My faith is pretty much bipolar nowadays, so it depends on what day of the week before I can tell you what I believe anymore. I'd say that on good days though, the Bible is STILL NOT inspired of God, however I believe you can find the word of God within the various letters, historical accounts, and the Gospels if you look hard enough all the while being genuine in your motives.
On bad days, I'd say the Bible is NOT inspired of God, and that any intelligent person who believes otherwise needs to believe that it's inspired of God so as to have a coping mechanism. Belief that the Bible is inspired of God provides comfort for those in fear, and that's not limited to those fearing their own mortality. People who fear current events, or have unease about the culture which surrounds them and question where do they fit within it, use the Bible as a sort of validation that tickles the fancy of their own egos, or reassures them of their place in society even if that means validating their wish to not see themselves as part of society.
Regardless though, I still believe that much of what's in the Bible can benefit people. As the old saying goes that there's nothing new under the sun, we can learn off of other people's mistakes and sucesses by familiarizing ourselves with what's in the Bible. Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Peter's letters, James' letter, and the Gospels still remain some of my favorite reading material. Epictetus' teachings on Stoicism is probably the most brilliant bit of reading I've ever had the privilege of taking the time to do, and yet it reminds me so much of Jesus to the point I wonder how much the Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, particulary Matthew, were influenced by Stoicism, or maybe the latter was actually influenced by early Christianity, maybe both?
Another thing, a lot of people find fault with the Apostle Paul's letters, and some days I do too, however I think what gets missed often is that Paul reflected the cultural tenets of his era. While stating that women should be secondary to men, he still praised a handful of women in his journies. I don't buy that he was a misogynist, rather he was relating what he believed to be beneficial to the congregation, and was genuine in relating such. Personally, I think the biggest problem with Paul's letters, was not the man who penned them, but rather what leaders in organized religion today attempt to do with his letters. Case in point, "marry only in the Lord", which ironically enough at the beginning of that same chapter Paul explicitely states to the reader that the words are from him, not that of the Lord. It's good advice on one hand, but certainly not a command, and shouldn't be the basis for Local Needs parts, marking people, or questioning the qualifications of any Pioneer, Elder, Ministerial Servant who supports the couple in any way. Yet, that's exactly what organized religion does. The blood doctrine is another case of religion, particulary one religion, reading WAY TOO FAR into what Luke recorded Paul as relating to the Gentile brothers. I think that can sum up a lot of criticism of the Bible as it's not necessarily what was written, but rather how we read, interpret, and act upon what we've read.
edit post: Funny to me how some people view Paul as being a misogynist, however don't see anything wrong with the woman who washed Jesus feet and then dried his feet with her hair.