Re: concordism

Glenn Morton (grmorton@psyberlink.net)
Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:45:20 -0600

At 06:09 PM 1/29/97 -0800, Rob Wahl wrote:
>I was curious about the reference to concordism, so I found this definition
>with a lycos search:
>
> "scientific and theological views are interpretative methodologies that
> carry equal weight and their conclusions must be reconciled"
>
>What's wrong with that?

I don't think anything is wrong with it. But many, many have given up on
the idea that the two can be concorded. The problem between geology and
Scripture have resisted almost all attempts to unite the two. I have a view
that concords geology and scripture but it has aspects most find disagreeable.

Davis Young writes:

"Since the nineteenth century, Christian geologists became a
silent minority. For several decades few harmonizations of
Scripture with geological data were attempted. Then in 1977, a
sudden flurry of concordist works appeared beginning with my
Creation and the Flood."~Davis A. Young, Scripture in the Hands of
Geologists, Part Two," Westminster Theological Journal, 49, 1987,
p. 281

and

**
"I suggest that we will be well served if commentators recognize
that concordism has not solved our problem of relating Genesis and
geology any more than literalism. Commentators should not try to
show correlations between Genesis 1 and geology and should perhaps
develop exegeses that are consistent with the historical-cultural-
theological setting of ancient Israel in which Genesis was
written."~Davis A. Young, Scripture in the Hands of Geologists,
Part Two," Westminster Theological Journal, 49, 1987, p. 291

Geology is the hardest science to reconcile with Scripture, bar none.

glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm