Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation

[TB2]

The main question posed by this thread is the following: "Scientific Concordism or Divine Accommodation: Does the Genesis creation account intend to teach accurate science and history (scientific concordism)?" To answer this question requires answering additional questions, including, "What is the proper way to interpret the Genesis creation account?" And "Does the Genesis creation account teach (prescientific) Ancient Near East (ANE) cosmology?"

I will present my thoughts on the above questions, and then apply them to a Specific Test Case Example: "Does Genesis 1 teach that on Day 2 God created a solid support structure raqia/stereoma ('firmament') to separate the waters below from the waters above?"

Based on prior conversations, I invite your input @Manfred @DialecticSkeptic @prism @Sereni-tea and of course anyone else who would like to share their thoughts. Instead of spreading my thoughts out throughout the thread, I thought I would give everything at once up front (over 3 initial posts), so, it's longer than usual. So, take your time to respond. I certainly don't expect people to read it all in one sitting.

For those who wish to participate in the discussion, to avoid personal attacks, let's please assume that no matter what anyone says that we are all believers who are all committed to the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility of the Bible, and/or otherwise maintain a high view of sacred Scripture as authoritative.

Here is a link to start things off from the American Scientific Affiliation (an organization of scientists who are all Christian believers) on "Concordism vs Accommodation." Here's a link to their site map for all things related to Genesis, science, origins, etc.

There are different definitions of concordism and accommodation. Here are some working definitions to start with.

Concordism: "Concordism refers to the position that the teaching of the Bible on the natural world, properly interpreted, will agree with the teaching of science (when it properly understands the data), and may in fact supplement science. The concordist not only believes that nature and Scripture will harmonize, but sees specific references in the Bible to current scientific understanding of the universe. The concordist, then, looks for those close parallels in order to show that Scripture concords or agrees with scientific conclusions."

Concordist views include: Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, Framework Hypothesis, etc. Essentially any interpretation that attempts to harmonize science and Scripture.

Divine Accommodation: "(Divine) Accommodation is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way that humans can understand and to which they can respond." "This doctrine holds that since God is transcendent, He cannot communicate to us as equals in the language of pure, unfiltered, heavenly discourse. He is the triune Creator, whereas we are mere creatures. So when God talks to us, He stoops to our level. For instance, God’s Word came to us in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and now it is translated in countless other human languages. In fact, all of Scripture is accommodated to us. As John Calvin put it: “Who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity.” Accommodation is also entirely consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy, which says that the Bible teaches only the truth. God communicates to our finitude, but His Word is still utterly trustworthy."

‐---------------------------------

My personal thoughts:

For me personally, I was raised concordist, but now believe Divine Accommodation. I see this as the only way to be faithful to divine inspiration of the Bible while also being faithful to what the Bible actually teaches. It is also now obvious to me that Divine Accommodation begins with language itself. Human language is already imperfect to begin with (it is worthwhile to point out that for all the debates over literal vs nonliteral that human language itself is entirely symbolic; arbitrary symbols (we call letters and words) that we have agreed symbolize/represent such-and-such). We do not have the human language capabilities to adequately convey "God." Thus, God accommodates Himself to us by even communicating through our imperfect language. The ultimate example of Divine Accommodation of God stooping down to our level is the Incarnation: "the Word became flesh..."

My experience with concordism is that it usually results in Scripture being twisted to fit modern science, or science being twisted (into non-science) to fit Scripture. I also find that concordists often end up missing the main theological point(s) of what Scripture is trying to teach (!) due to myopic focus on harmonization.

I believe concordism is wrong from the start when it comes to basic hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation. To understand what the text means and what is the correct interpretation I follow the principle that we must first seek to understand the *original context*. This is basic Biblical Hermeneutics 101. I like this diagram of the process: (1) First, determine what it meant then, in order to know (2) what it actually means, so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today.

Concordism commits the error of anachronism right from the start by trying to anachronistically read modern science back into Genesis, which violates basic hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation of Genesis in its original, historical context. That context being the Ancient Near East (ANE) (ancient Egypt, Canaan, Israel, Mesopotamia, etc.).

When the Genesis creation account is interpreted in its original, historical context it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that Genesis does indeed teach (prescientific) ancient cosmology.

Even for those who reject basic hermeneutic principles, it seems indisputable that out of every idea in human history, every human writing (of which we have a record), spanning all of humanity civilization, whether it be ancient writings, literature, philosophy, religion, or modern science that from a simple standpoint of comparison: there are more parallels that Genesis 1 has in common with ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths than anything else we know. Certainly more commonalities than with modern concerns about creation-evolution, paleontology, geology, plate tectonics, etc.

