I frequently come across the argument that if Genesis 1-3 (etc) is not literally true and without factual errors (and so ruling out evolution) then this undermines the authority of bible and there is then no basis for believing anything else its contains is true either
What are your arguments for the authority of scripture that may counter such a claim?
That while multiple errors of fact in a text cast doubt on the veracity of the rest of the text, that only applies to a single text, and not a compolation of texts written by multiple authors centuries apart.
Errors in Genesis do not carry over to Malachi or Mark.
I think a lot of that depends on what people mean when they say things like “factual errors” and “authority of the Bible.”
Why would a collection of writings that are thousands of years old be expected to align perfectly with modern scientific thought at the same particular place and time that we just so happen to be alive? In some ways, that mindset is just our own “main character syndrome” point of view asserting that scripture must align with our current understanding of science. I don’t see why it should be expected to do that. If we want to try to understand Genesis, we have to be willing to read it in context, which means letting go of some of our assumptions about how the text must be used.
For example, scholar John Walton asserts that the Genesis creation story is more about functions than materials, because that is more in line with Ancient Near East stories of the same time. To try to force it to be otherwise is “cultural imperialism” in his words. “The Lost World of Genesis One” is a great read if you want to learn more about that.
From ChatGPT: “Here’s a compact toolbox you can use on BioLogos (pick what fits your lane):
Genre & intention
Authority attaches to what the text intends to do. Genesis 1–3 uses temple/cosmic-kingdom imagery and archetypal language; it teaches who God is, who we are, and why the world is broken—not lab physics. Genre-faithfulness ≠error.
Infallibility vs. inerrancy (scope-limited)
Many Christians hold that Scripture is infallible for faith and practice: it unfailingly accomplishes God’s saving purposes, even while speaking pre-scientifically. Truthfulness is measured by purpose, not by modern scientific precision.
Divine accommodation
God speaks baby-talk to finite cultures (Calvin). Using ancient cosmology to convey timeless theological truth is accommodation, not falsehood.
Christological center (“canon within the canon”)
Jesus is the clearest revelation (Heb 1:1–3). The whole canon is read from and toward Christ; its authority stands because it reliably leads to him, not because every sentence is a science statement.
Rule of Faith & ecclesial reception
The Church recognized this canon because it coheres with the apostolic proclamation. Authority is covenantal and communal, not dependent on a modern literalist criterion.
Progressive revelation
Scripture’s truth unfolds across time. Early chapters are seed-form; later Scripture (especially in Christ) clarifies the meaning. Development isn’t defect.
Coherence & convergence
The Bible’s grand narrative—creation, fall, Israel, Christ, new creation—hangs together across genres and centuries. That deep coherence is a mark of authority independent of scientific concordism.
Resurrection-anchored trust
Christian confidence is historically moored in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. If that center holds, peripheral genre questions don’t topple authority.
Transformative fruit & lived reliability
The Spirit uses Scripture to create, correct, and sustain the church (2 Tim 3:16–17). Its authority is evidenced by its ongoing power to shape holy communities.
False dilemma exposed
“If Genesis isn’t literal science, nothing is trustworthy” confuses mode of discourse with truthfulness. Poetry can be true; parable can be binding; apocalyptic can be authoritative.
I don’t think scriptural authority stands or falls on reading Genesis 1–3 as modern science. Authority rests on God’s self-revelation through inspired authors, whose aim in those chapters is theological: God is Creator, humans bear his image, creation is ordered and good, sin fractures shalom. That message comes to us in ancient Near Eastern idiom—exactly the sort of “accommodation” we’d expect if God speaks to real cultures.
Christ is the canon’s center (Heb 1:1–3). We trust Scripture because it reliably leads us to him and forms the church, not because every passage uses contemporary scientific categories. The church has long distinguished infallibility for faith and practice from a wooden scientific concordism; genres matter. Poetry, parable, and apocalyptic are authoritative on what they mean to teach.
Finally, the heart of Christian confidence is the gospel events—Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection—which anchor the story Scripture tells. If that center holds, then reading Genesis according to its literary form doesn’t undermine authority; it honors it. The real false dilemma is thinking “literal science or bust.” Scripture is true on its own terms—and those terms are the ones God chose.”
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.