The notion that the Bible is miraculous for incuding scientific truths the ancients couldn't have known about makes no sense because you can't have it both ways. If the Bible's miraculous, then it should be inerrant and clearly not the product of mere human editing. But that's not the case. We know now the human element in how the Bible was put together. For example, we know that three of the gospels were based on Mark, and we know how they changed Mark's wording to suit their independent purposes.

The Bible doesn't have a single, divine author, but many human ones. And that's why the Bible is riddled with contradictions, errors, immoralities (such as tolerance of slavery), and naive speculations. That, too, is why you say only vaguely that the Bible was "inspired by God," which allows you to explain away the bad parts as the products of humanity.

That's just a game, as far as I'm concerned. The more responsible way of reading the Bible is to read it as ancient literature, to see it fully in its historical context. Every great work of literature is "inspired"--by the unconscious.