 

[TB2]

My personal thoughts (continued)

My go-to reference on this is by Dallas Theological Seminary evangelical OT scholar Gordon Johnston, who I've had the privilege of discussing this with:

Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.4

Johnston notes three types of parallels: lexical, literary/structural, and thematic/conceptual.

As Johnston states, "The number of parallels and degree of correspondence between Genesis 1 and major Egyptian creation myths is remarkable. It is difficult to dismiss them as mere coincidence." Johnston quotes another scholar as saying, "There exists such a magnitude of parallels that it could not be by mere chance." And quotes yet another scholar who states, "The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental."

But far from being an endorsement of Egyptian paganism, Johnston concludes that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic (attack) on ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths.

This makes sense in a lot of ways, even by traditional views that Moses received/wrote the first five books of the Bible. The Hebrews would have been heavily indoctrinated in Egyptian paganism during their 400 or so years in slavery. It would make sense that this indoctrination would need to be directly repudiated.

In fact, Genesis 1 gives every appearance of being a point by point rebuttal and refutation of ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths. Even the order of events is often similar. For example:

Hermopolis tradition:

Memphis tradition:

There are also thematic/conceptual parallels. For example, consider the parallels in the opening three verses of Gen 1.1-3:

Understanding Genesis in its proper historical context might also help solve the long-standing problem of how to explain the creation of light on Day 1 before the creation of the sun on Day 4. And the further problem that if this is simply a temporary light until the creation of the sun, then it would be the sole exception of God creating something and then destroying/discarding it before the creation week is even over. Thus, whatever the light on Day 1 is, it stands to reason that it is still part of creation today like the rest of everything else created during the creation week.

But Johnston further notes the inherent modern bias we inject into the text. Without even realizing it, we naturally read Genesis 1 through the lens of modern understanding, because we know that the sun is the source of daylight. We forget that in the Ancient Near East not only did they not know that, but they believed the sun (and just about everything else in what we call nature) was a god or goddess. They also believed Daylight was a different light source than Sunlight. When one reflects on this from the standpoint of ancient understanding and an Earth-bound observer, it makes perfect sense why they would think this in ancient times: there is daylight before the sun rises, and when the sun sets it is not immediately dark, but there is still light for a while. In addition, it is not just a single point light source like the sun, moon, and stars seem to be. It is the entire sky that seems to be illuminated with daylight *before* the sun rises. So, it would be entirely natural to believe that Daylight (created Day 1) is a different source of light than Sunlight (created Day 4).

In light of all this (pun intended), it seems apparent that in Genesis 1, God was not interested in correcting their erroneous prescientific views of ancient cosmology (nor making sure it would align with ours thousands of years late: Scientific Concordism). God seems more interested in correcting false, erroneous theology. Thus, instead of correcting their incorrect factual knowledge, God stoops to their level and communicates in terms they can understand (Divine Accommodation) with regard to what's most important: a proper understanding of God. Thus, instead of the Egyptian view that Daylight was actually a god Atum that was created itself by another god, Daylight is not a god, but a created thing created by the one and only true God. Similarly, instead of the sun being the god Ra, the sun is a created thing. And to drive the point home, the sun and moon are not even given a name, but derogatorily referred to as simply the "greater" and "lesser" light (because any name given to the sun and moon in the ANE would have been misunderstood to mean that was their god-name when there is only one true God).

Answering the Concordist Objection: the main objection to all this is that it attacks divine inspiration and makes God a liar. First, I agree with concerns about people using this to reject Scripture as authoritative. So, let's state up front that in no way are we endorsing that. We believe Scripture is divinely inspired and remains authoritative. But what about the accusation that it still makes God a liar? To this I say, concordists haven't thought this all the way through. Even if God gave us a "perfectly" accurate MODERN scientific account of creation it still would have to be communicated through imperfect human language and it would still have to be dumbed-down to our level.

For example, the concordist might argue that God could have easily explained that the moon is not a "lesser light" source, but reflects light. And to make the scientific concordist happy, God could even state it in scientific terms like this college textbook type definition of reflection: "when the [electromagnetic] waves encounter a surface or other boundary that does not absorb the energy of the radiation and bounces the waves away from the surface."

But here's the problem: even if God wrote Genesis in these terms, guess what? It would still be scientifically inaccurate and erroneous. Light does not "bounce" off the lunar surface or even a mirror. An accurate understanding of the physics of light reflection requires expertise in quantum electrodynamics, and that still doesn't fully explain it.

