The Bible and Science

[The Tanager]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

[William]

4. (Something Else.)The Bible is largely a culturally political book with snippets of spirituality included: This view posits that the Bible is primarily shaped by cultural and political agendas of its time. While spiritual insights are present, they are secondary to the larger political and social influences embedded in the text.

Thanks for sharing your view. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think this is the case.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tanager. I’d like to expand on why I think the Bible is primarily a culturally and politically influenced text with snippets of spirituality included, and also address the science angle you raised.

First, when it comes to the question of science, the Bible doesn't appear to have been written with the intention of making scientific claims. While some passages reference natural phenomena, they often reflect the limited understanding of the time rather than a scientific method. The Bible wasn’t compiled to explain the mechanics of the natural world, but to provide cultural cohesion, political legitimacy, and spiritual guidance. Any overlap with scientific ideas is likely coincidental or a reflection of ancient cosmology rather than an attempt to document scientific truths.

For instance, the creation accounts in Genesis reflect the worldview of ancient societies, focusing on establishing a cultural and theological narrative rather than a scientific one. The Bible uses phenomenological language to describe the world as it appeared to people at the time, not with the precision of modern scientific understanding. This suggests that it wasn’t designed to serve as a scientific textbook but as a means of addressing the needs of the society in which it was written.

On the broader question of why I think the Bible is largely a culturally and politically driven text: many of its writings were shaped by the political and social realities of their time. For example, the laws in Leviticus or Deuteronomy were essential for creating and maintaining a unified cultural identity for the tribes of Israel. They helped regulate not only religious practices but also social and political life. Similarly, the narratives of kingship, particularly those of Saul, David, and Solomon, were written in ways that reinforced political legitimacy and divine approval of rulers, which were deeply tied to the politics of the time.

Even the New Testament, while more overtly spiritual in its messages, reflects cultural and political responses to Roman rule and Jewish authorities. The early Christian movement was navigating a complex political landscape, and the teachings of Jesus, while spiritually profound, also intersected with cultural and political tensions.

To summarize, I don’t see the Bible as a scientific document or even primarily a spiritual one, but rather as a collection of texts that serve cultural and political purposes, with spirituality woven into that framework. The spiritual messages are certainly there, but they exist alongside, and often serve, broader social and political agendas.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this, particularly how you see the Bible’s spiritual messages interacting with its cultural and political contexts, and how you reconcile the scientific aspects with the broader purpose of the text.

[The Tanager]

First, when it comes to the question of science, the Bible doesn't appear to have been written with the intention of making scientific claims…

I agree.

On the broader question of why I think the Bible is largely a culturally and politically driven text: many of its writings were shaped by the political and social realities of their time. For example, the laws in Leviticus or Deuteronomy were essential for creating and maintaining a unified cultural identity for the tribes of Israel. They helped regulate not only religious practices but also social and political life.

Even the New Testament, while more overtly spiritual in its messages, reflects cultural and political responses to Roman rule and Jewish authorities. The early Christian movement was navigating a complex political landscape, and the teachings of Jesus, while spiritually profound, also intersected with cultural and political tensions.

I think the ancient Israelite and early Christian mindset wouldn’t separate those ideas like we moderns often do. For them, it was all a part of their spiritual life or, to say it the other way around, their spirituality was a part of their socio-political life in deep, intertwined ways.

Similarly, the narratives of kingship, particularly those of Saul, David, and Solomon, were written in ways that reinforced political legitimacy and divine approval of rulers, which were deeply tied to the politics of the time.

Do you have evidence of this?

To summarize, I don’t see the Bible as a scientific document or even primarily a spiritual one, but rather as a collection of texts that serve cultural and political purposes, with spirituality woven into that framework. The spiritual messages are certainly there, but they exist alongside, and often serve, broader social and political agendas.

Why not the reverse, that the social and political bits serve and are woven into the spiritual framework?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #32]

I think the ancient Israelite and early Christian mindset wouldn’t separate those ideas like we moderns often do. For them, it was all a part of their spiritual life or, to say it the other way around, their spirituality was a part of their socio-political life in deep, intertwined ways.

Do you have evidence of this?

Why not the reverse, that the social and political bits serve and are woven into the spiritual framework?

You raise a valuable point, Tanager, about the ancient Israelite mindset potentially not separating the spiritual from the socio-political the way we moderns do. However, I’d like to explore this further, especially in light of how Christian culture developed and how Jesus himself critiqued this intertwining of spirituality with political and social power.

Looking at Christian history, it’s clear that politics and social means often took precedence over spirituality. From Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as a state religion to the Church’s entanglement with political authority throughout the Middle Ages, spiritual teachings frequently became secondary to broader cultural and political agendas. This shows that Christianity developed through a fusion of spiritual and political power, with the latter often dominating.

