Concordism has become a four letter word in exegesis. It means, in the negative sense, reading scientific knowledge into Scripture where cannot be found. We have discussed here many times before (Concordism and Genesis 1-2).
For example, some have argued that Genesis gives information about the Big Bang and other scientific findings. This seems to be incorrect. It could not have been the author’s intent. This is eisegesis.
At the same time, I’m seeing an opposite problem. Some seem to read scientific claims into Scripture, in order to say that Scripture is in scientific error. For example, William Lane Craig calls out both Walton and Denis L. for reading geocentrism into Scripture (William Lane Craig On The Babylonian World Map). Similar claims are that raqai must have meant a solid dome. However it is not clear if Genesis is making these claims at all. It seems far more reasonable to read it phenomenologically (by ordinary perception), without any claims about cosmology (A Telling in Six Ordinary Days). This also is eisegesis, but of a different sort.
I feel like we need a new term for this. It is not precisely concordism. I have possibilities in mind:
What do you think? Is this a helpful or clear term? Which one would be clearer? Or would you propose a different term?