My Analysis of the Bible Part 3: My Role in the Church

While it would admittedly be difficult to get a pastoral job, I have nothing against the church. In fact, I often enjoy church services and other activities with fellow Christians. While I believe that the church can perpetuate unrealistic beliefs, this is generally not its primary function. And I don’t have all the answers, so I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of some of those vocal atheists that are anti-religion and claim that the church is spreading lies. They are spreading unreasonable methods of discovering truth, perhaps, but not necessarily lies. I am also, therefore, not one to be immediately jumping to attack others’ religions. This does not make me a Universalist, because I do believe in a God whose nature I have understood through Christian texts and the Hebrew Bible. It is not the Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad that I am placing as “Lord” over my lifestyle, but Jesus. I believe in truth, but some truths are more important than other truths. For example, is it true that Christ was born of a virgin? This is not an opinion, it either happened or it didn't. But does it really matter? Does believing or doubting this impact my life? No. Do I have a belief about Jesus’ conception? Absolutely, but why does that matter? Now let me ask this: is it true that God wishes for us to help those in need? This is absolutely important for those who believe in a God and want to serve him, or even merely want to live as they were designed to. For if this indeed is God’s will, we are to follow it. This directly impacts our lives, and therefore this is a more important truth, even if we cannot find solid facts to prove it.

It is for this reason that doctrine does not concern me too much. It is through religious doctrine that the world sees ultimate truths, important truths. Are some spreading lies? Yes, if one is to believe in an idea like truth actually existing some religions have to be perpetuating lies. But this is only occuring if we place emphasis that our understanding of our faith is inerrant. And who has the authority to put their foot down and explain who is right? That’s the real problem. While if you are a Christian, you will undoubtedly answer “Jesus,” but then you need to inspect your sources, as Jesus isn't currently walking the earth. So then you can put faith in those Jesus is said to have trusted, his disciples and apostles, ignoring Judas Iscariot, perhaps. But of course, they aren't walking around either. So the records attributed to these men must be authoritative, and thus we get the “Word of God.” While a man cannot walk the earth forever, a text can be preserved. While this is a convenient authority, it comes from a place far beyond faith in Jesus alone or following in his footsteps. This attitude has also preserved ancient tradition and texts, which is certainly positive, although I find it a bit naïve to seriously think it preserves everything perfectly.

This is part of the function of the church, to preserve tradition and doctrine. It is through the passed down teachings and writings of men that we hold records of the leading figure of our religion, and therefore preserving these must be important. However, that is only one function of the church. Another is in the business of helping others and changing lives. This is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the church. This is why I join in church activities. It’s not to worship God with others, I do that in my everyday life through my actions (or at least I do my best to). It’s to help create a community that values helping those in need, and an environment that encourages people to seek help in attempting to follow Jesus and live righteously. Songs and communion are fine, but not nearly as important to me as the face time your make with others, or the opportunity to be there if someone wants to open up or is looking for help or guidance. I actually consider social events more important than church services, as there is generally more conversation and face time with others. That’s where I think the biggest impacts can be made by the church (i.e. Christians). And of course, let us not forget another aspect that some churches forget: the church should also be willing to help those in physical need as well as emotional (or what some might call “spiritual”) need.

This might leave you curious as to why I would bother writing all this out, or having these discussions with others. Is my search for truth getting in the way of others coming to Christ? I don’t think so, because I am not alone. People like me are generally repelled from church groups because they feel they cannot ask questions and seek for realistic answers AND be a Christian or part of a church. I have literally been criticized for supposing the earth was not created in a literal 7 days as being a burden to those with questions seeking distinct answers. I think that it is just as important to incorporate modern knowledge into religion as it is to incorporate ancient wisdom. If we only rely on modern science and philosophy, we are missing the very roots of our religion, and if we only rely on traditional thought, how are we going to find a place in a modern world? Seeking truth is productive just like preserving tradition. While both camps bump heads fairly often, it’s important to step back and remember that we, as Christians, share a primary purpose: to be a saving force to mankind. Ultimately, that is why a progressive like me supports churches as well as traditional Christians. We are on the same side. While the conservative and liberal Christians have different roles, we are working towards the same goal, and ultimately we need each other if we are to accurately represent Christ as well as enable the modern world to accept him.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2G: Other

You have some other reason of which I am not aware

Possibly you have some other reasoning that I did not think to mention here. While these responses have been inspired by real conversations, it would be arrogant to think that there is no other possible reason to believe the Bible to be God’s Word.

