No. I actually think very highly of the Bible. But one cannot appreciate it unless you have an honest view of where it came from. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do know the Bible didn't reach a finished form until sometime around the 4th Century. Until then, there was no organized canon of the New Testament - the state of organized Scripture was quite chaotic.
Are you seriously asking a question here which you do not know the answer to?
I don't honestly know what you think about it, so I guess I could say yes.
Are you trying to lawyer me by asking a question to which you feel you have the "absolute" answer to which supports your view which, if I am correct, is to simply discredit the Bible altogether?
I don't think it's possible to "discredit" the Bible. It stands as a finished work of literature, history, moral guidance and it is what it is. I'm just pointing out that the Words were not spoken by God, put directly on paper, and preserved unequivocably in their original form without any controversy whatsoever. I am however, a little wary of people who are so eager to claim they fully understand this complex piece of outstanding literature, particularly the more esoteric parts that are laden with heavy symbolism.
"I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do know the Bible didn't reach a finished form until sometime around the 4th Century. "
LOL ... Yes, you are NOT an expert, for sure. Even though the canonization of the New Testament occured later, the gospel texts and epistles themselves were all complete before 100AD, and there is solid sourcing back to near-original versions.
"Until then, there was no organized canon of the New Testament - the state of organized Scripture was quite chaotic."
Not true at all. You can read the works of the early church 'fathers' and how they built on the gospels from early days, not in a 'chaotic' manner, but building up a defined theology over time by drawing on the original gospels:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/