Just a thought possibly worth sharing with the view to further discussion:
Have you ever wondered why the Bible was not given all in one go as opposed to having being produced over a large span of time? As it is, forty different authors wrote the Bible over a period of 1400 years in at least three different languages and the authors probably never even knew that they were writing the Bible - they just relayed messages as God spoke to them. The phrase "Thus saith the Lord..." can be found 3808 times in the Bible.
Also, if you take into consideration that the authors most likely did not collaborate with each other with the view of presenting a unified message and this was achieved without any contradictions (the minor details that do differ slightly are most likely due to the limitations of the human writer's own personal insights but these differences only lend further to the validity of respective messages as they eliminate the likelihood of collaboration - for example the four Gospels) and that the whole thing (Scripture) hangs together, further adds to the authenticity of the Bible.
Also, there is a common thread that runs through the whole thing as it had no editor except the Holy Spirit. This common thread in itself gives further credibility to the authenticity of the Bible.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV) - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Now if a bunch of Scientists were working independently on a similar research project without knowing what the other was doing, over a period of time, without collaboration and if sometime in the future, their notes collected and similar or exact results were extrapolated, what would the logical deduction of said set results be? They would have to be credible and therefore classed as "truths". If their notes were collated into a book, such a book could be made into a textbook and would be considered authentic due to the existence of a common thread pointing to certain common truths (welcome to the world of Mathematics). The book may contain minor details that differ slightly due to the limitations of the scientist's own personal insights but these differences only lend further to the validity of respective research notes as they eliminate the likelihood of collaboration.
Why should the Bible not be considered credible in more or less in the same way? Logic should dictate similar deduction.
I think the reason is because of what Romans 1:18 reveals about humans - "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (Greek: κατέχω which means to restrain, suppress or hold down) the truth in unrighteousness;".
Recognising the authenticity of the Bible will mean admitting the need to affirm conformity to righteous living as stipulated by Scripture; certain lifestyles will have to be abandoned as a result (Hebrews 11:25 - the fleeting pleasures of sin); self-rule as opposed to subjection to God's order is preferable (idolatry).