With regards to the authority of the Bible, the answer is a given, in the affirmative;

The question is not about whether the Bible the Bible has any authority, rather why
and how much and over what. Starting with the former of the (legitimate)
questions viz. why, the answer lies in its intertwined nature in the Christian faith.
1.Alluding to Kant, belief in the Bible is analytic to being a Christian. Being a
Christian also cannot be reduced to being a theist, because it is very particular
about the personhood of God who has manifested in the Bible. In addition this is
also not a dichotomy between philosophical and Biblical theism.
Biblical ideas have to be made sound philosophically but what may be known of
God philosophically is not enough for the church - in detail and richness etc. i.e.
there is a lot of variety.
2.Bible is not a book of facts - its aim isn't history. Example - Jesus - by His time,
there was scripture as well as tradition to interpret said scripture . Jesus' dialogue
showed the gap between the scripture and its interpretation. But, the established
scripture provides an intellectual basis for salvation - indispensible inherent to
salvation
3. Belief in the Bible is contained in our faith. i.e. nothing, not even its attributes
that can be attributed to the Bible like its value , virtue or its merit as literature or
its accuracy historically, decide/ influence/ affect the basis of this authority.
Moving on to the possible questions that can be raised, this, however, appears to be
playing it safe. One of the concerns is that too much is assumed with regards to the
primacy of the scripture, to take it word for word; But this is not what the author
implies, he says Christianity is not faith in the Bible, it is faith in Christ and that it
is through the Bible that God communicates with us. This is essential component
of our encounter with God. It is rightly pointed out that we have a duty to discern
for ourselves what the Bible says. The Bible is not the source of Christian Belief, it
is the message of Good News.
Argument from cultural relativism, i.e. how does a collection of stories/ facts from
a 2000 years ago make a difference now.

Response to the preceding statement can be in two ways, the first of which is that,
the very statement is based on an assumption that cultures are inert and separate
entities with no possibility of contact with other cultures. This is more of less not
true, as we know that the past is very much a part of a culture and this is made
available to us through written works and this reading connects us to the past.
Looking at it this way also shows that the Bible is not one culture, rather it is a
picture of the evolution of one. However, the concepts or ideas prevalent in the
New Testament like mortality and immortality , debates over the concept of soul
are not found in the old testament, in this sense, the Old Testament is closer to
modern times that the New Testament. Another way of going about it is that the
authority of the Bible does not lie it its congruence with history rather the
mediation it provides between Christ and us. It does not mandate us to perceive the
world as it was perceived then.
Why do hold what we do, as the Bible and not any other book? The Bible shows
the tradition of the people of God, along with its changes and evolution. The
answer to question of why the Bible is taken as authoritative is woven together
within the fabric of the Christian faith.
Modern theology tries to explain the authority of the scriptures through its
reference to past events. This is known as antecedent revelation. This however is
questioned as we include tradition as a factor in the formation of Scripture.
Christianity is not a religion which is looking at the past, the Bible is in fact
directed to the future. It shows God's involvement in the past but it points to the
future i.e. it points to future fulfillment based on past events.
This perspective can be used to see or read a lot of the Bible. The stress or the
intention of telling stories of the past was never to inform the listener about how
things were in the good old days rather to give an idea of how things which God
has promised will come to pass. This can be seen even in the account of the
prophetic works i.e. not to talk about the prophecies themselves, rather to provide
an insight into the way God works so that the future believer may be better aided in
their understanding of God. The story of Jesus is not a historical narrative per se
rather a paradigmatic interpretation of the past.

The Bible can be taken as a picture, you need all of it to know the whole story, yes,
you can look at certain portions of a picture and see it to be complete in that small
scale but it makes so much more sense when we step back and understand it in its
wholeness.
As far as the scripture and divine inspiration is concerned, this does not entail
inerrancy or mandate it nor does it say anything about historical accuracy. The fact
that the scripture was inspired only shows the involvement of God in the lives of
the people who wrote the Scripture. God did not dictate the Bible. The question of
authority of the scripture does not come up because of the person who wrote it,
rather who is about and what that signifies. It also suggests that God was with His
people as they thought and wrote and that is what we now have as the Bible.