So you have faith in the book being the word of God completely unchanged and preserved as it was originally written? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1018225
Do you find it odd that Jesus did not take the time to write any of the books with his own hand?
Who would be more suited to immortalize the will of God than Jesus himself?
If God wanted us to carry around a book and use it as the final judgement of right and wrong Jesus would have said something about that right?
The only way to truly follow Jesus is to follow him and live as he did.
Believing in a book is not believing in Jesus or his God, it is the same thing as believing in a golden calf.
I have confidence in the scholarship that has judge the Bible to be historically accurate and possessing the highest degree of likelihood of fidelity to the originals. The two Testaments of course have different levels of support, as do individual books in each.
Jesus never corrected the OT or cast doubt upon it as coming from God. The reason he didn't write the NT is because he was here in person, and proved himself the Messiah in many ways, not the least of which is rising from the dead. The Gospels are simply the historical account of Jesus' life, while the rest of the NT is composed of the early history of the church (Acts), prophecy (Revelation), and letters to individual churches facing a variety of problems and needing to know how to respond to them.
I don't find that odd in the slightest.
And I challenge you to show how you would have known about Jesus without the Bible, or known what he taught that wasn't changed or omitted or embellished by each generation of believers. The written words, being so close to the first century, are what prevents the oft-cited "telephone game" problem.
And you might want to reconsider calling the Word of God an idol, since it is the One who inspired the words that makes the Bible authoritative.