As a science teacher, I am acutely aware of the problem. Science teachers strive to be as accurate as we possibly can, but can never fully be so. We always end up having to "dumb it down" (for lack of a better expression) to the academic level of a given student audience (Don't parents do the same thing with their children when asked why the sky is blue? Or do they launch into a quantum level explanation of electron excitation and photon emission of light absorption and selective scattering of visible light in the blue range?). It is unavoidable. It is impossible to be "perfectly" accurate on the hand, while communicating in a way that your audience will understand. Otherwise it will be "over students' heads" and they end up learning nothing but frustration. It is unavoidable. As teachers, we have to use simplified, imprecise definitions, generalized examples that don't account for all the exceptions, artificial categories and classifications that don't exist in reality to organize facts for ease of learning, inaccurate analogies and story-telling; and make connections to science fiction, fantasy, and social-cultural norms and conventions and common sayings and idioms; fashion and music and social media and entertainment and sports and so on, not because those things have any real relationship to the scientific knowledge in a given lecture, but because students better understand and relate to such things, and the brain learns best in the context of prior knowledge by relating new information to what it already knows and understands.

Is this "lying"? Is it lying to *accommodate* your audience's level of understanding? Is it lying to use poor, inaccurate analogies like the "Greenhouse Effect" to explain differential absorption and re-radiation of solar energy by certain atmospheric gases? Greenhouse gases don't *trap* heat like a greenhouse. That is completely false. Does that make teachers liars for using this flawed analogy? Some times it's just the best way to communicate. I know light doesn't "bounce" off surfaces, but I don't know of a better way to communicate a *factual* definition of light reflection that students would understand.

You see, I don't think concordists have thought this through. They require that God give "perfectly" accurate scientific information, and yet if God actually did, none of us would have the capacity to understand it!

"Dumbing down" to your audience is not lying. It is effective communication. It is the only way we can effectively communicate: we have to communicate in terms the target audience can understand and relate to. And what better way for us to understand God than "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

 

[TB2]

Specific Test Case Example: "Does Genesis 1 teach that on Day 2 God created a solid support structure raqia/stereoma ('firmament') to separate the waters below from the waters above?"

Here is another example @DialecticSkeptic of where the concordist is forced to reject the literal interpretation, as you've noted. The truth is that Genesis 1 teaches that God created a solid support structure divider ("firmament") "in the midst of the waters" to separate the waters, and embedded or afixed the sun, moon, and stars "in the [solid] firmament."

The immediate concordist reaction to such a statement is that this makes God a liar, and that you are saying the Bible is errant, and trying to reject or destroy the authority of the Bible. That you are a compromiser at best, or unbelieving apostate, heretic at worst. The suggestion is anathema: "You are rejecting the truth of the Bible!"

What concordists don't understand is that until recent modern times it was the exact opposite. Anyone who dared question the clear teaching of Scripture that the firmament is solid, was the compromiser who was accepting man-made philosophies and science of the time instead of believing the truth of Scripture.

For example, Martin Luther believed the firmament was a solid support that the sun, moon, and stars were "fastened to," and believed the "waters above" were like an ocean surrounding the earth. As noted in the quote below, philosophers of his day were starting to question this view about the "waters above," but he said to question this is to "wickedly deny" and "presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our own understanding."

The cover of a Luther Bible (from 1534) that Martin Luther translated sees the "waters above" as a sea or ocean of water surrounding the earth.

Enlarged view

Now some might object that this was simply the erroneous understanding of the time. But the truth is it's more than that. It is what Scripture, in fact, teaches.

The KJV "firmament" is a transliteration of the Latin "firmamentum" from the Latin Vulgate Bible, meaning that which is 'firm.'

The Latin firmamentum is itself translated from the Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint (LXX) in use during Jesus's days (two-thirds of OT citations in the NT are from the Septuagint). Firmamentum is how the Latin Vulgate Bible translates the Greek word "stereoma," which is a solid support structure upon which something rests. Again, this was the Greek translation of the OT used in Jesus's day.

Stereoma

The Greek word stereoma is itself translated from the Hebrew word raqia, meaning "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out)."

Raqia

The Hebrew word raqia is related to metal-working/metallurgy. The verb form means to hammer or pound out metal into thin metal plates or sheets. To 'stretch' or 'expand' metal by hammering/pounding metal out into thin sheets.

The closest modern words we have for this are malleable and ductile.

The Hebrew OT describes the firmament in terms of a solid, hammered out metal raqia. The Jewish scribes who translated the OT into Greek understood this meaning too, and so used the Greek stereoma solid support structure to translate it. The Latin Vulgate Bible follows suit by translating stereoma as firmamentum, that which is firm. And from that comes the our English word firmament.

