovind's presentation, then they saw my presentation, they immediately concluded there was a common designer between them, and that proves they actually do believe that similarity proves common design features, but they hold the truth in unrighteousness (i.e. they know the truth, but hide it), so they can justify a religion (i.e. evolutionism) that helps them justify their sin.
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
-Romans 1:18-22

Thus, in the article, I not only talked about ERVs, but I also mentioned Kent Hovind's name. This means that, rather than cling to a conspiracy theory that Kent has some goons watching my every move, it is far more likely that Kent was Google searching "Creationist Answer to ERVs" or something like, "Kent Hovind ERVs" to try and get information on what atheists were saying about him, and he happened to find my article in the search results because not many creationists cover ERVs.

However, we need to understand Kent's way of thinking because Kent saw what I was doing on my website, and he saw value in how he could use me and take advantage of me for his benefit. After all, in the old article, I called him "Dr. Kent Hovind," and since he is always on the lookout for other preachers who can increase his popularity, he knows that people typically only put the "doctor" title in front of his name if they respect him, so it becomes a quick and easy way for him to tell who he can use for his own benefit. However, knowing that Kent does not accept any rebuke or correction, and knowing that his intentions are always (in the end) self-serving, there was no response I could give him that would be fruitful to the Lord Jesus Christ, and so I chose not to respond to him at all, and I can only pray that he would, one day, read this entire book and understand it.
(NOTE: Kent wrote me on Apr 22. He ended up doing a video on ERVs on Apr 30; See Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - Whack an Atheist (ERV's) - Special Guests and Beat Bob!" Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Apr 30, 2020, retrieved May 19, 2020, [https://youtu.be/vItPKhLD53A])

I would caution other Christians to stay away from Kent, as he will often bait people in, like how he could bait one of you in to boost your popularity and exposure with the hundreds of thousands of subscribers he has. However, I can assure you, that is NOT the kind of attention you want for a ministry, as it will cause far more problems than you might initially think, and you should trust the Lord God to grow your ministry as He sees fit, not piggy-back off of someone else. (i.e. People who come to fame and donations quickly often waste it and lose it quickly because they do not have the wisdom to handle it.)

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
-2 Timothy 4:5

As a side note, that is one of the many reasons why I do not trust Eric Hovind and his so-called "ministry" Creation Today. Essentially, Eric did not make full proof of his own ministry because he ended up taking over the corrupt ministry his dad had already built, and Eric used that already-existing audience to fast-track himself into instant popularity, immediately yoking up with other false preachers and leavened organizations to boost his ratings and sales.

As soon as Eric took over CSE and incorporated it into God Quest, he began to add leavened preachers to his staff (e.g. Paul Taylor), and he began to depart from the King James Bible and turn to other new-age versions. Essentially, Eric became a marketer, not a minister, and he fell into the same trap that many others fall into when they try to ride the coattails of someone else's fame (which is something politicians often do), and because many respected Kent's person instead of judging righteous judgment, they not only fell into Kent's trap, but they fell into Eric's as well.

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
-James 2:1

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:9
(Read "Respecting Persons Is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

On the other hand, I wanted to talk about how disappointed I was with other Christians who were providing eyewitness testimony against Kent, and some of them I have mentioned in previous chapters. If any of them read this, I know it will probably upset them, and I will try to handle this as kindly as I can, but I hope that, if they ever read this, they will hear me out. Please do not misunderstand, after hearing some of their testimonies, I do believe most (i.e. not all, but most) of those eyewitnesses are born again Christians, although I do not know for sure because I do not know everything they believe and teach, but nonetheless, I still believe most of them are saved Christians, and because of that, they should be held to a higher standard of how they speak and act towards others.

For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
-Ephesians 5:8-10

One of the major problems I have seen in those who are coming out as witnesses against Kent Hovind's wickedness is that they end up doing some of the same wicked things Kent is doing. For example, Deborah Henderson and Theodore Valentine have both made a variety of very helpful and well-produced videos in which they testified of the horrible experiences they had with Kent, and provided proper evidence that exposed his sin, but they both commonly referred to Kent as "Kult Hovind," which I am sure they thought was cute and crafty, but the problem is that it is nothing more than railing accusation, and just to refresh our memories, let's look at the definition of railing one more time:

As you can see, railing has to do with contempt, and so we should make sure we understand that too:

contempt (n): the act of despising; the act of viewing or considering and treating as mean, vile and worthless; disdain; hatred of what is mean or deemed vile
(See 'contempt', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 29, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Making the accusation (and I would argue that it is an accurate accusation) that Kent Hovind is a corrupt religious cultist is one thing, but altering his pre-existing name to emphasize the accusation is another thing. For example, if you were trying to preach the Gospel of Salvation to a man named Dave, but you kept calling him "Knave" (i.e. a dishonest person), it would cause Dave to immediately reject your words and close his ears, so he would not hear the truth. Neither Christ, nor His apostles, set such an example for us to follow.

We Christians ought to be presenting reasonable and objective information so others can make sound decisions, for themselves and their families, because our testimonies about our grievances with Kent should not be about revenge, but rather, they should be about warning young Christians of danger. The attitude that many of the eyewitnesses have shown in their testimonies (e.g. rage, revenge, etc) is not the attitude a born again Christian ought to have, meaning that if a man has been humbled to godly sorrow of his own wrongdoing, then he should act in a manner that is reflective of that.

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother [he professes to be a Christian] be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1 Corinthians 5:11-13

There are a few points I need to make here; the first is that I can understand their anger at Kent, and I can understand how hurt and confused they were after they discovered who he really is because many of them discovered these things abruptly. Thankfully, the Lord God had mercy on me and prepared me a bit more for this since I already knew there were problems with him before he got out of prison, but most of them were not prepared for what they saw. The kind of backbiting and betrayal that Kent did to them, I have had other pastors do to me and my wife, so I completely understand where they are coming from, and it hurts deeply, so I would say the anger is justified. All the eyewitnesses I mentioned were betrayed by Kent and his sinful actions, and they obviously felt duped into wasting all their time and money on a man who could not care less about them while he feigned himself to be a loving Christian on camera.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
-Matthew 7:6

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
-Isaiah 56:11

It should also be noted that I have been guilty of doing such things in the past, in which I have spoken in a railing manner that I should not have done, but when the Lord God taught me the truth of His Word, and I understood it, I began to change these things in my speech. I know the Lord God has forgiven me of my wrongdoing in that manner, and I hope others who have heard me say such things would also forgive me of those things. However, that being said, I hope that all the witnesses against Kent would hear these things and correct their speech, that their words might be pleasing in the sight of God.

To begin, these Christians need rebuke on two points:

You should not use railing accusation. Present the facts (i.e. quotes and references), present the Scripture, speak the truth, and let the Holy Spirit do His job to convict others.

When you use railing accusation, you are no different than Kent Hovind, which makes you a hypocrite.

