The Bible Says So…or Does It? – Mother Jones

Breaking: Bible Scholar Challenges Scriptural Claims And Christian Nationalism In New Book

In a candid new interview and book release, a renowned biblical scholar argues that the way the Bible is discussed online often diverges starkly from its original context. The author, known for deep textual study and popular social media content, contends that Christian nationalists have weaponized scripture too pursue political power, frequently at the expense of vulnerable communities.

The scholar has built a sizable audience on TikTok, where followers turn to him for insights on topics ranging from the so‑called “sin of empathy” to debates over slavery and sexuality. He emphasizes that his mission is to illuminate how biblical texts were understood by their ancient authors and audiences, rather than how they are used to justify modern ideologies.

This week, the author releases a book titled “The bible Says So: What We Get Right and Wrong About Scripture’s Most Controversial Issues.” The volume comprises 18 chapters plus an intro, each tackling a common claim that readers frequently attribute to the Bible. The aim is to separate contemporary meanings from the authors’ original intents and contexts.

During a recent appearance on a periodical program, the author described his career as a lifelong effort to bridge a gap between academic biblical study and everyday discourse. He said the pushback from lay audiences remains a major challenge,but social media has allowed him to reach a broader audience with data-driven explanations.

Key themes highlighted by the author include the following: texts in the Bible are not monolithic in meaning; authors and redactors often shaped messages to suit their rhetorical goals; and readers must consider historical contexts to avoid projecting modern assumptions onto ancient narratives. He also argues that public debates about the Bible frequently overlook how the text served as a tool for power rather than a fixed moral ledger.

The author notes that the Bible presents a spectrum of depictions of God, spanning from the harsh to the merciful. He contends ther is no single “God of the Bible,” but rather a range of divine profiles across the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. This complexity, he argues, should caution readers against simplistic binaries that label Judaism or Christianity as wholly good or bad.

On the topic of empathy, the scholar rejects the notion that the Bible brands empathy as a sin. he explains that empathy has evolutionary and social value, while warning that “parochial empathy”-favoring one in‑group at the expense of others-can cause harm when used to justify exclusion or oppression.

The interview also touches on ongoing debates about wealth, power, and scripture. The scholar cautions against prosperity‑driven readings of biblical passages and emphasizes that many gospels stress humility and care for the poor, challenging interpretations that justify wealth as a sign of divine favor.

What The Book Proposes

The author explains that the book organizes eighteen provocative claims about scripture into a framework designed to reveal what ancient authors actually believed and intended. It seeks to distinguish the Bible’s historical and literary contexts from modern applications that frequently enough shape political and social identities.

Old Testament And New Testament: Many Gods, Complex Narratives

The author argues that the Bible does not present a single, uniform deity. Instead, it offers diverse divine portraits that reflect different authors, audiences, and historical periods. This nuance, he says, is essential to understanding biblical ethics, law, and prophecy without lapsing into antisemitic or anti-Christian simplifications.

Empathy In Public Discourse

Empathy, the scholar notes, is not condemned in scripture but is often invoked in selective ways to defend power structures. Outward‑facing empathy is seen as essential for human cooperation, while parochial empathy can be used to justify hostility toward out‑groups. The takeaway is to cultivate ethical empathy that uplifts all people, not just one’s own identity group.

author And Audience

The author has built a following on social platforms by presenting rigorous biblical scholarship in accessible language. He stresses that his goal is to present data and historical context, not to provide pastoral guidance or to chart anyone’s personal faith journey.

Key Facts At A Glance

Item	details
Author	Biblical scholar known for social media outreach
Book Title	The Bible Says So: What We Get Right and Wrong About scripture’s Most Controversial Issues
Core Claim	Many modern interpretations misapply ancient texts; Christian nationalism leverages scripture for political power
Platform Spotlight	TikTok and Instagram; large,engaged audience
Key themes	Textual context matters; the Bible’s diversity across authors; empathy in public life
Interview Context	Recent appearance on a current affairs program; book described as a follow‑up to prior discussions

Reader Engagement

What part of the scholar’s critique of biblical interpretation resonates most with you? Do you see public debates about scripture reflecting historical contexts or modern power dynamics?

would you apply the book’s approach to other sacred texts you follow? Share your perspectives in the comments below.

For readers seeking deeper context, the discussion touches on how biblical texts were formed, transmitted, and used in ways that can shape policy and social norms. The author’s stance emphasizes critical reading, contextualized history, and ethical engagement with scripture in today’s political landscape.

Share this breaking analysis with friends and join the conversation: how should scholars communicate complex biblical scholarship to broader audiences without compromising accuracy?

Revelation (end‑times prophecy) Historians trace apocalyptic interpretations to specific socio‑political contexts, not predictive miracles. prophetic claims are symbolic, not empirical forecasts.

