In the bible it says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

I don't know how you can interpret a bald statement like that, or a commandment and it is clearly an incitement to kill which I cannot offer the principle of charity to.
— Andrew4Handel

Bold interpretation challenge accepted: In Ancient times the prison system, like many other institutions of the State as we know it, was not developed. If you don´t have prisons, what do you do with serious offenders? There were some options, none of them ideal, and killing the offender was the most sensible when the crimes were terrible. You can take as slave a thieve or a fraudster; but who wants to have a serial murderer taking care of your home?

Witches DO EXIST. And they are the worst type of criminals. These are people, mainly women but also men, that lie, steal, poison, kill, perform black magic to control people (like poor Nigerian prostitutes sent to Europe) and use real body parts of babies and adults in their human sacrifice rituals. These are the witches that Ancient legal codes did not want to spare, and not Sabrina or The Wicked Witch of the West. Nor Wiccans or New Age tarotists. Notice how witchcraft legislation in Rome or Egypt or the Levant, has nothing to do with the Maleus Maleficarum and the "witch" hunts in Protestant Europe throughout the early Modern Age.

In India, Central and South America, and very especially in Africa witches are still terrorising villages and buying albino bodies, genitals from adult men, and the like. Sometimes is the family that sells their own offspring to these witches, before they have given a name to the newborn, as the money is good. South African witches are supposed to be the ones that pay more for human bodies. We are civilized and we would be content with imprisoning these evil human beings for life; but in the Iron Age there were no prisons. What would you do?

The world bank has acquired its power from what people collectively have given it (the implicit trust in the financial institutions which latter, modern, doubters have failed to convince people otherwise). Banks didn't just roll out of hell and begin to subjugate people. They offer services and people were, and still are, blinded by comfort so much so that they would set aside work for pleasure and enjoyments. It's that kind of mentality that presents that other 'ugly' side of reality. Institutions operate as designated by governments and governments are run according to people. The larger percentage of people are 'mindless drones', which is a bad commentary on their hard work but sadly true in terms of why and how they work. Your statement is testament to that, "and the citizens in all countries are unaware of why education was changed." There's no collective responsibility without personal responsibility. Governments and institutions don't work for people, people work for themselves through them. These (the governments and instituions) are just tools and means. I think it's sad when people turn up in the tens or hundreds of millions to vote for a leader without realising that it's more important to vote for leadership.
Yes, there's lots of statistics about which institutions have the capacity to do what and where but, the truth of it is, against the collective power of a united people, all that ability means nought.
My point is, people keep wasting their energies in all the wrong activities. If we wanted to regain the power and resources which institutions have and which is obviously denied to the majority, the answer is not to beg for it. People must first realise their power, and then use it to take what's theirs, what they're owed. — BrianW

Let us start with how are the masses suppose to know what you said? Unless we have education for democracy, the masses will not know what you have explained, right?

Secondly, this is all about organization, and the more efficient a government is, the less power the people will have. The US had a creative but inefficient bureaucracy, and this was changed when the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shifts power and authority from the individual to the state. I have attempted to get this discussion going for years, and people just don't talk about the important things like education and bureaucratic order. At least not with information. Everyone has opinions but opinions are not going to give us power.

Democracy is a state of mind and only when we have education for democracy and our employers use the democratic model instead of the autocratic one, will we have the state of mind essential for democracy. I am not willing to accept it is my fault we are failing, when for years I have attempted to get the necessary discussions going and people do not participate in the necessary discussions. Maybe in this forum there is a chance of having the discussion we need?

For me, that's a good win. We need to learn to see everything, religious teachings included, from an investigative, analytic, logical, idealistic and practical perspectives, which is something science (philosophy included) does better than other fields of knowledge. Science is, at present, one of the biggest propagators of a 'think for yourself' mentality, far superior to religion in that respect. — BrianW

I think today we have technology confused with science. We have education for a technological society with unknown values. The International Bank has promoted this around the world. I believe Diego is aware of the change in education in the 1980's when the Military Industrial Complex was strong enough to make the International Bank very strong. You know, the New World Order that Hitler and Bush enjoyed ruling.

