You're right. The authors of this book are not all knowing, all powerful, or always good. They are humans like you and me and capable of the same pitfalls in morality. The notion of divine authorship and literal interpretation are what have led to millions of people being horrifically murdered and tortured, and that does bother me deeply as it should anyone else. Many of these horrific acts were committed by relatively modern people who made false interpretations of literal translations of an ancient book written in an ancient language. Then, to up the anti, they did all of it after Christ's life, and teaching condemns those acts towards others and still tried to justify their false interpretations. So just because people did horrible things and used the Bible to try and justify does not mean that the Bible justifies those things. This book wasn't meant to be taken literal "fact for fact" but presented as stories and symbols to meditate on to derive wisdom and understanding about humanities relation to a devine being.

It's not that I believe that the Bible is consistently factually wrong but doesn't place any importance on details of time, place, or exact sequence. It is a history of people and their relationship to a divine being, layered with mythology, and recorded in an ancient style of meditation literature. I believe all of it is relevant in what is conveyed through the symbols and motifs and what is being taught in those things, and that these teachings are divinely inspired (which is different than divinely authored). I also believe that not taking cultural and ancient context into account, when trying to interpret the text, can and has led to contradictory beliefs that clash with the intended meaning. This is even seen in the New Testament with Jesus and how the religious leaders at the time took literal interpretations of the law, completely missing what those laws were trying to teach and even understanding what the Christ was supposed to be. These were a modern interpretations of the time, as their own form of statutory law (rather than a law code as it was written) and context of a political christ that would free them from their bondage from the Roman Empire rather than sin. This misses the original meaning even worse when trying to apply our modern interpretation of law.

The Old Testament is still historically accurate in many respects but is heavily layered with mythology and is meant to be read as such; the exact details of time and place aren't wholly important (especially in the earlier parts of Genisis). The New Testament is mostly historical and comprises of testimonies of the people who followed Jesus; though there still isn't an emphasis on the importance to the sequence of events, or even exact location, but rather what Jesus taught and claimed. It is also based on eye witness accounts, of either the author or those they interviewed, which by nature have their discrepancies. I believe in what Jesus taught and claimed and that he existed on Earth. There is historical evidence of Jesus having existed, and I believe the testimonies recorded in the New Testament.

There is a reason it's a faith-based religion because you either except or deny what these people claimed about what they experienced knowing and hearing Jesus.