Is the Bible acceptable?

I find it difficult to discuss this topic without first addressing the scope of your question.I would think that in any discussion of christianity, reference to the bible would be not only acceptable, but necessary. In a discussion of the languages that the bible was originally written in, the writings are some evidence of the usage at the time it was written. In a discussion of 17th century english, the KJ translation is some evidence of usage from that time.In a science discussion, the bible is worthless.Thus, the answer to the question "Is the Bible acceptable in discussion?" depends entirely on the topic of the discussion.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I hope I don't come off as pedantic, because I'm not trying to be.In a debate between science and religion, or atheists and theists, I would think it would be necessary for both sides to bring up the bible, since it would be an essential element in creating and assessing the religious side of the argument.To the extent that you are arguing that the bible is worthless in terms of establishing or supporting scientifically reliable statements, you are quite correct. However, I think you go too far in trying to claim that the bible is of no value in proving anything or adding anything to any discussion without detailing the nature of the discussion and the reasons one might bring the bible into the discussion.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

AFAIK, the question about the beginning of the universe is still open. I don't think it has been established to any degree of certainty that the universe had a beginning. It may have always existed.However, I'm pretty sure that it's been conclusively determined that the Earth was not either the first or second thing in the universe. I'm also pretty sure that science has nothing to say about when heaven was created.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, if you ignore the parts where it said the heavens and Earth were created first, and where it credits god with the deed, yes, science has confirmed that everything else in Genesis 1:1 is true.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I don't think you misunderstand what science says, or what Genesis 1:1 says. I think you are just ignoring the parts that are irrelevant or contrary to the point that you are trying to make.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat