And yet no attempt to correct the words and attempt to set me straight, I see. Well... ? What is it you were saying about the words in The Bible? How is my characterization of them as a relaying of "personal experience" incorrect?
I can answer you. But I detest it when people try to force views.
I know about theological views based on experience. I reject that in the strongest possible terms. That in no way implies that people have no feelings (experiences) in their faith life.
Since the twentieth-century experience theology became an issue within the church and later in Protestantism as well. It is especially – in a more disguised form – still an issue in the RCC as well. Today most discussions about the nature of theology among Catholic theologians include references somewhere along the line to the role of human experience.
Some wrongly try to claim that Christian beliefs and even Scripture itself are derived from subjective faith experiences. The romanticism of Fredrich Schleiermacher is a well-known attempt to marry experience with biblical truths.
The problem those people create is to distinguish personal experiences from the object of faith (God) and objective truth. It also removes the focus from the giver of biblical truth – the real authority, which is God. True revelation is with the first ‘actor’ and not in the subjective, human experience.
The logical issue is that there is a wide variety of so-called experiences that fall under the umbrella of religious experience. The concept is vague. Part of the confusion comes from the term ‘religion,’ which is also difficult to define. Example: Is a feeling of elation, for example, in a religious context, a religious experience, or simply an emotion? Does it point to God or does it reveal the character of the person?
Many subjects of religious feelings or experiences take them to be real experiences of some external reality, but are they right? I.e. do religious experiences amount to good reasons for religious belief?
I argue that the truth and true beliefs must be grounded in an objective fact or person (like God) or be derived from some special status, like infallibility.
It boils down to Christian epistemologically – how do we know God? My contention is we cannot know God correctly by looking at how people behave and what they experience or how they react. Human experiences do NOT make beliefs epistemically permissible – it only proves that humans have feelings that often differ from each other.
So, NO, Scripture is NOT a collection of human experiences.