Your view is the same as Wikipedia’s. And your OK.
Note, when I read anything from the bible, I use the internet and get at least four interpretations from the different bibles. It is almost a waist of time to try and use “reasoned argument" with the bible. When did the church say the NT was finished, 1960 something.
Your idea that POR should work together with other disciplines like history. I think is the answer.
Now that I have said that. I got to say.
I believe the bible is correct in a lot of its statements.
I just don’t think the statements are being read correctly.
When you read a statement in the Gnostic form you can get an entirely different meaning.
And a lot of the bible was written in Gnostic. I see that as a major problem.
For example. Son of God.
How do most people interpret that statement?
In Gnostic we are all the son of god.
And Jesus got into a lot of trouble in Israel when he tried to teach that thinking and he had to defend himself in court.
The Gnostic Jesus said he was just a man. And the son of god in his religion, as many was.
But there are different sects of Gnostic and some went different directions and it is not easy to understand which ones to use.
Point being is that the ideas of the bible were not a bunch of far fetched ideas that people believed. They were turned into far fetched ideas by the church in a systematic method of control sometime after the teachings of Jesus.
Have you ever heard of the footnote bibles. They were used by the church when they went out to see how the people were responding to the gospels. They would write notes in the sides or the footnotes to make changes to help in the message.