Scientificity of the bible… Historicity of the bible
I have nephew who is a jesuit priest. I asked him the catholic church position. He answered me that, nowadays, fo the catholic church, any reading of the bible was legitime, except treating her as literal truth. You may read it as a poem, as a collection of mythos, as an allegory, but you must be very careful if you want to read it literally.
The bible cannot be perfect, as if it was perfect, there would be something perfect beside god. And that should be heresy for a believer. More, the text has been copied and copied, and this garanties inaccuracy and faults. Last it has been translated in Greek, and from that in other langages. And translation is a big source of inaccuracy.
Scienticity of the bible … On does not need to be a specialist to disbelieve that the bible is scientifically untrue. Scientist can disagree about the creation of the world, but one thing is sure, it came to exist milliards of years ago, not 6 000 years ago, more or less som hundreds.
Historicity of the bible: some event, some place should be true. But we roughly know when it was written and by who. What is certain is that the further in time passed the events described, the greatest is the inaccuracy.
For instance, Ancient egyptians had very few slaves and the probability that the hebrews were slaves in Egypt is very weak. Archeological finds show that some population lived in Middle east, well before the time of the Exodus, in villages, with a big difference with other villages, which is that the inhabitants did not eat porks.
I will give two exemples:
-Iliad tells the Troy war. Mycenaean palaces have been found, Try has been found and it has been proved that it was destroyed many times,one of which at the time of the so called Troy war.
Does it prove that the people whose Homer tells the story existed and that Troy was besieged 10 years, gods interfering? No one believes that. Iliazd was written roughly 500 years after the events it describes and time and legends distort the facts, especially when no written records are kept.
-Livy wrote at the end of the pre-christian era an history of Roma since its origins. All critics, and the authors explain that the tale of the legendary beginnings of Roma are inaccurate and that the more recents are the events, better is the accuracy.
Bible writing was begun roughly in the 9th century BC, by scribes commissioned by kings. How could they be accurate collecting legends, and using older texts, more or less understood ?
And there are inconsistencies in the bible.
Last, there is no rational or theological reason that the bible be literally true. The only reason is tradition and tradition can be wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible