I just find that when I have to totally contradicting points that I must be extremely careful as to which one I support. Thus, I examine both of them carefully. When one depends totally on a presupposition that is in turn based on a vague premise I get very leery of that one.
Now your assurance that the Bible is true seems based on two assumptions, one that it is God's word, but against that the Bible itself claims that Jesus is God's word and that the Bible contains the words of men. But you say, 2 Timothy 3:16 supports the truth of scripture. Well, that depends on exactly what Paul meant, and no one is certain what the original Greek means. It is clear that it means something along the lines of "God breathed", God spirited" "God inspired" but likely not "God dictated". The first three understandings allow for error to creep into scripture, especially though inadequate translations by mere humans. And once again, the Bible points out in many places where humans got things wrong, I noted already the incident with Peter and Paul and there are other accounts in Acts, which is admittedly a work with lots of hearsay, evidence that is not admissible in court.
I think I will stick with evidence I could use in court, but if you trust your own interpretation that much, knowing that matter what source you claim you cannot prove your source (how do you prove the Holy Spirit led you to the proper interpretation when so many find different, conflicting interpretations they also consider inspired by the Holy Spirit). There is absolutely no objective means by which to prove that the Holy Spirit spoke to you as opposed to a lying spirit that knows the scriptures well enough to put in just enough of a twist to distort the message.
And bear in mind, you do not know my logic and evidence, you merely might know a very few of my positions, but not their full support, likely not even very much of their support.