1. My Definitions:
He claimed that my definitions were inappropriate because I distinguish between a hermenuetical principle of concordism and concordism as a definition of inerrancy (also dubbed "full inerrancy"). But there is a distinction, the hermenuetical principle has to do with how you do exegesis. Whereas the definition of inerrancy has to do with how you believe God inspired the Bible. I agree they are related, but they are separate issues.
In my original article I said that I would define concordism as the Holy Spirit inspiring every truth claim in the Bible to be accurate/correct. He says that he believes my statement is true but believes the Bible does not teach any scientific truths (or rather, truths about the natural world). As such, he claims to believe my statement about truth claims despite being an accommodationist.
In response, I will make my statement clearer: All teachings in the Bible are 100% true teachings, all descriptions in the Bible are 100% accurate descriptions. I view descriptions as a type of truth claim, in that what you describe is accurate.
On the other hand, accommodationists believe God used inaccurate descriptions of the natural world to communicate theological teachings, and this is not in conflict with their view of inerrancy. Hopefully this resolves the definition issue adequately.
He makes the point that concordism violates the rules of hermenuetics he has been taught. The trouble is, I don't think those rules allow a complete understanding of God's Word. The message God communicates to us through the writings of a given author are not limited to the author's own mind. The author can write a text with a certain thought behind it, yet that thought be completely contrary to God's own purpose in the text. Scripture is more than what the author was thinking.
Trying to put yourself in the author's shoes all the time may prevent you from fully understanding the text, the human author is not the only person attempting to communicate here. Understanding the original context is important because the text was written in a paticular language and uses phrases, idioms, and grammatical rules of the time. But it is taking it way too far in my opinion to say that the text only means what the author was thinking and what the face-value reading of the orginal audience was.
For example, few Christians would dispute that the theological and moral teachings taught in the Bible were revealed to the author by God, rather than simply "made up" by the author. What is the problem with God revealing truths about the natural world?
Evan himself states that Genesis 1 exists to teach God (Yahweh) as creator of all things, but that information had to be revealed at some point, if not to the author directly.
3. Ancient Cosmology:
He claims that the ancient Israelites could not have understood a spherical earth or a gaseous (rather than solid) sky.
I am actually highly skeptical of the claim that ancient people literally believed the sky was a solid dome at all. Even more so of the idea that they literally believed it has windows and was held up by the mountains as "pillars". I think sometimes the statements made by ancient people are taken too woodenly literal.
It was plainly obvious to the ancients that mountains vary greatly in height and come to peaks, they obviously are not pillars holding up a solid sky. And considering pillars can be free-standing and thus not actually holding up anything the "mountains as pillars" language can easily be taken as poetic language for how mountains look. It would similarly be plainly obvious to the ancients that there were no windows or doors embedded into the "dome", no such entities exist in the sky. It is more like poetic language never intended to be taken so literally.
We could go through specific instances of descriptions of nature in the Bible, but generally I find that they hold up quite well. I would however like to point out that even if the Israelites did believe the sky ("expanse" or "firmament") was a solid dome, it does not mean Genesis describes a solid dome.
It is akin to the young-earth creationist saying "The tallest mountain on earth is Mount Everest". And saying that statement is an inaccurate description of earth because it describes it as young. You can't say that simply because the writer thought the earth was young and happens to use the word "earth", he's saying the earth is young.
Similarly, you can't claim because the author of Genesis thought the sky was solid and uses the word for sky "Rakia" it is a scientifically inaccurate description of the sky.
Genesis says the sky divides the waters above and below it, that is true. If author believed things about those waters that aren't true, you can't hold that against the text. But there really is water above and below the sky. On earth we have ice, aquifers, lakes, rivers, oceans, etc. and above the sky there are comets (ice), vapor and steam, and on other planets, liquid water (not that the text requires this, regardless of state, water is water, even when it is frozen or gaseous).
I would also point out that it gives the ancients too little credit to say that they couldn't understand a spherical earth (which can provably date back hundreds of years before Christ) with gravity. Even if it were contrary to what they believe, it isn't incomprehensible, and I think God would expect them to take his word for it. Our minds are not fundamentally different from theirs, they could comprehend a spherical earth just as we could.
And obviously they could comprehend a gaseous sky because they could plainly see fog, clouds, steam, smoke, etc. in their everyday lives. They knew gases existed.
Honestly, I think the right thing to do when an apparent contradiction between the bible and science is found that you are unable to satisfactorily resolve is to simply say "I don't know" and move on, rather than re-define inerrancy to take the easy way out.
4. Scientific Apologetics:
There was a small misunderstanding here, when I said "Scientific Apologetics", I only meant arguing for the Bible on the basis of scientific accuracy inspired into it beyond what the author could discern on his own. And I do believe this is hindered by an accommodationist point of view, which does not believe God included in the Bible truths about nature beyond what the author knew of.
I still firmly believe holding to a full/complete view of inerrancy that includes all truth, summed up with "all descriptions in the bible are accurate descriptions, all teachings in the bible are accurate teachings" is the best way to go. I see no valid reason to reject this view.
Thanks for reading!