Many people use a combination of these reasons as justification for their belief. Religious issues are generally complex in nature, and they are personally connected to how we view our purpose in the world so it's no wonder we use subjective reasoning to defend our beliefs. However, if we are to look to pursue truth, we must be able to perceive views that are not our own and acknowledge and/or limit our subjective reasons. We must not be egocentric in our discourse with others if we want that discourse to mean anything to them.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2F: The Holy Spirit

You feel the Holy Spirit is telling you the Bible is God’s Word 

You feel in your heart that the Holy Spirit is confirming that the Bible is God’s Word and it can be trusted despite reasons for thinking differently. It just feels right.

That’s nice. I feel like my heart is telling me to seek truth within the Bible and to question it and put it to the test, which resulted in this essay. Where does that leave us? To quote Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5.19-22: "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But exam everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." So, according to the "Word of God," if we are to test the Spirit, and we use the Spirit as a reason to give the Bible authority, then we must test the Bible's authority. This is what I am doing... and I think it falls short of the title "Word of God" for reasons stated in Part 1. At any rate, if one is to take this verse seriously, simply saying one believes the Bible to be the Word of God because one feels the Spirit giving it credit is inappropriate to the very nature of the supposed "Word of God," unless there is some testing to back it up.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2E: Prophecy

You believe the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible testify to its authority as a whole

The Bible has many prophetic books, and many of the prophecies have occurred. This speaks to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Bible as a whole.

There are many prophecies in the Bible, some of which have come true. For instance, in Mark (believed to be written prior to 70 CE) Jesus mentions the Temple being destroyed, and it is a historical fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.¹² That is pretty cool! However, if you look at other prophecies with the openness that the Bible may not have been written when it was thought to have been traditionally, some are questionably genuine. Also, you are missing a step of rationale: if the prophecies are true, how does that justify an entire collection of writings as being the “Word of God?” The prophets do not mention which books ought to be included, and given Matthew’s reference to a prophetic work that is not mentioned in the Old Testament it seems by that logic there is some divine inspiration outside the Bible.¹³ While this is certainly a fun topic to look into, it does little for an argument that the Bible is 100% God’s Word, although it could perhaps imply that God’s Word can come in written form.

To be fair, this is not something I have studied extensively, although I hear plenty about the biblical prophecies every family get-together since interpreting the Bible’s coded prophecies has become a fascinating hobby for my aunt and grandpa. But prophecy is a difficult thing to test. For instance, we see a prophetic messianic poem in Micah 5 describing the emergence of one coming out of Bethlehem to rule Israel.¹⁴ This is popularly interpreted by Christians as a reference to Jesus, who was reported to be born in Bethlehem in both Matthew and Luke. This prophecy seems straightforward: it predicted a ruler of ancient origins coming out of Bethlehem; Jesus of Nazareth seems to fit this in a spiritual sense. However, a Jew will likely not interpret it as such. Jews were expecting a messiah of a different nature, one that would restore the nation of Israel and liberate its people. We read other “prophecies” such as Psalm 2 where the begotten son of God is predicted to rule the other nations with force.¹⁵ Jesus did no such thing, but was actually of a peaceful nature. He did not liberate the Jews in a political sense. He physically destroyed no nations. Does this mean the prophecy was wrong? The typical Christian response is “no, this just has not happened yet,” referring to Jesus’ Second Coming. It has been about 2000 years after Jesus’ time, and he has still not returned. I am not suggesting Jesus will not return, but am demonstrating how unfalsifiable prophecies are. In other words, it cannot be proven wrong. If an event is prophesied to occur, it will either occur or not occur. To people believing in a prophecy, it literally cannot be wrong. Because if it does occur, it must be right; but if it does not occur that means it will happen later. There is absolutely no way to test accuracy without a distinct time frame, which, to go back to our biblical example, even Jesus did not know when the Second Coming will be.¹⁶ Therefore while there are some seemingly fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, very few of them could have been shown to be false, and therefore cannot be taken as objective evidence to support accuracy of the Bible.

12. The destroyed Temple prophesy
Many scholars agree that Mark was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (although it also important to note that many do not). The rationale behind this hypothesis is the description of the temple’s destruction in Mark is vague compared with Matthew and Luke. In Mark 13, Jesus is describing the future for his followers. In it he describes how they will be beaten in synagogues and be tried by kings and a chaotic state where families will be in conflict with one another and how the inhabitants of Judah will flee to the mountains. Surely there is implied conflict upon the region, but nothing hinting at Jerusalem being sacked or the Temple’s destruction. Jesus, however, does make a claim about the temple before he describes the coming times of distress. Mark 13.1-2:

“As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’”

This is the only specific reference to the destruction of the Temple. This would very likely be referenced more specifically given its importance to the Jewish people. In Matthew, we see Jesus giving a parable about a king whose son is to be married. The king sends slaves out to seek out the invited guests. The guests, however, have different ideas and did not take the invitation seriously, some even angry and killing the slaves. The king is therefore full of wrath, described by Matthew 22.7:

“The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.”