Now, if this was the case for Christian culture, it seems reasonable to ask whether the same dynamic was present in ancient Israel. The laws and governance described in the Old Testament served practical political purposes—organizing society, legitimizing kings, and maintaining tribal unity. While these were framed within a spiritual context, the heavy focus on social and political structures suggests that spirituality might have served to reinforce political and cultural stability rather than the other way around.

Jesus himself appears to have critiqued exactly this dynamic. His criticisms of the religious authorities and their entanglement with political power point to a system in which the political and cultural had overtaken true spirituality. Jesus called for a return to genuine spiritual values, unburdened by the weight of social and political agendas. If the ancient Israelite mindset had truly integrated the spiritual with the social and political in a harmonious way, why was there such a need for Jesus to challenge it? His message suggests that something had gone wrong—that spirituality had become secondary to cultural and political concerns, much like what happened later in Christian history.

So, I would question whether ancient Israel truly didn’t separate these aspects. If spirituality had always been primary, why would Jesus need to call for such a radical rethinking of how religious life was conducted? This suggests to me that even in ancient Israel, the political and cultural aspects may have overtaken the spiritual, which is what Jesus was responding to.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on how you see this playing out. Does Jesus' critique reflect a long-standing issue in the intertwining of spiritual and political power?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #33]

Here you are talking about the people; I thought we were talking about the texts. Yes, people throughout this ancient Jewish culture played their social and political power games, using religion as a means to that end. But the Biblical texts condemn that time and time again.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #33]

Here you are talking about the people; I thought we were talking about the texts. Yes, people throughout this ancient Jewish culture played their social and political power games, using religion as a means to that end. But the Biblical texts condemn that time and time again.

That’s a fair point, Tanager. You’re right that the biblical texts often condemn the misuse of religion for political and social power games. But that raises an interesting question: "What’s with that?" Why do we see a repeated pattern of religious figures and leaders misusing their roles for personal or political gain, even though the texts themselves denounce such behavior?

There seems to be a conflation of the data—on one hand, we have texts that speak against iniquity and the misuse of power, but on the other hand, those same texts emerge from a context where religion was intertwined with politics and social control. This leads me to ask: Why would we not expect the Bible to also condone the very works of iniquity that Jesus later condemns?

Jesus himself pointed out the issue in his critique of those who "work acts of iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23). These individuals claimed to act in God’s name, yet Jesus rejected them for their actions, which were not aligned with true spiritual values. If the religious leaders and institutions had been operating in ways that Jesus identified as corrupt or hypocritical, it’s possible that even the biblical texts—written and compiled in that environment—could reflect those same influences.

Could it be that while the texts condemn acts of iniquity, they also inadvertently mirror the social and political systems that perpetuated those very iniquities? This isn’t to say that the spiritual messages within the Bible aren’t valuable, but it raises the question of how much the text itself was shaped by the same power dynamics that Jesus ultimately critiqued.

What do you think about this idea? Do you think the biblical texts, while condemning iniquity, might still reflect some of the same political and cultural forces that shaped the misuse of religion?

[The Tanager]

That’s a fair point, Tanager. You’re right that the biblical texts often condemn the misuse of religion for political and social power games. But that raises an interesting question: "What’s with that?" Why do we see a repeated pattern of religious figures and leaders misusing their roles for personal or political gain, even though the texts themselves denounce such behavior?

The Judeo-Christian heritage says that’s Sin.

There seems to be a conflation of the data—on one hand, we have texts that speak against iniquity and the misuse of power, but on the other hand, those same texts emerge from a context where religion was intertwined with politics and social control. This leads me to ask: Why would we not expect the Bible to also condone the very works of iniquity that Jesus later condemns?

If God is not guiding the people writing and collecting this books, we could expect that.

Jesus himself pointed out the issue in his critique of those who "work acts of iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23). These individuals claimed to act in God’s name, yet Jesus rejected them for their actions, which were not aligned with true spiritual values. If the religious leaders and institutions had been operating in ways that Jesus identified as corrupt or hypocritical, it’s possible that even the biblical texts—written and compiled in that environment—could reflect those same influences.

Possible, but move beyond possibility and see if it is actually the case. If you have and you think it is actually the case, then bring up specifics.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #36]

The important thing seems to be that we both agree that the bible is no scientific document.

I am satisfied I have conveyed my other points well enough and don't particularly want to go off on the arguing the tangent beyond the bible and science.