Confusing education for technological society with education for science is not good for democracy or liberty and it is not education for science. The driving forces of education are International banking and the Military Industrial Complex and our ignorance that leaves us wide open for being ruled by authority. Education for technology has always been for slaves. If we go back 200 years, People didn't rely on college educations as much as they relied on self-education and communicating with each other. The Military Industrial Complex uses merit hiring and that requires a college education, being self-taught does not work in a nation that is authoritarian and relies on authority and documentation from authority. On top of this, we have specialized and this is disastrous to democracy, and we have no idea how authoritarian we have become. Science is essential to our liberty and it was promoted by liberal education along with the idea that democracy is about responsibility, and life long, independent learning.

Anarchy begins with individuals. Democracy begins with education and the transmission of a culture that civilizes us and promotes working together. Education for technology does not transmit a culture for self-government and results is anarchy controlled by authority. Education for technology leads to anarchy and authoritarianism, not rule by reason.

Bottom line, we have about as much power as the people in North Korea because we have education that has prepared us for the New World Order and we are ignorant of the controlling powers and therefore powerless against them.

We don't know what the word Witch meant when this was written.

But if you want to have a death penalty commandment it would be unjust to use a vague term like witch and not actually clarify specific offences.

However in the context of the commandment lots of crimes we consider either trivial or non offences faced the death penalty. So the death penalty was not only used for the most destructive of crimes for example:

Numbers 15:
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.

35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

Also these actions were given the death penalty:

Adultery. Cursing your parents. Hitting your parents. Adultery (sex before marriage). Anyone who blasphemes and curses. A priests promiscuous daughter. Homosexual acts.

"If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both. 20:11 Leviticus

Here is a harrowing, shocking documentary of the modern day impact of the commandment to kill witches on Africa's most vulnerable children.

Let us start with how are the masses suppose to know what you said? Unless we have education for democracy, the masses will not know what you have explained, right? — Athena

Home values. Charity and learning (education) must begin at home then advance to institutions. Seeking equality, knowledge, compassion, etc, all the values we deem virtuous, must begin with the individual before it can be shared with or transmitted to others. By the time people meet to interact, it's too late to comprehensively instill values because their instinctive mechanisms have already been initiated. However, if those instincts can be modified by knowledge and proper discipline from an early and more personal stage ('home') then there's the possibility of less chaos and conflict in human interactions.

Secondly, this is all about organization, and the more efficient a government is, the less power the people will have. — Athena

This is a misleading idea. A government is only effective if it can transmit its power to the people. This means that the people should be better informed, better prepared for duty, there should be better channels of association and communication, etc. The idea that a government is so efficient that people don't do anything is a lie because it perpetuates laziness/complacency. A government should teach everyone to be fully responsible for every aspect of their lives. It doesn't mean that a person is supposed to do everything but they're supposed to know and choose (accept-initiate-conduct-appreciate) everything in their lives.

I am not willing to accept it is my fault we are failing, when for years I have attempted to get the necessary discussions going and people do not participate in the necessary discussions. — Athena

People can't be forced to be ready for situations just because you are. That's why in my previous post I mentioned that there is progress even though it is slow. We may not make a step in our lifetime but even a fraction of it is okay because it is still movement. Also, you should realise how insufficient your ability is in influencing others and work on improving it (it applies to me too, attempts without success means back to the drawing board).

Confusing education for technological society with education for science is not good for democracy or liberty and it is not education for science. The driving forces of education are International banking and the Military Industrial Complex and our ignorance that leaves us wide open for being ruled by authority. — Athena

This is not an all-consuming problem. Look into domains where some success has been achieved (look into countries like Sweden, or possibly all scandinavian countries, Japan, Canada, etc). They're not perfect but they've realised some of these problems and are somewhat working away from it. Other nations will eventually follow suit when they realise they're lagging behind. For now, that is also part of how we progress.

