the Bible is not a science textbook

Read the title again if you aren't sure that you read it right. I know that I'm in disagreement with some others about this, but as the blog charter says, I'm not spreading a message that's official or authoritative with any of these blog entries. I'm inserting my voice into the dialog between contemporary (U.S.) culture and Christianity as I understand it.

After reiterating that my opinions only speak for me, I should elaborate some more on what the opinion under consideration precisely is. My opinion is that the Bible is true. My opinion is that the Bible is more reflective of God than the human writers God directed. My opinion is that the Bible remains applicable. In short, the Bible is reliable, but it is not a science textbook.

Some compelling reasons or factors that led to my conclusion:

• The Bible was not written by scientists. Luke, as a physician and arguably a historian, may be the closest (note his Greek & Roman influences). But science, or should I say systematic science, simply was not around when most of the Bible was written. Without algebra, they may not have had the necessary tools to organize their thoughts, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had some astronomy. They didn't have the materials or know-how to construct the necessary instruments, either. Anyway, the point is that people who had no experience with the scientific mindset can hardly be expected to write hard, quantifiable science into any document.
• The Bible is not about how nature works. The Bible is full of stories, sermons, laws, proverbs, visions, prophecies, songs, letters, and so forth. It doesn't stop to explain physics, chemistry, anatomy, biology, or other topics an educated person might expect to see. Such explanations would be out of place in the Bible. The Bible is about God and humanity. Nature is worth exploring, of course, but the findings would go in a different book.
• The Bible is written in several styles other than plain prose. The mixture of writing styles in the Bible supports the idea that not all of it can be taken literally. Moreover, the passages that describe God's act of creation, and the first generations of people, can't have been written by eyewitnesses, because there weren't any. Additional curious qualities of the text are the day-by-day transitions (why did God pause during the night?), descriptions of God's own thoughts and words, "special" trees, and a talking serpent. An allegorical interpretation seems to be what the words are screaming for.
• Ultimate truth about nature may not be a reasonable demand. If the Bible was God's science textbook, then it would contain everything, because the Author knows it all. How long would it be? Who could read it? Who could have the education and brainpower to attempt a read-through? Judging by the proportion of people who know and comprehend the Standard Model, for instance, probably not many. Then again, speculating about what the Bible would have been like isn't much of an argument. The Bible is what it is, not a science textbook.