>>> Perhaps you should realize that the religious writings of men are just the religious writings of men, not some holy, infalliable, inerrant God-written document.
>
>Sometimes I would like to believe that. Then I could just pick and choose which scriptural passages I was comfortable with and disregard the rest as simply, "writings of men". It's just that certain scriptures get in my way, like:
>
>2 Peter 1:19-22 (New King James Version)
>
>And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
>
>

>And 2 Timothy 3:15-16
>and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
>
>It's just that your claim is directly contraicted by the scriptures themselves- in many places. So, again, it's a matter of faith.

It also requires ignoring pretty much all history between about 70 A.D. and the Council of Nicea. The collection of writing codified ( with variations ) as The Bible is a work by committee. The very inclusion and exclusion of materials was more often a political than a spiritual decision. I am not addressing at all the historical reality or spiritual truth of any part of it, but merely pointing out that knowing anything about the history of the the Bible pretty much precludes taking any part of it too literally.

The Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon don't have that problem, of course. There is reason to believe that for better or worse they've stayed pretty true to the original revelation which was delivered to one person at one place in time and retained in the original language. So faith only requires believing the revelation in question was what it said it was. But the Bible ( or one of its many translations and variations ) has a much more complex history involving many many experiences rendered by many many unknown authors who may or may not have even witnessed the events involved. I'm pretty well educated in the theological tradition it represents and the history it comes from and I've always felt trying to defend its literal truth is just unnecessary and doesn't to justice to the wonder and complexity of the issues it addresses.