I agree. I was tweaking those who demand literal interpretations of every Bible passage but then suddenly accept metaphors when they dont like what the Bible says. I read most of the Bible metaphorically. For example, I see no reason to believe the world was created some four or five thousand years ago over a six day period. The Bible was not meant as a science text and to a certain extent, not even a historical text. It is a spiritual book meant to build faith. It's not a "how to" on avoiding the tribulations.
I recognize that there are two problems in this: one, we do not have a completely and "down to the letter" transmission of texts over the years, and two, there is the question of "what is it trying to SAY?" (as this discussion illustrates).
The first question is, of course, the core of the recent "inerrancy" debate and boils down to whether or not God has preserved his Word "substantively." I find the error of dispensationalism to be akin to those who insist that the Textus Receptus is the only TRUE stream of preserved text and that others represent attempts by the devil to adulterate the Word of God. It is nice, it is neat, it cleanly fixes a mess of textual problems....., but it simply won't stand up to scrutiny. If God can live with messy, unanswered questions, then so can I. Finally, solid rational categories is NOT nor has it ever been, the bulwark against personal or corporate apostacy. The problem with "liberalism" that both these groups seek to fix with neatly fixed arguments will never be solved simply by a proper confession (even if they had the proper confession). Life comes from the Spirit of God, and ONLY a revived church will remain orthodox.