geocreationism.com

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 getting the wrong answers. In concordism, the tendency is to reinterpret Scripture consistent with the very latest scientific theorizing. But according to the grammatico-historical method, you interpret Scripture consistent with original intent.

This is in fact the premise of Seely’s article, who puts it like this:

The problem … is that [Concordism] lifts Genesis 1 out of its ancient Near Eastern context, sets it down in the context of modern science, and then reinterprets Genesis 1 so that it agrees with modern science. I do not fault such interpreters personally for reading modern science into Genesis 1 because they were forced by an unbiblical definition of biblical inerrancy to become inventive exegetes. It is my task, however, first to expose the arbitrary nature of their interpretations of Genesis 1 and then point to a more biblical approach.

As it pertains to other Concordist Theories, Seely and I are on the same page.  I simply see too much dismissal of the scriptures in Genesis 1 to accept other Concordist interpretations of the text, even where I agree completely with their science.  On the other hand, I think Young Earth Creationists dismiss too much of the scripture as well, which I write about in more detail here:

• Biblical Difficulties for a Young Earth - Part 1
• Biblical Difficulties for a Young Earth - Part 2: Not so easy for a child to understand
• Biblical Difficulties for a Young Earth - Part 3: The sun is not in the sky. 

For me, the challenge was to dismiss neither the scripture nor the science.  Of course, opinions may vary regarding the extent of my success.  For example, my friend Cory at Josiah Concept Ministries wrote a review of Geocreationism (I hope you don’t mind me picking on you Cory!) based on my 7 core principles of Geocreationism.  He noted that I list “Science is accurate” before saying “Scripture is accurate”, suggesting that perhaps I subconsciously put science before scripture in general.  A fair challenge, but untrue.

On the contrary, in discovering (in my opinion) Geocreationism, I actually did quite the opposite.  For example, I know that Day 1 says there were oceans before land, while most scientific writings say there was land before oceans.  However, I stubbornly searched through the science for any possibility that there were oceans before land and found fairly recent research (2001) in the authoritative “Nature” publication that strongly suggested (if not proved) that the oceans came first.  I wrote of this research in detail in my posts AnswersInGenesis.com - How Some Creationists Discard Science: Zircons revisited.

Consider that the only reason I found these articles is because I put the scripture first.  I proceeded in faith that the scripture was correct about the sequence of events, and God rewarded that faith (in my opinion).  So, rather than mapping the Days to the accepted geological eras, as other Concordist Theories do, I looked at how Scripture defined its Days and looked for that sequence in the science… and I found it!  And why should it be surprising to the faithful if scripture is truly accurate?

Another example is Day 5.  Scripture says that fish, whales, and birds, were created before land mammals, while the evolutionary record says fish appeared first, then land mammals, then birds, then whales.  However, I searched through the scientific record and looked at the other definitions of words within the scriptures, and found something interesting.  God’s actual statement was to “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” Well, after the dinosaurs died out along with most other life, fish recovered first, then modern birds evolved and flourished, then whales evolved and flourished, then land mammals.  When compare the events to God’s own words (okay, an English translation of them), we see that the fossil record is completely consistent with them; it is man’s interpretation the science conflicts with.  So, as with Day 1, I used scripture to educate me on what to look for in the science.  Then, when I found it, I took it as confirmation.

So, in conclusion, I do not believe Geocreationism simply fits the scriptures to the science, but shows how the scriptures and the science really are trying to say the same thing.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pm and is filed under Creationism, Day Age Theory, Concordist Theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.