I don't know if you are really as negative as you seem to me, but you miss the point of what it means to interact with others. It's not just about one person or faction and their ideas, values, purpose, etc., everyone should get equal consideration. We cannot ask of people to do or be more than what they choose (it's part of the equality package). I believe when enough people get on the right track then the rest will follow and even then, it's still a long way to nirvana. For me, what I see around is a consequence of our collective influences and capacities.
In some domains, my influence will dissipate to nothing as soon as I apply it because of the counter-influences in that sphere of interaction; in other domains, my influence may last a decade or more because of the complementing influences. The best I can do is realise the best mode of work for the outcome I need. And, sometimes, the best is not good enough but it still must be done. Sometimes, in some circumstances, all you need is to benefit just one other person; in others, all is needed is your participation regardless of any positive outcomes. To deny oneself those opportunities to provide that little which is necessary because one is too focused on a 'picture' that is 'too big for one's britches' is a crime against integrity.

Yes, institutions and governments are a problem, but we (humanity) have had problems for more millennia than we could name. Just remember, the way forward is one small step at a time, which could mean one small step every few years, decades or centuries. The positive take on things is that, every human wants what is best for them and as we learn how bias is detrimental to the collective and the individual, we begin to work towards eliminating it.
The solution to a global problem will be a global revolution. It begins with a few movements which build to a larger movement and so on. Right now, according to the state of the world, we're not yet ready for a world-wide revolution, so we should learn to be content with the little we have.
To those who can engineer global movements, then god-speed to them, otherwise, we just play our little part and learn to appreciate our efforts and lives. What's the point of life without happiness and, from personal experience, humans are tenacious and we can learn to be happy in whatever situation we're in.

I think education for a technological society is a problem only if we think technology will solve all human problems which we (as a human collective and especially governments and institutions) have began to realise the limitations.
What we now have is governments, institutions, companies rushing to reach the technological 'limit' which was initially the ideal. However, there are many other movements which are rising to fill in the gaps being left behind and your concerns are a part of that wave of thought.

Education for technology should not be stopped but it should be complemented with other practical values. I think the whole intense focus into one channel shows where we are as a humanity and it's just part of our progression. Near history shows a time when we had education for industries, further back and we can observe education for statecraft and philosophy (greeks and romans), there was also education for religion/spirituality (egyptians, babylonians, chaldeans with their astrology and stuff), etc.

We're not at an unprecedented state or stage in human development (we're within reasonable margins) and I believe we're gradually working towards a better way of life.

I´m not the one to claim the validity of laws from the Iron Age in our XXI century. They are all barbaric, and only Muslims nowadays accept them and that is why they bring with them child marriage, acceptables ways of disciplining disobedient wives, killing or imprisoning apostates, and so on. Many of these norms were already crazy in Roman citizen´s eyes, and Romans crucified people.

I agree with you that there was a level of arbitrariness and above all, lack of proportion in the penalties: this is in part resulting from adapting Mesopotamian Law and the Purity norms of priesthood, making them eternal offences to God that no punishment can really expiate, and not just human affairs with proportional penalties.

This said, consider how the Bible is really a good collection of books from different periods of History, from late Bronze Age to Late Hellenistic and Roman times. The "you should not suffer a witch to live" quote, might have to do (I really don´t know, we´d need to check with an expert) with editions done during Josiah´s reforms, that gave us Deutero-nomy or "Second Law", where even the Ten Commandments were changed. In this legal reformation I believe, human sacrifice was for the first time prohibited, even sacrifices made for Yahweh. It might be that witchcraft was suspicious of maintaining this tradition, that were also being expurgated from other regions of the Mediterranean in the time. Also, consider how hexes were considered real; if you believe in supernatural entities, why not believe in supernatural spells and hexes? and therefore the practice of witchcraft was consider dangerous for people and a threat to the monarchy.