Kent is the person who frequently calls people "dumb" (i.e. which is meant as an insult to their intelligence), "moron," "idiot," etc, and he does this simply to mock others. For example, in one of Kent's videos, he referred to Robert Baty (pronounced bae-dee), a man who has spent a lot of time exposing Kent's lies, and he instead called him Robert "Batty." (bat-ee)
(See Kent Hovind, "Dr. Kent Hovind - Acts 18," Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Mar 20, 2020, retrieved May 8, 2020, [https://youtu.be/WKCJ5vbpJbk?t=298])

The reason Kent said this is because the word 'batty' has a specific definition in this context:

batty (adj): insane, crazy, eccentric
(See 'batty', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Remember, the definition of railing has to do with scoffing:

scoff (v): to treat with insolent ridicule, mockery or contumelious [haughty or prideful] language
(See 'scoff', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 1, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Of course, Robert Baty has some absurd and nonsensical beliefs, and he scoffs at others who disagree with his beliefs too, so he is not any less guilty than Kent on that matter. However, all Robert Baty did was document the evidence (with quotes, text messages, eyewitnesses, and photos) of Kent's deceptions, and publish it, just like any journalist, so Kent has no justification, Biblical or otherwise, to say such things against Robert Baty.

If Kent Hovind believes that Robert Baty is lying against him, then why has Kent not sued Robert for defamation? Robert has certainly swayed a lot of people away from Kent's ministry, so if what Robert writes are all lies, then Kent would have a really good case against him in court, which would vindicate Kent in the eyes of the public, but Kent knows he cannot file such a lawsuit because he would lose, and then Kent's deception would be proven once again in a court of law.

However, getting back to the point, there are a number of Christian eyewitnesses who have made the same type of railing accusations against Kent, as Kent has made against them, and as atheists have made against Kent, and Kent has made against atheists, etc. So for Christians, I want to pose this question: Why would you want to use the secular verbal strategies of Kent Hovind? Furthermore, why would you believe that it is pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ to return the evil of Kent's railing accusations?

Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
-1 Peter 3:8-12

If any being in this universe is deserving of railing accusations, it would be Satan, and yet, when Michael the Archangel confronted Satan, he did not use railing accusations:

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
-Jude 1:9

Our job is simply to preach the truth, knowing that it is loving to all men to tell them the truth. The truth is that Kent is a liar, a thief, and a hypocrite. That is not railing accusation, but rather, that is simply telling the truth based on the evidence of Kent's words and actions.

Like many of you, I am angry with Kent's deception, how he lies and takes advantage of charitable people, however, I also want to do as Scripture commands, which is to be angry and SIN NOT, neither let corrupt communication proceed out of my mouth:

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
-Ephesians 4:26-29

Before I get into providing examples for rebuke, I want to point out a good example of a Christian I believe did the best job among all those who gave testimony against Kent Hovind, and that is the testimony of Sierra Hammond (i.e. Sierra Smits) from chapter five. Her testimony was very well written, not only giving plenty of details and a thorough chronological testimony by which I could cross reference her information, but she also provided photos and videos to back up her claims, and those were very useful in my research.

Furthermore, Sierra not only warned against the dangers of Kent Hovind, but she also edified the church by commenting on the things that were good, and the lessons she learned while she was there. She never once brought railing accusation against Kent; she simply told the truth in a clear and concise manner, humbly expressed her gratitude for the opportunity, and moved on to avoid Kent, and I applaud her for that.
(See Sierra N. Hammond, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Doctor Kent Hovind, and my Experiences during Summer 2016," May 2, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2020, [mydalexperience2016.blogspot.com/2017/05/dinosaur-adventure-land-doctor-kent.html])

Thus, Sierra did exactly what the Word of God instructs us to do. She did a fine and noble job, and set an excellent example for the church:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:17-18

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
-Ephesians 5:11-13

Please do not misunderstand, I appreciate ALL those who have come forward to give testimony (even those who are not of Christ), but I want to thank Sierra even more because she did it the right way a Christian ought to do it, without railing accusation, allowing the truth to speak for itself, and it was very helpful to me when writing this book, as it will be to many other Christians who will read this book. However, there are so many testimonies that have never been published because those who worked for Kent are afraid of having their reputation destroyed by his backlash, and if there are any Christians out there reading this who have that fear, I want to say that you should be ashamed of yourself because the reason you have remained silent is because you fear men more than you fear God.

The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso
putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
-Proverbs 29:25

The reason I have no fear in boldly coming forward to tell the truth on these matters is because, first of all, I do thorough research to make sure I am speaking the truth of the evidence and of the Bible, and secondly, I have no fear of Kent Hovind, nor what he says about me. If he chooses to go on his show and blast me, it does not matter because I have no reputation that is not first given to me by the Lord Jesus Christ. If you are born again in Christ and have the Holy Spirit living within you, then what need is there to fear any man?

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
-Hebrews 13:5-6

The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?
-Psalm 118:6

As a disclaimer, there are those who have not come forward because they are bound by their word not to come forward. For example, former CSE volunteer Jonathan Sampson testified that one of the reasons why he left CSE was because Kent started making his employees (i.e. what he called "missionaries" when he lied to the court) sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which means, by law, they would not be allowed to talk about what they saw and heard while working for Kent.

In a Facebook conversation, Sampson was accused of being a coward and backbiting against Kent, to which, he responded:
"I did work with Kent, for several years. And when he needed us the most (before his conviction) we were there; sadly, he followed foolish counsel and ultimately wound up in prison as a result. I 'abandoned' Kent around the time he wanted to force all 'missionaries' [Sampson put that word in quotations because he knew they were employees] to sign a document saying we wouldn't talk to each other (or anybody else we met through CSE) without prior written consent from Kent's pseudo-legal leadership... You're sadly mistaken about Kent; for years Kent disregarded the advice of those around him; he made many, many decisions to follow down a foolish path. Today, he is doing all the same things. I won't even scratch the surface of all that Kent taught us in private, and in public. I won't waste my breath sharing the things he asked us to do, and the people he asked us to follow. Suffice it to say, you [referring to his accuser] have no basis to make any of the claims you're making. You're basing your judgment off of Kent's own testimony, and the testimony of those who were also not directly involved in the years of history... Kent is a power-thirsty and self-righteous man who mishandles what God and His faithful have entrusted to him."
-Jonathan Sampson, quoted in "Kent Hovind in 'God On And Sin On More' - remarriage controversy," Bertus Den Droef, Sept 12, 2016, retrieved May 27, 2020, [https://youtu.be/EC5TLO4Itqo?t=183]

If you gave your word in a contract that you would not talk about something, then do what is honest in the sight of God and keep your word, but that being said, knowing that there are many Christians (or at least, people claiming to be of Christ) who know of Kent's dark deeds and did NOT sign an NDA, and yet, those Christians have not brought those things into the light out of fear of Kent or what other people would say about them, then you all should be ashamed of yourselves because you are not serving Christ as he taught us. In the end, you are loving and protecting your life more than you are losing it for the sake of Christ and His church around the world, and I hope you will all look at Sierra's example to understand more clearly what you ought to be doing.

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
-John 12:25

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
-Matthew 10:39

Cowering will help no one. Never has a coward been complimented as noble. Never has cowardice been the cause of heroic acts. That worldly fear that resides in your heart is not of God.

