You know, the fact that there can even be an argument surrounding the language used in the Bible really sorta undermines the authority of the Bible. For one, it shows you how interpretable the entire thing is, no matter what language you are using, and how no one today can possibly pretend to know what the author originally meant. You can put forward interpretative understandings of the Bible, but there is no way to verify that such is objectively true. And it also reminds us of how language evolves, and how such a process mirrors the process of evolution.
Why look for truth in a book, when the worlds all around you?
You know, the fact that people fight over evolution sorta undermines its status as a valid theory. For one, it shows that basic facts about the natural world are open to interpretation and nobody can know whether Darwin was right or not. You can put forward interpretative understandings of the data, but you can't know if they're objectively true. This also reminds us of how science evolves to reflect the modern assumptions of would-be philosophers and armchair scientists.
Why study science when you can just make things up as you go?
Do you really even think before you type this? I mean, actually
think about what you're saying, and what it implies?
Science is based upon the idea that it is an interpretation of facts. Science,
if it is indeed science, is inherently falsifiable. Science does indeed evolve, it acknowledges this, and it has no problems with this fact of life. For instance, compare Newtonian physcis with modern physics; Newtonian physics is one interpretation of facts, and it's applicable for a large variety of every day experience; however, we also know for a fact that Newtonian physics is basically false and based upon faulty premises. Science is continually upturning former scientific discoveries, shedding new and more appropriate light upon it, and continually modifying itself. This is the scientific method, it is extremely skeptical and it
never assumes it actually knows the truth, only that this seems to work, and it allows us to do such and such, but it never makes the jump to outright Truth, especially some objective religious truth as espoused by Religion.
There's also the last thing I mentioned: science examines the real world, not the book of some long dead author. What do you think is going to be more accurate, looking for truth in a old book, based upon faulty and ignorant worldviews, or actually examining the world around you?
And I do think you can come closer to a better understanding of a text, in this case the Bible, but you can never actually
verify for sure that such is the truth, or the most accurate way of understanding said text. Which is why people can study the exact same text, come to deeper understandings, and still disagree with other experts about what the text means.