Interesting question. When I visited the Louvre Museum in Paris, I was intrigued by how a Moabite tribe won a battle and gave all the glory to their god in a language very similar to that of the bible. Essentially, the god of the winning tribe is the "True God" and whatever that tribe did, it was his will. The bible is just that, the folkloric tales of a tribe that worshiped Yahweh. When they won a battle, it was his will. When they lost, he was punishing them.
That explains why the loving god described by Jesus has nothing to do with the tribal God of the old testament.
And yet, the majority of the religious people want a loving God; someone who cares about them individually and would never be as unjust to order the death of incent children and even people.
As a result, main religions today don’t take a literalist view of the bible, they read its content within the context in which it was written and determines that God is a loving God. On the other hand, JWs and other fundamentalists groups reach similar conclusions about God, not by questioning the veracity of the story, but through complex reasoning that changes the meaning of what happened or what was said.
But in the end, if you read the bible at face value, it talks of a God with dual personalities. One of a lovable God who will forgive king Manasseh who repented late in life, but who killed the child of David and Bathsheba in retaliation for David’s actions.