Jacob

You are concerned that

[some] followers of Jesus implicitly set modern scientific practice (testing words/concepts against empirical evidence) as the standard the Bible and its Words must pass before its validity is affirmed. Let me say this differently: testing the Word against empirics is akin to making God into a hypothesis. The result is that God and the Christian faith are framed as either “true” or “false” propositions that are ultimately affirmed or denied on the basis of empirical evidence.

The Bible contains all sorts of literary forms only some of which entail truth conditions- namely those that assert something is the case. For example people are entitled to ask why a believer holds the following to be true

God exists

God created the world

God defeated Pharaoh and rescued the Jews

God controlled the rulers of the Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian kingdoms

God killed or caused to be killed those who disobeyed him

God exercised judgement on Israel in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem

Jesus turned water into wine

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead

Jesus rose from the dead

In each case (except, in my opinion, the first) there are empirical facts which are relevant to the proposition’s truth or falsity. However the facts are often extremely difficult to get at. For example, although the Bible asserts that God controlled the rulers of the Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian kingdoms, it is usually the case that the rulers of those kingdoms thought that they were in control. Given that it is the same set of facts which is in question, how does the independent observer determine the truth of the matter?

As regards miracles David Hume made the point that it is more likely that the independent observer is mistaken than that something contrary to the natural order occurred. So again, it is very difficult for the independent observer to determine the truth of the matter.

Finally, for nearly everything asserted in the Bible the independent historical record is extremely meagre or non-existent. The independent observer would therefore be justified, on rational grounds, in saying that he has no sufficient reason to believe the truth of what is asserted.

In other words, if you are to establish your thesis that empirical facts are not really relevant to understanding the scriptures you have to explain why that is os because on the surface they seem to require such an explanation.

You also say

“religious truth is of a different order. Saying that “God is love,” for instance, is not about finding and testing “God” and “love” against the empirical record. That’s absurd.”

Whatever it is, it is not absurd. One of the severest tests of any believer’s faith is the fact that humanity is subject to enormous suffering and to the triumph of evil. God, according to the Bible (certainly in the OT, to a lesser extent in the NT) intervenes on earth continually- controls the elements, punishes the disobedient, rewards the obedient, pursues his own geopolitical objectives. And yet this same God chose not to intervene at Auschwitz. The empirical record therefore poses very real questions about the assertion “God is love”

You conclude

So, in short, we need to make the break and realize that faith in God is not dependent on some empirical piece of evidence and no amount of evidence is going to prove God or the Christian faith to be valid or trustworthy

I agree with this but I think you have a bit of work to do before you get there

Paul