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
-2 Timothy 1:7

Such a spirit of fear does not love your neighbor as yourself because if you were walking into danger, you would want someone to warn you about that danger. However, the fact that you will not warn others of danger shows that you have no concern for the hurt and damage your neighbor might suffer.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 7:12

So again, I appreciate all those Christians who have come forward to tell the truth, even at the expense of being railed against by Kent, but the manner in which some of you have done this is NOT the manner in which Christ taught us. The fact that we might be hurt and angry is not a justification to let evil communication come out of our mouths, and therefore, we should bring all our thoughts into obedience unto Christ.

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
-2 Corinthians 10:3-5

Many of the testimonies I read or heard would refer back to Theodore Valentine (a former volunteer and former friend of Kent who I have mentioned a number of times in this book), as well as his YouTube ministry Lies of the Devil, and because of that, I would like to use Theodore as a primary example, as many eyewitnesses against Kent have somewhat flocked around Theodore and his wife. I want to preface this by first saying that I appreciate Theodore coming forward with a lot of the emails, text messages, and audio recordings, without which, I could not have done such a thorough job in this book, and I want to also say that I understand his anger because Kent took advantage of the good will and charity of Theodore and his wife, even scamming them out of $12,000 (according to his testimony), but as we have read, the Word of God does not justify evil communications in response.
(Theodore supposedly has a website called liesofthedevil.com, but every time I have visited it, the browser tries to connect, but results in "This site can't be reached." More recently, he has it auto-redirect to his YouTube channel.)

As of 2020, after my investigation into his YouTube channel, I would not recommend Theodore's ministry to any Christian for a number of reasons I will get to in a moment, and normally, I would not spend this much time criticizing a man I believe to be born again in Christ, but I had so much conviction after watching many of his videos, I needed to write about this to warn other Christians about what NOT to do. Though Theodore does provide a lot of true testimony concerning Kent Hovind, he also provides a number of false accusations and railing comments.

For example, in a video Theodore produced, titled (in all-caps), "KENT HOVIND SIN ALL YOU WANT DOCTRINE," he claims that Kent taught that Christians are allowed to sin all they want. However, if you watch the video and listen carefully, that is NOT what Kent said:
"He said, 'What if I sin again?' I said, 'Oh, there's a difference between the children of God and the children of the world.' You can both do the same sin, but it's handled differently depending on if you're in the family or not in the family. If I sin, God handles me like a son... 'You Christians think you can sin and get by with it?' Well, it's not going to be brought up judgment day, but he's going to handle it here."
-Kent Hovind, "KENT HOVIND SIN ALL YOU WANT DOCTRINE," Lies of the Devil, Jan 15, 2018, [https://youtu.be/DcUghpWfwow]

So Kent was teaching that God punishes and chastens His children, which is what Jesus taught us (Rev 3:19), but Theodore claimed that Kent was teaching that you can "sin all you want." Of course, I do not believe that Kent is a born again child of God, but in fairness, Kent did NOT say that in that instance, and as far as I have heard, Theodore never corrected that statement, nor does he provide supporting evidence for his claim other than the short audio clip from Kent's teaching, and as we can clearly see, Kent did not say what Theodore claimed he said.

Perhaps Kent does believe (in his heart) that you can sin all you want, and perhaps he has even taught such things to other people off-camera (and after everything I have seen and heard, I would believe that), but if that is the case, then the off-camera secret audio recordings or eyewitness accounts should be presented, and then the claim that was Kent teaching a "sin-all-you-want" doctrine would have validity. What we should NOT do is claim that Kent teaches something by using a video clip in which he did not say what he is being accused of because that is called a "false accusation," which is under the category of what the Bible calls a "false witness." (i.e. a liar)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
-Exodus 20:16

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
-Luke 18:20

A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
-Proverbs 19:5

In another video called "Kent's Dad Taught Him How To Be a Thief," Theodore accuses Kent's dad of being a thief based on a story Kent tells. The following quote is from Theodore's video, in which he replayed Kent's video teaching:
"I remember my brother sold his Harley motorcycle years ago... shortly after they stopped making the silver coins. And he wanted a thousand bucks for the Harley he had, and the guy paid him a $1,000, face value, in silver coins because it had not gone up in price yet. My dad said, 'Hey Ross, what are you going to do with that silver?' He said, 'Go buy something with it.' He [his dad] said, 'I'll buy it off of you.' He gave him a check for a thousand bucks and bought the silver. Dad kept it for a couple years and sold it for $18,000, when it peaked at 18 to 1, now it's less than that, I think, but still, dad was pretty smart."
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent's Dad Taught Him How To Be a Thief," Lies of the Devil, Apr 14, 2020, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/xIVeZLBC15Y]

Theodore then says, "His dad was pretty smart. Yeah, taught him how to be a thief." This is another instance in which Theodore falsely accuses, and very hypocritically so, because the way Theodore accuses Kent is in the same manner which Kent falsely accuses others, including Theodore. (i.e. They are both slinging the same mud at each other.)

In this story, the father asked the son what he was going to do with the silver, and the son said he was just going to go spend it. If he was just going to go spend it, that would be a big waste. The father knew that more money could be made from those coins, so he purchased the coins for the fair market price of $1,000 so his son could go spend his money, and the father made a sound business decision; that is NOT theft, and if Theodore thinks that is theft, then, as a business owner himself, Theodore is a hypocrite.

If anything, this could be a sad story about a father that did not love his son very much because my first thought was: Why did Kent's dad not simply advise his son to teach him a lesson about making money, or even give him the advice on the condition that he and his son split the profits 50/50? This could have been a wonderful opportunity to teach his son about sound investments, and how to be patient to make wise business decisions, but it seemed to me that he loved the money more than his son, even though I could not make a complete judgment without all the details because it is also possible that Ross could have been an impatient young man, or perhaps he frequently made rash decisions, and his father did not feel he could trust him to wait, so we simply do not know, and if we do not have enough information to make a judgment call, then we should not do so.

However, that being said, it does NOT make Kent's dad a thief, nor does it mean that he taught Kent how to be a thief. If Theodore ever reads this, he needs to understand that God will hold him just as accountable as He is going to hold Kent for making similar types of false accusations.

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
-Luke 3:14

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Matthew 12:36

In another example, Theodore entitles one of his videos, "Is Kent Hovind a Jesuit? Baal Worshipper?" in which Theodore expresses his concern that Kent Hovind might be a Jesuit. (i.e. A Jesuit is a sort of undercover spy working for the Catholic Church.) In his video, Theodore acts and speaks in such a manner that would lead the viewer to believe the evidence proves his suspicion about Kent being a Jesuit, but all Theodore does in the video is say that Kent has an ecumenical ministry, and the Jesuits are an ecumenical organization, therefore, he concludes that is sufficient evidence to believe that Kent might be a Jesuit.
Theodore Valentine Kent Hovind Lies of the Devil False Accusations [creationliberty.com]

Theodore Valentine Kent Hovind Lies of the Devil False Accusations [creationliberty.com]

(See Theodore Valentine, "Is Kent Hovind a Jesuit? Baal Worshipper?" Lies of the Devil, Apr 6, 2020, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://youtu.be/APacU5hsYB0])

Could Kent Hovind or some of his staff be Jesuits? Sure. They could secretly be lion tamers and astronauts too, but until we have more concrete evidence, we should not be making such claims.

