Hmmm..... just a few notes to explain some of this. Not that I disagree with anything you've said, because I don't, but it may be important at some time in the future to know what you are talking about.
Much of the weird language in the King James stems from the Late-Middle-English translators attempting to sound antiquated, just the opposite of Bill Shakespeare, who just a few decades later would be trying hard to sound as modern as possible. The folks living in England during what we call the Renaissance were being newly exposed to Greek and Roman classics, and were discovering much lost knowledge, history and literature. Looking out the window and seeing how dirty everybody was, and reading about how clean and wonderful and technologically advanced the Romans were, they assumed, as do many not-too-smart people in our present time, that writings from the past are naturally wiser and more profound than contemporary works, so consciously wrote in that older style to impress the yokels.
Thus, the odd italics, the 'thee' and 'thou' usage, odd spelling and capitalization, etc., was all modeled from Middle English.
Hebrew and Aramaic, like all Semitic languages, are full of multiple meanings and subtle insinuations. English, developed as a language of commerce, is quite specific. There is no possible way to accurately translate these older languages into English.
Much of the other odd language stems from traditional Hebrew usage: remember these people were sheepherders, and even those who lived in villages were either children of sheepherders or had a cousin or two still in the profession. 'Men' includes women as well, while 'daughters' are specified separately since they were a commodity to be swapped or sold for, say, grazing rights or water access. 'Cattle' is a generic term for all edible livestock, to differentiate them from non-edible (that is, non-kosher) animals like pigs. Nomadic and agrarian peoples live and die by their family connections, so much note is placed on who is related to who, or who gets to marry who, or who has a feud with who, thus all those listings of family histories and God blessing people with huge families.
If you are looking for the poetry, try Song of Solomon or the Psalms. Solomon, if you can excuse him comparing his love's body parts to various animals and fruits, is quite erotic for a supposedly spiritual work.
Most Bible fanciers do not know this, or refuse to admit it: there is no existing original copy of the "Bible" anywhere, and there never was. The books are made up from hundreds of fragmentary works, many of them copies of each other, most incomplete. The King James people worked mostly from the Latin 'Vulgate' translation, which the Catholic church had prepared hundreds of years before. The Catholics got their copy around the 6th century, when they attempted to squash rival Christian groups by declaring their collection of Sacred Books to be the genuine article, and all others to be False, then proceeding to wage war on any group that refused to accept their edited version. Yes, the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church maintained an army, and, in those dark ages, proceeded to persecute and exterminate any Christian group that would not accept their authority.
The Book of Genesis, or Matthew, or any other, was assembled by finding every scrap of paper that seemed to belong to that book, and editing them all together. There might have been 20 different 'Matthews' from 20 different groups, but the Church took all the parts, tossed the bits that disagreed with their particular brand of religion, and assembled the rest into something that looked like a narrative. Genesis is a special case; it contains two complete 'origin' stories, one after the other, neither really having much to do with the other.
I highly recommend that, if this subject interests you again in the future, to read some modern translations. A Jewish Torah (containing the first five books of the Christian Bible) contains many revealing differences in tone; the Jews have never claimed literal infallibility from these works, and are always re-interpreting them for new circumstances. A good British English translation, like the Oxford versions, are also useful: British translators are less likely to put their agendas into their work, unlike the evangelical Americans.
More importantly, rather than dismiss the book outright, consider its purpose and meaning. These books have been kept and handed out for thousands of years, and people have continued to gain spiritual guidance from them. I have no argument with anyone who gains spiritual meaning from any book- people can use all the inspiration they can get. I myself find, for example, "Alice in Wonderland'" and "The Circus of Doctor Lao" and "The Lord of the Rings" to be deeply inspiring books, although I understand mine is not the mainstream opinion: how can I fault anyone else for their choice of literature?
A final consideration. If your complaint is with Christianity, do not blame their bible, as it has nothing to do with how that religion is expressed. When Monty Python intended to write a parody of Jesus, they did their usual research (remember they're all Oxford and Cambridge educated) and couldn't find anything to make fun of. They made "Life of Brian" instead, seeing how absurd religion is.
If you read the New Testament for just what Jesus had to say, excluding all the interpretation and crap about the "Christ", you may see that his teaching is very simple: Love God, Love yourself, Love your fellow human. That's really all he had to say- all else was commentary and expansion and stories to illustrate these ideas.
Christianity evolved into idol-worship: worshiping an idealized "Christ' while ignoring the message of Jesus. Buddhism and Islam and Taoism did exactly the same thing: the original teachings are very simple, yet very challenging. It is so much easier to worship the abstracted image of the teacher, worship the book as an object but not it's intended message, and wrap it all in ritual and ceremony, than to do the hard work of actually loving oneself, or loving a stranger, or figuring out how to love God.
Remember also that, as far as anyone knows, neither Jesus the Christ nor Gautama the Buddha ever wrote down a single word.
The Buddhists tell a story of Gautama, sitting on a hilltop in the evening, talking to his students, when he stood and pointed at the rising moon, commenting on how beautiful it was. One student actually looked at the moon and admired it for himself: the others applauded their teacher, but continued to look at his pointing hand. I think the Christians have done something the same: Jesus, like many teachers before and after, pointed a way to inspire people to be more in touch with the world around them, but most refuse to look, perhaps are too afraid to look.
I hope you have not become embittered by exposure to Christianity. We live within a culture that embraces it, and unfortunately this can feel oppressive at times, but try not to let this deter you from your own spiritual life. I feel a human is not complete, not mature, until they have formed a connection with something greater than themselves. As maturity grows, I find the sense of connection grows with it, until everything that exists interconnects in ways that can be felt more than reasoned. If someone chooses to call this 'God', I won't argue, although it could just as well be called something else: the Tao, or the Great Spirit, or Mr. Stay-Puft.
Hope this has been of some interest to you.