The king then sends his slaves out to anyone they can find to come to the banquet. This parable is a clear allusion to Christ’s movement within Judaism. The Jews, or the originally invited guests, refuse to accept God’s son, symbolized by the king’s son’s wedding. Therefore, in the parable, their city was destroyed. This seems to be a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, interpreted in this parable as God’s wrath for rejecting his son, Jesus. In Luke there is another specific reference to Jerusalem’s destruction. When Jesus approaches Jerusalem, he weeps for its fate in Luke 19.41-44:

“As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, ‘If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.’”

While the detailed accounts of Matthew and Luke are suspected to be due to the authors’ knowledge of Jerusalem’s destruction (in other words, since they were both written after 70 CE), Mark’s account of Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction probably occurred before the historical events. While this does not prove that this is divinely inspired prophecy, it is possible.

13. The prophet outside the Bible
In Matthew the author uses quotations from the Hebrew Bible to demonstrate Jesus is the messiah which the Jews had been waiting on. There is one such quotation that is accredited to the prophets that is not found in the Hebrew Bible. Matthew 2.23:

“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’”

This could mean that there was an oral tradition or an unknown text to which this is referring to. Since the other quotations in Matthew are from the prophetic texts of the Jewish Bible, an oral tradition seems unlikely. This calls into question Matthew sources, possibly implying an unknown divinely inspired text. Other scholars have searched for context, believing that Matthew is paraphrasing a prophetic work that the modern reader would not understand.

14. The messianic prophecy of Micah
Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, was supposed to have lived in “the days of Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah” (an excerpt from Micah 1.1). These kings ruled Judah from 759-687 BCE. This is critical in understanding the context of Micah, since in 722 BCE the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) was conquered by the Assyrians. This emphasizes the need for a king of Israel to rise against its surround enemies. Micah 5.2-5 is a short poem alluding to such a king:

“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth from me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth; and he shall be the one of peace.”

Ephrathah is the name of a Judahite region, emphasizing it is the Judean Bethlehem that will produce the future king (as opposed to the Bethlehem in the north, which is located in the future region of Galilee). This is important, as it symbolizes a connection to King David, whose birthplace was also the Bethlehem of Judah. David being long dead, “origin of old” is believed to be placing this coming king in the line of David. This is why in the Gospels Jesus is referred to as the “Son of David” at times (I will also note that while this flows with Christian interpretation of the prophetic works, some Christians have believed “origin of old” to refer to Jesus being the literal Son of God). It is this reason that Matthew and Luke mention Jesus’ Bethlehem birth; it is not a mere trivial detail.

15. The messianic “prophecy” of Psalms 2
I suppose I should first explain my skeptical quotation marks. While there are many works that claim to be prophetic in the Bible, this is not one of them. Psalms 2 is about the relation of God to his king of Israel. It seems almost certain that this is about Israel’s king’s rule in the context with his close relationship with God. The problem lies in Psalm 2.7-9:

“I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Here the Psalmist is writing about an earthly king. Surely this is not about Jesus, as the Psalmist reports being named the son himself. In fact, the title “son of God” was an old title for a Jewish king. However, this came to be associated with the coming messiah, and therefore with Jesus by Christians. Jesus never broke the nations with a rod of iron, or used any means of violence. His messianic identity proved to be of a spiritual rather than physical sense. This is why so many Jews rejected Jesus: he does not fit the bill as one who restored Israel to its former Davidic glory. The idea of a Second Coming explains this seemingly prophetic error. In other words, it is believed Jesus will return as a militant king in the end of days. While this very well may be true, it cannot be tested nor shown false, since any absence of such events in history merely suggests to the believer that it has not occurred yet. Prophetic interpretation is an entertaining and often inspirational hobby for Christians, but it does little to show evidence when the authenticity of “God’s Word” as a whole is being questioned.

16. The timing of the Second Coming
In Mark 13 Jesus is describing his Second Coming and the end of days. In regards to a timeframe, Jesus says in Mark 13.32-33:

“’But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.’”