In addition to the KJV "firmament" (that which is firm); other modern translations that more accurately convey the original sense include the NIV and NASB, among others.

NASB
6 Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other. 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. 8 God called the dome “Sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day."

NIV
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

By contrast, modern translations that inaccurately translate, include the NLT:

NLT
6 And God said, “Let there be a space between the waters to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth." 7 And that is whar happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The literal translation of Genesis is that on Day 2, God created some type of solid support structure divider "in the midst of the waters" to separate the "waters above" (source of flood waters for Noah's Flood) from the "waters below," and on Day 4 embedded the sun, moon, stars "in" this solid support structure (putting the sun, moon, stars in what we know to be Earth's atmosphere, below the "waters above" that were poured out during Noah's Flood). On Day 5, the birds don't fly in the solid support structure, but in front or across the "face"/surface of it (same word for Spirit hovering over the face of the waters" in Gen 1.3).

Those who argue that the hammered out metal raqia, and solid support stereoma could simply be metaphorical run into the difficulty that metaphors must still make sense. Stereoma is indeed used as a metaphor for firmness and steadfastness. But it's difficult to conceive of how a solid support structure could be a metaphor for empty space, nothingness, which "holds" up nothing. (It should be noted the "waters above" are liquid water; there were different Hebrew words for clouds and mists).

This one test case example alone, seems to make the concordist view untenable, since the sky is clearly not a solid support divider. The only way I can conceive around this is to ignore the lexical meanings of raqia and stereoma. Thus, in order to maintain a high view of Scripture, including divine inspiration, infallibility, etc., Divine Accommodation seems to be the only tenable alternative that remains faithful both to a high view of Scripture, and what Scripture actually says.

(I welcome your own thoughts on the subject of "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation")

 

[Sereni-tea]

@TB2 Thanks for laying out your views. I can say I am pretty much in agreement with you. I too hold a divine accommodation view of Genesis but only came to this point after a long journey.

I was in my early/mid 20s when I started thinking about these topics. My church held the framework view but generally said very little about it and I felt like they just didn't want to get into the topic. I needed more details. I went into my local Christian bookstore and the books there were predominantly YEC material. My assumption therefore was that this is the view held by Christians (I was pretty naive back then). Of course I quickly discovered that this view didn't mesh with modern day science, Similar to your story, I was prepared to defend the Bible at any cost. For me this led to a loss of passion for science - a profession I had wanted to pursue since early high school days. A lot of what the YEC said seemed to make sense, but I had this nagging question that they never seemed to be able to answer to my satisfaction - what genre is Genesis 1; how are we supposed to read it? Resources on the internet didn't help because I simply didn't know where to look or who to trust, especially with YEC groups telling me if I didn't hold to a young earth I was denying the Bible. This hardline attitude was also something that didn't sit well with me. Also with the YEC view my eyes were constantly drawn to the issue of the 7 days and any theology that might be present in the text was minimised, if not entirely overlooked.

By this point I was pretty confused and just about ready to walk away from science (I'm an analytical chemist), when I went out with my church group to hear a couple of international preachers speak - John Piper and John Lennox. Of course I knew who John Piper was, but had never heard of John Lennox. Well, when he spoke I was blown away! He talked about how science displays the glory of God and how we can do science because God is a God of order and so on. As I listened to him my passion for science was re-ignited and I went out and bought some of his books including Seven Days that Divide the World (2011). John Lennox opened my eyes to the reality that many faithful Christians all over the world hold different ideas about Genesis and creation - and that is ok. Here was a man eminently qualified, who had more right to boast about his knowledge than anyone on the YEC pages, and yet he shared his views in such a gentle and humble manner while maintaining an air of authority. He was so full of joy in the Lord and so focused on highlighting God's majesty. I quickly rejected YEC and became OEC. But the more I read and the more I studied something still didn't sit right and while I had more ideas I still didn't have a satisfactory answer to my question - what is the genre of Genesis 1 and how are we meant to read it. I was more confused about this than ever.

I had initially rejected a non-concordist view, not because I had any idea what it was, but because surely that was making Genesis into a fairy tale. (I was so wrong!) This changed when I came across this article by a Christian theologian/historian/pastor John Dickson (a big name where I come from) which finally provided me with the details about the genre I had been looking for and led me to discover John H Walton and the Lost World books. Walton challenged me about my biases - reading Genesis through modern eyes -and once I was able to put them aside he really opened my eyes to the ANE culture, the Hebrew lierature and language, the importance of the temple, the covenant and our vocation as the image of God. Like you I felt that Walton overstated his case about functions in The Lost World of Genesis 1, but still much in the book I would recommend. I have now read the first 3 of his Lost World books (Genesis 1, Adam & Eve and The Flood) and have another one on my shelf to read (Israelite Conquest). I have watched countless videos from him and others and am currently working my way through the resources on the BibleProject website.

