IF YOU WANT TO GET TECHNICAL The Epistemic Integrity of Scripture in a Scientific Cosmos
If one insists on precision—on the careful intersection of hermeneutics, cosmology, linguistics, and epistemology—then it becomes evident that Scripture’s descriptions of the natural world operate within an intentional phenomenological register, a mode of communication fully congruent with the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East while remaining strikingly free from demonstrable scientific error. The Bible is neither archaic science nor proto-science; it is supra-scientific in aim while harmonizing with observational reality in ways that are statistically improbable for purely ancient cosmologies.
The oft-cited examples—Job 26:7’s depiction of the earth “suspended upon nothing,” Ecclesiastes’ hydrological cycle, Isaiah’s circle of the earth—are not “scientific for-knowledge” in the anachronistic sense. Rather, they demonstrate what we may call non-contradictory descriptive alignment: Scripture describes reality without embedding itself in the cosmological errors common to contemporaneous cultures (such as the Egyptian cosmic ocean, the Babylonian cosmic mountain, or the Mesopotamian firmament as a literal hammered dome). This absence of cosmological corruption is not trivial; it is linguistically and historically exceptional.
Conversely, so-called “scientific errors” in Scripture evaporate under analysis. “The sun rises,” “the ends of the earth,” “the four corners,” and the moon as a “light” are not empirical claims—they are phenomenological shorthand, still used by astrophysicists today without incurring accusations of scientific naiveté. Astronomers at NASA speak of “sunrise on Mars” without thereby endorsing a geocentric model. Phenomenological language is not only acceptable—it is indispensable to human communication.
The epistemological key is this: the Bible’s purpose is explanatory in the teleological sense, not the mechanistic sense. It reveals agency, meaning, and ontology—not the equations governing baryonic matter. Scripture addresses questions of origin (Who?), purpose (Why?), and moral structure (How should we live?), while science addresses instrumentality (How does this function?). These are not competing domains; they are orthogonal.
Furthermore, the intellectual scaffolding that makes empirical science possible—rational order, consistent laws, a universe not governed by capricious deities—arose historically from biblical theism. As Whitehead, Butterfield, and even Asimov noted, the Christian worldview supplied the assumptive furniture necessary for scientific revolution: a world that is lawful because its Maker is faithful.
Thus, the Bible does not need to teach astrophysics to speak truly; nor does it need to echo modern scientific vocabulary to remain trustworthy. Scientific accuracy is not its mission; scientific coherence is its consequence. And any worldview seeking to account for both the intelligibility of nature and the moral intelligibility of humanity will eventually find itself borrowing capital from the very Scriptures it dismisses.
BDD