Isaac Asimov, the XXth century Jules Verne that wrote about issues like energy crisis, robots taking our lives, the fall of democracy...before it was cool, had this famous interview in 1964 in which he was asked what he thought the world fifty years later would be like. Some quotes:

. "The world of A.D. 2014 will have few routine jobs that cannot be done better by some machine than by any human being. Mankind will therefore have become largely a race of machine tenders."

"All the high-school students will be taught the fundamentals of computer technology, will become proficient in binary arithmetic and will be trained to perfection in the use of the computer languages that will have developed out of those like the contemporary 'Fortran.'"

"Mankind will suffer badly from the disease of boredom, a disease spreading more widely each year and growing in intensity. This will have serious mental, emotional and sociological consequences, and I dare say that psychiatry will be far and away the most important medical specialty in 2014. The most glorious single word in the vocabulary will have become work!'

If we change ordinary boredom for lack of purpose and healthy ways to build a meaningful vital project, the quote makes a lot of sense to us I think. Especially for males, as men were the ones bringing the bread home and taking pride in their tough professions and capacity as economic providers. Three out of four suicides are male, both in the U.S. and Europe (that is why feminists never talk about suicide, the first cause of death in people under 35, as a social problem) and the suicides peak at the teen age and with men beyond their fifties (that is, when professional prospects are the worst for job seekers).

I said that it falls short (after writing that your guidelines was the correct scientific approach) because when you think that a text contains the real literal words and deeds of human beings and God, any approach is insufficient. — DiegoT

Ah yes, but whether a text should be interpret literally, figuratively or metaphorically, or perhaps even all three at once is something that can derrive from studieng the culture the text was written in in my vieuw. Assuming we can find enough leads to study said culture.
If we don't know anything about the culture a text was written in, even the used alfabeth will be unfamilar to us, hence we won't be able to say a sensible thing about the content of the text.

Luckily in case of the bible, we have quite some leads to go by. Though still not enough to be conclusive about the entire content of the bible.
Since even today, after the discovery of the scientific method as we now know it and the importance for it to state claims in a literal sense, most people tend to speak in metaphores and figures of speech daily. Hence to assume the bible should only be interpret literally would be a mistake.
Stricly literal statements in a book can only be found after we started applieng the scientific method as we do now, not before. At least I'm not aware of even a single book over 500 years old that does.

But... you say "minimum requirements". What more can one do to determine the meaning that a divinity may or may not have expressed? — Bitter Crank

I didn't mean to imply that there must be something else when I said minimum. Though if you can think of something else, I'm open to suggestions.

All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine. — Tomseltje

'the devine' in this sentence was merely intended as 'the devine context' as in 'the ultimate context' or 'the greatest context that might even exceed our imagination'.

I beg your pardon, I thought the line commented was an actual quotation from a scholar I don´t know. That is why I wrote "this Tomseltje", not in a pejorative fashion, but recognizing my ignorance of this supposed author. Unless you have actually published essays, then it would all fall into place! — DiegoT

Thanks you for your compliment, I guess this discussion forum is my debut then, though I may have expresses part of the idea in youtube comments before. So glad I found this place where the ideas I post get more appreciation.

I cannot say god exists, Nore can I say he doesn’t. The bible is most likely the biggest game of Chinese whispers ever created, a story taking parts from other religions and put together, told and translated over and over again.

Why ask Brain and not me? — Tomseltje

Because your words were so profound, I didn't expect you to be a real person here and now. :grin:

Mattiesse
7
I cannot say god exists, Nore can I say he doesn’t. The bible is most likely the biggest game of Chinese whispers ever created, a story taking parts from other religions and put together, told and translated over and over again. — Mattiesse

I wish we all had agreement on twhat you said. When I read a book explaining what was written in Sumer, it was so obvious at least five biblical stories originated in Sumer. And Isis was the bread and water before Jesus was the bread and wine. And Jesus is a retelling of Mithra mythology. The Romans used Roman law of nature that was used to settle legal disputs between people from different city/states to get agreements for the Christian religion. Blending the most common and popular beliefs into one religion. Like if God spoke to anyone, He spoke to everyone, and those who heard him explained the word of God in his own way.