So in case the above was TLDR, to summarse, I agree that the divine accommodation viewpoint is most faithful to Scripture as it was originally intended. It highlights the theology of the passage that is so important to understand the rest of the Bible. The concordist views in my opinion minimise or simply don't see the theology being presented.

 

[Manfred]

This makes sense in a lot of ways, even by traditional views that Moses received/wrote the first five books of the Bible. The Hebrews would have been heavily indoctrinated in Egyptian paganism during their 400 or so years in slavery. It would make sense that this indoctrination would need to be directly repudiated.

In fact, Genesis 1 gives every appearance of being a point by point rebuttal and refutation of ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths. Even the order of events is often similar. For example:

This assumes that the Egyptians writings pre-date the writings of Moses and do not borrow from Moses to defend their world view.

Further, although written by man (Whether it being Moses or not) All scripture is inspired by God.
What I read up to this point is that Genesis 1 and 2 "material" is borrowed from the Egyptians and not writings inspired by God.

Correct me if I am wrong please.

EDIT:
Never mind. I now read this:

Answering the Concordist Objection: the main objection to all this is that it attacks divine inspiration and makes God a liar. First, I agree with concerns about people using this to reject Scripture as authoritative. So, let's state up front that in no way are we endorsing that. We believe Scripture is divinely inspired and remains authoritative. But what about the accusation that it still makes God a liar? To this I say, concordists haven't thought this all the way through. Even if God gave us a "perfectly" accurate MODERN scientific account of creation it still would have to be communicated through imperfect human language and it would still have to be dumbed-down to our level.

What I do not agree with is that God cannot provide precise wording through the author through inspiration.

This view makes scripture less than capable of:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

[Manfred]

But here's the problem: even if God wrote Genesis in these terms, guess what? It would still be scientifically inaccurate and erroneous. Light does not "bounce" off the lunar surface or even a mirror. An accurate understanding of the physics of light reflection requires expertise in quantum electrodynamics, and that still doesn't fully explain it.

This is only problematic to those who would promote "errancy" within scripture.
There is a reason the scriptures are written as they are, with the information given as is.
Trying to understand scripture with the carnal mind will lead to a carnal understanding and a conclusion that tickles the ears of the reader.

However, the revelation received regarding the events as you read is "REAL" I take nothing away from looking at the historical context of the written account, however, if indeed written by Moses, he would have received what is written about creation (that happened out of context of the time Moses lived in) directly from God without having to borrow from secular writings.

 

[TB2]

This assumes that the Egyptians writings pre-date the writings of Moses and do not borrow from Moses to defend their world view.

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond in depth. Great thoughts and greatly appreciated.

Some argue that Genesis predated the Egyptian creation myths. This is motivated by theological considerations but I think it is difficult to sustain. The evidence is pretty solid for the Egyptian predating, and, in fact, the Pyramid Texts are recognized as these oldest known religious writings in the world. Plus, even tradition has the revelation happening to Moses at Sinai after the Exodus, so there is some sense to it ante-dating.

But yes, I agree that "borrowing" would be the wrong term. Genesis doesn't borrow from anything. It refutes.

 

[TB2]

By this point I was pretty confused and just about ready to walk away from science (I'm an analytical chemist), when I went out with my church group to hear a couple of international preachers speak - John Piper and John Lennox. Of course I knew who John Piper was, but had never heard of John Lennox. Well, when he spoke I was blown away! He talked about how science displays the glory of God and how we can do science because God is a God of order and so on. As I listened to him my passion for science was re-ignited and I went out and bought some of his books including Seven Days that Divide the World (2011). John Lennox opened my eyes to the reality that many faithful Christians all over the world hold different ideas about Genesis and creation - and that is ok.

Piper and Lennox are great

I had initially rejected a non-concordist view, not because I had any idea what it was, but because surely that was making Genesis into a fairy tale. (I was so wrong!) This changed when I came across this article by a Christian theologian/historian/pastor John Dickson

Thank you for sharing this article

Walton challenged me about my biases - reading Genesis through modern eyes -and once I was able to put them aside he really opened my eyes to the ANE culture, the Hebrew lierature and language, the importance of the temple, the covenant and our vocation as the image of God. Like you I felt that Walton overstated his case about functions in The Lost World of Genesis 1, but still much in the book I would recommend. I have now read the first 3 of his Lost World books (Genesis 1, Adam & Eve and The Flood) and have another one on my shelf to read (Israelite Conquest). I have watched countless videos from him and others and am currently working my way through the resources on the BibleProject website.

