Is there any way to falsify accomodationalist interpretations?

The recent upsurge in posts on how to read Genesis
prompt me to ask the above question.

YEC seem to work from the
concept that a literal reading of the account is the
only valid way to read Genesis 1-11. They then invert
science in order to achieve this.

In terms of evangelizing of people with, at best, maybe
one or two required college courses in science, AND, in
an environment where other competing religions can be
neglected, the YEC stance would have the strongest impact.
They can say with that voice of authority "the bible is
true", and say it with such confidence, that nothing can
compete.

Of course, those of us trained in science go crazy over
some of their convoluted science, and one wonders where
that confidence is placed, as any self respecting
intellectual would find it difficult to talk with such
unmitigated certitude.

And so, with Glenn's view, or Dick's view, we have some
way to at least get some of the science to make more
sense. (I won't go further into this than that.) But
both these, and other views, are intellectual efforts,
and none of us can talk with that same unmitigated
certitude that some of these YECs do. It is strange
in a way that an honest intellectual view is seen as
"weak", but I think that is what we are seeing, and
why anything of ASA as such, is not taken particularly
seriously by most evangelical churches.

But now I get to the heart of my question. At the one
end is some effort to harmonize science with the scripture
account, which goes by the name "concordism" here. At
the other extreme end, it would be to take the scripture
as writings that express truths, but are not true in any
factual sense: there was never any flood, never any tower
of Babel, never any Adam and Eve of any kind whatever.
I'm not implying anyone here holds this view exactly, only
that this would be the "extreme".
 
Of course, if God is the truth in the end, the arguments
about accommodation vs concordism are irrelevant, as we
can all rejoice at having been faithful by Grace. But
what if the bible is just a bunch of good stories, and
say Buddhism is actually much closer to getting it right?
Or let's say for a moment that life is completely meaningless
and the only meaning generated is in your own head, as one
would have to finally conclude as an atheist.

Is there any way to know where the line is when we chose
to accommodate scripture? In what way can we validate
accommodation as an honest way to interpret scripture?
Or is Grace the only means by which we can see our way
to God, and accept God's word as truth, irrespective of
whether it concordant or accommodating?

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Fri Jun 9 22:22:42 2006