Long ago I came to the conclusion that I didn't believe the biblical account of the flood as literal. I knew that archaeological, geological, biological and other evidence does not support the account. My hang up over the years was that Jesus referred to it.
Life has a way of stalling the thought process, earning a living, raising a family etc. consuming all your time. Now that I am older I have a little more time to actually "think about things." One day, a few years back, it dawned on me that if Jesus was willing to create fictional stories to get his point across (good Samaritan etc.) then why wouldn't he be willing to refer to one created (or plagiarized) by someone else to make a point? This brought up an even bigger debate in my mind, how do you determine what is literal true and what is figurative fiction in the bible?
You can see where this was headed...
I started to question everything I had been taught and blindly accepted as "truth" measured against the available evidence. If in the process the Bible falls from being "inspired" to "writings of men" then what is the point of arguing whether or not my religion of birth or any other is the best at following or understand it? One thing the evidence proves is - it is a "tool" that has been and is being used by many groups for their own personal agendas.
I still believe the Bible has value just saying I look at things a lot different now.