EDIT: Long Post warning, but please read it all, I tried to distill my thoughts in bite sized chunks
That's an interesting idea...
However, I must point out that:
1) the bible is self-sustaining because (bluntly) it preaches faith without recompense, by which I mean the bible will typically say things along the lines of: Only those who are truly faithful are faithful in the absence of evidence.
Which is ideal from an indoctrinator's point of view because it means that even if what they're saying never comes to pass, the believer will continue to believe because they think that the fact that nothing comes to pass simply means that nothing has happened yet
as opposed to nothing will
2) Another ideal quality of the bible is it promises hope for the afterlife, this being the carrot in front of the donkey so to speak, and since no one has the means to determine conclusively what happens to people after they die no one is able to prove them wrong, which makes their position un-assailable in at least one dimension.
3) However, the bible fails when it attempts to incorporate fact into its story, as already proven by me, Noah's Ark is an impossible feat given the size of the boat and the size of animals on the earth, and a strictly literal viewpoint on genesis is scientifically (which, I remind you, means objectively) unsound. This failing is limited somewhat by the earlier command to believe at all costs.
The belief at all costs mechanic, which helps to retain so many of the faithful is a wonderful device, since it means that anything out-of the ordinary can be explained as "and act of god" and a lack of anything out of the ordinary can be explained as "not in his ineffable plan".
This is why a textbook would be a bad starting point, since science textbooks almost always come with a disclaimer at the beginning or the end saying something along the lines of: Science is always changing, so the information in this text will not be 100% accurate as time goes on. This serves much of the purpose of the belief mechanic because it means that science in its most recent form will always be 100% correct by our interpretation at that point in time.
Personally I'm not inclined to indoctrinate myself with any particular book, the least of the reasons being that I don't believe that I can be indoctrinated due to my naturally cynical disposition.
However, I would point out that others have indoctrinated themselves with other books, or in some cases with belief systems that don't involve books. Scientology is a good example of this, using the promise of salvation in equal measure with the certainty of destruction to bind followers to its flock.
Think of the book "The Secret" this book claims that by willpower alone you can make the universe give you stuff (no sh*t, that's actually what it claims) and has sold millions, and there are actually people who believe this, because it promises them a salvation and probably has a "Faith in the face of disbelief" clause as previously discusses.
Every major religion today operates on the same three pillars:
1) A code of morals - 10 Commandments, Sharia Law, Karma
2) A belief in some form of Afterlife - Heaven, Jannat, Nirvana/Reincarnation
3) A belief in a system of divine punishment - Hell, Jahannam, Reincarnation
These pillars operate like the Carrot and the Stick and a set of rules, the rules define whether or not the donkey gets the Carrot or the stick, but since no-one ever knows if the Carrot or Stick are real they are presented with Pascal's Wager with the additional incentive of the "Faith in the face of disbelief" system which only serves to add credibility in their minds, most will choose to believe in the religion.
This in itself is not a bad thing, the code of morals ensures that most religious people are in fact, very nice people, however, religion has also proven to be a force for violence and an avenue to promote immoral political moves under the guise of morality.
-Religions inspired from fiction-
So again, I'm not particularly interested in this since I know that I cannot convince myself of the absolute veracity of anything, therefore I cannot indoctrinate myself, that's like trying to consciously lie to yourself, which is something no one can do.
However, I want you to consider that many people do just this, that is, become indoctrinated with belief systems and books which have no 'divine' influence. Think of The Spock
which is a church and belief system based on the teachings of Mr. Spock of star trek. Or Buddislam, the religion taken from the Fremen of Dune by Frank Hebert.
Or most obviously of all, consider Jediism
which is a church based on the teachings of the Jedi, again, no divine influence. I'm sure many Jedi believe this ironically, but there are a few, not many but a few, who absolutely believe this, which shows that indoctrination and 100% faith does not require intervention.
-Proof of lack of divine intervention in the bible-
Besides in the form of a mathematical proof:
Deuteronomy 4:39: "Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other."
Therefore there is only one god. (According to Christians)
And if true faith and indoctrination is not just a psychological trick then no other believers believe 100% in their faith.
But believers of Islam and Sikhism believe just as strongly as those of Christianity, therefore either divine indoctrination can be replicated by the hand of man, or, there is no divine indoctrination at all, which means that the bible is not in fact the word of god, in which case, why listen to what it has to say?
Anyway, you know my position: Religion was good, but is now irrelevant.