Is The Bible Just a Good Book?

Because it was compiled by a 'wife-boiling', son-slaying psychopathic, highly depressed sponsor of (Coz they were the only 'christian-sect' that offered eternal forgiveness in exchange for gold (indulgences)) what we now call the 'catholic church'.
There is great wisdom within - And without.

Actually the Bible predates the Catholic Church by many centuries. But what do you think accounts for its mass appeal as opposesed to any other publication throughout history?

No it doesn't. The 'Roman empire' IS The 'NOW' 'Holy roman empire' - This was the price Constantine paid for his redemption.

'Holy emperor = pope'.

The BIBLE is a collection of books divided into 2 sections - Old (judaic) testament and New (catholic) testament.
NT, less hundreds of 'unwanted' scripts was arranged at Nicea (16-1700 years ago, not 2,000 yrs ago.

It is worth reading - I did.
But you wont find God in there - It may find you, though.

Arranged, not written. The texts were written long before Nicea.

and are as conflicting as an Irish debate

Yes, I think that was by design. If the whole message was straight forward, it would have been banned, destroyed or altered beyond any interpretation. Efforts were made toward that end.

I never used the word 'written'

If you posted - 'Frogs are cute' - Me, responding with
'cute, not leathery. They were leathery long before they were cute.'
Would be quite off-topic and a little unnecessary, perhaps?

The Bible was a "horse designed by a committee"
Simple as that.

..and was put in a used camel-lot!

Horses are not (typically) designed, by committees or otherwise.
But - I get your drift, farmerman (You got a forename? Just prefer names - Not important)

New analogy - A "CURE" designed by a "DISEASE".

Please rate my analogy (on a scale of 1-10).
Or, feel free to surpass it with another.

I think that a long time ago, when writing was a new concept, people didn't write frivolous things down. Since writing was cutting edge new, only an elite few understood the idea and could do it, therefor they only wrote down VERY IMPORTANT THINGS. They were very careful to get things right, like the names of kings and the names of the gods and how much grain was harvested, etc. The general perception was "if it's written down , it must be true".
The Bible started with the basic history and beliefs of the people that wrote it down. They recorded what they thought was most important to them. They also wrote down their laws. Now how better to get the population to obey laws than by claiming them to be from God, and by threatening people with eternal suffering if they should disobey? So the Bible became the Word of God, and so was infallible. This superstition persists to this very day. It's not because it's such a great read, (it's actually kind of dry).

Thanks for responding. But as for it being a dry read, I don't know. From my personal examination of its contents, one of the things I found is that it really helps to explain human suffering and conflict When studying a disease epidemic, investigators try to find the cause—what triggered the outbreak. The same principle applies to understanding the “plague” of human suffering and discord. Again, the Bible is of immense help, for it documents our earliest history, the time when our troubles started.The book of Genesis reveals that mankind’s woes began when the first humans rebelled against God. Among other things, they took it upon themselves to set moral standards—a right that belonged only to our Creator. (Genesis 3:1-7) Sadly, since then, people in general have adopted the same independent thinking. The results? Human history is a chronicle, not of freedom and happiness, but of conflict, oppression, and moral and spiritual discord. (Ecclesiastes 8:9) The Bible rightly states: “It does not belong to man . . . to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23) The good news is that mankind’s disastrous experiment with moral independence is almost over.

The Bible is NOT recognised as a historical document.

By some, no. But by others such as notable archeologists and history scholars who have used it to establish the existence of historical figures, it has proven to be invaluable as a guide.

For example, Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.

Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David” and “king of Israel.”

And until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that “Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,” states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.

I think that, if you throw a pound of boiled pasta noodles up against a wall, some is bound to stick. The bibles accounts of certain civilizations were also somewhat factual.(Not saying it was all pasta, but maybe some)
Every book of myths looves to stick in a little fact or two.
I appreciated how Larry McMurtry always stuck in some historical characters into the plots of his stories. I wonder whether or not the bible was similarly penned.?

We know that a historical George Washington existed.
BUT
did he ever toss a coin across the Potomc?
or
Did he ever chop down on of his daddy"s cherry trees?

We make "facts" up about our heros and gods.

Sure it is.

A good historian weighs all the evidence and tries to determine which claims are true and which are not.

So are you claiming that the guys who penned the Bible were objective Historians??

Wanna buy a bridge?