If you start at the beginning, Genesis, the entire Book is knocked sideways by the proper translation of the first few lines.The Hebrew text translates correctly as , "In the beginning The Gods created heaven and earth" not "God".It is written in the plural.It refers to The Gods in the plural throughout.And, as it correctly says, Adam and Eve were on the path to become as one of us" (the gods), by eating of knowledge.
Notice it doesn't say anything about love or the path of love in Genesis.It says the path of knowledge.
This is an example of one small error that changes the meaning hugely.Most likely they deliberately did this to keep belief similar to the beliefs of the day.The next bit deliberately slipped into genesis that was not originally neccassary was,
"therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife"
This was to deliver a controllable matriarchal system, rather than a male, uncontrollable or ruleable society.It was in the same book of Genesis that Noah emerged and the gods, (again proper Hebrew transaltion is plural), destroyed the earth , because of unrighteousness.If there were marriage pairs and families this wouldn't of been the case.The idea of marriage is a bit of social engineering. It is not presented in Genesis.The male-female puzzle is already adequately delivered.
So immediately you can see they have been using this scripture to control people to suit the governments of the day.
So you got to make a lot of corrections by your own common sense when reading it.
The whole Bible is not a set of coherent books.These books are remnants of ancient texts which survived from more ancient times, put together randomly.There are contradictions.
The New Testament was an attempt to re-write the Bible in totality, by another group , probably from the East, as is its similarity to Eastern religions.Jesus does not touch on Genesis,lightly skips over the one about marriage and says very little about the male/female situation that governs the whole of society.As Dan Brown suggested and so do the Gnostic scriptures, Mary Magdalene was probably his lover.A good chance that the Romans messed about with the book there.
Not a mention either about the path of Knowledge, but goes completely over the top on the one about Love.It is written that he is a direct descendant from early times, but in view of what I have said and the timeline and the books of the bible , being haphazard,this is not reliable.
What I am saying is that a lot of the " information" is not reliable.Although the overall picture is a good one.