# Concordism and Genesis 1-2

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/concordism-and-genesis-1-2/909>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Theology\
**Created:** [July 30, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/concordism-and-genesis-1-2/909 "2018-07-30T19:35:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 78

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/concordism-and-genesis-1-2/909/78 "2018-08-03T18:34:38Z")

</div>

First of all, I’d like to thank @Ronald_Cram, @deuteroKJ, and @Jordan for engaging in a prolonged, insightful, and thoughtful exchange on a complex and contentious topic. This is really the best of what the forum is supposed to offer. Keep it up.

Just a couple thoughts…

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> That’s why I suggest using a probability analysis. Look at all the items in Genesis 1 that we know are correct from science. Then ask “What is the probability all of these statements could be in line with modern science without it being intentional?”

As a person who does probability analysis for a living, it does not appear feasible to do so here.

@Ronald_Cram you seem to be taking a dual author view of scripture.

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> I’m not conflating Genesis 1 with prophecy. I’m simply using prophecy as an illustration. The point is that a right understanding of inspiration admits **there are two authors: the human author and the divine author.** You seem to think if Genesis 1 is scientifically correct that the human author had to know science. I don’t make that claim. Rather, Genesis 1 proves that the text is inspired by God, who knows nature better than we do, because there is no way the text could be as scientifically accurate as it is without God.

Some of the pushback you are facing is that most current scholars do not take that view. It is not uncommon outside of academia (e.g. @anon46279830 takes a similar tact), but right now authorial intent is ascendant.

This list of links is helpful in unpacking some of the differences between @Ronald_Cram and @deuteroKJ, and the arguments/history of why authorial intent is currently the dominant way of seeing this in academia. I’d encourage everyone to take a look at them.

> [@Words of Wisdom on Selling a Crazy Idea](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/words-of-wisdom-on-selling-a-crazy-idea/649/1):
>
> > What I need to know is _why_ they disagree? Do they disagree because there is some kind of convention in seminary where we are not allowed to read Christ into the text?
> 
> Do you know about authorial intent as a hermeneutical principle? I can’t vouch for this reference in detail, but it might be a good starting point for you.
> 
> [http://www.gbcfrederick.org/hp\_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dan-Fabricatore-Authorial-Intent-and-its-Relation-to-Interp.pdf](http://www.gbcfrederick.org/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dan-Fabricatore-Authorial-Intent-and-its-Relation-to-Interp.pdf)
> 
> [http://www.gbcfrederick.org/hp\_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dan-Fabricatore-The-Relationship-between-Authorial-Intent-a.pdf](http://www.gbcfrederick.org/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dan-Fabricatore-The-Relationship-between-Authorial-Intent-a.pdf)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/concordism-and-genesis-1-2/909)._