This is an excellent example of listening and discussing matters that pertain to Science and Religion. Another “alternative sense-making” forum can be found at The Bible and Anthropology Facebook groups which is restricted to anthropologists, geneticists, linguists, archaeologists and Bible scholars. The group is capped at 1000 members. We have room for about 20 more people. Reading Scripture through the lens of cultural anthropology is rigorous because no assumption can stand untested, and no assertion can be made without data. If we seek to understand the Bible rather than use the Bible to support an agenda, we will find the approach of Biblical Anthropology helpful.
I’m not sure how the moderators feel about the promotion of such an alternate venue here, but I’m not a moderator so I won’t comment on appropriateness. I’ll just say, politely, that Alice pops in here every so often with non-mainstream concordist views of Genesis. We’ve gone back and forth a couple of times on her use of the term Proto-Saharan, which has a specific term in mainstream Africanist linguistics, dealing with languages of the central Sahara, specifically Dazaga, Tedaga, Zaghawa, Berti (†), Kanuri and Kanembu—this family has been a focus of the minimal amount of scholarship I have been able to fit into my career in language development. My quibble on her use of this term (which, again, does not square with mainstream linguistics’s use of the term) is relatively minor, but the matter of concordism is not. Most regulars on this forum do not endorse concordism as an approach to scripture, or find it helpful or insightful.
Very respectfully yours,
Hmmm… looking up concordism wasn’t very helpful in understanding what you are trying say. For the most part it seems to be an ill-defined accusation that people like to throw around. There isn’t even a wikipedia page on the term. It is a bit suspicious that the most developed explanation seems to be a Biologos page. But this page is helpful in describing “three meanings of concordism:”
- seeking harmony between the geological record and the days of creation.
a. Type A: claims the Bible teaches science and metaphysics.
b. Type B: simply interprets Biblical texts in light of modern science.
- Type C: rejects non-overlapping magisteria (complete separation between science and religion). All truth is God’s truth and so healthy for science and theology to engage in active dialogue.
I would further divide 2 to add a type D which makes it clear that the dialogue is fully in the category of theology for while science informs theology, the reverse is not the case. Theology cannot inform science in any way shape or form. Obviously this is the stance I would take.
However, taking a look at the website which Alice linked is very disappointing. While Biologos is one of the better forum websites I have come across, this website is the worst – just a facebook account.
AMWolfe, Obviously you haven’t a clue about the research done by Biblical Anthropologists, and your attitude is one reason I “pop” in here infrequently. Concordism is a method that we do not employ. I extend the invitation to those who might be interested in doing some “alternative sense making.”
I wasn’t expecting a debate about the authenticity of the Messianic Faith. Peterson’s point about the lasting nature of sacred narrative is a possible explanation for why an expectation that looks distinctively Messianic in 4000-3800 BC has survived to this day.
Okay people - while you’re in this sand box we need to play nice with each other.
Thanks for that Biologos link on concordism, @mitchellmckain. I found it very helpful to review for myself. It doesn’t bother me overmuch that there isn’t a lot of “mainline” stuff floating around on that since it seems to be of limited concern (i.e. to folks like us who happily talk theology and science). I’ll trust Biologos generally - and especially Ted Davis [or the main author Denis Alexander] to be about the best contemporary authorities most of us will ever see on the history of use of such terms.
To what [nearly 6000 year old!] record of messianic expectations are you referring here?
Well, I’ll give it another look-see if my Facebook-less self can get on without a login. It’s the least I can do after giving you such bad press.
I hope when I go there, I’ll find reliable historic reconstructions of roots in ancient languages based on well established, shared phonetic innovations rather than–as I recall from our last discussion–speculation about this isolated root here and that (likely unrelated) isolated root there.
I won’t hold my breath, given that many of my well-cited peers (Ehret 2001 comes to mind) fall into the same trap of poor methodology. But I hope to be surprised!
Apologies if I have offended. I will give it another look.
That shows good faith on your part. Thanks, Andrew. Feel free to post a discussion topic.
Thanks. I tried to click on the “About” on your FB page but it prompted a login.
I’m trying to find your primary blog without scrolling for forever down this Facebook feed. Would you post a link, please?
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.