Yes, you are wrong but not irredeemably so.
The centrality of Christianity in Western Culture, and its moral content- which was missing from most "pagan" religions (i.e. the amoral Roman and Greek gods) makes it a wellspring for ethical reasoning. The idea of the relation of a deity and its followers being codified in a set of behavioral rules is a foundation concept for the rule of abstracted law (rather than by a ruler's whim.)
This does not mean the entire Bible- which was assembled over a number of centuries- is consistent with morality. That was an emergent idea, almost totally absent from the dictated set of rules in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that we have so much fun with when attacking the believers. (To be fair, they go back to these rules as well when they need to gay bash or take some other benighted action.) By the time you get to the New Testament- specifically in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount- there is a strong thread of social morality. Feed the poor, visit the prisoner, care for the sick- these are the things that earn favor, not strictly following dogma. Of course this gets a bit buried when the Jesus movement becomes Christianity- and for all of its charms it was written in a time when women were largely disenfranchised, and slavery was assumed.
There is no one morality in the collection of books in the Bible, but there is an evolving moral direction.
But to echo a statement often made by TheWorld'sLaziestBusker, the fact that the Bible mirrors a sort of social moral development does not mean it is essential or necessary to that morality. It is just as true to say the Bible is derived from morals as the reverse.
