geocreationism.com

Thus far, I have been spending this year in a study on righteousness.  My reason for doing so on an Evolutionary Creationist website is that a lot of answers to my Ultimate Questions for God seemed wrapped up in the concept of righteousness, and so I wanted to make sure that truly understood it, the best that I could.  And so I’m going through the verses on righteousness.  Well, in studying the “righteousness” verse of Jeremiah 33, I came upon the following passage, which to me speaks directly to creation, and indirectly to the age of our earth [emphasis added]:
 19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 “This is what the LORD says: ‘If …

Based on my latest post, Geocreationism and Concordist Theory (Part 4) - What does “literal” literally mean?, I believe I am headed down what some would consider a dangerous path… concluding that Moses wrote things in the scriptures that were not true.  With most people, I am sure this hits a nerve (hey, it hits a nerve in me!) However, this does not worry me.  The reason is because Moses’s misperceptions are not God’s message.  Moses, as we all do, had an understanding of the world that served as a framework and backdrop for the story that he lived out. Naturally, what God …

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 …

One of the difficulties with discussing an old earth is that people tend to think that it requires placing science over scripture.  In discussing Day 4 for example, a familiar argument is that scripture clearly records the creation of the sun, moon, and stars occurring on Day 4.  Therefore, as the argument goes, any theory to the contrary, using science to back it up, is setting aside the plain meaning of the scripture in favor of man’s “scientific” wisdom.  I would like to convince you otherwise. 

As explained in my post “http://geocreationism.com/2007/08/24/biblical-difficulties-for-a-young-earth-part-3-the-sun-is-not-in-the-sky/“, there is no requirement in the text that requires creation of the celestial bodies to occur on Day 4, though I admit a plain reading appears otherwise.  To be specific, …

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light …

In “Biblical Difficulties for a Young Earth - Part 2: Not so easy for a child to understand“, I showed how the word Elohim communicated more than what the Children of Israel (or a child in general) would see in the scripture.  It takes the perspective of a Christian to realize that Moses was referring to the Trinity in the word Elohim.  Similarly, other aspects of Genesis 1 can only be understood when you have the correct perspective.  Once such example is Day 4 of the Creation Account.  The difference between Day 4 and Genesis 1:1 however, is that Genesis …