I see several strands going on in this thread. Some believe the Bible is inerrant. Others like Ehrmann's bold statements that I suspect make him an easier read than a scholarly article. If scholarly articles are never read b/c of the style, they don't help many people. My view is in the strand that Paul wrote Romans, Corinithians, and a few others I can't recall specifically. He did not write the books where he is the most miscogynistic or contain the statements that made me want to vomit from Witness repetition.
Forgery is a strong word. Everyone who writes slant things to their world view. It may be unconscious but it happens. This is the reason with my Witness background that I stayed away from any topic with a Witness slant when I took New Testament. My very accomplished Catholic classmates wrote about Catholicism and their grades dropped. The only people who were accurate concerning Jesus in a seminar I took were Orthodox Jewish males. Our cutlure is innundated with Jesus stuff. I would say the process of the gospels and other writings was valid. No deceit was intended. They were eastern and did not obssess about facts as we do. They were not deliberately lying in my view. Reflecting your culture is not lying. Luke wanted Roman approval for Christianity so he emphasizes certain narratives that Matthew, writing for Christian Jews, did not.
Revelation is not fraud. Metaphor is important. The images in Revelation are nonsensical if taken literally. Without knowing numerology, the dates and "666" etc. are just crazy. I hated and feared this book. Hearing it mentioned would give me stomach pain. One of the first things I did when I found out about a different way of Bible study was to buy a commentary. Now I see it as pure beauty.
I no longer believe everything in the Bible just b/c it is in the Bible. My experience is that is so much complex and ultimately more truthful when you take culture, language, and history into account. These authors were not demigods. They were like you and me.