GeoCreationism.com

I have been working on a group of articles for http://geocreationism.com that attempts to organize the research documented on this blog for when the flood occurred. I have been attempting to verify my facts against additional sources, and when I got to the computation for the date written in Genesis 7:11, I found that the website I was using was incorrect. The date should be April 21, not May 2. This affects at least the following posts on this blog:

Honing in on the Date of the Flood — May 2, 2807 BC…

I have written before how Psalm 104 is a day-by-day sequence of the Creation account. Verses 7 to 10 specifically cover Day 3, when the mountains thrust out of the waters. Well, get a load of this verse 9…
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.
I came across this while writing my web-page on Day 3. It would seem that if Psalm 104 is truly describing the creation, and this verse is to be taken literally, then the seas never again covered the earth. In my opinion, this would include the prospect of rains rising the oceans above the mountains.

This does not mean the entire earth was not impacted, given the tales of a …

As we saw in Genesis 11:9 - The Tower of Babel - Young Earth Interpretation Supports an Old Earth (Part 2), there are Young Earthers who take quite a reasonable view of history, or at least how to use it. We reviewed an article that attempted to line up the Tower of Babel and the flood with actual historical evidence, and the author came within a few a hundred years of being correct, in my opinion. However, there was enough else that happened in the hundred years he was off by, that he missed a prime opportunity to see a much better historical fit than even he realized was there.

Here is another Young Earther article that also attempts to be …

As we discussed in Genesis 11:9 - The Tower of Babel - Young Earth Interpretation Supports an Old Earth (Part 1), Genesis 11:9 uses the word eretz two times. According to a Young Earth interpretation of the verse, the first usage of eretz is a reference to all of the people in the world, who were all in Shinar. The second usage refers to the world beyond Shinar. 
 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
An Old Earther would agree that “whole world” refers to the people of Shinar, but does this usage really mean there are no other people on the …

 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Genesis 11:9 has one of those oddities in it that I had always dismissed as just Moses’ writing style. It’s the double use of the word erets (world, earth). The two usages sound like subtly different meanings to me, but I always dismissed it because I assumed that either the earth was young, or Moses thought it was. At the very least, I didn’t think it mattered because the verses wasn’t really worth trying to reflect history, science, and such anyway. But now, in the context of this blog, I have come …

 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
This verse has always been interesting to me. It suggests that under normal circumstances, stone would have been the common choice for their city and tower. Instead, they chose bricks, which they baked thoroughly. Verse 3 also suggests that not everyone used tar for mortar in their times, but they did. Apparently, they were being innovative.

When you think about the fact that building a tower and city from baked bricks and tar was sufficient in their mind to “make a name” for themselves, it suggests a level of innovation, that perhaps they were making history, or at least thought they were.

As I discuss …

As one may have inferred from Reflections on History and the Jewish Calendar (Part 1), even before I discovered the King’s Calendar, I had reason to believe that the times recorded in the Bible were always meant to lead us back to the date of 2807 BC for the flood. Then I found the King’s Calendar, and presto! Now I have two dating techniques that lead back to 2807 BC. What’s going on? Well, if there’s something to this (i.e., if this isn’t a wild goose chase, and is more than sheer coincidence), then it would seem that the following sequence took place…

Bible is written with solar dates leading back to 2807 BC for the flood
Bible dates are converted into …

So, now I have two timelines that work out exactly. This is weird, and creates an unfortunate argument against my research, but I will live with it. Someone who wants to tear my theories down will say, “How do we know which one is right?” And to that, I fall back to my old standby: we do not have to know. My only goal is to show that with a reasonable set of arguments, I can demonstrate that my dating is reasonable. The fact that I have now done it with two sets of assumptions, neither of which was guaranteed to work, bolsters my bottom line, that it is reasonable to accept my date for the flood. But, for the record, here …

In Reflections on History and the Jewish Calendar (Part 4), I introduced the King’s Calendar, a project to reconcile the seemingly contradictory dates within the scriptures. Until now, all of the sources I have found chalked up the discrepancies in scripture to valid theories, but this is the first project I have seen that actually put a mathematical model of those theories together, and assembled a scriptural timeline from it.

So, knowing this could negate some of my conclusions about the date of the flood, but wanting to remain intellectually honest in my pursuits, I purchased the King’s Calendar’s eBook, and read through articles written by the same author, both on his and other websites. Though I believe the author’s …

Every now and then I go searching for other Old Earth bloggers. I just found one that looks really good. I like how it’s organized, and like the variety of topics. Also importantly, he’s still posting.  I can’t tell you how many bloggers I find whose last post is 6 months ago, or longer… not that there’s any lack of old material worth reading there!

The site is The GeoChristian… with my own site being Geocreationism, I had to check it out.