The Bible is fallible. No book is infallible. Books are constructed by fallible men, and so it follows that a book - any book - cannot be infallible. So long as one starts with this premise, qua book the Bible may be employed as a source of knowledge. Knowledge is arrived at by applying reason to what one reads. It is not arrived at by taking words as gospel in the infallible sense. Most faithful believe that what is written in their Holy book is infallible in the sense that logical deductions need not be made (hence the earth is 6,000 years old, etc), interpreting what they read illogically and calling their errors "knowledge". That is their error. Some so-called Objectivists make the same mistake with Ayn Rand's writings.
The original text of the Bible was written without punctuation, without capitals, without a future tense. Try reading Atlas Shrugged that way and see how easily you can retain the original meaning. Biblical Hebrew required one to apply reason to the text in order to derive meanings that made sense. To the extent that one is logical, one could arrive those meanings and at knowledge. For example, in Genesis (Bereshit) the Forbidden Fruit grew on The Tree of Good and Bad Knowledge, *not* the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, which is the Catholic mistranslation that has been perpetuated uncorrected by other Christian denominations since the Reformation. Check the original text. Good and bad are adjectives not nouns. The original commandment was that one can eat from any tree (of knowledge) except the tree that makes one consider some knowledge good and some knowledge bad. Knowledge qua knowledge is of course inherently good. There is no such thing as bad knowledge (if the flourishing of Man's life is the standard of good). Ignorance is bad. That is the point. That is what the Garden of Eden story was conveying. It is the only logical deduction one can make from the text that is reasonable. An incorrect reading of the Garden of Eden scene leads one to the conclusion that knowing (or disobeying God's command not to know) good from bad is Man's original sin. A correct reading leads one to the conclusion that forbidding others (or the self) any type of knowledge is Man's original sin. When men forbid others the pursuit of any type of knowledge, they necessarily become adversaries against each other. When man forbids himself any type of knowledge he becomes an adversary against reality. That is the moral lesson in this particular tale.