Imagine this...

[Belacqua]

I'm now asking of you your opinion of the 'Value' or 'Relevance' or 'Status' insert your own word defining said book.

Kind of a big question there. 

There are a few simple points you could start with.

~ Sola scriptura literalism is new and not so interesting to me. Historical debates in which we parse out which three words in a sentence were intended to be literally true and which were parable may be interesting to historians, but not crucial to reading the Bible.

~ When we read the Bible we don't just read the Bible. It's impossible for people in our time to read it as people did when it was written. Nor is it especially desirable. The Bible is the text plus all the commentaries and uses it has been given through history. If you just read The Book of Job, for example, you're just getting started. The Book of Job today is the original text plus Blake's interpretation, and Jung's, and a hundred others.

~ It is a mistake to treat the Bible as if it were intended to be journalism, straightforward modern-type history, or a simple declarative statement of anything. It is a challenge, intended to be a difficult puzzle. It is demanding and interactive. 

 I offered a comparison to Shakespeare's myths. Am not sure if you think the Bible should be placed besides Harry Potter?

People who want to insult Christianity frequently use the rhetorical device of comparing it unfavorably to children's books like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. This is simple-minded. 

Shakespeare is somewhat better, simply because Shakespeare has inspired some very deep discussion over the centuries. But it's still a genre error.