"why should the Bible need to give one?"
Because it's the one using a nebulous word. If I'm writing an instructional document and suddenly insert "blibityzoop" but don't tell you what that means but rely on the context for you to figure it out how credible would I be?
"It rather preceded empirical specialisms."
Say what?
"Conversely everyone [ except apparently evolutionists] knows that a frog is not a 'kind' of cow, whereas both lions and cheetahs are 'kinds' of cat."
Define "kind" in a more sophisticated manner than a three year old pointing at a cow and calling it a "doggy" because it has four legs and a tail.
Superficial similarity is not a definition of "kind" by any meaningful standards.
"Thus, amazingly enough, it wasn't written with the scientific community exclusively in mind!"
The scientific community didn't exist when "kind" was thought up.
"However it claims to propose truth and where those truths touch on science they claim relevance."
None of your Wholly Babble's so-called "truths" mesh with reality, thus they do not "touch on science".
"Thus for example the notion that the heavens were "unrolled like a tent" is precisely the way in which one would explain gravity to a layperson."
Gravity has fuck and all to do with the expansion of the universe if, as I suspect, that's what you're trying to get at.