Great resources

A lot of what the YEC said seemed to make sense, but I had this nagging question that they never seemed to be able to answer to my satisfaction - what genre is Genesis 1

Genre is of course very important and Genesis 1 breaks the mold. To my knowledge there is nothing truly like it. Pretty one-of-a-kind. The description I've heard that I most like is "elevated prose"---a combination of both poetry and prose. Amazing intricacy of poetic elements: chiastic structure, bicolons, tricolons, layer upon layer (and within layers) of various poetic elements integrated with prose. Here's a great article on it that may interest you.

Marlowe, W. Creighton. "Patterns, parallels, and poetics in Genesis 1." The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 3.1 (2016): 3.

 

[TB2]

Excerpt from "Letters to Creationists"

(See diagrams below, which I think give a better sense of what Genesis 1 is depicting vs concordist views/modern anachronistic readings)

Was the “Expanse” Overhead in Genesis 1 a Solid Dome?​

The first chapter

"The first chapter of Genesis depicts the creation of the earth and its living creatures in six days. Here we focus on the nature of the “firmament” or “expanse” which was created on the second day, in order to separate the primordial waters into upper and lower portions. This has implications for Bible interpretation, in general.

The situation on or before Day 1 (e.g. Genesis 1:1-5) is shown below:



This sketch shows the primordial waters, which have an upper surface. The spirit of God was hovering above the surface of these waters, at first in darkness. God then created light, separated light from darkness, and called the light “day” and the darkness “night”.

On Day 2 (Genesis 1:6-8) God created a “firmament” (Hebrew raqia) in the midst of the waters, to divide the waters into two portions, the “waters above” and the “waters below”:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [Gen 1:6-7 KJV]

Other translations render raqia as “expanse”, as discussed below. At the end of Day 2, therefore, we have something like this:



On Day 3 (Gen 1: 9-13), the waters below are gathered into one place (which God calls “seas”) and dry ground appears. God calls the dry ground “earth” (eretz). (It is not clear if the land was created here ex nihilo on Day 3, or whether it was there all along beneath the waters, and simply emerged as the waters are drained off to the side). On Day 4 God made the sun, moon, and stars, and “set them in the firmament of the heaven” (Gen. 1:17, KJV). These celestial bodies can move around in or on the firmament (cf. Ps 19:6). At the end of Day 4 we have:



Old Testament scholars note that the Hebrews believed that the waters of the primordial waters still underlay the solid land. In Ps. 24:1-2 we read, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods”, and in Ps. 136:6 that God “laid out the earth above the waters.”

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

John Walton captured well my problem with concordist views:

Another problem with concordism is that it assumes that the text should be understood in reference to current scientific consensus, which would mean that it would neither correspond to last century’s scientific consensus nor to that which may develop in the next century. If God were intent on making his revelation correspond to science, we have to ask, "Which science?" We are well aware that science is dynamic rather than static. By its very nature science is in a constant state of flux. If we were to say that God’s revelation corresponds to “true science” we adopt an idea contrary to the very nature of science. What is accepted as true today, may not be accepted as true tomorrow, because what science provides is the best explanation of the data at the time. This “best explanation” is accepted by consensus, and often with a few detractors. Science moves forward as ideas are tested and new ones replace old ones. So if God aligned revelation with one particular science, it would have been unintelligible to people who lived prior to the time of that science, and it would be obsolete to those who live after that time. We gain nothing by bringing God’s revelation into accordance with today’s science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated his revelation to his immediate audience in terms they understood.
​

John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 15.

 

[David1701]

The main question posed by this thread is the following: "Scientific Concordism or Divine Accommodation: Does the Genesis creation account intend to teach accurate science and history (scientific concordism)?" To answer this question requires answering additional questions, including, "What is the proper way to interpret the Genesis creation account?" And "Does the Genesis creation account teach (prescientific) Ancient Near East (ANE) cosmology?"

I will present my thoughts on the above questions, and then apply them to a Specific Test Case Example: "Does Genesis 1 teach that on Day 2 God created a solid support structure raqia/stereoma ('firmament') to separate the waters below from the waters above?"

Based on prior conversations, I invite your input @Manfred @DialecticSkeptic @prism @Sereni-tea and of course anyone else who would like to share their thoughts. Instead of spreading my thoughts out throughout the thread, I thought I would give everything at once up front (over 3 initial posts), so, it's longer than usual. So, take your time to respond. I certainly don't expect people to read it all in one sitting.