To some readers who are familiar with Theodore's ministry, you might think this is a bit farfetched, but that is exactly what Theodore did in his video, and if you do not believe me, then go look it up and listen to it for yourself, assuming all the videos are still there. Kent stated that he is willing to yoke together with (i.e. work alongside) almost anyone, no matter what, so long as they claim to believe the Bible and submit to Kent's authority (which is contradictory to what we are commanded to do in Scripture, namely, that we are not to be yoked together with unbelievers 2Co 6:14-18), and then at around five minutes into the video, Theodore rightly points out the ecumenical nature of Kent's ministry because Kent himself stated it in the affidavit we read in chapter four: (Click Image for Larger View)

"Our vision for Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) was to organize and operate CSE as an ecumenical and nondenominational outreach ministry..."
-Kent Hovind, "Affidavit of Dr. Kent E Hovind For the Foreman of the Grand Jury," Sept 15, 2005, p. 4, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://bit.ly/36tLlF9]

ecumenical (adj): general; universal
(See 'ecumenical', Random House Dictionary, 2020, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

However, what Theodore missed was the context of this affidavit, because the way Kent contextually meant this was based on the preface of the previous paragraphs (which you can read if you click on the image). Kent talks about founding his ministry on the teachings of the Bible and Jesus Christ, and thus, this statement was not made in the same sense of the new-age ecumenical movement of the Catholic Church, but rather, in the ecumenical sense that CSE would not declare an official denomination.
(Read "Denominations Are Unbiblical" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

So Theodore saw the word 'ecumenical', and immediately concluded that Kent Hovind could be a Jesuit spy. He said:
"'Creation Science Evangelism was to organize and operate CSE as an ECUMENICAL and nondenominational outreach ministry.' Well, let's look at—let's look at who created the ecumenical movement. The Jesuits!"
-Theodore Valentine, "Is Kent Hovind a Jesuit? Baal Worshipper?" Lies of the Devil, Apr 6, 2020, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://youtu.be/APacU5hsYB0?t=340]

In the second half of the video, Theodore goes on to point out some shady and corrupt things that Kent and Ernie Land are doing, which Theodore correctly exposes, but it is NOT good to attempt to click bait an audience by drawing conclusions that are not based on the evidence because nothing Theodore presented in his video was supporting evidence that those men are Jesuits. There was definitely supporting evidence that Kent and Ernie are liars and thieves, but not Jesuits and Baal worshippers. Theodore did nothing but spread speculation (i.e. rumors or gossip) that was based on his feelings of animosity, not based on fact, and then tried to cover it up in the title of his videos by putting question marks behind his statements. (e.g. "Is Kent Hovind a Jesuit? Baal Worshipper?")

If we judged every business, organization, and church like Theodore just judged Kent, then we would have to conclude that almost everyone, everywhere is a Jesuit. Most businesses in America serve anyone, no matter their ethnicity or religious affiliation, but that does not make them Jesuit businesses. Most church buildings today have corrupt practices that are very similar to the Catholic Church and the Jesuit cult, and though they are corrupt, that does NOT automatically mean that they have sworn oaths unto Baal and the Jesuits, and to suggest such a thing shows how little discernment Theodore has, and it shows how little he loves his enemy because he hates it when Kent does this to him, but he is happy to hypocritically do it to Kent.

What the Lord Jesus Christ taught is how we Christians should operate, by doing what is right over what is convenient, and doing what is fair and good, even unto our enemies, that we may be children who act in like manner to our Heavenly Father. As I have already stated in this book, we have a duty to mark those who claim to be Christians and do wickedness (Rom 16:17-18), but it is not good for us to falsely accuse someone, and for all the false accusations Kent has made against the honest and hard-working practices of Theodore and his wife, I would naturally presume that Theodore would desire to do and say what is right first and foremost, and I hope, in the future, he will make adjustments in the things he says in his videos to reflect the Lord Jesus Christ.

Any of you who have heard of Theodore's ministry might be a little surprised to see him doing and saying these things, but after I have seen some of the videos he has produced, I am not surprised anymore because he has been doing this kind of thing since 2017, when he started his YouTube channel. When I looked over all the videos in Theodore's channel, I found out that he is what I prefer to call a "conspiracy minister," which is a so-called "ministry" that simply focuses on conspiracies while throwing in a few Bible verses here and there to make it sound spiritual.

Before I explain this, I want to make sure readers understand that conspiracies DO exist because a conspiracy is simply when two or more people gather together to plan or execute an unlawful or evil act. Conspiracies take place daily across the world, and it would be absurd to argue otherwise. However, what I am calling a "conspiracy ministry" is when someone creates a so-called "ministry" (i.e. the word minister means "service or servant"), but they do not really cover the doctrines of Scripture, and usually just focus on talking about conspiracies, superstitions, and other theories on those subjects, and it is generally more attractive for preachers to do this because the conspiracy subjects create sensationalism to attract viewers and donors (i.e. fame and fortune), which are the two things most people seek.

For example, as of May of 2020, Theodore's channel had been active for three years, and I went through his videos and counted the topics I found, and listened to some of them. There were a number of short update videos, and other various non-topical videos (totaling 71 by my count), and if you subtract those from the total, at the time of my count, Theodore had 286 topical videos, and 196 (almost 70%) of them were conspiracy-related to something like Illuminati, Aliens, Occult, Artificial Intelligence, Hollywood, Rock Stars, New-Age Books, and other things like exposing Kent Hovind, Alex Jones, or Steven Anderson, just to name a few.

Of course, there were some Bible topic videos (roughly 30% of the total) in which Theodore was preaching, and so you might think that he has some good Bible doctrine in his teachings, but if you believe that, the problem is that you do not understand the full context of those teachings, and I encourage you to check out the references below and go look at his channel for yourself. For example, one of them is called "Genesis 3:5 - Everlasting Life Using Technology" (which I listed in the 30% category because it was technically a "Bible teaching") in which he quotes from Genesis 3, but then starts talking about artificial intelligence and the mark of the beast, or another one he has called "1 Corinthians 10:14 - Cult of Personality" in which he quotes from 1st Corinthians, but then starts discussing new-age alien cults, and he addresses it from the perspective of a psychologist's article (i.e. psychologists are generally not of Christ, as I demonstrate in my book Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil, which is free-to-read on our website) about how to identify cultists. Other videos listed under "Bible Preaching" are also his street preaching, and only SOME of that is Theodore preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because a lot of it is Theodore handing out DVDs of his conspiracy documentaries; and furthermore, other videos that are listed as "Bible Study," and use his Bible study thumbnail, are actually his discussions on other topics, for example, Freemasons and theories about World War 3.
(See Theodore Valentine, "Genesis 3:5 - Everlasting Life Using Technology," Lies of the Devil, Mar 28, 2017, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/mOOkM93bK1E]; See also Theodore Valentine, "1 Corinthians 10:14 - Cult of Personality," Lies of the Devil, May 12, 2017, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://youtu.be/QDPfG2zCwmU]; See also Theodore Valentine, "Bible Study - Nihilists and Atheists Unleashed," Lies of the Devil, Nov 7, 2017, retrieved May 12, 2020, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZG4yEgcolE])