The Matthew counterpart is in chapter 24 verse 32 (for Mark’s influence on Matthew, see note 1):

“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Since no one knows when Jesus will return, it is impossible to prove this prophetic claim false. That does not mean it is false, but it does mean there is no way to know if it is or is not a genuine prophecy; it is a matter of faith rather than reason.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2D: Apologetics

You have found through apologetic sources that the Bible is 100% accurate 

There are many apologetic works out there that offer a defense for the Christian faith, explaining all the seemingly inconsistent areas. The Bible is 100% correct, we just need to understand context and have an open mind to see the truth.

This is a popular option among rational Christians. There is a ton of apologetic work out there to counter every single doubt about the Bible. Some of it is plausible, perhaps even arguably likely, but much of it is solely based on making the Bible one coherent text. For instance, there are two Goliath killings in the Bible.¹¹ I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for that one. Someone who holds this view could probably argue with me until the end of time, but little convincing will ensue. You will likely see me as not wanting to see the truth when you have “explained” all of my questions, and I will see you as fighting to argue your belief is possible as opposed to it being likely. There is really not much I can say on this, other than with that kind of work most religions can be defended, including the LDS Church and Islam. While I tend to get along with people in this group as we both generally do not seem to mind debating for hours on end, I admit it is not as much as a debate as a “sharpening of swords.” You will learn new theories and explanations to refute the points and counterarguments I raise, and I will learn new understanding of the scholarly studies of the Bible to counter your points and counterarguments. It’s all good fun, but it isn’t always productive, as at times we will end up “beating a dead horse.”

11. The two Goliath killings
Everybody knows the traditional story of how David killed Goliath with his sling. What is interesting is that the Philistine champion is only called Goliath twice in the chapter; the rest of his references he is merely titled “Philistine.” These references are clearly referring to the Goliath mentioned in 1 Samuel 17.4 and 17.23. 1 Samuel 17:4-7:

“And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. He had greaves of bronze on his legs and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him.”

Goliath taunts and challenges an Israelite to battle him alone, as we all know. David, against overwhelming odds, confronts Goliath and kills him. This is possibly the most well known Old Testament story. Later in Samuel (originally 1 and 2 Samuel was one book, but was eventually split up for practicality sake as it made for one large scroll), another is given credit for killing Goliath, after David is king and is at war with the Philistines. 2 Samuel 21.19:

“Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

The first thing that should be noted is that a “Gittite” is a term for someone from Gath. Given his title and the following description of the shaft of his spear, this can be safely assumed to be the same man. But could Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim be an alternative name for David, after all he was a Bethlehemite? No, if there is a nickname for David which has been conveniently lost by the Jewish people who consider King David an iconic legend, it would unlikely be paired with a nickname for David’s father, which is Jesse in earlier chapters. And if by some very unlikely chance Elhanan is David, this would still not make sense since it occurs after David is king. Either way this is a significant discrepancy. It is also worth noting is that early authors of later books noticed this. If you read 1 Chronicles 20.5, you see an alternative account of Elhanan’s victory:

“Again there was war with the Philistines; and Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

This recollection says that it was Goliath’s brother who Elhanan killed, not Goliath himself. Now this should be enough for any Biblical literalist to at least start asking questions. While this could, perhaps, explain the discrepancy, it still shows a historical error within the biblical texts. What is more likely is that multiple sources were compiled to create the book of Samuel, and two accounts had differing records. The author(s) of Chronicles summarized the events in Samuel while honoring both accounts to make one coherent account. If you have a King James Bible, things will be told differently. While with any other translation you find you will see similar variations to 2 Samuel 21.19, the King James Version reads:

“And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” 

While the King James Bible does not mention Goliath’s brother by name like the Chronicler’s account, it certainly changed the passage’s meaning. Why is it that only the King James Version of 2 Samuel 21.19 has Elhanan killing Goliath’s brother as opposed to Goliath himself? Part of the appeal of the King James translation is its poetic writing style and presentation. Staying accurate to the text was not as important as making it easy to read, and if the general assumption was that Elhanan did kill Goliath’s brother despite what is written on the early manuscripts, it would be helpful for the translators to make the change for the readers. I will point out that all Bible translations include some interpretive editing of this nature. For instance, some translation read “brothers and sisters” in some of Paul’s epistles rather than reading the literal “brothers.” It is assumed that Paul was talking to both men and women. Most translations, however, do not take their editing this far, as it would be criticized by the modern world. The King James Bible was published in 1611 CE. The older texts on which the translations are based do not include “the brother of” in 2 Samuel 21.19. This is distinctly of the King James Version, so unless one has the belief that the King James Bible is the only inspired Word of God, this means very little against this biblical inconsistency.

