I'm not very surprised that no one has weighed in on this. But I don't really mind expressing my feelings on a subject, and I want to stress that this is my opinion based upon the best information I have at my disposal. This isn't a belief or a faith of mine, this is just my idea: The history of bible is questionable simply because it was not 'received' like many other holy texts, but rather edited into existence. It is a collection of works done by various Christian and proto-Christian authors, all of whom belonged to different Christian sects and had very different opinions upon the events in the time of Christ, compiled under the dictates of a Roman emperor who did not become Christian until he was on his death-bed. His goal was to unify the various Christian groups into a coherent whole under one philosophy that, not surprisingly, placed a great deal of religious authority into his own hands. This Catholic (Catholic being derived from Greek to mean "Universal" - or "Whole", referring to his goal of unification) church placed a huge amount of emphasis on a doctrine of fealty and living for an afterlife rather than this one. Also, by unifying the authority of the Roman Empire with that of an extra-territorial religious organization, Constantine effectively made his empire's control immortal. Indeed, as the Roman empire collapsed, the Popes retained huge influence, authority and power that superseded even those of the subsequent Dark Age warlords that divided up their territory. While the Catholic Church has undergone schism in the relatively recent past, the bible - the Catholic Church's essential doctrine compiled by Constantine - is fairly universal from sect to sect. In fact, its need to be accepted on a basis of faith and the fact that it empowers and indeed necessitates a (typically wealthy) elite to act as intermediaries between the unenlightened masses (it's called Mass for a reason) and God seems incredibly elitist. Additionally that these clergy are governed by their own internal laws (Canon Law) that have traditionally made them immune to the laws of common people makes the origins and motivations of the bible incredibly suspect. This information isn't disputed by any historical source except one document; the bible itself. Which is where the matter of faith comes in. You see, you asked if the bible was true or a fairy tale. But truth is what we believe it to be, so I can quote facts and historical evidence as much as I would like but faith cognitively supersedes facts. Truth is a term of philosophy, Fact is its equivalent in Science. Obviously the two aren't going to mesh too easily. So is it true? That depends on your point of view.

sorry i attacked you i just started working in a real cold and strenuos job and im very edgy.

was the bible written by God, or man ? ;)

The Bible is true, for while men did serve as the pen, they were merely scribes, and they have no authority when it comes to the content of the Book. There is NO way man could have written it on his own, for the Bible NEVER really contradicts itself, and 40 different men in 40 different times, places and cultures had a hand in the writing of the book, and the only way they wouldn't contradict themselves was if they had a Common Source.

True.