For those who wish to participate in the discussion, to avoid personal attacks, let's please assume that no matter what anyone says that we are all believers who are all committed to the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility of the Bible, and/or otherwise maintain a high view of sacred Scripture as authoritative.

Here is a link to start things off from the American Scientific Affiliation (an organization of scientists who are all Christian believers) on "Concordism vs Accommodation." Here's a link to their site map for all things related to Genesis, science, origins, etc.

There are different definitions of concordism and accommodation. Here are some working definitions to start with.

Concordism: "Concordism refers to the position that the teaching of the Bible on the natural world, properly interpreted, will agree with the teaching of science (when it properly understands the data), and may in fact supplement science. The concordist not only believes that nature and Scripture will harmonize, but sees specific references in the Bible to current scientific understanding of the universe. The concordist, then, looks for those close parallels in order to show that Scripture concords or agrees with scientific conclusions."

Concordist views include: Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, Framework Hypothesis, etc. Essentially any interpretation that attempts to harmonize science and Scripture.

Divine Accommodation: "(Divine) Accommodation is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way that humans can understand and to which they can respond." "This doctrine holds that since God is transcendent, He cannot communicate to us as equals in the language of pure, unfiltered, heavenly discourse. He is the triune Creator, whereas we are mere creatures. So when God talks to us, He stoops to our level. For instance, God’s Word came to us in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and now it is translated in countless other human languages. In fact, all of Scripture is accommodated to us. As John Calvin put it: “Who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity.” Accommodation is also entirely consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy, which says that the Bible teaches only the truth. God communicates to our finitude, but His Word is still utterly trustworthy."

‐---------------------------------

My personal thoughts:

For me personally, I was raised concordist, but now believe Divine Accommodation. I see this as the only way to be faithful to divine inspiration of the Bible while also being faithful to what the Bible actually teaches. It is also now obvious to me that Divine Accommodation begins with language itself. Human language is already imperfect to begin with (it is worthwhile to point out that for all the debates over literal vs nonliteral that human language itself is entirely symbolic; arbitrary symbols (we call letters and words) that we have agreed symbolize/represent such-and-such). We do not have the human language capabilities to adequately convey "God." Thus, God accommodates Himself to us by even communicating through our imperfect language. The ultimate example of Divine Accommodation of God stooping down to our level is the Incarnation: "the Word became flesh..."

My experience with concordism is that it usually results in Scripture being twisted to fit modern science, or science being twisted (into non-science) to fit Scripture. I also find that concordists often end up missing the main theological point(s) of what Scripture is trying to teach (!) due to myopic focus on harmonization.

I believe concordism is wrong from the start when it comes to basic hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation. To understand what the text means and what is the correct interpretation I follow the principle that we must first seek to understand the *original context*. This is basic Biblical Hermeneutics 101. I like this diagram of the process: (1) First, determine what it meant then, in order to know (2) what it actually means, so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today.

Concordism commits the error of anachronism right from the start by trying to anachronistically read modern science back into Genesis, which violates basic hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation of Genesis in its original, historical context. That context being the Ancient Near East (ANE) (ancient Egypt, Canaan, Israel, Mesopotamia, etc.).

When the Genesis creation account is interpreted in its original, historical context it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that Genesis does indeed teach (prescientific) ancient cosmology.

Even for those who reject basic hermeneutic principles, it seems indisputable that out of every idea in human history, every human writing (of which we have a record), spanning all of humanity civilization, whether it be ancient writings, literature, philosophy, religion, or modern science that from a simple standpoint of comparison: there are more parallels that Genesis 1 has in common with ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths than anything else we know. Certainly more commonalities than with modern concerns about creation-evolution, paleontology, geology, plate tectonics, etc.

Accommodation and Concordance are not mutually exclusive...

 

[TB2]

Accommodation and Concordance are not mutually exclusive...

True, but when Genesis 1 has far more in common with ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths and indeed reads like a point-by-point refutation of paganism (even a number of creation events are in the same order), then it stands to reason that Genesis 1 is less a scientific treatise and more a theological (polemic) attack on ancient Egyptian paganism.

 

[GeneZ]

Divine Accommodation: "(Divine) Accommodation is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way that humans can understand and to which they can respond."

i.e...

Divine Accommodation: "(Divine) Accommodation is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way that humans can understand and to which they can respond."​

That is why, and what, we have the Son of God for.

