The fundamental issue is that you argue moral supremacy, based on "codified moralities." Minus the ingroup jargon, you're saying "we're better than you because we have a book."
PTR found an example of your book wherein the execution of disobedient children is spelled out discretely. You're not better than us because you have a book; your book has countless examples where its morality has been eclipsed by thousands of years of cultural development.
Your counterargument is that he's cherry-picking your book. Well, yeah. If it's the book that makes you morally superior, we should all be able to grab at will. And sure - there's 66 books of contradictory advice that scholars and leaders have been cherry-picking for thousands of years. That's what religious leadership is. But for those of us who didn't grow up with the tradition of the inviolate, infallible word of God, your book sure does say a lot of stuff, lots of it no bueno.
Some people cherry-pick the good stuff. Some people cherry-pick the bad stuff. Roy Moore could argue "moral supremacy" just as effectively as you can. Just as effectively as I can. Evangelicals and fundamentalists love getting bent out of shape about Islam because Mohammed and Aisha had a child marriage but will happily point to Zachariah and Elizabeth to justify Roy Moore dating teenagers.
So you can claim that your book gives you moral supremacy? And you can claim that we should all read it more?
But it makes the rest of us completely discount what you have to say.
protip: never use the phrase "moral supremacy." EVER. It's a Good Christian Way of saying "I'm better than you, Jesus told me so."
I don't see no Jesus, holmes. Just you and me right here. If Jesus wants to talk to me, he can come find me - he sure doesn't need you interpreting for him.