Why, I think, we should avoid Concordism? || Conversational Apologetics || 2025

 

Note: This is not an Academic article but an insight from a former concordist during the early studies in science faculty. The motive is to provide certain reasoning why holding to concrodism doesn't help to prove the scripture as inspired, inerrant and infallible. This is merely an outcome on years of study and interaction with many Christian thinkers on the subject of relationship between Science and the Bible.  

A Dialogue on Concordism: Between Professor Roberts and Student Alex

Professor Roberts: Good afternoon, Alex. I noticed you had some questions after our lecture on biblical interpretation.

Alex: Yes, Professor. I've been reading some materials claiming that the Bible predicted modern scientific discoveries long before scientists discovered them. The author says this proves the Bible's divine inspiration. What do you think?

Professor Roberts: That's an interesting approach called concordism—which in general is the attempt to find modern scientific knowledge in ancient texts. What's your impression so far?

Alex: It sounds compelling at first. The author points to verses about the "circle of the earth" and says this proves the Bible knew the earth was round. But something feels off about the argument.

Professor Roberts: You're right to question it. Consider this: if God had revealed modern cosmology to ancient writers, why would that knowledge have disappeared for thousands of years until modern science rediscovered it?

Alex: I hadn't thought about that. If ancient Israelites knew modern science from divine revelation, wouldn't they have used that knowledge?

Professor Roberts: Exactly. And consider divine communication more broadly. When God speaks of having an "arm" or "hand," we understand that as figurative language accommodating human understanding. Why would God suddenly switch to technical scientific language when discussing cosmology?

Alex: So you're saying God communicated in ways the original audience could understand?

Professor Roberts: Precisely. Jesus himself said that a faith of mustard seed can move a mountain and here he wasn’t teaching mustard seed is the smallest of all but he was merely speaking to his culture at that time. He frequently used languages of farmer, harvest, marriage, shepherd and so many other examples that were commonly understood in his days. For our context today, we may say someone is like Superman if we observe his intense strength as our culture knows such things from movies and popularized throughout the world! Communication requires meeting people where they are!

Alex: But doesn't using ancient cosmology make the Bible scientifically incorrect? Doesn't that undermine its trustworthiness?

Professor Roberts: Not at all. Would you call your grandfather dishonest for telling stories about using oil lamps before electricity came to his village?

Alex: Of course not. He's just describing things as they were understood then.

Professor Roberts: Exactly. God speaks within history, using concepts people understand. The Bible isn't meant to be used as a science textbook but as a vehicle for theological truth.

Alex: So when the Bible talks about the "firmament" or the "pillars of the earth"...

Professor Roberts: It's just using the cosmological language of its time to convey deeper truths about creation and divine sovereignty. These are vessels carrying meaning, not scientific assertions.

Alex: I see. So taking these passages literally without understanding their context is the real problem.

Professor Roberts: Indeed. Biblical interpretation requires understanding historical context, literary genres, and the cultural frameworks of ancient times. Without that background, we risk serious misunderstandings.

Alex: Some of my friends argue that if the Bible doesn't contain scientific foreknowledge, it somehow diminishes its importance.

Professor Roberts: Consider the Bible's primary purpose. Is it meant to explain the material world or to provide spiritual guidance? Expecting scientific content actually shifts focus away from its core spiritual purpose.

Alex: So concordism might actually distract from the Bible's main message?

Professor Roberts: Exactly. By trying to validate scripture through scientific confirmation, we risk missing its spiritual wisdom. We also create unnecessary conflicts when scientific understanding inevitably evolves. Guess, in coming decades if the Big Bang cosmology gets heavily updated then would we again change our interpretation of Genesis 1?

Alex: This helps a lot, Professor. I think I was approaching scripture with modern expectations rather than trying to understand it in its historical context.

Professor Roberts: That's a common challenge. When we recognize how God communicates across different times and cultures, we develop a deeper appreciation for scripture's wisdom. God speaks to each generation in ways they can comprehend.

Alex: So rejecting concordism doesn't mean rejecting the Bible's authority—it's actually respecting how divine communication works.

Professor Roberts: Precisely, Alex. It allows us to honor both the integrity of scripture and the progress of human knowledge. Scripture guides us spiritually while science explores the natural world—each valuable in its own domain.

Alex: Thank you, Professor. This conversation has given me a much better framework for understanding these issues.

Professor Roberts: You're welcome, Alex. Keep asking good questions—that's how theological understanding grows.

Your comments are appreciated!