Thankyou the reply :smile:

Seeking equality, knowledge, compassion, etc, all the values we deem virtuous, must begin with the individual before it can be shared with or transmitted to others. — BrianW

Oh my goodness and by what magic do individuals hear this word of God? I am afraid you and I got off topic, but we can get back on topic with the notion that out of the ether an individual will become aware of the virtues. I don't think it happens that way. For centuries everywhere in the world, the learning came from spiritual leaders and grandmothers and then was formalized into religion. We learn the virtues from others and when we don't know people who know them, we don't learn them, and when we don't learn them, we can not teach them to our children. I think the chant that parents must teach their children is rather new. The original purpose of education in the US was teaching citizenship, knowing the immigrant parents would learn citizenship in our democracy from their children. Vocational training was added to education in 1917, That education is like religion only instead of relying on a mystical god it relies on the goodness of humans that can be learned and then manifested is self-government. But first it must be learned and it is bad logic to expect parents to teach what they have not learned.

I think we've both gone off topic. How about another discussion about, "where do values come from?"

I think education for a technological society is a problem only if we think technology will solve all human problems which we (as a human collective and especially governments and institutions) have began to realise the limitations. — BrianW

What if all the churches put their holy books on a shelve and focused on teaching the technical skills of reading and writing and preparing the young to hold jobs? What would happen to Christianity then? You, and perhaps everyone else, are living with a false notion of citizenship and who must teach it. Education for technology does not transmit a culture. There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Which do you want? If you want liberty then it is pretty important you understand what education must do transmit the necessary culture.

We had education for good citizenship and good moral judgment until 1958, Now people are talking about Satan being on earth and the last days. No, education for technology will not manifest a liberal democracy. In fact, at least half of our nation thinks liberals are the enemy of democracy and we need a strong man like Trump to do what needs to be done even if he has to shut down our government to get things done, ending the democratic process. The population that elected Trump is the result of education for technology. This education is not going to make us a strong and united democracy.

I think we've both gone off topic. How about another discussion about, "where do values come from?" — BrianW

The mentality for democracy and the values essential to liberty came from the Greek and Roman classics. The immigrants who came to the US were mostly Christian and they did not come with an understanding of democratic institutions and citizenship in a democracy that granted everyone liberty. Democracy does not come from the bible. Believing humans are capable of ruling themselves and they should have liberty, sure does not come from the bible! Christian beliefs are not compatible with democracy and all religions teach people to nice to one another but do not prepare people for liberty and democracy. Literacy in the Greek and Roman classics, or Americanize versions of Greek and Roman thinking, is essential to our liberty and democracy.

I think we have a problem because of Christianity and also because textbooks Americanized the essential lessons for democracy and the masses became ignorant of the source of that knowledge coming to believe it was okay to stop transmitting a culture and leave moral training to the church. Oh my God! Our deist forefathers must be turning over in their graves because education for technology leaves moral training to the church and we no longer have a clue what moral judgment has to do with science and logic.

I see you are Australian. :grin: Australians have a history that should make them very aware that Christianity is not about liberty and democracy because good Christian England used the island for a prison colony. Young women were picked up for minor offenses and sent to Australia to civilize the men. These people pretty much had to figure out how to manage on their own and from what I have heard they have done a great job of that and have a better voting system than in the US. Who picks the leaders in the Bible?

I don't know if it is clear, that the factors I use in interpreting the Bible are a knowledge of history, including the history of education, and different religions?