What I found unbelievably hypocritical about Theodore is how much he criticized Steve and Roger (Kent Hovind's thugs) for playing video games too much, but based on what I see from Theodore's videos, I would say that Theodore watches movies too much. It is the same media, just in two different platforms. Please do not misunderstand; I am not saying a Christian will end up in hell because he/she watched a movie or played a video game, but Theodore uses clips from movies in a joking manner in his documentaries, and some of those movies I remember from before I started ministry, and I know for a fact they have vile things in them that no Christian should be watching, so it is dangerous to share those kinds of things in that manner because you do not know who is watching or what impression they are getting. (i.e. As a teacher in Christ, Theodore needs to take responsibility to set a better example.)

The reason I am pointing this out is because I want Christians to understand that if you want to properly rebuke false teachers, you cannot be like unto them. If any of you want to rebuke Kent Hovind, then I would encourage you to NOT adopt Kent's way of thinking, or in other words, do not use manipulation, false accusations, and worldly devices to rebuke the manipulation, false accusations, and worldly devices of the devil.

At this point, I wanted to move on from talking about Theodore, but the hypocrisy goes so much further, and I was really convicted to share this. After going through many of Theodore's videos, I finally found the original video in which he came out as a witness against Kent Hovind, and in that video, he begins by praying:
"I'm going to ask God to boldly help me speak, and to speak his word thoroughly, and not let my own flesh get involved, and I pray that people that watch this understand who I am, and they take my words, and they let God give them discernment, and know that what I'm speaking is the truth."
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind Exposed by His Former Assistant: Theodore (Pt1)," Science Enthusiast, Apr 21, 2017, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://youtu.be/rPSoaC59L-A?t=65]

Sadly, this desire to not let his flesh get involved did not last very long. As I said earlier, I have had pastors do to me and my wife what Kent Hovind did to Theodore and his wife, and so I am VERY empathetic to Theodore's situation, meaning his hurt and anger over what happened. However, I simply told the truth about what happened, and I did not bring railing accusation against the men and women who did me and my wife wrong, which is the Biblical approach to these situations, but Theodore decided to go a different route, as he goes on to say:
"I'm telling you, after I get done making this video and it uploads—I'm telling you right now, they're going to come after me with guns-a'-blazin'. And here's the thing, I'm going to tell you right now: [Theodore points at the camera as if speaking to Kent Hovind] Don't do it because I have nothing to lose. Okay? Because I love God and I have nothing to lose. You have everything to lose, and I will not stop. So you better be a good little dog, and go into the corner, and pee on yourself."
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind Exposed by His Former Assistant: Theodore (Pt1)," Science Enthusiast, Apr 21, 2017, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://youtu.be/rPSoaC59L-A?t=163]

I had a friend of mine listen to this with me, and we both reacted the same way; we were confused by that statement, and surprised that would come out of the mouth of a Christian. In the same video, Theodore says:
"I don't know what you think dude! You're a narcissist! You're a punk! And here's the thing [Theodore grits his teeth and talks through his gritted teeth in anger], you are such an evil bastard! You are such an evil person!"
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind Exposed by His Former Assistant: Theodore (Pt1)," Science Enthusiast, Apr 21, 2017, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://youtu.be/rPSoaC59L-A?t=440]

First, I want to mention that the word 'narcissist' has to do with psychology, specifically something called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder," and as I talked about in my book, Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil, mental illnesses not only are imaginary (i.e. non-existent), but they are also used as an excuse to cover up sin, or more specifically, "narcissism" is a justification for "pride," which is sin. (i.e. Theodore needs to learn about the lies of the devil concerning psychology, so he does not keep spreading the lies of the devil.) Secondly, the word 'bastard' is a word originally used to describe a person whose mother and father conceived outside of wedlock, which is not true of Kent Hovind, and therefore, we can clearly see that Theodore spoke that with maliciousness in his heart, in the sense of calling Kent a despicable person.

Furthermore, I found Theodore's demeanor to be hypocritical because Theodore has, in other videos, rebuked Alex Jones for speaking that way. If you watch the video, it was very similar to how Alex Jones acts on his show, even to the point that, about 54 minutes into the video (see the reference below) not only did Theodore lie and claim that he was not angry, but he also grinned wide in pleasurable delight as he talked about God's judgment on Kent. Kent Hovind Theodore Valentine [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Theodore Valentine [creationliberty.com]

(See Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind Exposed by His Former Assistant: Theodore (Pt1)," Science Enthusiast, Apr 21, 2017, retrieved May 28, 2020, [https://youtu.be/rPSoaC59L-A?t=3254])

When God's angels start throwing people into the lake of fire, it will not be a fun or humorous event, no matter what they may have done to us, and I would remind Christians that the martyrs (both in the days of Scripture, and throughout the past 2000 years) who have been tortured, burned alive, and slaughtered did not bring railing accusations, lies, or vengeful delight against their persecutors. As I mentioned in chapter eleven, even God takes no pleasure in this:

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
-Ezekiel 33:11

Later, Theodore yells at the camera, telling Kent that he is like a crumb on his plate. In context, Theodore is calling Kent the equivalent of being "vile," which is contemptuous language of a railing nature, treating Kent as if he is nothing more than the dirt under Theo's shoe:
"YOU'RE a punk dude!! You're such a punk! You are such a punk, Kent! I'm not afraid of you dude, I am not afraid of you, at all! I had a bad life, okay? You're just a little—you're like a little crumb. You're like a little crumb I wash off my plate."
-Theodore Valentine, "Kent Hovind Exposed by His Former Assistant: Theodore (Pt1)," Science Enthusiast, Apr 21, 2017, retrieved May 22, 2020, [https://youtu.be/rPSoaC59L-A?t=2198]

I would like to remind Theodore that I am also a vile man, who is worth nothing more than a crumb on his plate, and I only have righteousness because it was imputed to me by the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is exactly what Job professed as well:

Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? [Job repeated God's question to him to answer it contextually] therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. [Again, Job was repeating God's demand for an answer] I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
-Job 42:3-6

Job did not lift himself up above his enemies, but lowered himself to the ground, abhorring himself, meaning that he hated himself with the utmost hatred. He repented (i.e. had godly sorrow of his wrongdoing) and humbled himself, and though Theodore is Biblically sound and faithful to reprove the unfruitful works of darkness, he is NOT Biblically sound and faithful by making prideful remarks and railing accusations against Kent, and all it does is hurt Theodore and help Kent.

