What if "truth" is a measurement of reality based on a variety of factors?
Let's say you told a judge a story of a drive you took the other day for purposes of a court hearing, with intent to tell the full truth. You'd still likely not have perfect memory right? That story would maybe be 85% true or so... something like that? 90%?
If your wife asked you how she looks in a certain dress to you, you might like the dress but, want to make her feel good, and care about your relationship, so, your response might be 50% true or 60% true or whatever right? (insert joking response)
The more simple a statement, the easier it is to measure, and the more likely it can be closer to 100% true. Such as, "I have two apples, you have two apples, we combine them and have four apples."
That's true... but, in a year, we might just have a pile of rotten mush.
Philosophers argue that if there are measurements like "Good" or "Truth" then, there MUST be an ABSOLUTE GOOD, or ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and this, they understand to be GOD. You're familiar with those arguments right?
But there are numbers... is there an absolute "greatest" number?
There are sizes... is there an absolute "greatest" size?
There's light speed... but if warping space is possible, then there are speeds which can exceed light speed right?
Is there an absolute "greatest" smell or taste?
Just because there are causes, does there have to be a first cause? Just as there are infinite numbers, couldn't there be infinite universes or cycles or whatever?
IF many things can exist or be measured without an ABSOLUTE state... couldn't "truth" or "goodness" exist as descriptive measurements that don't have an absolute state?
i.e. Just because we can measure truth, or the "goodness" of an act or person (based on many factors), doesn't mean an absolute state is required for those things to exist.
Based on this, there don't need to be "absolute facts" to the degree that, say, we can't prove we're not part of an advanced computer simulation for 100% sure.
We can measure the truth, or probability of truth, based on a number of factors, like in a court case. We can measure goodness based on a number of factors such as how much help and benefit is generated by an act compared to harm.
Given that parts of the Bible are in high probability of being in error, (untrue) and parts of the Bible are in high probability of being evil (as ordered by God in the stories)... if the Bible is a divinely inspired book, by some being, that being simply CAN'T be the ultimate source of truth or goodness, since there are problems with that being's instructions and actions.
You even acknowledge this, and imagine a God that is greater than the being described in the Bible, a being more in line with your own enlightened and empathetic views.
Again, I have great respect for you, yet, I can't discern why you have any faith at all, or why, for example, I might want to adjust my thinking to think "more like you" and have faith too. I know you're not shoving your beliefs down my throat... I know... but, what is your best argument for why you believe what you do?