Maybe you are. Tell me what was written above the head of Jesus on the Cross and from what source. When you are done, would you do me the favour of telling me the events of Easter morning - ie who did what and when and from what source? Paul cannot even get his story straight in his two tellings of his conversion in Acts. If you do not read the Bible with the guidance of the Church directed by the Holy Spirit, why then, you may come up with any interpretation that humans can conceive of.
Mark, if the Bible was written through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wouldn't that mean that the stories by different authors would be identical, or at least not conflicting, and therefore eliminate the need for an intermediate (human) "interpreter"?
Surely God did not reveal to every biblical author a slightly different narrative, such as two genesis accounts, or how many women and which ones were at the empty tomb, were there angels, or one angel or simply a man talking to them, or in Paul's story of conversion who heard and saw what, or similar inconsistencies.
Nor would God have spoken to Nicodemus in Greek using vague hyperboles of questionable pun value (is it "from above", or is it "again"?) Neither would God (I hope) deliberately reveal physical or factual inconsistencies with the real world, such as "the smallest seed, the sun "standing" still,..." or that bats are fowl.
After all, the first three Gospels that were written (long before John's) were an attempt at "harmonization" (synopsis), so as to "get the story right". Here different authors, "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke" (all anonymous), copy verbatim from each other — not only verses, but whole paragraphs.
Why would "Matthew", supposedly an eyewitness compared to "Mark" and "Luke", copy from "Mark" (since his is the oldest)and why did the official interpreter not know that "Matthew's" is not first? What else did the interpreter not know?