the infallibility of scripture

"if any part of it is untrue, then the whole thing is untrustworthy, we cannot believe any of it"
this is frequently the argument i hear of the infallibility of scripture. there are quite a few things wrong with this argument.

1. there are parts of the bible that contradict one another. in the simple story of the woman annointing jesus with her costly perfume. each of the gospels records this particular event, however none is exactly the same. this either means that there were four accounts, or some of the details in some of the accounts are wrong. if there were four events, then there is not much of a problem, however, i have read zero commentaries that truly believe that. in fact most believe that there were two events. the details got somewhat confused, but the majority of scholars believe that john, mark and matthew record one event, while luke speaks of another. so then there must be some error in that not all the details corroborate.

2. this argument is never used with things such as science books. i would guess that 95% or more of the current science text books speak of pluto as a planet. guess we better throw out the part about gravity too then huh? there are parts of the bible that speak of the "four corners of the earth" there was a prevalant belief up until, i believe, the 1400s that the earth was flat. seems as if the writers of the bible agreed. guess we had better throw the whole thing out huh?

3. this really depends on definitions. we have a different definition of truth that those that wrote the bible. many times we define truth from a modern mindset, that is concrete, and scientific. however, when the hebrews would write something and use numbers, they would often not use the actual number, they would use a number that was symbolic. they would be saying something much more than at the surface level. they were no symply prone to hyperbole, which they were, they were also prone to use numbers that meant something else to them. 12 for example, symbolized god's people. so when john wrote that 144,000 people would be saved in revelation, he probably just meant that all god's people would be saved. not that people would have to take a number, and if theirs was greater than 144,000, might as well step out of line and go home.

these are just some of the reasons i think that argument is funny. these people have missed the purpose of scripture. it is the written account of god's revelation. no more, no less. it is divinely inspired, but not as a history book or a science book. those things are unimportant to its message. we should not expect it to do something for which it was not intended.

what if the world was created millions of years ago, and god used evolution to create man, would that make him any less god? no, but it would cause a lot of us to reevaluate the expectations we put on the bible. it would cause difficulty for moderns, who expect the writers of the bible to know things about science that were not discovered for 3 or 4 thousand years after they wrote. does that mean god didnt understand them? of course not, but how could he possible explain gravity to a people who had a hard enough time figuring out that the earth was round?

the bible is a wonderful gift from god, but lets not try to make it into something it is not, and that is a science book, or a history book. it is a religious book, it tells truth of how we can know god, how much god cares for us, how god has worked in his people in the past. moderns...