OK??
The content of the Bible was written in common language to common people, just like my communication with you.
I suggest to you that the message that God wished to communicate is as understandable as yours and my communication. The gist of God’s commands is clear and unambiguous.
We make two grave errors in reading. First, we feel that the message must be made more mystical (that’s why I suggested you were trying to read my mind in your response to my question - that’s what we do when we insist on over-analyzing doctrines like the Trinity).
Second, we read the Bible with lenses of Greek philosophy, instead of reading it as a Hebrew would understand it. That is, the Hebrew had zero interest in speculative philosophy. The notion of infallibility would be a total mystery to him. The idea of a super-analytical approach to the “steps” of salvation would be abhorrent - it’s a holistic concept. The idea of an “omnipotent” God would be true, but irrelevant, since God chose to limit his own power by forming covenant in history with human beings. Covenant is by definition a limitation of power of both partners by imposing obligations in writing (which can be understood).
Note that when Paul condensed the message down to what the gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, he made a series of historical statements, not dogmatic statements. That was very Hebrew of him. Either it happened as he said or it didn’t. It’s not hard to understand and doesn’t require much interpretation. If it didn’t happen, the rest of the words in the Bible are worse than useless. If it did, then that’s where I’m called to make my stand - the historical truth (or falsehood) of the death, burial, resurrection and appearance of Jesus.
The heresies, the “misinterpretations”, of the past and present simply deny these historical events in some form.
I know you are more accustomed to short very concise questions and answers, but I hope what I’m saying makes some sense to you.