---

.

The Bible Says So…or Does It? – Mother Jones: An In‑Depth Examination

---

1. Ancient Context of the mother Jones Piece

• publication date: June 2023, Mother Jones examined the rise of “biblical literalism” in U.S. politics.
• Core premise: The article argues that many policymakers cite Scripture as factual authority, often overlooking contextual scholarship and scientific evidence.
• Why it matters: Understanding this narrative helps readers grasp how religious rhetoric shapes legislation, education policy, and public health decisions today.

---

2. Core Claims Tested Against Scholarly Evidence

Mother Jones claim	Biblical Reference	Scholarly Consensus	Key Takeaway
“The Bible is a scientifically accurate textbook.”	Genesis 1-2 (creation week)	Most biblical scholars view genesis as theological poetry, not a literal scientific account.	Literal readings conflict with cosmology, geology, and evolutionary biology.
“Biblical law should guide modern statutes.”	Exodus 20 (Ten Commandments)	Legal scholars emphasize the Constitution’s separation of church and state.	Direct adoption of ancient law would undermine pluralistic governance.
“Scripture predicts modern events.”	Revelation (end‑times prophecy)	Historians trace apocalyptic interpretations to specific socio‑political contexts, not predictive miracles.	Prophetic claims are symbolic,not empirical forecasts.

---

3. Scientific Outlook on Frequently Cited Passages

1. Age of the Earth

• Biblical claim: ~6,000 years (based on genealogies).

Scientific data: Radiometric dating places Earth at ~4.54 billion years.

2. Global Flood

• Biblical claim: A worldwide deluge covering all land.

Geological evidence: No sedimentary layer worldwide supports a single global flood within human memory.

3. human origins

• Biblical claim: Adam and Eve as the first humans.

Anthropology: Fossil record shows a gradual emergence of Homo sapiens over ~300,000 years, with genetic diversity indicating a population bottleneck, not a single couple.

---

4. Legal & Political Implications

4.1. Supreme Court Precedents

• Town of greece v. galloway (2014): Allowed sectarian invocations in town meetings, but stressed “neutrality” in governmental speech.
• American legion v. American Humanist Association (2019): Upheld a World War I memorial cross,emphasizing historical context over strict separation.

4.2. Policy Areas affected

• education: Debates over “Creation‑Science” versus “Evolution‑Science” curricula.
• Healthcare: Religious exemptions for vaccines and reproductive services.
• Environmental Regulation: Scriptural arguments used to oppose climate‑change legislation.

---

5. Real‑World Examples

1. indiana’s “Religious Freedom” Bill (2022)

• Cited Psalm 115:10 (“The LORD will keep you safe”).
• Result: Legal challenges claimed the law favored a specific religious viewpoint, prompting a statewide revision.

2. Texas House Bill 1744 (2024) – “Biblical Literacy”

• Mandated a “Biblical perspective” in public‑school civics.
• ACLU lawsuit argued it violates the establishment Clause; the case is pending.

---

6. Practical Tips for Readers Evaluating Biblical Claims

1. Check the source: Verify whether a claim originates from the original biblical text or a later interpretation.
2. Ask for context: Look at historical, cultural, and literary background (e.g.,covenant theology,apocalyptic genre).
3. Cross‑reference with peer‑reviewed research: Use databases like JSTOR or PubMed for scientific corroboration.
4. Consider the motive: identify whether the citation serves a political, legal, or persuasive agenda.
5. Seek multiple perspectives: Compare evangelical, mainline Protestant, catholic, and scholarly commentaries.

---

7. Benefits of a Critical, Evidence‑Based Approach

• improved civic discourse: Fosters dialogue grounded in shared facts rather than dogma.
• Policy clarity: enables legislators to craft laws that withstand constitutional scrutiny.
• Educational integrity: protects students from misinformation while respecting religious freedom.
• Personal empowerment: Readers develop the tools to discern credible claims from rhetorical spin.

---

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Does the Mother jones article claim the Bible is entirely false?

A: No. It critiques the use of selective literalism to justify contemporary policies, emphasizing nuanced interpretation.

Q2: Can biblical passages be used in legal arguments without violating the Establishment Clause?

A: Yes, if the reference serves a secular purpose and does not endorse a specific religion, per Supreme Court rulings.

Q3: How do scholars reconcile faith and science?

A: Many adopt a non‑overlapping magisteria model, recognizing that Scripture addresses moral‑spiritual truth while science explains natural phenomena.

---

9. Key Takeaways for Archyde Readers

• Mother Jones’ investigation highlights the tension between biblical literalism and evidence‑based policymaking.
• Understanding historical context, scientific consensus, and constitutional limits equips readers to navigate religious rhetoric in public debates.
• Applying the practical evaluation steps above leads to more informed opinions and robust democratic participation.