Also, consider its false claim for authenticity and historical accuracy, I think we can safely label it "selective and subjective fiction". But then even if it was accurate and written with good intentions to begin with, which I don't doubt it was, people always have a way to turn things to their advantage, which is why a "holy book" is a bad idea altogether.

Biblical study of this sort is one of my passions, and there's not enough space on to accommodate my ramblings, so I'll confine myself to agreeing with you on the authenticity and accuracy points (I will not touch the translation issues here, I will not).

There are far too many holy books, and in each of them can be found a quotation to support any given point of view. And if not...well, how often--for a ready example--have you heard the phrase "money is the root of all evil"? It's not. If you can't find a quotation that fits, you can always just butcher one to fit.

Ack pitui.

Can we distinguish between the theology of the Bible and its literary merits? Surely the King James version is great literature; just think how it has affected the English language.