"Literal truth" is the root cause of stumbling for the traditional hermeneutical approach since the early church of pagan Romans to today.
Not because there is anything inherently wrong with it, but because the resulting answers will end up being mostly predictable and uninformative.
You are wrong in this assumption. First of all there may be other users like myself who hold the same view, exposing the religious dogmas and fanatical apologetics of the Norman Geisler types, with good quality answers. Truth and originality should be encouraged, this is not a Christian site. Secondly, I also receive downvotes and just ignore them. Users should not post answers with intention of gaining points, otherwise it would become an echo chamber of fanatics preaching to the choirs. The reason that particular answer received 2 downvotes is because of being very low quality.
It is a fact that the bible is neither preserved in its original text nor is infallible, nor the traditional man's definition of inspiration is to be followed. The traditional intention of "harmonizing" the contradictory accounts of the Gospel began in the second century. Note, the vast majority of questions here are on Gospel contradictions!!!
The Diatessaron is a harmony of the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, written by Tatian, an Assyrian Christian apologist and ascetic, in the mid-2nd century AD (c. 160–175). It was the standard text of the gospels in the Syriac-speaking churches until the 5th century, when it was replaced by the four separate Gospels.
This reveals that the Roman pagans were as much ignorant of the Jewish genre of midrashic literature as the common religious masses today. The talmud shows that exposition of the scripture was midrashic, that is subjective innovative exposition, just like Paul did on many instances. The Gospels fall in the category of ancient biographies where authors (besides Mark) added extended innovative midrashic stories to demonstrate fulfilment of prophecies, they also add legends and personal agenda driven stories and details which suit their subjective purpose of writing. They were written by different and unique authors. This is why it is fundamentally incoherent to even try to harmonize them assuming a single authorship.
Bart Ehrman is the biggest example of such naive fanatic and Islamic standard of inspiration, inerrancy of the scripture that he couldn't possibly defend the bible against the mountain of evidence, where even a single contradiction or textual uncertainty destroyed his straw-man faith or idol of the bible. The modern believer is unnaturally focused on the "objective interpretation", ignoring the fact that the Jews had the culture of subjective interpretations and varying beliefs.
Of course, such original & open minded answers will generate unpopular, offensive, and perhaps uninformative for many users, not to mention blasphemous. We cannot stop them from downvoting due to their weak insecure faith. But you should not question the validity of authentic hermeneutics based on one poor answer of the user Ruminater.
Moreover, the affirmative presupposition that the Bible books are intended to be self-consistent is a positive claim and begs the question, as this dogmatic claim is not based on interpretation. If someone says, "The Gospels or different books are not intended to be harmonious and self-consistent, because they are written by different individuals, expressing their personal interpretations and views". Such an answer is not baseless but very meaningful in forcing you to reassess your presupposition that the various books are written by one author.