Some Biblical scholars seem to regard many modern scientists as enemies of the faith, and, likewise, many scientists (biologists, geologists and astronomers) regard religion to be the opium of the masses, or a reasonable facsimile. This need not be so, because the Bible is not a science textbook, nor was it ever meant to be one, although some Biblical scholars try to show that it sometimes predicts modern science. It doesn’t. On the other hand, some scientists seem to want to become Biblical experts and don’t shy away from interpreting Biblical concepts as idiocy or childishness, at best, in the light of modern science. So, at least in my opinion, both religion and science overstep their fields of authority by trying to interpret the other. To be honest, some fields of understanding are sincerely claimed by both science and religion, like how did everything begin? How much authority does each have, or are they equal in authority, and if so, what does that mean?
According to some critics, the data in the Bible should be literally true as far as scientific truth is concerned, because “all scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2Timothy 3:16), which is often coupled with “God …cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). Which believer wouldn’t agree to this? Christians hold up these verses to claim similar things, so why shouldn’t critics who are scientifically inclined hold up these same verses to show the Bible isn’t true? The waters are a little muddy here, but I believe the critics are wrong on this point, and I think I am able to show why they are wrong. Look at the whole of statement, not just the phrase, which is used to support critical thinking.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (KJV; 2Timothy 3:16-17; emphasis mine).
The reason for the scriptures to be inspired by God is not that we could know the science of his creation but to be accurately instructed in righteousness. Moreover, if we wish to couple this verse with Titus 1:2, it doesn’t mean God must be scientifically clear, but clear enough for those who hope for eternal life to be encouraged. How God treats the language of the cosmos in scripture may not be as clear, as when he speaks about righteousness and the hope of eternal life. Let’s keep scripture in context. Righteousness is something God must teach man, but the science of his creation is something man can understand through his own studies. Therefore, as we often see in the text, the Lord speaks to man about the cosmos in accordance with how man perceives the works thereof. God doesn’t reveal scientific knowledge, but he does reveal what sin is and what righteousness (good works) is.
Moreover, as seems to be the case, as we consider the various translations available to us, the translators have often sought to render the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic and/or the Greek in such a way as to show the word of God sometimes predicts scientific understanding in the text. In other words, the gentile nations were wrong in their understanding of the cosmos, but the children of God were told the truth. I don’t mean to criticize their sincerity, but I do believe they were wrong to try to do so. Similarly, the critic, who embraces a scientific approach to things, needs to understand his own limitations. Much of the science he embraces as fact can’t be proved, using the scientific method. He accepts the conjecture/conviction of modern scientists as factual, but their opinions/declarations are often proved wrong later. For example, when Darwin first described the growth of life in his book: Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection (or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life), he was hailed as though he were a genius. Although many natural scientists point to Darwin as a giant in the field of biology, who gave mankind a believable history of his origin, most, if not all, natural scientists, today, reject many of Darwin’s proposals that he made in his book. At one time Darwin’s book stood as the epitome of biological understanding, but, today, it isn’t embraced as scientifically accurate, even by those who view him as an icon in science.
It seems ludicrous, therefore, for scientists, or critics with a scientific approach to truth, to demand that the Bible adhere to current scientific understanding of truth, because scientific understanding changes over time, as we come to know more about our environment and what lies beyond. Rather, it is better for scripture to approach the cosmos from the perspective it does, vis-à-vis the scriptures meet man where he is in his discoveries, and speaks to him according to that understanding. This, of course, does not mean to understand the universe from the perspective that the phenomena he observes are powerful gods he must appease, because, not only is that **not** science, that understanding would violate righteousness. Instead, as the Lord teaches man about righteousness, if he mentions the heavenly bodies in doing so, it is from the general perspective of man’s observations of the cosmos.
Smoodock's Blog 
