The book you write about was written by men WITH the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I believe the Bible to be infallible, telling the story of man's fall from Eden, and God's desire to get us back to that state.  We were made for relationships, and our desire to keep those relationships in good standing is where our morality comes from.  That is why some people can be moral without being a believer.  The only difference between being saved and NOT being saved is trust in Jesus - knowledge that we are lost without Him, and trusting Him to be our Redeemer.  I'm sure there are very immoral people who are saved - and THAT is the thing that unbelievers find it hardest to get past.   

 Siberman, I'd have to agree with you.  What we pick and choose says more about our morals and where they come from than the text itself.  For instance why do Evangelicals so stoutly agree with Paul that adultery is a sin, but deny the text that argues against women speaking in Church?  The answer given is cultural relevance.  Paul is OBVIOUSLY not talking to our generation about gender issues...  We have to look into context here and pull out a different meaning than the plain text.  In order to satisfy both our conscience that our Bible isn't wrong, but neither are our established patterns of interacting with each other.  It is that our morals and values DICTATE what we choose ought to be interpreted literally and what needs to be given an historical or allegorical meaning.  What interests me is how easily that switch can occur...  Someone can use three or four different interpretive methods in the space of two sentences (particularly in the epistles).  But it's a coping mechanism.  The Bible is a dead book that is so ingrained in our psyche that we've devised ways to keep it alive even when we don't see anything in it that we aren't already bringing to the text.

How can you possibly say that the Bible is a dead book when all the prophecies given in its pages have come to be proven true?  What you can't seem to get past is that God was and is just.  No impure thing can come into His presence.  That means He was pretty tough in the old testament.  Things happened that proved time and again that man could not save himself, regardless of how many rules or Kings there were.  But then He sent His son to redeem us.  That is a theme throughout the old testament - a kinsman redeemer was necessary to claim that which otherwise would be lost.  Jesus is that Redeemer for us, the church.  And He CAN do it because He has no sin. 

Morality comes from the need for relationships to remain intact.  God MADE us that way.  Morality does not mean that one is a Christian or non-Christian.  I guess what is confusing is that some Christians (and you must have come in contact with a few) are obviously immoral.  Please don't make the mistake of looking at men.  Look at Jesus and how much He loves you.  It was so much that He died for you. 

 Thanks for the Sunday School lesson.  I'm pretty sure that decent scholarship disproves most of what you just said.  However, you wouldn't accept their findings anyway.  

In a novel, if an author 'predicts something' and then goes on later to say that it happened...  Well, that's not really prophecy is it?  Most of the biblical prophecies have no record of being fulfilled outside of a book that says it's the only true book.  If any other book says that about itself do you believe it?  Doubtful.  So you change your standards of judgement from one book to the other, just like Siberman and I were saying.  You've completely proven our point.  And also siderailed the conversation.  

Like most people educated in North America in the last four or five decades you don't seem to be able to stick to the argument at hand.  The argument was that regardless of whether the bible is true or not, people pick and choose which passages apply to them.  This shows that they have a standard of judgment that comes from beyond the text itself (it could be the Holy Spirit, Tradition, Society whatever).  If these premises are true, the Bible itself is not the seat of morality (I hope you would agree to this, because the Bible is NOT God, unless you are a bibliolater and worship the book more than the one that it points to) rather, it can be a tool for direction and support to things that resonate with our internal standard of morality (which for most Christians would be the Spirit although I choose not to use words with so much baggage).  Either show that the argument is flawed or that the premise is wrong.  And "The Bible is not a Moral book" is the conclusion.  By skipping to arguing the conclusion you fail to address our criticism.    Does the conclusion follow from the premises.  Yes/no?  If no, the argument is flawed.  If yes, then go to the premises.  Are they true?  Yes/no? If they are true and the argument is sound...  then the conclusion is the logical outworking of the premises.  If you are serious about seeking truth I don't care if you agree or disagree.  Just have reason on your side.  Always argue the logic first, and premises second. The conclusion will then be disputed or proven.  By jumping to your own argument you sill leave our argument standing...  You've merely turned a blind eye to the thing that scares you.