The bible contains some beautiful prose and many passages about morality, but the bible is not written by God and it does not portray a historical view of the previous 2,000 years. A work of parable and obvious metaphors, but little more than that.
So just because it wasn't literally written by a god, that it doesn't have any value? Because it's a parable and has metaphors, it doesn't have any truth? This is a really ignorant statement.
It's true that the bible in its current state was, without a doubt, not written by a god, because of its multiple translation differences that occurred time after time again. And even with that, it is unlikely that the original text was written by God literally, and therefore interpreted by human beings. Even with that taken into account, it is unlikely that the origin of that word is God itself because of the fact that such ideas came forth from that culture, and descended orally for hundreds of years from an unknown source. But "God's Word" does not literally mean that God had to write the words. It can also mean that they are the ideas behind a benevolent being's way of life. It can even mean that God is within ourselves and they are not a word of someone talking down to us as a dominant force but rather a suggestion from inside.
But such a claim does nothing to actually devalue any religious text whatsoever. Text does not need to be taken literally to have value. It doesn't need to be written by God literally to be believed.
This is a major problem that I have with many atheistic arguments against religion in of itself. The same argument could be composed against science - for example, bosons, leptons and the like were not directly responsible for writing scientific papers about their existence, interactions and explanation for various phenomena. The world of quantum physics is governed by extremely difficult mathematics which is most certainly inaccessible to the general public due to its difficult nature. Even physicists themselves find the idea confounding, and thus relying on the idea of "common sense" for these sorts of things is really ultimately useless. What use does the concepts of quantum mechanics have if they're not literally written by the particles themselves? What use do these ideas have if they still do not reflect the truth of questions still not understood by science, such as the properties of "quark matter" or what happens in a black hole?
The answer to these questions is that science answers questions with algorithms that can be tested again and again. But science cannot answer philosophical questions. Just because science can answer things in the natural world doesn't mean that it disproves the idea of a supernatural one. Not only this, but it isn't science's purpose to understand things beyond our natural world. Physics won't answer the questions of why, as it is only built to answer the questions of how.
It is true that the Bible claims that physical things have happened in the natural world, and these claims can be tested. These claims have been tested many times and are almost always false (those that aren't usually reflect a specific event, which can be checked with other cultures of that time). But one can also check all of the claims made in Harry Potter, such as the idea that there's magic, that there is a secret school for wizards, and that people can fly on broomsticks - all of which are false in our world. But Harry Potter doesn't exist to question the natural world. And nor does religion, really. Just like how quantum physics isn't focused on explaining the philosophical side of the human mind, the Bible isn't focused on explaining things in a literal sense.
While some argue that religion is about "answering questions about the world around us" because of its origins as such, religion tackles a much more philosophical side of how our world works.
A concept that's was created in satire of creationist arguments but is an interesting curiosity is the concept of "Last Thursdayism". Essentially, Last Thursdayism is the idea that everything was created last Thursday with an apparent age. Now, it may be true that this may be the case, and there would be no way to actually know whether or not the world was made on that day, so the best that we humans can do is work with what evidence that we have. This does not erase the possibility of apparent age, it simply describes that such a concept is unable to be verified.
Another idea that is unable to be verified is the idea that God is not a literal man in the sky but rather the entity that is the foam of the universe. When the universe was created 13 billion years ago, it is noted that in order for our universe to be the way it was now, that basic values must have been set to specific values. What set those values? Perhaps we really are in a sort of "simulation" where everything was "created" by a creator? In that sense, wouldn't that creator be "God"? In our home in this simulation, we are blind to the external events outside. How are we to know any better? How are we supposed to reconcile this possibility of not knowing? This is just another example of trying to seek a philosophical truth from the general ideas presented in the Bible.
Finally, the question rises in the idea of what the word "believe" means. Quite a few people (including yourself) seem to think that the world "believe" means "understanding something as a literal truth". But the reality is, that belief is a far wider concept than just that. Many Christians believe in God in a way that is not compatible with such a definition - to them, God exists in the form of an entity that is non literal, cannot be detected, but is there as a comfort pillow. Still others believe that God has no real intent towards humans and only exists as something within us all, and perhaps that looking for God for the answers means that we have to take power into our own hands. God does not have to be a being, so why act like he should?
It's true that many fundamentalist Christians have taken the spotlight away from others, but its important to understand what others truly believe, and to not write off such beliefs before fully understanding them. Even after all of this, I'm not a Christian. I'm not religious at all. I'm best described as "agnostic" but more so as "not interested". However, this question really got me thinking...
what is the truth when it's not literal?
Perhaps this is what the thread was really about. And even if it's not, let's take away from a "yes no" answer and try to challenge ourselves about where our ideas can head? Perhaps we spend too much time thinking about how we're right that we forget to challenge our ideas and think of new possibilities.
P.S. While the Bible should never be used as the equivalent of a history book, the Bible is still a very useful text to help understand the general ways of the Hebrew culture. It, along with precious artifacts from those locations, as well as ancient archaeology sites in the region, help paint a vivid picture of how their culture was and their values. It is therefore extremely useful in anthropology studies of that particular culture - the Bible is essentially the archaeologist's holy grail, because it contains so much useful information on that long-gone era of humanity - if only other cultures had scriptures and stories that lasted as long and in so much detail!
