1. The text itself
The canon of the Bible was not the result of any cherry picking by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the canon was determined by the authoritative use of these books from the time they were written. Later confirmations and formal pronouncements were simply a recognition of testimony by centuries of affirmation.
Compared to other ancient texts, the Bible, especially the New Testament, enjoys unparalleled attestation and manuscript support. The earliest extant copies from the times of the originals is very close compared to other writings of the same era. Here are some quotes from http://www.allabouttruth.org/origin-of-the-bible.htm :
There are more than 14,000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree dramatically with each other. In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940's and 50's, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) before the arrival of Jesus Christ.
The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is also dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's "History" (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).
Re. archaeology, more from http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm :
One of the most dramatic finds is the Sumerian King List, which dates to approximately 2100 BC. This collection of clay tablets and prisms is most exciting because it divides the Sumerian kings into two categories; those who reigned before the "great flood" and those who reigned after it. The lists are also dramatic because they include the ages of the kings before and after the "great flood," which show the same phenomenal life span changes mentioned in the Bible. Actually, records of a global flood are found throughout most ancient cultures...
The Merneptah Stele (also known as the Israel Stele) is an upright stone slab measuring over seven feet tall that contains carved hieroglyphic text dating to approximately 1230 BC. The Egyptian stele describes the military victories of Pharaoh Merneptah and includes the earliest mention of "Israel" outside the Bible. Although the specific battles covered by the stele are not included in the Bible, the stele establishes extra-biblical evidence that the Israelites were already living as a people in ancient Canaan by 1230 BC...
Biblical archaeology covering ancient Israeli kings and culture received a huge lift in 1994 when archaeologists discovered a stone inscription at the ancient city of Dan, which refers to the "House of David." The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) is important because it's the first ancient reference to King David outside the Bible.
Now to claims of plagiarism and conspiracy by TPTB to create the Bible as their own script to follow. Understand that this is not about translation but about original language manuscripts.
First of all, the Bible predates the groups usually cited as having written it. Second, the kinds of people who would try to create such a colossal lie are not the kind who would write things that condemn themselves:
The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord’; it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration.
~ Charles Wesley, McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict , 1990:178.
Third, theories such as that the Romans wrote the NT defy all that is known about Rome in the first century (or any other century). For example, it is alleged by some that the Piso family or Josephus wrote the NT, but see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.php for why this is patently false. The Roman government only cared that everyone accepted the whole pantheon, and anyone who didn't, regardless of believing in a god, was considered an atheist. They cared nothing for subverting Judaism or Christianity, but only containing or destroying it by force.
As for plagiarism, be aware that oral teachings predate written teachings, such that when a teaching first appeared in writing is not proof of it being the first or original oral teaching. And when we see similar teachings in many ancient cultures (e.g. the great flood), this should lead us to conclude that they all had a common ancestor, an original source, which was then altered and corrupted as populations divided and expanded.
As for alleged influence on the Bible from pagan sources, see http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-pagan-christianity.htm and http://beyondthephysical.blogspot.com/search/label/Zeitgeist Misconceptions . There is a LOT of material at those two links, so I'll just past a quote from the second one: "Your web site contains one of the best and most understandable Zeitgeist responses out there! And I've read most. There is not a single claim made by Zeitgeist you do not completely eviscerate. And Christian I'm not." Jos., Dallas, TX.
2. Content of the Old Testament
Perhaps the most common criticism of the OT is the bloodshed by an allegedly monstrous God of wrath. But there is a good resource at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html to explain that context is everything, and Bible critics rarely consider context. Other articles include one on the alleged human sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1081-what-about-jephthahs-vow) and a strange test for suspected adultery (http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2034/why-was-the-priestly-exam-of-a-woman-suspected-of-adultery-not-applied-to-men-n). Consider also a rebuttal to the Skeptic's Anotated Bible at http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/ (both OT and NT).
3. The New Testament
Fewer critics have issues with the NT in general and Jesus in particular. For any who doubt basics such as Jesus rising from the dead (e.g., the Gospels), I recommend the full-length video http://www.jesusoftestimony.com/watch/ , and a document by a "father" of the Harvard School of Law, Simon Greenleaf, who was challenged by Christian students to apply his legal methods to the Gospels (Greenleaf was not a Christian at the time): http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html .
For critics of the apostle Paul, see http://fether.net/index.php?ID=395 .
For extensive writings on my own personal understanding of the teachings of the NT, see http://bible.fether.net/index.php?pager=co .
4. Summary
It seems to me that Bible critics generally follow the same blind acceptance of "the writings of men" that Bible supporters are allegedly following. Whether one accepts the divine inspiration of the Bible or not, the problem of poor reading comprehension and ignorance of context remains and must be faced.
But charges that the Bible is the result of some nefarious plan to enslave humanity is so completely backwards from its actual content that I marvel at how many believe this. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is the story of redemption from enslavement; it is the account of the ruin of God's orininal creation, its path to redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and its promise of restoration to Eden once again. It's the story of ultimate justice and yet also mercy. One Hebrew scholar, Dr. Michael Heiser, calls the idea that Lucifer was the hero and YHWH the villain "watcher theology", since the "watchers" were the fallen angels. This is the root of Gnosticism. It is they who wish to turn the Bible upside down, and who churn out lie after lie about God, the Bible, the Jews, and the Christians. That is the conspiracy against the Bible.
Many mistakenly presume that if they leave one belief and turn to another, they have stepped "up" and become "enlightened". But in fact, in many cases this is simply a case of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. A change of belief is not proof of anything. And if the Bible is to be rejected in spite of intense scrutiny and criticism for hundreds of years, while scraps of writings that contradict it are blindly accepted without any testing at all, then I can only conclude that such people are not so much interested in truth as in dethroning the one religious writing that frightens them.
I'm under no delusion that this little thread of mine is going to change anyone's mind. I offer it as a public statement that there really are answers to those who truly seek them. All I ask is that you read the material at the links; I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, but simply presenting why I believe as I do.