Yes.

Agreed and right on and well said and good job and all of that. 

With one caveat.

The Bible isn't simply true because it makes sense to our experience.  Of course, this is a huge validation for the truths the Bible contains. If they conflicted with how we experience the world, we'd be much harder pressed to identify with them, obviously.  If someone tells us the world is one way, when it clearly seems to be something very different, it would be hard to come to terms with that.  But in the Bible, we see experiences that mirror our own, as Bell points out. 

However, it *does* matter that what is said in the Bible did actually happen.  It's not just allegory or metaphor or pleasant wishes or happy thoughts or nightmares or whatever subjective term you might prefer.  The stories ring true, but they are valuable because they *are* true.  They are eye-witness accounts to the workings of God in time and space and human history.  They are snapshots in words of various people and how they have experienced the truth of the reality of God.  We ground our experiences of God in their experiences.  We validate their experiences, but they also validate ours. 

If somebody just made up the story of some other aspect of human experience and history - let's say the biography of George Washington - how would that affect us?  Of course, there might still be object lessons we could draw from the stories - to be brave, courageous, to stand up for what is right, whatever.  However, these concepts are grounded in the real example of a real person in time and space.  The reality of Geogre Washington is what gives credence to the object lessons - if he experienced/did it, so might/can we.  If George Washington hadn't existed, the moral lessons would lose some credibility.  The value of Aesop's Fables is only in the moral lesson, since the fables aren't real.  Therefore, the truth of the moral lessons are only and totally validated by whether or not our personal experiences agree with them. 

George Washington existed and we're relatively certain that what is recorded about him is true to a certain extent.  Therefore, even if I have never felt the compulsion to be brave or resolute or inspiring or heroic or anything, my experiences are mitigated by his.  Because he *was* brave or resolute or inspiring or heroic, I can't simply deny these things exist because I haven't experienced them.  I have to conform my understanding of reality in such a way as to take into account these things because of Washington's reported experience/demonstration of them. 

So while we do validate the Bible through our own experience, that is not the only direction things work.  We must allow the Bible to validate our experience as well, to shape our perception of ourselves and the world and God.  The only way to avoid this is to write off the Bible as pleasant or unpleasant stories.  Nice ideas, good moral lessons, but not actual records of actual people, places, and time. 

So Bell is right - the Bible rings true with us because of what we experience.  But the Bible is not made true or untrue by what we experience.  It works the other way around - the Bible is the one forming us, teaching us, helping us to interpret what is happening in our lives and the world around us.  Kudos to Bell for pointing this out...