geocreationism.com

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 …

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 …

I previously discussed an example of how Young Earth Creationists often discard scientific evidence, due to their preconceived notions regarding a young earth.  However, their rejection of scientific discovery is not a rejection of the scientific method per se.  Or at least they do not mean it to be.  After all, Christians who argue theology are quite familiar with the idea of making arguments, supporting them with evidence, and revisiting their arguments when new evidence arises.  In fact, they do this all the time when it comes to eschatology (end time prophecy).  Yet, they seem to have blinders on when it comes to the scientific pursuit of understanding the earth’s past. 

I would respect a YEC Christian who argues for his views in the following manner: …

A few years ago, I spent some time on a website that debates Christianity.  It’s a great website, run by a Christian, for debating with atheists the logic behind believing in God.  I say it’s a great site, even though such debates can be harmful to a person’s walk with God, or at least harmful to mine.  The reason it is harmful is because God has gone to all this trouble to win your soul, and then you expose yourself to Satan’s arguments to persuade you otherwise.  Exposing yourself to Satan is never good, and while a single debate might not scathe you, continuous exposure will, and you might not even detect it, until one day you talk to God and cannot tell if He’s really …

An article by Dr. Terry Mortenson, which is found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/jesus-and-the-age-of-earth, argues that Jesus believed in a young earth. I have not read the article yet in much detail.  So, what you read below will be my thoughts and blow-by-blow analysis as I go through it.  Mortenson states his purpose:
It will be argued that Jesus clearly was a young-earth creationist and that if we call Him Lord we should follow Him rather than the contemporary scientific majority, which primarily consists of unbelievers.
 The writer argues for Jesus’ belief in the scriptures.  I agree with him.
All these above-mentioned statements reflect some aspect of Jesus’ attitude toward or belief about the Scriptures. But far more frequently Jesus reveals his conviction about the authority …

I found an interesting article on “How the Bible and Evolution Conflict“.  It explains quite well why Darwinian Evolution cannot be true.  So, because it has much in common with Geocreationism, it looked like a good opportunity to clarify some things.  My comments below are meant to be read side by side with the list on How the Bible and Evolution Conflict.

Geocreationism agrees with Creationism on this point.
Geocreationism agrees with Creationism on this point.  Believing that God sometimes evolved life directly, and other times let it alone does not contradict that.
Geocreationism agrees that God exercised biblical providence over evolution.
Geocreationism agrees that God is judge over all life, its evolution notwithstanding.
Geocreationism believes that God added soul to man, making him …

A reader David asked some excellent questions that I believe are of general interest to the blog, and so I think it appropriate to answer the questions here. 

> The idea of the Holy Spirit choosing to move to the
> other side of the earth to experience the day is still
> difficult for me to grasp. The Holy Spirit is spirit (duh!).
> He is everywhere at once if I understand the concept of
> omnipresence. Now, much greater minds than mine
> have been wrestling with Genesis for thousands of
> years. Nevertheless, what about this?

The question of the Holy Spirit’s omnipresence is an interesting one.  Well let’s first consider a similar question.  Is Jesus omnipresent? I think that’s an easier one to tackle.  Clearly, …

GotQuestions.org give an excellent discussion on the differences between Theistic Evolution and Special Creation, including many of the difficulties that prevent Theistic Evolution from being accepted by many as a viable explanation for creation.  Following is an explanation for where Geocreationism either agrees with those difficulties, explains them, or gets around them. 

I suggest opening their article and reading along with my responses below:
Atheistic Evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from preexisting non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc). 
Geocreationism is not Atheistic Evolution.  I do not believe that life emerged “naturally” from non-living building blocks.  If God used non-living building blocks, then His …

I hope those at GotQuestions.com take no offense to my references to them and their website.  They have developed an excellent resource for answering biblical difficulties, and I would recommend them to any Christian who is looking for answers… so far, my only difference with them is on Creation.  However, their attitude toward Creation is spot on: Genesis 1 is the inerrant word of God, it’s historical, and it’s literal.  Of course, I think that literal account is of an old earth, and from there we part ways a bit… but my intention is to lead one to the same place, which is at the foot of the cross. 

The reason this is important is because many Young Earth Creationists believe that the Gospel starts …