Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?

[Petros Agapetos]

Fundamentalists believe that the Bible is both divinely inspired and inerrant. They claim that every word of the Bible is literally true, except for the parts which are intentionally written as allegories or parables. It is free of contradiction and error. So for example, a Fundamentalist would most likely believe in six-day creation because he believes in the literal truth of Genesis. Many Christians believe that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, which is contradicted by evidence and common sense.

Liberal Christians take a more open view of the Bible, often believing that it is "inspired by God" but not inerrant. They may believe that, while the Bible is a good spiritual guide, it is not necessarily meant to be taken literally

Atheists regard the Bible as just a period piece of literature. Its authors may have been sincere when they wrote it, but they were nomadic sheep herders with a narrow perspective on the world. In that sense it is little different than any other ancient text such as The Odyssey: an interesting perspective on the mindset of early cultures, but of questionable accuracy, especially those passages that refer to supernatural events.

"It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."

— Mark Twain, Letters From the Earth

Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking. The literal approach is attractive to some believers because it supposedly uncovers the original meaning of documents, while minimising other influences. Arguably, there are less possible interpretations when a literal approach is used.

"WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text."
— Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

"The literal method is the only sane and safe check on the imaginations of man."

Many Christians do not interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. Since the Bible describes events that are quite unlike those we commonly experience, many believers adopt an allegorical interpretation instead. Even when a literal interpretation is attempted, the extent to which the original meaning is uncovered when modern readers open the Bible is debatable.

"We take the Bible too seriously, to read it all literally."

Note that literalism does not necessarily assume the text is correct. Skeptics sometimes interpret the Bible literally when criticising its anachronistic laws, inconsistencies and absurdities.

[Petros Agapetos]

Members, what is your opinion about the Bible? Do you think it is scientifically accurate? If not, how do you explain the discrepancies? Are you a literalist about the Bible? If the Bible is from God, why does it not have scientific information in it?

[Petros Agapetos]

Arguments for Biblical Literalism

"If it says it, why not assume it means it?" This is shifting the burden of proof. Before the Bible should be relied on, it should be first established it is reliable and it was intended to have a literal interpretation. Also, other myths exist that are not taken literally.

"Historical artifacts have proven a great deal of the Bible time and time again." There are many cases where the Bible is correct on certain trivial facts, but we cannot conclude from this that it is entirely correct. There are historical inaccuracies in the Bible.
"It is a normal way of communicating." Majority argument

"Plus it was written down by men from God, so it is perfect in every way." This assumes God's existence which has not yet been demonstrated. It also assumes God wrote the Bible, which also has not been shown. Perhaps Satan wrote it.

"I believe everyone should follow the Bible more closely and literally, because there would be less problems in this world." - Appeal to consequences
"This is how a TRUE Christian should think" - No true scotsman
"The Bible says it is true"- Circular argument

The Bible makes factual claims and is falsifiable
It limits the number of possible interpretations and prevents controversy.

"It has had the greatest success in opening up the Word of God."
Although, "success" is a highly subjective concept in this context.
Growing churches tend to have a more literalist interpretation and traditional theology.

[Petros Agapetos]

Bible is more meaningful when read symbolically
Many Christians would argue the Bible is richer and more meaningful when read symbolically (i.e. figuratively or allegorically) rather than literally.

"Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality."

Selective interpretation of inconvenient sections
Some sections in the Bible could be read literally and would contradict Christian dogma or command atrocities.

"My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"
— Psalm 22

"They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear."
— Deuteronomy 21:20-21

Various verses concerning the nature of God, such as his expression of emotion or admission of error are also reinterpreted as allegories. Many verses in the Old and New Testaments pose problems for most believers. They are treated as allegories by special pleading; this shows the inconsistency and subjectivity of Biblical "literalism".

[Petros Agapetos]

God works through fallible humans
God has often worked through Biblical figures, even when they had significant character flaws. Based on this, we might expect God to also communicate through flawed Biblical authors.

Unsupported dogma
Dogmas such as the Trinity, divine impassibility, divine perfection and original sin have little Biblical support or are flatly contradicted. Based on a literal interpretation, we cannot simply assume any of this is correct. Therefore, a literal interpretation of the Bible would require these dogmas to be abandoned, possibly along with other unsupported dogmas.

