Start? Probably. However, you never simply “start” there. You insist that it is the entirety, despite the fact that there is no organically begun religion that has ever done so. (Dianetics/Scientology and Book of Mormon/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are both actual creations with a known point of origin and history, and are the only two religions of which I am aware that actually began with a book.)
There are many religions, (particularly in pre-literate societies), that have no scripture. The religions that do have scripture all began prior to the writing of the scripture. Insisting that the scriptures, which were written by people attempting to capture the beliefs, but which were not written prior to the beliefs, must be held up as the only correct expressions of belief is historically wrong and logically wrong. The people who wrote and organized scripture recognized that. The Books of Chronicles in the Hebrew Scriptures retell, basically, the same story as is found in Genesis through 2 Kings, but they differ in theological emphasis. Heck, Genesis, itself, starts out with two contradictory stories. The ancient Jews recognized this and yet still regarded both as Scripture. There has long been a belief that the Epistle of James was written in deliberate contrast to the declarations on Faith in the Pauline Epistle to the Romans, yet the church accepted both as scripture.
Scripture tells stories to present a group’s understanding of truth. Yes, it is myth, but in an anthropological sense, not in the common use of the word to mean “not real.” The points of the stories are often (not always) more important than the facts stated in them. However, stories are always open to interpretation and the meanings change as the understanding of society changes. You may find this problematic, of course, and it provides no reason for you to believe anything in some group’s scripture.
You are perfectly welcome to look at scriptural conflicts and inconsistencies and draw the conclusion that scripture, (or all of religion), fails to satisfy your desire for direction in life. However, your attempts to dictate what other people must believe and how they must regard scripture fails on your misunderstanding of how it is used among believers. The notion of some not-very-well-read internet poster dictating to several billion people the ways in which they are to regard their holy books, (in which said poster does not believe), is risible. Your insistence in dragging your error into one thread after another to declare a point that fails on the evidence is merely silly.