From Prodigy (3/14/93 @ 8:26 PM) there was a note from one Richard Hunt (GCCS87A) that eloquently sums up my opinion of the Bible:
It is not necessary for the Bible to be an accurate historical record for it to be true. The Bible is not a history book but instead a record of men’s encounters with God as remembered and interpreted by the men themselves. Because the encounters are necessarily interpreted by men and reduced to human (and therefore limited) language, they may not accurate reflect God’s own characteristics or motivations. In fact, there are sound literary and historical reasons to view the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, as the record of a developing understanding of God, not as a static revelation.
That is awesome. I need to think about that some more, though.