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Matthew 15:18

In my life, I have been a lazy, lying, fornicating, thief and betrayer, and have done many other wicked things in the pride of my heart, meaning that I am less than the dust and ashes of the ground. Therefore, I would like to remind Theodore that it would be justified that I should also be called a punk who is worth less than the crumb on Theodore's plate, but the Lord Jesus Christ has saved me and opened my understanding, so by grace alone I am not in the same position as Kent, and even though Theodore might not want to believe it, Kent is still alive by the grace of God, which means there is a chance (however small) that Kent can still be saved.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive [struggle for superiority]; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure [by chance, for we do not know the will of God on that matter] will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2 Timothy 2:24-26

I know Theodore was angry (even though he lied multiple times in the video to say he was not angry at Kent), and it was very clear (based on his body language) that he was nervous about what he was doing. This is not to say Theodore was nervous about exposing Kent, but he was nervous about the blowback he was going to receive for doing it. I can understand the nervousness and anger because I have experienced both of those many times, but that does not justify Theodore lying, railing, and falsely accusing because God has told us in His Word:

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
-Ephesians 4:25-32

Thus, we need to remember the grace that God has given us, and remember the pit out of which He saved us. (Isa 51:1) I do not want people to think I am associated with Theodore's ministry simply because we both have exposed Kent's deception, but on the other hand, Theodore claims to be a part of the body of Christ, and because of that, I not only need to rebuke the wrongdoing so that other Christians would not follow after the example Theodore is currently setting, but also encourage him that, while he is rightly exposing the truth, he should also do what is right and good in the sight of God.

There is no need to rail and falsely accuse, nor is there need to create rumors or gossip. The only thing we Christians need to do is tell the truth by presenting the facts, providing relevant Scripture, and letting the truth speak for itself, which means it would be better that Theodore stop releasing information in little tidbits here and there, and just release all the information, all the emails, texts, and audio recordings (with redacted information as needed) to the public, as he claims God convicted him to do back in 2016 (and as of 2022, as far as I know, he still has not done it).

To summarize, I found just as many problems in the things Theodore was saying as I found in the things Kent was saying, and I needed a way to make this clear to as many Christians who will listen to me. Again, we should not judge according to the appearance, but we should be impartial to judge righteous judgment.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

And once again, I wanted to stop talking about Theodore here and move on, but just before I finished developing this final chapter, Theodore found this book (which is free-to-read at creationliberty.com) through a search engine (i.e. he was likely googling his own name for whatever reason), and he read everything I just wrote about him. Needless to say, he was not happy, and I know that will be the case for many churchgoers who read these things. Sadly, Theodore wrote me a letter in which he had no repentance of any of the things we have read in this chapter; he only offered excuses, and I would like to quote some of the things he said so others might be warned about Theodore's corrupt philosophy, and that they might rebuke him so that he would put aside his malice and look to Jesus Christ in all things.

For example, after I pointed out that he falsely accused Kent about being a Jesuit and Baal worshiper, Theodore wrote me the following:
"I never said I believe Kent is a jesuit. [sic] I don't believe that. I made it out to be questions because the information needs to get out to the 'conspiracy' people Kent attracts. I know his audience and I need them to see the information. In fact, I got calls from people who saw it and called me to thank me for the info and that they were no longer going to visit his place. Its [sic] about the information getting out there where Kent says he took a vow of poverty, yet wants all of 'his stuff' back. And that Ernest Land, Kent's CEO, admits he uses Baal's money to build the Kingdom of God. It's to show their hypocrisy."
-Theodore Valentine, personal email correspondence to Christopher Johnson, May 27, 2020

There are a multitude of things wrong with Theodore's response; first of all, Theodore HEAVILY implied that Kent was a Jesuit in his video, both by his title and his statements, which you can read in the quotes I provided earlier, which means that Theodore is simply in denial. Secondly, and worse still, the fact that he stated in no uncertain terms to me (via email) that he does NOT believe that Kent is a Jesuit, along with the fact that he chose NOT to just come out and say that directly in his original video, it proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Theodore was PURPOSEFULLY deceiving people for click bait.

Furthermore, Theodore's response essentially boils down to him saying, "The end justifies the means," which means that Theodore believes he is justified to rail, lie, and falsely accuse as long as it accomplishes his goal. Again, how is Theodore Valentine different from Kent Hovind in that regard? That is NOT Biblical in any sense because God does NOT justify lies and deception at any point in the Bible.
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In short, Theodore thought himself to be justified to use manipulation and deception in order to expose Kent's manipulation and deception. That is hypocrisy. There is no place in Scripture where sin is used for the sake of the Gospel of Christ.

I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
-1 Corinthians 9:26-27

In this passage, Paul is talking about how he disciplines himself that he would not be found to speak or act sinfully in any manner. The reason for this, he said, is because when he preached to others, they would not hear his message because of the hypocrisy, so he disciplined himself properly, that by loving God and his neighbor as himself, others would be willing to hear his message.
(Read "The Book of 1st Corinthians: My Notes on Chapter 9" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Concerning Theodore's false accusation against Kent's dad, he said the following (and it should be noted that Theodore inserted the ellipsis or triple-dot; I have not left anything out of his statement, and this is everything he said to me about that particular subject):
"Kent remembers what his dad did to his brother for a reason... And he is using the same tactics on Christians... You even admit what Kent's dad did to his brother was strange... Enough said."
-Theodore Valentine, personal email correspondence to Christopher Johnson, May 27, 2020

This is deceptive for a number reasons because, first of all, my reasoning for why it was odd had nothing to do with what Theodore accused Kent's father of doing. Secondly, Theodore refused to confess that he lied about Kent's dad, and finally, I pointed out that there may have been other reasons why his dad reacted that way, but Theodore ignored those reasons.

It should also be noted that Kent did not hide the fact that, if someone sent him silver coins, that he would sell them when the market value was in favor of it to turn a profit. Of course, Kent deceives people about what he spends money on, and as we have seen, Kent is guilty of stealing funds from the ministry, but Kent's father did not lie about the silver coins or what he would do with them.

Theodore, in his rage, is accusing Kent of any little thing he can make up in order to draw more attention. There is plenty of evidence against Kent Hovind's corrupt, so-called "ministry," and so there is no need to make things up for shock value to try and get more views, let alone the fact that it is Biblically wrong to do so.

In his letter, Theodore also expressed his frustrations that I did not contact him first before writing this, but in hypocrisy, he did not seem upset in the least that I did not contact Kent Hovind before writing this either. I have no obligation to contact Theodore because he is not a member of our church, and he makes his teachings public; thus, if he publicly speaks lies in hypocrisy, and he will not repent of it, then I will rebuke him publicly.

