geocreationism.com

In Part 1 of this series, discussing Paul H. Seely’s article, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, I confirmed that Geocreationism is a Concordist Theory.  In Part 2, I explained why a significant difference between Geocreationism and other Concordist theories is that Geocreationism does not rewrite scripture to fit the accepted geologic ages.  In Part 3, I explained how Geocreationism uses science to confirm the sequence of events the scriptures record.  In this installment, I discuss Seely’s approach for interpreting Genesis as history.

Recall from Part 2 this quote from the Wikipedia page Interpretations of the Creation Account:
There has been little consistency in the various ways of reconciling Genesis 1 …

In Part 1 of this series, discussing Paul H. Seely’s article, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, I confirmed that Geocreationism is a Concordist Theory.  In Part 2, I explained why a significant difference between Geocreationism and other Concordist theories is that Geocreationism does not reinterpret scripture to fit the accepted geologic ages, but uses the sequence and language of the scripture to find when in the geologic record each “day age” took place.  The only scientific assumptions Geocreationism starts with is that the earth is old, and that when we find a sequence of events similar to the scriptures, the finer details may provide further insight into the scriptures… a …

In Geocreationism and Concordist Theory (Part 1) - Is Geocreationism Concordism?, I introduced an article by Paul H. Seely, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context.  In part one, I concluded that Geocreationism is in fact a Concordist Theory.  I then closed out with the following observation about Concordism, as written of on the Wikipedia page Interpretations of the Creation Account:
There has been little consistency in the various ways of reconciling Genesis 1 with geological history; and concordism still attempts to find scientific data in a passage that is pre-scientific. Critics contend it is still asking the wrong questions, and …

If you haven’t noticed, I took a break from Day 5.  Between long hours, cub scouts, and family, well, something had to give, and it’s usually this blog.  (By the way, my son’s raingutter boat took 3rd place in the races for the cubs, and 3rd place for painting overall.  I am quite the proud papa right now. )

Well, in between the hecticness, I have been writing a review (not posted) of an article by Paul H. Seely on Concordism.  The article can be found here: The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context.  It caught my eye because the summary of the article singled out the first 4 days of Creation, …

 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. — Genesis 1:20-23
In …

 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. — Genesis 1:20-23
Day 5 was not straightforward to date.  As described …

Recently, I discussed several common scientific misunderstandings that YECs have when arguing against Evolution.  One of the misunderstandings was that many Evolutionists are so invested in Evolution that they ascribe almost a mystical cause to it all.  I suggested that Theistic Evolutionists do exactly that, but the “mystical” influence they ascribe it all to is God.  I then made the point if that YECs can believe God created the world, then why shouldn’t Theistic Evolutionists believe it?  Well, here is an article that tries to answer that question.  It is an article by Werner Gitt entitled 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution.  Such articles are important to understand, because if a Christian reads it, they could be convinced that …

My friend Cory wrote a critique of Geocreationism over at http://josiahconcept.org/articles/founding-principles-geo/.  Usually, I like to respond to his articles on his own blog, but I believe he has brought up something that I should cover here.

Part of Cory’s review is in response to my use of Romans 11 as a model for Evolution.  Though I have not developed the theory on this blog as fully as I should, I have mentioned it:
Romans 11 illustrates Israel as an olive tree that grows as it will, while God grafts in branches that please him, and chops off branches that do not. This is how Geocreationism believes God exercised providence over evolution.  Also, 1 Chronicles 14:15-16 illustrates where an independent physical agent achieved an …