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest ​

relationship with the Father, has made him known. " John 1:18​

I used to correspond back in the late 80's with a Pastor Ralph G. Braun. He was one of the few pastors who took his Hebrew and Greek studies at seminary as a top priority. In one letter he pointed out to me an eye opening factor concerning the Greek found in John 1:18.
Its nowhere as simple as we find expressed by the typical mainstream translations we have available today.

Where we read....

"is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

Is a very superficial rendering compared to what the true impact of the Greek is.

Pastor Braun wrote that the Greek word found in that verse (for making God known to us) is the same Greek word used in Scripture to command pastors to exegete the Word of God. In other words? Take what is normally foreign to us, and to analyze and interpret it
in a way that will be totally relatable and comprehensible to his listeners.

Here it is again from the NIV.

​

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest ​

relationship with the Father, has made him known. " John 1:18​

​

​

After realizing what Pastor Braun was telling me, the Amplified translation made more sense in its choice of words.

No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, ​

Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him ​

[He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted ​

Him and He has made Him known]." John 1:18 Amp Tran​

​

That aligns with what you said here:

Divine Accommodation: "(Divine) Accommodation is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way that humans can understand and to which they can respond."​

Jesus being two natures in eternal union - Human and Deity -Takes what He uniquely knows from that intimate union of two natures
and with His Soul's impressions, is able to present to us God in a manner that we as souls can understand and relate to!

grace and peace .....................

 

[David1701]

True, but when Genesis 1 has far more in common with ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths and indeed reads like a point-by-point refutation of paganism (even a number of creation events are in the same order), then it stands to reason that Genesis 1 is less a scientific treatise and more a theological (polemic) attack on ancient Egyptian paganism.

Or, ancient Egyptian paganism has a corrupted version of the Genesis narrative.

 

[TB2]

Or, ancient Egyptian paganism has a corrupted version of the Genesis narrative.

It's difficult to sustain for historical and biblical reasons. The Pyramid Texts are the oldest religious texts in the world and predate the Exodus by a couple thousand or so years, before Moses would have received the Genesis revelation.

 

[GeneZ]

Or, ancient Egyptian paganism has a corrupted version of the Genesis narrative.

Some believers soon forget one thing.

Satan and demons were the invisible powers behind paganism.

And, they were present to see the creation of the earth!

They could have easily stole some ideas to use for their own invention to taunt God as they mock the truth away from God getting the glory.

 

[David1701]

It's difficult to sustain for historical and biblical reasons. The Pyramid Texts are the oldest religious texts in the world and predate the Exodus by a couple thousand or so years, before Moses would have received the Genesis revelation.

But the truths contained in Genesis would have been circulating orally, long before that.

 

[TB2]

But the truths contained in Genesis would have been circulating orally, long before that.

I understand the reticence because it seems like it should be the other way around that Genesis precedes the Egyptian. But again there are historical and biblical difficulties with maintaining this. First, as I noted, the Pyramid Texts are the oldest religious texts in the world and predate the Exodus (and Genesis revelation Moses received by the traditional view) by a couple thousand years or so. Second, it's recognized that Genesis is a theological polemic (attack) against Egyptian paganism which would be impossible unless the Egyptian pagan ideas existed first. Third, it makes sense that after 400 years of indoctrination the Hebrews would need the theological correction provided by Genesis 1.

This is not the only place we see this. Our great God seems to be a God of polemics who says "come let us reason together" and who is constantly demonstrating He is the one true God. The plagues of Exodus are another example of God's polemic attack that struck at the heart of Egyptian paganism ("You worship the Nile, I'll turn it to blood.... you worship the sun god Ra, I'll darken it").

And the greatest polemic of all: THE CROSS ("You value wisdom and strength? I'll give you foolishness and weakness and still confound your worldly wisdom with the foolishness of God on a cross; glory in shame; victory in death). Amen!!

 

[GeneZ]

Or, ancient Egyptian paganism has a corrupted version of the Genesis narrative.

What exactly is in the Egyptian story?

Keep in mind... Eight people walked off of the Ark and passed down their own accounts of what took place before the flood.
No scrolls.. Oral tradition was the means. Three different accounts of what is truth does not stop being truth when the account
gets embellished along the way. And, it does not have to mean one was copying another and stealing his idea.

 

[TB2]

What exactly is in the Egyptian story?

Keep in mind... Eight people walked off of the Ark and passed down their own accounts of what took place before the flood.
No scrolls.. Oral tradition was the means. Three different accounts of what is truth does not stop being truth when the account
gets embellished along the way. And, it does not have to mean one was copying another and stealing his idea.

See here for more information.