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
-1 Timothy 5:20

It is clear that Theodore takes no responsibility for what he says because he does not care what comes out of his mouth, but the Lord Jesus Christ has made it clear in His Word that we need to take what we say seriously:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Matthew 12:36

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Matthew 15:18

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
-James 1:26

Theodore wrote me this lengthy email disputing the wrongdoing I pointed out in his videos, but started out by telling me, "I don't want to get in an argument with you via email." Then why did he write a lengthy email about it? Why not just say, "Hey Chris, I saw what you wrote about me on your site, can we get together to talk about it?" He did not do that; instead, Theodore said "I am going to delete this email account so there is no point in responding back to me."
(See Theodore Valentine, personal email correspondence to Christopher Johnson, May 27, 2020)

That might sound surprising to some readers, but that is exactly what he wrote to me, and Theodore did indeed delete his account immediately after writing me his long letter because I got the "Address Not Found" error when I attempted to respond the following morning. Why did he write a lengthy response from an account he was deleting? Why did he not wait to see if I would offer him contact information so we could talk? Why did he not write it from his new account instead, where he could receive a response?

I will borrow from Kent Hovind's words to say that what Theodore did was "slap-and-run" tactic, and again, Theodore should be ashamed of himself because even Kent Hovind, for all his wicked deeds, has more integrity than that when writing a letter. I have posted Theodore's email and my response on our forum so other Christians can read it because there were many fallacious comments Theodore made to justify his sin that I think should be known.
(See "Theodore Valentine Does NOT Have a Free Ticket to Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Again, it is for these reasons that I would encourage Christians to take caution in listening to anything from Theodore Valentine's Lies of the Devil "ministry," and in most cases, it is probably best to avoid him until he repents of his wrongdoing. Please do not misunderstand, this is not to say that everything Theodore presents in his ministry is wrong, just like Kent can present some information on creation versus evolution that is correct, but until Theodore accepts correction, from a ministerial perspective, he is not much different than Kent.

As a final note on Theodore, before I sent the final version of this book through to be published into a paperback book, I double checked his YouTube channel (February of 2022), and he has still not corrected the lies that he told about Kent Hovind on his channel. However, he is happy to use lies to try to grow his viewership on a channel he hypocritically calls "Lies of the Devil." Kent Hovind Theodore Valentine Dinosaur Adventure Land Lies Devil [creationliberty.com]

Kent Hovind Theodore Valentine Dinosaur Adventure Land Lies Devil [creationliberty.com]

(See Theodore Valentine, Lies of the Devil, retrieved Feb 17, 2022, [https://www.youtube.com/c/LiesoftheDevil/videos])

Aside from Theodore, not only did I find a lot of railing accusations, but I also found other eyewitnesses who lied to me. I have had some witnesses against Kent who I contacted, and they gave me their word they would send me their testimony, but to this day, I have not heard back from them, and I want all of them to understand that giving your word and not keeping it makes you a liar, and you need to repent of your wrongdoing on that as well because you are not any better than Kent if you do not keep your word.

God hates lies with the utmost hatred, and if you give your word and do not keep it, then you are a liar that is acting just like Kent. Your word needs to be taken seriously, and if you are learning from a leavened preacher that is not teaching you the importance of speaking the truth in all matters, then you need to depart from the leaven and do what is right by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few... Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
-Ecclesiastes 5:2-6

But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
-Colossians 3:8-9

Getting back to Kent Hovind, I found some other interesting bits of information as I was doing research, and one of them was his interview on Infowars with Alex Jones, in which Kent said, "I loved your program for years." The Christians I fellowship with cannot stand Alex Jones because Jones is not a Christian (though he claims to be one in hypocrisy), and many of his words and deeds contradict the Bible, meaning that the only way I could see that Kent would love Infowars was if he is naïve and lacked Scriptural discernment, or he is a liar that was just trying to compliment Jones to get on his good side (i.e. in order to increase his own standing on Jones' show to gain more popularity).
(See Infowars, "Alex Jones Interview With Kent Hovind 3/16/15," MadMunchkins, May 8, 2015, retrieved May 27, 2020, [https://youtu.be/94a35C_JqSM])

It made me sick when I listened to Alex Jones say that Kent Hovind was a "righteous man." It also made me sick to listen to Kent Hovind call Alex Jones a "brother" in Christ because the only kinship that Kent and Alex share is that they are brothers of their father the Devil.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
-John 8:44-47

Kent used to claim that he does not predict when the Lord Jesus Christ is coming back. For example, he stated this in his debate against Massimo Pigliucci at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville:
"I don't set any dates. I don't know when the Lord's coming back."
-Kent Hovind, "Debate #12: Does Botany Support Creation or Evolution?" Kent Hovind Official YouTube Channel, Nov 17, 2013, retrieved May 27, 2020, [https://youtu.be/nykX5xqKnqY?t=4685]

However, more recently, he has gone back on his word to claim that Jesus is coming back in 2028. When asked when Jesus was returning, Kent said:
"KENT: If I had to guess, I would guess 2028.
HOST: [*laughs*] Why?
KENT: Well, because Jesus was probably crucified in the year 28."
-Kent Hovind Interview, "End Days 3 of 4 - Kent Hovind Interview," Library of Lives, June 11, 2016, [https://youtu.be/G6EKORmU5Wo]; See also James Smith, "Are We Ready for Jesus?: How to Prepare for His Return," Hillcrest Publishing Group, 2015, ISBN: 9781634134927

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
-Matthew 24:36

I am not going to go deep into Kent's reasons for that because, frankly, I do not care about his reasoning for it. He claims that Jesus was born in 6 B.C. (whether that is true or not, it does not matter), so he believes that 2028 will mark 2,000 years from the death/resurrection of Christ, but in the interview, he never gave a reason why the number 2,000 is significant, and even if he did, it would only be based on his own numerical superstitions.
(Read "Numerology is Occult Divination" here at creationliberty.com for more details on those who make false predictions of the end days.)

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
-Acts 17:22

There are other strange comments Kent has made, and one of them I wanted to bring up was his verbal expression that he does not know who wrote the Bible. In December of 2006, Kent was speaking with his wife over the phone from prison, and he said:
"So far, that's my understanding of Scripture. And whoever wrote the book, they're right. If your goal is to be crucified, that's correct, don't say a thing. That is not my goal."
-Kent Hovind, "Kent Hovind - County Jail Telephone Calls," retrieved May 28, 2020, [https://youtu.be/NBOfqyenPDc?t=1442]

For a man who claims he has studied the Bible most of his life, that is an odd thing to say. The Bible was written by God's prophets through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, so why would Kent be confused about who wrote the Bible?

Kent also endorses many other wicked and false preachers. There are numerous places where Kent has endorsed wicked men like Jimmy Swaggart, Jack Hyles, and Jim Bakker, just to name a few, and so for many Christians, those names will probably set off red warning lights in your mind.

There are countless strange things that could be mentioned about Kent's odd beliefs and teachings on various topics because he says many small things in passing that are weird, but with thousands of hours of content, I do not have enough time to go through them all, let alone write about them. I think, at this point, most readers should be fairly well-informed that, despite some of the correct creation science aspects of his teachings, Kent is a false convert, a covetous liar, a railing hypocrite, and is continuing to lead people astray to the wide gates of hell with a false gospel.

The average Christian I meet has never spent time working in ministry outside of volunteering for some event at a local church building. Most have never started up a ministry on their own, and attempted to work together with other Christian groups, or been involved in board meetings, and because few have ever done it, most of them do not understand how much church-ianity politics go on behind the scenes today in American church buildings.

