Hi Shirlgirl!
I'm at about the same place as you are right now, and after reading many of the posts and looking at the research done by so many others, I've realized that the fundamentalist (JW) view of the Bible cannot possibly explain God, or spirituality, nor was it even meant to do so. 1 Tim. 3:16 says that all scripture is inspired of God. JWs believe (as I myself did as a JW until I finally woke up from my long sleep about five months ago) that Paul was including all of the Bible canon as we now know it. But it seems to me that when Paul (if it was Paul who wrote it) said those words, he couldn't have meant the very words he was writing down at that moment, since they didn't constitute part of "scripture" as known during his day. As you said, "scripture" can mean a lot of different things. I'm reading various books right now, related to Christianity, Buddhism, New Age, whatever, and am attempting to arrive at a place that I feel "at home". I've enjoyed Scott Peck's "The Road Less Traveled" and have several more of his books which I will be getting to in the near future.
What I have found interesting is that in one Catholic translation, I believe it is the New American Translation (I'm at work right now and can't verify), the preface states that much of Scripture is a myth (i.e. much of Genesis, the creation account, a literal global flood, the account of Balaam's donkey speaking, etc.), but still useful because of the underlying "moral of the story", such as we find in Aesop's fables. So I guess you can "believe" in the Bible without "believing" it to be all literal and true. It's strange the path we find ourselves on - a little while ago I would have been horrified to see how the clergy dismisses the literalness of the Bible, and now I find it to be quite a refreshing and realistic view of things.
Good question and good post.