Hello :smile: yes, in Australia we are very relaxed and layed back. A lot of people were brought to Australia from England for pettie and serious crimes. Isn’t it funny, the people who disobeyed the law created a country that did even better? :lol:

Hello :smile: yes, in Australia we are very relaxed and layed back. A lot of people were brought to Australia from England for pettie and serious crimes. Isn’t it funny, the people who disobeyed the law created a country that did even better? :lol: — Mattiesse

Yes, it is one of my favorite lessons from history! A lesson we might consider when considering we are born in sin and need someone appointed by God to rule over us, and that to honor this God we should be obedient and good slaves.

I am impressed by the notion that Australians are pretty strong on human dignity and self-reliance. Compared to a Christian reliance on God and the idea that a God has chosen people and only a select few are allowed into heaven. :lol:

What is earth, an apartment for low-income people, that by law, can not discriminate against undesirables? We all know, the people we associate with influence us, and I suppose we all want to be among the select few who are chosen for heaven. But think about how much easier it would be to be among the deserving people if we didn't have to share our planet with so many undesirables. :rofl:

Thank you :cry: I can not watch it because it is too upsetting but we should know it was not that long ago when we beat the devil out of our children, and our criminal justice system in the US is still based the Christian mentality of evil people and punishment and saving souls by forcing them to do penitence, the reason we have penitentiaries instead of a system of counseling and socialising people and a school system that reduces the number of people who get into trouble in the first place.

I have to stress the main reason I oppose Christianity is the failure of education for technology and inhuman correction system. Both based on false Christian notions of human worthless.

Oh my God! Our deist forefathers must be turning over in their graves because education for technology leaves moral training to the church and we no longer have a clue what moral judgment has to do with science and logic. Athena

It is true that Education for Citizenship is paramount. We can not be just biological parts of machinery and bureaucracy. The problem to have education for citizenship proper, is that first we need to have common values and the idea of citizenship very clear. I agree that reading the Classics would help; it might feel that Latin and Greek authors are too far from our Modern societies, but they are the authors the people who shaped our world read and study carefully, both secular and spiritual leaders; and not so long ago, they´d do it in the original Latin and Greek, something I was lucky enough to experience myself in our state high school. Citizenship for example, is the Roman concept of Civitas as Cicero explained it. Plus, you have the advantage of checking in history books if their political and philosophical ideas really worked or were fiascoes.

Science and Religion can not be separated. That was a historical mistake! Science has no soul and Religion has no brain. We have a Faustean, fascist Science and religions that are simply crazy. Schizophrenia. XX and XXI centuries.

Because your words were so profound, I didn't expect you to be a real person here and now. — Athena

Thanks for the compliment. Though I didn't actually come up with that idea myself, all I can take credit for is the way the statement is formulated, the actual idea I got from talking to my dad and priests who all spend way more time studieng theology and the biblical texts than I have.

What you say must be controversial though, otherwise it will simply be commonsense with which no one will dissgree. — Janus

Whether something is controversial is in the eye of the beholder, it's a subjective qualification, not an objective one, unless you are taking an argument from popularity fallacy as objective proof for such a qualification.
Since I don't know you, other than what you posted here, I have no means to tell te difference between whether something I state would by you be considered as controversial or commonsense. To me all my statements seem commonsense or I wouldn't be making them though often they are seen as controversial by others.

Usually what is considered a controversial topic is a topic that is greatly misunderstood. Like statistical proof on demographics for instance, when it's about income differences between plumbers and lumberjacks hardly anyone cares but lumberjacks and plumbers, but when it's about the income difference between races it's controversial, even though the statistics applied are exactly the same, a lot more people who don't understand a thing about statistics are interested.
And since they don't know a thing about statistics they misinterpreted the research statements, thereby making strawman fallacies against said research, making the topic controversial.
In other words, all I can tell about controversial topics, is that there seems to be a correlation between how misunderstood a topic is by the ones discussing it and the lever of the topic to be considered to be controversial.