My Analysis of the Bible part 2C: Unity

You think it is a good way to keep Christians united and/or in check 

While relatively unconcerned with historical accuracy, you may think that it is necessary to keep this traditional view in order to protect the central doctrines of the Christian religion. Christians will be more productive if they are united, and without a central source this unification cannot happen. It will also keep individuals from manipulating doctrine for their own agendas, which will quickly corrupt the church.

This is a typical concern, and possibly a valid one. However, it has no substance for those seeking truth. A lie producing peace may be an ethical justification, but that’s not what I am interested in with regards to refining my beliefs. I am looking for truth, and therefore must go where the truth takes me, regardless of consequences. I am not the type to preach my views in order to change the world, but I have found my combination of faith and reasoning very fruitful to my life. But if this is your view, understand this: if you are more concerned about the consequences searching for truth might bring than finding truth itself, you have no place in reasonable debate. If anyone goes into a debate unwilling to learn, even if it is unlikely they will learn something, they are not debating, they are teaching. Your beliefs might put you in a pastoral position with an emphasis on leadership rather than one of truth seeking.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2B: Tradition

You believe that there is an authority in tradition of the church elders 

You may believe that the disciples and Paul have an authority on accurate church teachings since Jesus is said to have spoken plainly to them and they had direct contact with him. The early church elders who composed the Bible honored this code, therefore giving authority to the Bible itself.

This was the primary argument in the early church elders. Some even made it clear that Peter’s tradition of Rome was more authoritative than anything Paul wrote, as Peter had direct contact with Jesus while Paul merely had a vision (these people became known as Roman Catholics).⁸ This was a feature looked for in canonizing the Bible. But it should be understood that this is certainly not a black and white issue. For instance, you are putting a lot of faith that the disciples who barely comprehended what Christ said were competent enough to produce 100% sound teachings after merely 40 days of instruction.⁹ You are also putting faith in the church elders making correct decisions. For instance, it was not the disciples who chose the canonization of the Bible. While it is unlikely the books chosen were based from corruption, it is still putting faith in those who lived well after the disciples’ time to put together “God’s word.” Also, even if these elders are qualified to distinguish orthodox doctrine from unorthodox, what qualifications do they hold to proclaim any particular work as divinely inspired, let alone 100% accurate? Even in Paul’s letter to Timothy, it is stated “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (NASB, 2 Timothy 3:16).¹⁰ For Paul, “scripture” is certainly not referring to the whole modern Bible, but only Old Testament texts, and perhaps more or less, certainly not the New Testament which was written after Paul’s time (although it could be argued Paul was referring to his own letters as “scripture” as well). But following Paul’s idea of scripture, we must look at what he said scripture is used for: teaching, reproof, correction, and training IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Not for science or historical accuracy. Modern Christians have turned a set of writings into more than what Paul claimed them to be.

8. The search for Christian authority
In the early centuries of the Common Era when Christians were struggling to define “Christianity,” a sect emerged called the “Gnostics.” Gnosticism is an older idea applied to Christian doctrine organized and made popular by a man named Valentinus, and his particular sect was called “Valentinianism.” While Valentinianism is certainly not orthodox by today’s standards, it is bases Paul’s letters as its authority. Much like how Mormons interpret the Bible, they used extra-biblical guides to “correctly” interpret them. This raised a concern about where Christians ought to put authority for their doctrine and rites. It was argued that the apostolic tradition headed by Peter, the rock on which Jesus was to build his church, was the highest authority. While Paul’s letters were generally seen as authoritative as well, the ultimate authority was given to Peter’s traditions passed down in the Church of Rome. Source: Chidester, D. (2000). Christianity: A global history. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

9. The forty days after the Resurrection
This one is pretty self-explanatory. Acts 1.3:

“After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”

10. The use of scripture according to Paul
In 2 Timothy, Paul writes to encourage Timothy to hold fast to what he has come to believe. 2 Timothy 3.13-17:

“But wicked people and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” 

For Paul, the inspiration of the Hebrew scripture (the New Testament would not have been around for him to read as a child) is useful in pointing people to Jesus and his role (the spiritual Messiah) and guiding in righteous action. Nowhere does he write that it is useful for perfect historical accuracy or science. While it can be argued that these things are assumed, I would argue that if it was assumed, it was because this was the extent of the historical capabilities of the ancient world. Modern history stands to much higher scrutiny nowadays. While the nature of righteousness should not change in the modern world, our understanding of the world must.