Is the Bible acceptable?

Fo sho, dirty. With pleasure When discussing the Bible, the Bible is acceptable in discussions. When discussing science, it is not.I like to argue with fundamentalist Christians about what the Bible really means, so I can certainly accept the Bible as an explanation for an argument. Which is actually kinda ironic because if we are interpreting it then it isn't being taken literally, but that is another topic. I definitely understand that point, but I also understand that if God wanted His message to be accurately translated, then it is perfectly in His capability to make that happen. Do you know what I mean? Do you think it is possible for truths to remain unproven? I do.* If God is capable of preventing mix-ups, and not all truths are proven, then the Bible could easily be The Truth™. But not literally, which I don't subscribe too.The Bible describes all kinds of truths, IMHO, but I am capable of seeing my bias towards the Bible being truthful... ya know, being Catholic and all.

---

*WRT truths being unproven: I was raised Catholic and educated in the
sciences. I still find Science's failure to recognize things that I find to be The Truth™ as a reason to accept extra-scientific explanations for the Truth.I just don't find Science to be the authority on what is truth, IMH(ysa)O.However, if the Bible says something that experience claims otherwise, I am not going to lie to myself to maintain validity in the Bible. Kinda like I'm not going to lie to myself to maintain validity in Science. Get it?

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

First let me say that you argument is a little bit too ad hominem for my taste. Let me let you in on a little secret. Not all catholics believe the same thing and not all catholics believe everything that is suggested they believe. That means, then, that there were no Christians before the Bible. That is demonstratably false. Sure. And that also means that God has the power to make certain that his plans for His Church remain intact as well. Ad hominem. Don't tell me what I believe. Not always and not necessarily.But anyways, whatever argument you use for the validity of the Bible could be used in the same way for the validity of the Church. What's so interesting? We all have the power of the holy spirit to understand revelation but the Magisterium is the authority on what is the Word of God.God has the power to keep them accurate in the same way he does with the Bible's translations. What's the problem?Plus, its not like the authority is just pulling shit out of a hat. People have dedicated their entire lives for that authenticity and I'm sure they've done a better job than I have.

Do you think it is possible that when Prof. Hawking said that time had a beginning, that he was using dumbed-down terminology to express an idea to people that wouldn't understand the maths?And also that his use of the word "beginning" is totally different than the creation ex nihilo that is implied in the Bible. Do you think that is possible at all?Science and the Bible DO NOT agree that the universe had a beginning. Science still doesn't know and it most certainly is not the creation ex nihilo that the Bible is talking about so even if science does come to a consensus, its beginning will still be different from the Bible's beginning.Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

Yes.And when Prof. Hawking says that it had a beginning, he does not mean "beginning" in the way you are using it. Or its eternal.