There is an enormous amount of compromising that goes on behind the scenes in most church buildings, to the point that a Christian ends up having to make a choice to either blind themselves and ignore the wickedness around them (i.e. they will say nothing to keep a false peace so they can get work done), or they will have to depart. Because few Christians have really been through the process, very few of them fully understand how much red tape someone has to go through to give a presentation in a church building, and how much compromising one must do to appease a pastor (not necessarily elders) to get on the stage, and therefore, most Christians do not know how much compromising Kent does to navigate church-anity politics, and how much it corrupts the truth of doctrine.

If you teach what is Biblically right,
most church buildings will reject you.

Therefore, men who are looking to be popular and get a paycheck will compromise Scripture to appease the masses, and these people are false teachers and false servants. Paul warned the church that this would happen, and spent years warning them of these wicked men:

Take heed [pay close attention] therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves [i.e. from within, not from the outside] shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
-Acts 20:28-31

Paul warned us that men who would appear to be Christians on the outside would arise from WITHIN the church, not from without. The atheists and evolutionists on the outside are not the dangerous ones, but rather, the dangerous ones are those who preach from within; men like Kent Hovind for example.

Again, I want Christians to understand that I had sanctified myself from Kent BEFORE he got out of prison in the summer of 2015 (which was long before many of the eyewitnesses against Kent departed from him). My purpose in writing this is NOT to say "I told you so," but rather, I am writing this so that Christians will understand WHY I departed from him so early before others could see the corruption.

How was I able to see the danger in Kent ahead of time?
Do I have some extraordinary prophetic gift?
No. Absolutely not.
You all have the capability to discern the matter and do exactly what I did, that is, to learn to recognize false doctrines that contradict God's Word, and then get away from such men BEFORE the bad stuff happens. I am not some dreamer of dreams that can prophesy the future, nor do I have any other miraculous spiritual ability to give me such revelations, but rather, if you simply follow what Christ taught us, you will be protected from men like Kent, and you will know, just like I did, to stay away from such men.

Jesus told His disciples something vitally important that all Christians need to understand, and contextually, Jesus is telling us that this warning is more important than having food to eat:

And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
-Matthew 16:5-12

Jesus was telling them to beware of leaven, but they thought He was talking about bread. Since He had just fed thousands of people from a few loaves of bread, it is obvious that He can create food out of nothing, so there is no need to be concerned about whether or not they took bread with them, but rather, he wanted them to be concerned of the corruption of preachers.

leaven (n): something which corrupts or depraves that with which it is mixed
(See 'leaven', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 2, 2020, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

First of all, the Pharisees and Sadducees are often treated like they were just some Jewish cult of people long ago and far away that have no effect on the church today. That way of thinking is error because the Pharisees and Sadducees were men in positions of religious leadership (as I mentioned earlier), who claimed to serve God, and were looked upon by society as men of righteousness and moral authority, and today, they are no different than pastors, elders, deacons, evangelists, and missionaries, who are men in position of religious leadership, who claim to serve God, and are looked upon by society as men of righteousness and moral superiority.

Thus, the main problem is that when Christians read these verses, they often do not heed Christ's warning that we need to pay close attention to the doctrine that is being preached by men in positions of religious leadership; men like Kent Hovind for example. So before Kent got out of prison, I began to analyze his doctrine closely in comparison to that which Jesus taught, and as we have seen in previous chapters, I found numerous inconsistencies, lukewarm compromises, and flat-out heresies against the Gospel of Christ, which makes Kent leavened in his doctrine.

The problem with many Christians is that when I point out to them the warnings of Christ, and they see the contradictions, they say to themselves (or even to others), "But he's such a nice person!" That right there is a major red flag because that is a serious problem.

I show people what Jesus Christ warned us about, and in response to that warning, Christians argue their own feelings about that preacher, claiming how "kind" he seems to be, which means they are judging according to the appearance, instead of judging righteous judgment. So instead of having faith in Christ and His Word, warning us of the danger, those Christians make an active choice to argue AGAINST Christ's warnings, in favor of their own feelings and opinions, thinking their own perceptions are superior to the knowledge of God, and therefore, because of the faith they put in their own pride and arrogance, lifting themselves up to put high value on their own sight above that of Christ, they fall prey to the traps of false preachers.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool:
but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18

So after I discovered Kent's lukewarm hypocrisy, I decided to put aside my personal feelings, put my faith in Jesus Christ, and obey His Word:

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
-Galatians 5:9

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
-1 Corinthians 5:7

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:17-18

For many years now, I (as a former follower of Kent Hovind) have been trying to warn Christians to stay away from this man, but I do not ask that you listen to me as much as I plead with you to heed the warnings of Christ. Even before I knew Kent was a wolf, I knew to stay away from his leaven, thanks to Christ's warnings and commandments, and though some of you may be hurt by the things you have discovered in this book, I would ask you this: Who do you trust more, Kent Hovind or Jesus Christ?

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
-Matthew 11:28-30

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
-2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Let us all put away faith in men, and trust in the Word of God. If you choose to put your faith in Kent Hovind, you will eventually end up like the rest of those who have fallen prey to his greed.

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
-Jeremiah 17:5

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
-Matthew 7:6

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
-Isaiah 56:11

In Kent's Seminar #7, he addressed Dr. Dini, an evolutionist professor at Texas Tech University, and he told him:
"I'm not your enemy, I'm your friend, I don't want to see you go to Hell, I'd like to see you get converted; but what you're doing is unfair, and certainly unwise, and I think un-American."
-Kent Hovind, "Seminar 7a: Question and Answer," Apologeet.nl, retrieved May 28, 2020, [apologeet.nl/evolutie-schepping/hovind_transcripts/seminar_7a_transcript]

I would like to return a similar statement to Kent Hovind:

Kent, we are not friends, and I do not yoke together with you, but I am not your enemy. You were my first teacher after I got saved, and I love you enough to tell you the truth about your false messages and evil deeds. If you were in Indiana, and you wanted to meet so we could talk these things out, I would agree to meet with you on the condition that you agree to drop the vaudevillian act and be genuine. I do not want to see you go to hell, and I would like to see you get converted unto the Lord Jesus Christ, but what you are doing is sinful, unwise, and certainly unbiblical.

Kent Hovind previously named his ministry 2 Peter 3, but he needs to read it more carefully because he so often twists and distorts the Scriptures to his own liking, and he does so to his own destruction:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [i.e. twist and distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
-2 Peter 3:15-17

I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless Kent with all his needs, and despite the wicked things he has done to many people, I also pray that God would show Kent as much mercy and longsuffering as He has been kind enough to show me. If this book has helped any of you to see the truth of these matters, then please share this with as many who are willing to read, and I hope you all grow in the discernment and knowledge of the Lord God.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2 Peter 3:9

If you want to learn more about the truth of repentance, so you can understand the fullness of the Gospel of Salvation, please visit the following links: Is Repentance Part of Salvation?
Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell

Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell [creationliberty.com]