I come down on "divinely inspired" rather than "divinely dictated".
I tend to favor this approach, as well.
As far as the miracle accounts, I first and foremost read them literally, but I am also aware of the more figurative/mystical interpretations of the same passages. I think it is a "both/and" rather than an "either/or".
If I understand what you're saying here ... this does no injury to your belief in the literalness of the Bible (Old & New Testament) miracles ... yes ?
For instance, could it not be true that JESUS is the Son of God, the eternally existent Second Person of the Godhead ... and ... a Tzaddik ?
Basically, yes. I admit I'm biased. I tend to be more uncritically accepting of the miracle accounts in the Hebrew scriptures. Although my belief in God does not depend upon the truth of these accounts. I would still believe in Him even if all of these miracles were figuratively rather than literally true.
As far as Jesus is concerned, I have no problem believing his actions as a healer. I don't even really have a problem with the resurrection (since as a Jew I do believe in the resurrection of the body). I'm more skeptical of some of the other miracle stories, but I don't discount them out of hand, because I do believe that God can (and does) perform miracles. Now, in my mind, Jesus performing miracles does not make him God (any more than Moses was God).
For instance, could it not be true that JESUS is the Son of God, the eternally existent Second Person of the Godhead ... and ... a Tzaddik ?
A Tzaddik is a son of God: first in the way we all are, being created in His image and likeness, and second, in a special way being His "adopted" son. I don't equate being a Son of God with being "one in Being" with God, but rather with being "one in Spirit" with Him. In my mind, being "One with God" is not the same as being God. This is significant when we come to the question as to whether we may worship one who is perfectly "one in Spirit" with God. I would say no. But praying to God in his name would be okay.