Making an idol out of the Bible
Some Christians are so obsessed with the Bible that they ascribe to it attributes that are normally reserved for God, i.e. perfection, inerrancy, objectivity, etc.

"Part of the problem is historical. The deification of the Bible is a result of the Protestant reformation. [...] But in defending or reclaiming the Bible from papists and then liberals, evangelical Protestants made it the very heart of the faith. Hence the ludicrous situation where many evangelical organisations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, have statements of faith where the first point is the Bible, before any mention of, for example, God."

Some believers claim that preachers should limit themselves to preaching the Bible (even if God tells them to preach otherwise) Galatians 1:8.

"WE DENY that the preacher has any message from God apart from the text of Scripture."

[Al-Islamiyah]

The christian Bible is holy inspired text but it wasn't completed yet. It was only perfected once Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) received the final revelation from archangel Gabriel and the final message was given to the people in the Holy Quran.

[Petros Agapetos]

The christian Bible is holy inspired text but it wasn't completed yet. It was only perfected once Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) received the final revelation from archangel Gabriel and the final message was given to the people in the Holy Quran.

Do you think the Bible has scientifically accurate information in it? And how about the Qur'an?

[Petros Agapetos]

Interpretation requires divine intervention?
When discussing Biblical interpretation, some evangelicals claim the Bible cannot be fully "discerned" by natural humans. If the Bible contains a single message, spiritual or not, they admit it cannot be fully appreciated without supernatural assistance. This conclusion agrees with the critics of Biblical literalism when they say humans do not have the capacity to escape from a subjective interpretation.

"But by themselves and by their academic work alone, no men can produce the proper interpretation of the Bible."
"WE DENY that the natural man is able to discern spiritually the biblical message apart from the Holy Spirit."

Why the Holy Spirit makes an objective meaning possible for one book and no other books has not been satisfactorily explained, and is therefore special pleading. The existence of the Holy Spirit has also not been demonstrated. The above quote also implies the Bible may be read in a "spiritual" fashion, not only "literally".

Resolving apparent contradictions
Almost everyone admits that a naive reading of the Bible would encounter some "apparent" contradictions. The way we choose resolve those contradictions is largely a subjective process based on our language, experience, cognitive biases and culture. Our belief in dogma vastly influences the interpretation of gospels, with the modern reader assuming the divinity of Jesus, which is contradicted many times using a plain reading of the text Mark 10:18 Bible-icon.png, as well as many preconceptions such as absolute morality, monotheism (contradicted by polytheistic verse), philosophical idealism, inerrancy, etc. Dogma that is already familiar to the reader is preferred because of confirmation bias. Christians reinterpret all these contradictions as allegories, which shows Biblical literalism is still influenced by external factors.

"One of the greatest challenges for modern readers of the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament] is to allow the text to mean what it says, when what is says flies in the face of doctrines that emerged centuries later from philosophical debates about the abstract category 'God.'"

[Al-Islamiyah]

Do you think the Bible has scientifically accurate information in it? And how about the Qur'an?

All the information we need is in the Holy Quran, the hadiths and the previous books from the times of Abraham and Issa.

[Petros Agapetos]

A single meaning... that listeralists can't agree on
The wide diversity of Christian denominations, most having a distinctive Biblical interpretation, is strong evidence that a single interpretation cannot be found, even when a "literal" interpretation is attempted. Christians often disagree even within the same denomination. If there was a single message in the Bible, we could expect people to be able to agree on what it is.

"For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16 Bible-icon.png, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation."


No such thing as a literalist
Arguably, no Christian is, strictly speaking, a literalist. Any self professed literalists take a different view and stop being literalist when confronted when what the Bible actually contains.

"even Fundamentalist Christians, who claim to hold the loftiest view of the inspiration of all scripture, do not take the Bible literally or with the same degree of authority throughout. [...] If they, therefore, pick and choose those passages they do take literally, which of course they do, over those passages they do not, why do they continue the charade of insisting “all scripture is given by God?” [...]"