I seldom have people actually disagreeing with my statements while demonstrating they understood my statement proporly. Usually when someone disagrees with my statement, they do so on basis of a strawman fallacy.

So my question is, why should my statements be controversial? Isn't it more imprortant that what I state at least makes sense to me?
It seems to me you are incorrect in your assesment that if something stated is commonsense, that then no one will disagree. My experiences tell me otherwise. I stated something similar on youtube and I got mobbed by atheists accusing me of being an apologist to stupid to be able to understand science since i didn't agree with their vieuw of the bible being nothing but bullshit. Hence what to you seems commonsense, to many others is greatly controversial.
Hence in order for me to make a controversial statement, I first need to know more about your positions, since I don't, asking for a controversial statement seems abit too much to ask under the circumstances.

If you happen to have a specific topic or text in mind on wich you like to know my position, please do name it.

The only thing I've encountered so far was your reframing of the principle of hermeneutics, and I dont think anyone sensible would disagree with the principle of hermeneutics. — Janus

Within the field of theology it's common knowledge, any decenty educated priest could have told you what they told me, you seem to have understood my statement correctly.

I´m saying no book and no interpretation can be a communication from God. That we need to give up book idolatry for good. Gods do not write books; — DiegoT

The opposite position is just as sensible, perhaps even more:
All good books in their correct interpretation are a communication from God.
God may not write books, but people do, and if the spark of devinity that each person has gets involved (wich in this case makes the book 'good') when writing the book, then the word of God is in the book.

I’m only just coming into this discussion (and into this forum), so bear with me...

I think there is merit in both of these positions. No book and no interpretation can be a pure communication from God, but by the same token all books contain within them an opportunity for communication from God (yes, even those that aren’t very ‘good’) because they are each an expression of the human experience, which includes a personal relationship with God (regardless whether they name it as such or actively ignore it).

So I think each book of the bible contains either a personal or collective expression of humanity’s relationship with God, imperfectly enacted and entangled with personal and political motivations to communicate with others. I think more than most books, the writers of these texts were motivated (among other things) to express the nature of their relationship with God through their experiences, and in doing so try to understand the nature of what they understand to be God and its connection to their lives.

In interpreting scriptures, I try to take into account the historical, political and cultural context and motivations of the human authors as much as possible, especially their limited awareness and understanding of the universe, and my limited awareness of their language and life experiences, and then try to remember that these were real, imperfect human beings putting pen to papyrus and attempting to express what - let’s be honest - is almost impossible to completely and accurately put into words in any language, let alone in a way that billions of unique human beings across millennia will understand.

If we can forgive human errors in judgement, misunderstanding, ignorance, poor use of language, ulterior motives, fear, hurt and anger - and also recognise that God doesn’t communicate using words but through subjective experience - then yes, communication from God is in the book for us to experience for ourselves.

But it’s impossible to then duplicate that experience completely in someone else’s life, because we are all so unique...

That’s my take on it, anyway.

Personally, I choose the least contradictory interpretation or the most harmonious to be closer to the truth. This is because I believe reality to be in absolute harmony in the way it unfolds. This does not mean phenomena don't interact with each other but, there are laws/principles which govern such interactions and resolve them logically. Therefore, for me, the path of least resistance, the path of greatest harmony or unity or freedom, is closest in approximation to reality. — BrianW

Harmony can be found in falsehoods too. A collection of lies may fit together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle, yielding a picture most beautiful to behold but false in every piece and as a whole.

Internal consistency is what you're looking for and that's a good thing but the Book must also have external consistency - it should fit well with the other pieces of the puzzle we have such as science, paleontology, archaeology, etc.

and also recognise that God doesn’t communicate using words but through subjective experience — Possibility

Why would we assume/recognize this? this seems rather opposite to what the bible sais about god.
especially John 1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Wich seems to suggest that god doesn't only communicate using words, but even that god is the word.
How do you reconcile that? I'd rather conclude that god is to be found in what we tell each other about our subjective experiences.