Many Christians and Reformed wannabes are generally very poor in distinguishing the two.
Yesterday, Rob from church: "Isaiah speaks of Earth being a sphere", "Science affirms the Bible"
This is an example of a bad understanding of general vs. special revelations. I imagine he was referring to Isaiah 40:22, where the word "circle" (חוּג chug) was used for Earth. However, that is not necessarily indicating a spherical (דּוּר dur in Isaiah 22:18) Earth as the word used is more like a flat circle, which could be an artistic description of the fullness of the Earth, or orbit of Earth around the Sun (a bit far fetch from the context, but it's literally more apt than the meaning of a sphere), even if we don't have to account it as a reference to ancient Middle East's concept of Earth as a flat circular disc.
So when we say that a Bible is not a science book, I can't believe some's intelligence could only understand that as the kind of text book you see in schools, as if we are saying that the Bible doesn't have calculus equations. When we say that the Bible is not a science book, we are also not talking about different interpretations of the Bible, because there's no way we can interpret Sunrise and Sunset (Psa 113:3) or the Sun moving around the Earth (Psa 19:4-6) in any scientifically verifiable manner without human literature involved which would depart from science as we know it. So to say that Science affirm the Bible is dangerous, it was the mistake that the Church committed to folks like Galileo on heliocentric cosmology. The only conclusion is that the Bible is not a science book in that the Bible does not tell us how nature works, the Bible does not care about telling us if the Earth is spherical or not. Isaiah 40:22
A quick historical account of a spherical Earth is an interesting supplement here, thanks to Google AI:
The concept of a spherical Earth was first proposed by the ancient Greeks around the 6th century BC, with Pythagoras being one of the earliest proponents. However, it was Aristotle in the 4th century BC who provided empirical evidence, such as ships disappearing hull-first over the horizon and the Earth's round shadow on the moon during eclipses, to solidify the idea. Around 240 BC, Eratosthenes used geometry to calculate the Earth's circumference, demonstrating a more practical understanding of the planet's size. While the idea of a round Earth was known in some cultures for centuries, it wasn't until the space age in the late 20th century that humans could visually confirm it from space.
So the understanding of a spherical Earth isn't as foreign to the ancients as many in the West like to portray it. Pythagoras, Plato, etc. have all suggested a spherical Earth. And the history of geodesy goes as far back to the Phoenician explorers in 610 BC. Contrasting that to Isaiah's probable time period (700BC), then one can argue that the even if the Bible was introducing a spherical Earth, it may not have been a foreign concept, as the ancients have shown, that humans are fully capable of figuring this out themselves that far back in time. I would even say that it was God's requirement for man to figure this out himself. Then again, the Bible really does not care about the science of it, circle just means the fullness in Isaiah 40:22, which is a more stable interpretation. Job 38:12-14 introduces a far better natural description (than Isaiah 40:22) of the working of Earth's rotation by God, but even so, the idea is really not trying to tell us whether Earth is rotating scientifically or not, but the progression of time instead. Same deal with Job 26:7 Elihu: "regarding the Earth suspended in empty space".
We don't ever want to use the Bible as the source of science. God is the source of science, not the Bible, because God is not the Bible, and the Bible is not God. So we don't say, science affirms the Bible. Science (particularly archeology) can affirm some of biblical accounts, but when we speak of natural science, we can only say that science affirms God, or affirms the truth of God. However, since the Bible does not concern itself with science or how nature works, and science can only affirm how nature works, so science cannot affirm what the Bible doesn't talk about.