[William]

I changed my mind Tanager.
I agree that it’s important to move beyond possibility and look at whether the biblical texts themselves reflect any of the corrupt or hypocritical influences that Jesus critiqued. To do that, we can start by examining specific instances where the texts might contain elements of the very social and political power games they condemn.

For example, let’s consider the monarchy established in ancient Israel. While the texts often frame the kings as divinely appointed (e.g., Saul, David, Solomon), they also contain accounts of kings abusing their power, such as David’s actions regarding Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Samuel 11). In this case, while the text condemns David’s actions as sinful, it also preserves his kingship and legacy. The same can be said for Solomon, who, despite his wisdom, engaged in political alliances through marriages that led to the introduction of foreign gods into Israel’s worship (1 Kings 11:1-6). In both cases, the texts criticize the sins but also continue to legitimize the overall institution of kingship, which itself was a political construct.

Additionally, we can look at the relationship between the priests and the people in texts like Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These books set up a system where the priests not only mediated between the people and God but also held significant political and social power. While the laws may serve spiritual purposes, they also reinforce a hierarchy that places the priestly class in a position of control over the broader population. This intertwining of religious authority with social power can be seen as reinforcing the very dynamics that Jesus later critiques in the religious leaders of his time.

These examples suggest that, while the texts condemn individual acts of iniquity, they may still reflect and even reinforce the broader social and political structures that enabled such behavior.

What do you think? Do these examples help illustrate how the texts might reflect the very power dynamics they condemn, even if they simultaneously call out the misuse of that power?

[William]

I appreciate the discussion, Tanager, but there’s something that I think we can’t overlook: the fact that Christianity, along with its Bible, has a long history that includes significant acts of violence, coercion, and oppression. In many cases, Christians today explain these darker chapters by claiming that those who committed these acts were not "true" Christians. But this explanation feels like an avoidance of responsibility for how intertwined religion has historically been with political and social power, which often led to "works of iniquity."

If we apply that same reasoning to the biblical texts, it raises a similar issue. The texts may condemn iniquity and the misuse of power, but they were also produced in a context where religion and politics were deeply entangled. The same system that allowed religious figures to accumulate and misuse power—whether during the time of ancient Israel or in later Christian history—often went hand-in-hand with the creation, transmission, and interpretation of these sacred texts.

Jesus himself was critical of those who claimed to act in God’s name but were actually perpetuating systems of corruption and hypocrisy. It’s striking how often this critique gets sidelined in Christian history when explaining acts of iniquity committed by Christians. Instead of confronting these "wicked" chapters head-on, it’s common to argue that those responsible were not acting as true Christians. But this pattern of avoiding accountability mirrors what we see in the biblical narrative, where the condemnation of sinful acts coexists with the reinforcement of systems that allowed those acts to happen in the first place.

So, when you ask me to move beyond possibility and bring up specifics, I think part of the issue is recognizing that the problem isn’t just individual acts of iniquity but the broader systems of power—political, social, and religious—that have been intertwined with the faith from its earliest texts to its modern history.

Do you see this same pattern in Christian history? And if so, how does that fit with the idea of moral guidance coming from an external source like GOD if the systems designed to enforce it have consistently fallen short?

[William]

Another observation I’ve made that ties into this discussion is how the role of mediators between GOD and humans—starting with the prophets, moving into the priesthood, then early Christianity, and finally into what we now know as Cultural Christianity—has also involved acting as scriptural interpreters.

In the biblical texts, prophets served as direct mediators, conveying what they claimed was divine will to the people. Over time, this role transferred to the priesthood, and later to Christian leaders, who not only acted as spiritual guides but also became the primary interpreters of scripture. This hierarchical system placed control over how the texts were understood and applied into the hands of a select few.

As Christianity developed, especially through the early church and into what we now call Cultural Christianity, the role of interpreting scripture became centralized in religious institutions. The same priestly class, now in Christian form, determined how scripture should be read and what moral guidelines should be followed. This gave these intermediaries immense power to shape religious doctrine and enforce it in ways that often aligned with political and social control.

It’s important to ask how much of the moral guidance said to come from GOD has been filtered through this ongoing system of interpretation. If those in power—whether prophets, priests, or Christian leaders—controlled both the mediation of spiritual practices and the interpretation of sacred texts, then we must question whether the objective moral law they claim to uphold is truly external and divine, or if it has been shaped by human agendas.

This raises the question: Given the historical progression of these mediators acting as scriptural interpreters, how can we be certain that what is presented as objective morality in the Bible hasn’t been influenced by those very power dynamics that Jesus critiqued? Could it be that the subjective interpretations of these leaders have shaped what is considered "objective" moral law?

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how this process of interpretation has influenced the way moral law is understood and whether it aligns with the idea of an objective moral truth.