Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[robvalue]

Let's look at the difference between a textual anecdote and a scientific report.

The anecdote is the claim, and the evidence, rolled into one. This happened, and it is true because I've written that it happened. You can't test it though, because it's already happened. At best, it's unfalsifiable and therefor useless from a scientific point of view.

A scientific report explains the claim (which is falsifiable and makes testable predictions, crucially) and then gives a summary of the tests and evidence (which are not simply the report itself) which back up the claim. The claim can then be independently tested by anyone with the appropriate expertise. The evidence, independent of the report, can be investigated. New evidence can be gathered which either supports or contradicts the claim, and if evidence does prove the claim wrong, then this is accepted by the scientific community. (Some guy writing shit on a blog is not evidence, as covered by the problem with anecdotal accounts. It needs to be properly verified evidence.)