Yes, absolutely science does stumble. But it stumbles in a way that separates what we believe from what we know so that what we learn is the difference. I still have a lot of scientific theories but I know not to confuse them with facts. That's why I like science.
Let's say someone a long time ago wrote a book about God. At some point there had to be a first book. At some point someone had to invent the word that first users of language used for "God". At some point God was a new concept to humans. So what do we know about those first believers? What were they motivated by? What about the world did they understand? Were they capable of lying? And did people create myths and legends for other purposes? Like teaching morality? Are we assuming that they believed the gods were literal people?
I believe many if not most ancient cultures didn't believe their gods were literal people because they were well aware of the fact that they invented and named them. They named them after stars, after forces of nature. They represented everything they saw and were trying to understand. So when I think of Jah I think of Jah in this form; not trying to apply one culture's theology that might have been politically motivated.
I mean, let's honestly look at Hebrew culture. Were they not as violent as others? Did they not enslave others? Did they not take other's land? Did they not take other's women and especially their virgins? They had a motive to use a silent God or a mute God because a mute God could only cosign whatever they really wanted to do. The things they condemned, Yahweh condemned. The things they wanted to justify, Yahweh justified for them. Moses is credited for leading his people out of slavery but not necessarily for the genocide that he inflicted on his own people when he forced them to believe in Yahweh. But was that really Yahweh or Jah? Or was that his own version of Jah? Everyone who writes of Jah has their own version of Jah. It's their interpretation that speaks through their words. David was beloved by Yah according to anyone loyal to David. What if he was simply corrupted by the power he had obtained? Would he tell you? Would one of his multiple wives tell you? Would any rich Hebrew who had multiple wives, concubines, and slaves tell you that he was wicked? No.
The poor were always the most ignorant. Most of them (in the ancient world) couldn't read or write. Moses and his family became rich off this version of Yah. Cities were built for them. They concentrated power and wealth, not based on free democracy or whoever was most qualified, but based on who was in Moses and Aaron's descendants. And so with this system in place the poor have a tendency to stay poor. The rich have a tendency to stay rich on the backs of the poor. When I hear certain Israelites on the streets preaching about how whites are going to suffer when Yah puts the power back into Hebrew hands it makes me sad because they really don't understand righteousness. If the book calls it righteous or doesn't say its not then it becomes something for them to copy. And if they were to copy they would live in the past and creating the very conditions that make people rebel; even against their own bodies and their own sexuality. A lot of these people are born and raised in the church.
Rasta teaches love. If Rasta is against homosexuality its good because if you love yourself then you should accept who you are and what you are. If you want to act like the other gender then you should understand why and not make it a lifestyle choice.
I'm not trying to bash the bible. However, it needs to be understood in the context in which it was written. We should understand how people benefited from it and how they used it against other people. It didn't outlaw slavery. It simply policed it. It didn't protect women and elevate them to equal status. It simply policed the ways in which they could and could not be abused as property of men. Much of what actually transpired in the bible was evil and wickedness that we should leave in the past. Because the more we interpret love through the lens of an unjust corrupt system the more people will rebel, commit crimes, and become the opposition as both sides think they're righteous because the definition has been muddied with selfishness and greed. Now we have a mess in which selfish and greedy people think they are religious and use their religion and their power as a weapon against the poor. We're dealing with the same issues generation after generation because each generation feels justified in abusing each generation.
So at what point do we say, this whole idea of religion needs to evolve into something that is purely and universally love. Reggae kind of is that for me. Its the vocalization of positive vibrations, justice, unity, freedom, righteousness/virtue, and love. These are all the things I stand for. And if you add to that, the teachings of H.I.M as a Christ figure just like Jesus or Buddha then you have Rastafari. But how much every Rasta is rooted to the bible's version of Jah I think is up to every Rasta.