“I think it is possible to over-focus on the texts, and lose people in the detail of a discussion they are not interested in.”

I somehow missed your post of the 28th where you state your opinion of the Bible.
You know, as regards the Bible there is a very important difference between Greek speaking people and the rest of the world. To us the Bible consists of two entirely different texts: an older one written in Hebrew and a younger one written in Greek. We also have in Greek the oldest translation of the Hebrew text (Septuagint) and although we can read the entire collection in Greek we never mix the two.
I very rarely discuss the Christian literature because I regard it pure theological work, pure fiction, and the only points of interests in there are the mythological motifs that the writers had to preserve in order not to contradict age old belief of the people (the gods were born into caves, for example). You also seem not to make a distinction between the two.

Anyway, “to over-focus on texts” I understand as “to over-focus on knowledge”.
As regards people who are not interested in a discussion of the texts, they simply do not take part in a discussion of the texts.

“You have not been able to prove any claims made in the bible concerning god and etc”

On the contrary, I can present enough evidence to persuade you that the description of the God in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) is a correct one because the God was actually a criminal person, exactly as described.
You have knowledge of the Bible but you failed to ask questions and look for the answers. You understand that various writers had access to the texts and that they used the texts to suit their own purposes but still you wrote: “So with all of this, I'm not going to give that book any authority over my life.” Who is asking believers to give to the Bible authority over their lives? The ancient authors of the Bible or the modern theologians?

The Bible, the Hebrew Bible, contradicts theology. There is, of course, plenty of theological nonsense in there but that is something expected from scriptures used by the clergy. The passages written by obviously atheist scholars are the ones of value because they were written at a time that the ancient Greeks were still recording their Homeric fairy tales and had no real interest in their own traditions and history as the Israelite scholars did.
Zeus was transformed into rain in order to rape the imprisoned Danae (legend turned into fairy tale).
Yahweh attacked Moses to kill him when he suspected that Zipporah’s child had been fathered by Moses and not by himself on raping Zipporah (legend retaining its crude form).

“I advocate a people-first philosophy.”

By telling the people the truth or by having them sleeping peacefully sunk into lies?

“There is no such animal.”

There is! “Thank God”, there is! :)
The proof that the lion (such an animal it is) exists is the Oral Torah which was indispensable in order for the written text to be understood.
Here is a demonstration of the merit of the Oral Torah (which was eventually written down and comprised what is known as the Talmud).

We read in Ezekiel:

And you my flock, the flock of my pasture, ARE MEN (adam), and I am your God, says the Lord God. (Ez. 34:31)

The phrase “are men” does not exist in the Septuagint:

πρόβατά μου καὶ πρόβατα ποιμνίου μού ἐστε (missing words) καὶ ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν λέγει κύριος κύριος

What does Ezekiel mean by “you, my flock, are men” which the sages that made the translation into Greekl chose to ignore?

The answer is found in the Talmud. Baba Mezia 114b reads:

He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity? For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of the Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, AND YE MY FLOCK, THE FLOCK OF MY PASTURES, ARE MEN; ONLY YE ARE DESIGNATED 'MEN'. — He replied: I cannot even adequately study the four [orders]; can I then study six?

“Only ye are designated men” means that the others, those who do not belong to the God’s flock ARE NOT REGARDED MEN?

Passage 255-L of the 1855 (Warsaw) edition of the book "Midrash Talpiyyot" by Elijah ben Solomon Abraham ha-kohen is said to read as follows (I have not been able to find the book in English).

Ouote
Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.
Unquote

The passage appears to be impressive but only to those who have never studied ancient texts. According to the Egyptian Funerary Texts the gods were killing those humans they considered animals.

Elijah ben Solomon was writing in the 18th century and had no means to know what was written in the ancient Egyptian texts. The only means for such information to have survived so late is to have been transmitted orally.

Now, as regards Passage 255-L of the 1855 (Warsaw) edition of the book "Midrash Talpiyyot", I have spoken with Israelite persons and they never said to me that there is no such passage, They simply say that the Midrash is not an official text or something similar.

In the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, the real story of the gods has been recorded. The story appears to be either the story of the ancient Israelites or the story of the monotheistic God Yahweh, who are both described as criminal persons! Why is that? Because the gods are the Israelites themselves. That is what the Tanakh was written for, to inform the future generations of the Israelites of their history, but, as it has been shown above, it could not be done by writing in open language so they did it by conveying the vital information orally.

Yes, the Tanakh is an animal, a ferocious animal that could devour Judaism and every religion on earth, if ever the atheist scholars manage to wake up. :-D