Sorry I havent got back to this more regularly, my internet has been atrocious recently.
I would like to say that the 'golden rule' (Treat others as you would be treated) isnt the best one I can think of. I think a better one would be 'Treat others as they would have you treat them'. IE I might be perfectly comfortable with hugging a stranger, but since some others may not be, I dont go around hugging perfect strangers. Treating others as you would have them treat you assumes that all people want to be treated in the same way, when this is clearly not the case.
Serpant: Regarding your points on the scientific accuracy of the bible (Zentrino does a good job on this):
1. It was known in anicient Egypt that the world was not flat (
http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm). Where the bible states the earth is flat, it was and is wrong.
2. The bible may mention a fact regarding personal hygine (where to go to the toilet), which was certainly NOT cutting edge, but it doesnt mention antibiotics (which would have been easily harvestable from common fungus in those days) and says that shellfish (and a wide variety of other animals) are 'unclean'.
3. The bible certainly isnt harmonious when it contradicts itself in Gen 1 and 2 and later gives three completely different accounts of the resurrection. The point is, they cant all be right, but they can all be wrong. Is it anymore likely that one is right, or the right lie somewhere between than they are all wrong? Why?
4. Should we investigate every incredulous claim of anyone purely on the basis that 'Hey! if even half of it is true, we're onto a good thing?' No, we look at the claims, and if they perform poorly when we compare then to what we know, we dismiss them and the burden of proof increases.
As for the availability of the bible: The underlying argument you are trying to make is, 'Why would it be so popular if it were not, even if only a little, true?'. First, this is an argument from populism, one can make the same argument for rice being the true food crop, or cantonese being the true language. Second, as PS points out, it is probably more because the bible comes from the meme (a collection of common knowledge (some right, most wrong) from the time) rather than the meme coming from the bible.
Personally, I find it incredulous to think that the bible survived because it was the word of god. The bible has been changed many times since the time it was supposedly concieved. Was it not the word of god before it was changed? What happened to the stuff that was excised (see 'council of nicea'), is it suddenly no longer the word of god? Is it not the word of god until it is next changed? If it were divinely right and perfect, it would be unchanging and be a source of knowledge even today, but it mentions nothing about the microscopic world. Nothing about the scale of the universe. Even the best moralistic statements are far from perfect.
Zdenek (mainly): If the bible is an instruction manual and is less than perfect (scientific/moralistic) than it could be, what is to stop us changing it? If it was written for the iron age, why not adapt it to the modern age? Surely we can do better then this myth and superstition. Also the bible is written (KJV) in 17th Centuary English, not the language of the 'time' (0 CE Palastine).