Bibles Vs. Direct Observation

[Dionysius]

From what I understand, the writers of the book claim divine inspiration directly from god.

If they had been divinely inspired by god, the scripture which correlates to science would have been more accurate.

I'm not sure this logically follows. We can't know with certainty the degree of coherency of any (purported) revelatory experience or even what such an experience might signify as experience itself has no explanatory power.

From documented cases of such experiences, i.e. Buddha, Laotse, Jesus, Plato, etc., we can establish a general outline of the effects of inspiration on the character but little else.

Surely, after all, an omniscient being would have given accurate scientific information. Since that is not the case, however, it is apparent that man was not divinely inspired and he simply wrote the book based on his fallible knowledge of the world at the time.

Again I'm not sure this would be an intellectually balanced supposition. If the information in the Genesis creation account can be, in any way, analogized with modern scientific models (i.e. The earth was without form and void paired with the protoplanetary gaseous disks stage) then we should at least consider the possibility that the information was available and just poorly communicated due to semantical limitations. To be clear I'm not trying to validate a belief in a cosmic easter bunny or sky god so much as i am trying to lend plausibility to what can be thought of as an illumination or enlightenment experience.

We can't prove a god but we can see evidence for experiences which cause some persons to believe that there is a god. We know a few, ancient personalities, have had experiences were an external god was
absent and some where it wasn't. I think this would be a good starting point for examining the relevance of any god claims.