I believe the bible's account of creation and salvation on an intellectual level and I recognise my inherent sinfulness as being exactly what the bible describes.
The Bible writers had access to knowledge of the human condition, and wrote philosophical stuff that they believed solved it. Those in the Buddhist traditions see the human psyche, soul and destiny described pretty accurately, as well. What would be the point in writing psychological stuff if it had obvious errors? They had hundreds of years to think about it and refine it, if any serious questions were asked.
When I read the bible I know it as truth on a level which I wish I could communicate to you. I have absolutely no doubt about my eternal destiny.
So, you get a profound feeling, when you read the Bible. I've heard this from other Christians who have suddenly lost that feeling, when they looked at the Bible too logically.
You seem to compartmentalise the errors in the Bible, as "something to be solved later" or "TO DO". The feeling you get when you read the Bible is a non-informational proof. An informational proof is usually one based on "coincidence". Something like "I asked God for lotto numbers and shortly afterwards I won the lottery".
If I had time, however, I would love to spend a few weeks doing nothing but investigate the history of the bible and the way the books were chosen. I actually respect the level of knowledge others on the forum seem to have about that.
As far as I can work out, influential church fathers like Origines and Eusebius created tables about who (various saints) believed which existing books. However, ultimately, the books were chosen by observing their consistency with the doctrines that the chooser wanted them to conform to. That is to say, the chooser (of that particular sect) has a belief about what is heretical, and knocks out books or verses that contain anything he doesn't like. Marcion started his own popular church and didn't include Mark and some of the Pauline epistles, because he didn't like them, and wanted to use the Pauline epistles to demonstrate that Jesus came out of nowhere. He then edited Luke to conform to his beliefs. (If you don't like it, or want it, then it can't be true.)
The redactors of Matthew clearly inserted about 66 Jewish prophecies and references into the Mark and Luke texts. This is why we see Mary and Joe going into Egypt for no good reason, and Herod killing all the first-born, and Jesus riding two donkeys, and Jesus being from a virgin. Ridiculous as they are, they were left in the texts, because nothing about it is heretical. Readers liked it all, so it stayed. Now you can't question it.
In terms of real information about Early Christianity, I find the Catholic Encyclopedia most interesting, esp. starting at this pagehttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
This is a collection of ALL the early documents in their believed
original forms, that conform to Christian/Catholic beliefs. What you will find is that there is virtually no content from before 150AD, when Justin Martyr starts to speak. There is St Ignatius and Polycarp, but we can't know if they are real, or if their dating is correct. I only just
believe the Justin is real. He could easily have been faked, and his apology reads like waffle.
Any time I read a large bit of information about some early saint, or event, I can put money on it being a hodge podge of guesswork and mythology done from later church speakers, or info from Acts. I don't believe that Nero persecuted Christians, either. The timing is all wrong.
There is a sort of black hole event horizon that you see, if you try to investigate anything prior to Justin. If anyone knows something from prior to him, you can bet his sources don't come from original documents. I'm really cynical about reading books by academics on the subject. Read the original texts, or nothing else.