For the record not evangelical and not really wanting to stir the whose is bigger debate.
I implied accuracy only as far as the Bible goes. My point is that while the Bible contains the conjecture and opinion of some of the authors, those are framed in such a way as to point this out. I've met a lot of Evangelical Scholars and never once heard one of them claim that the Bible was deposited fully formed. It is the position of every Christian denomination I've encountered, barring some tiny splinter sects with all the markings of a cult, that the Bible was inspired as to content and intent but the verbiage is the work of the individual writers. In a sense, at least 50 or 60 writers acting as ghost writers for God is the accepted model. So on issues of doctrine and practice the 66 books of the canon are considered to be infallible, while, for instance, Paul's personal convictions on certain issues are considered good advice to be taken under consideration.
This allows for debate on issues of doctrine, dogma and practice. But debate is good. It's healthy. However to claim to believe that a perfect being, capable of creating an entire plenum of universes, is so incompetent that he would not be able to protect his inspired communication from substantive distortion and wholesale misunderstanding, is a logical absurdity. Faith is trust. If you trust in the Creator as a competent or omnicompetent thinking being on the basis of the Bible and biblical figures, it is faithless and anti-intellectual to then doubt the integrity of that Bible.
On the other hand the Bible never purports itself to be a history text. Things are glossed over and only referenced as they are pertinent to the central point of the writer. In prophecy, foretelling is mixed with, hymns, proverbs and didactic instructions couched in highly allusive and dense poetry. It stand to reason that it would be difficult to decipher and convey that meaning. And that some people might mistake allusion and flashbacks for chronology.
I can say I'm not ignorant of other faiths, their assumptions and forestructure, as well as their sacred works. I am a believer and a zealot because the Bible has provided me with a tool and the tool has made it possible for me to touch the mind of God. If you want to call him Allah, Brahman, Uhuru Mazda, or the Mystic Hoozis Principle of Life (Mystic Law of Existence N.M.R.K) -- what's critical in my faith is understanding that this being made a way to experience our humanity, share our life, and sacrifice himself for our imperfections. In doing so, yes, he closed off other avenues that he had held open for centuries and imposed a new standard for achieving a relationship with him.
This realization came not from indoctrination or rejection of the intellectual, but from academic study and scrupulous attention to the science of language and critical analysis. But as such study progresses, the factuality ofthe Bible is continually reaffirmed by other disciplines. An honest student can't help but be persuaded of the historicity of the Bible by the very analysis of skeptics. Archeology, linguistics, anthropology, physics they all ultimately support rather than dispute the veracity of the Bible. That does not mean that the dogma of a given faith or denomination based on the Bible is equally sound. And Kaz, I fear your bitterness arises from disappointment in the faith of your early upbringing rather than the text that it was based on.