1.The Bible has become incomprehensible due to cultural differences.
2.Science is the closest thing to a universal reading of the only (known) Book of God which is creation.
When we read the Bible, we cannot help but realize that we do not understand everything and not well. Translators have made the effort to bring it to us, in our language, but it would also be necessary to translate it into our culture which would betray the original text much more, forcing the interpreter to choose between laterality, meaning, culture… For example when it is written wheat and translated into Japanese, we must use rice, both being the basic food of each culture. But then must we also tell the story as happening in Japan because was there rice in Palestine?
In short, the best would be for everyone to study the culture in which the different books were written. Not easy. It’s already difficult to be comfortable in another contemporary culture (for example understanding humour) but in several “dead” cultures of more than 2000 years (or almost), it is not certain that it is possible.
Yet an effort is necessary to go beyond the general level of the Bible. For example, we often hear in the Catholic Church that the Virgin never doubted. And on the other hand, most of the priests I hear in the parish say that Jesus doubted, on the cross when He said: “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabaktani? » which is the beginning of Psalm 22 ([1], first page that I opened about this quote). Does that raise eyebrows a little, a creature who doubts God less than God?
I chose this example to illustrate the significant errors that one can make when interpreting a text (even worse, a single sentence), by placing it from one culture into another. For my part I see two cultural problems. First, thinking that Jesus really said that at that time and then what the author meant.
There seems to be no doubt that the gospels are historical texts (?). Reflex of our culture very focused on this aspect of a biography. But we know that at the time this was not an obligation. There was great license to share a point of view. That said, we find this in films, when one of the characters says to another what the author of the book (who inspired the screenplay) explains to us outside of any dialogue. It is very difficult for me to imagine that a man exhausted by fatigue and suffering, on the verge of possibly dying from asphyxiation, could speak clearly and even less make speeches with two thieves!
Then one should know that at the time (and still now in the Catholic Church with regard to encyclicals) we referred to a text by quoting the first words. Putting this quote from the psalm in the mouth of Jesus may be a way of announcing (to the reader) what the disciples experienced (a feeling of abandonment followed by an announcement/praise), consistent with the scriptures and also explained by Jesus (except that he had to do it well before and at length).
Of course, everyone is free to interpret it, but at least you should know that there are several possibilities. For my part, believing in the extraordinary in the Bible, like the miracles, are more to do with a literary style, a lack of knowledge, etc. and that we can no longer understand it, I prefer the interpretation simpler (and/or which corresponds most to our science).
When we study the Bible (and here I will speak more particularly about the gospels), I believe that we must draw a parallel with Saint Exupéry’s The Little Prince. Because the gospels are not historical biographies of Jesus but a message of faith/belief that is justified, often by comparing facts with what had been announced. So the Jesus represented is as much a fictional being (at least for our culture) as a real character, as in a historical novel.
I find it “bold” to analyse the mysticism of Jesus based on the literature concerning him [see book: Jesus Christ Son of God]. We can just as easily do a psychological analysis of The Little Prince, but to who attribute the result : the character or the author.
I hope that this example captures the great difficulty (even the impossibility) of being sure not to commit misinterpretations when interpreting the Bible at the detailed level.
But where can we find an authentic, direct word of God, without cultural interface? For those who believe in the creator God (like the sons of the God of Abraham), the answer is simple: there is only one book written directly by God and that is creation. And is there an “interpretation”, a translation to our culture but which is at the same time universal? And there, oh, surprise: yes, science which, if not universal, has the merit of seeking to be so. That said, not all sciences should be placed at the same level of certainty (for example, the human sciences compared to chemistry).
This is why it seems normal to me to favour the models of science over those taken from the Bible (as to the area that science deals with, not what scientists, outside their specialty, can say).
For my part, the Bible retains its importance, in that it speaks to us about our relationship with God and allows us to better understand our own relationship with Her (to please feminists).
I have an analogy for communicating with God. Like any language (that I know), it is made up of vocabulary and grammar. The vocabulary is specific to each person, through signs, visions or dreams, intuitions… It is directly understandable by the individual and not necessarily by others. Grammar is specific to God or rather common to men and we can learn it through the experience of others (by listening to the Bible, by reading “holy” texts, etc.).
For example, I had two intuitions. The first was the monastic vocation. The second God made me meet a Mexican girl. This made no sense to me because the two intuitions were incompatible. Drawing on my analogy (grammar vocabulary), I searched the Bible for a similar case. And I thought of the dreams of the pharaoh, the fat cows and the lean ones. The interpretation is the succession of the two events. This interpretation made sense in the vocation discernment in which I found myself. So I left the monastery (not without regrets) to go to Mexico (my commitment being to try to be where I think God wants me).
And an example of the primacy of science over the Bible: death (and evolution). The Bible shows death as the fruit of sin. In this context, man has a different nature from animals because God endowed him with the spirit, through his breath. So it doesn’t matter whether the animals that existed before man died or not (they being unable to sin, having no soul). It’s a model that seems consistent.
What does science say? Man is of the same nature as animals (and even as inert thing, I would add) if we are to believe the evolutionary model recognized by the Catholic Church. Here too, animals predate man. They die. Death is therefore not the fruit of sin. It is part of the mechanics of evolution, of Creation and it seems legitimate to me to think that it is the work of God.
Death, which was once considered the anti-life, could not be the work of God who is Life. But at the time of the Pentateuch there was no belief in the resurrection. In Christianity we can perfectly understand that death is the work of God since it is no longer the end of Life but a door to another form of life.
This is why I believe science regarding death (a natural process and not the fruit of sin) and this in no way calls into question my faith in God (and the interest of the Bible which speaks the truth in saying that God did not create anti-Life)
Some doubt the possibility of resurrection. Here, in faith, is a possibility of existence after earthly death. A belief says that God is omnipresent and omniscient. It’s a possibility. In this context, a man’s perfect knowledge of God can be compared to an existence in God who, being omnipresent, makes us ourselves, in this existence, omnipresent. We could take as analogies the characters of a dream (for life in the mind of another) and the concepts (for omnipresence: as long as someone has memory of a concept, this concept will exist).