Because there is no unanimity in what constitutes the canonical texts I prefer to use the words "biblical texts" rather than the word "bible." Those portions of sacred writ known as homologoumena absolutely qualify as canonical. Most, if not all, bibles include other texts that are subject to question.
OK, so let me play this back to see if I understand you aright:
You prefer to use the term "biblical texts" in preference to "the Bible" on the grounds that the former thereby encompases, not only the homologoumena, but additionally all controversial antilegomena, apocrypha, and indeed the pseudepigrapha. I don't wish to put words in your mouth here: is this your intended meaning? If not, I would be grateful for your clarification.
If this is your intended meaning, then several questions at once present themselves:
1. Are there any 'biblical textual' but 'non-homologoumenous' passages that have any bearing on the terms of reference in this thread? Or is your insistence on making the distinction here simply a matter of courtesy in the face of Christian denominational arguments?
2. Having conceded that there are controversies as to which 'biblical texts' are to be regarded as the revealed word of God -- in fact, your insistance on using the term 'biblical texts' rather than 'the Bible' markedly highlights this issue -- you are also conceding that all Christians must make a selection from among the body of "biblical texts" as to what is and is not to be regarded as the revealed word of God. In other words, it is Man who decides what is and is not the word of God? And how are individuals to make this selection? An appeal to reason? But that, surely, would be to "exalt their own reason over the plain biblical texts"--which is charge you level against Hitler and the Dali Lama in your post #198
3. I do not know -- nor does it matter to this discussion --which particular extracts from "biblical texts" you personally regard as legitimate and which you do not. I will note, however, that the effect of insisting so adamantly on such a fine distinction implies (though does not demonstrate, I grant) you may have a personal affinity for some portion of 'biblical texts' that stand outside the accepted homologoumena. Whether this is so or not does not matter to the real point here: either way, it appears you may have quarrels with other Christians far more fundamental than your quarrel with science.
4. Again, because your insistance on the distinction has so sharply highlighted it, I should like to invite (but not press) you to declare your own canon of authoritative texts from the body of 'biblical texts.' The invitation is made to extend an opportunity to dispel any possible 'suspicion' about your insistence on the distinction you have so ardently maintained, for some very questionably material indeed could be said to be encompassed by your own definition of 'biblical texts'