Being born again means having a changed perspective on ...just about everything. It's not just the acceptance of a new doctrine or a changed opinion, it's something internal that you know happened to you because you now see things so entirely differently than you did before.
However it [being born againj]isn't something that you can pin down to a particular time and place, and it doesn't require the acceptance of a new doctrine at all.
I think isome of us were born again but didn't know what it was so we don't think of it as pinned to a particular time and place. We just notice that we're very different from what we were before. I had a few eparate rather dramatic supernatural experiences during the period when I was reading my way to Christ but there was a time when I looked at myself and saw that I actually had a faith I had't had before and didn't know exactly when the change had occurred. But many Christians have a very definite experience in mind they definitely can pin down to time and place, and just as ICANT does, commemorate it as having its own birthday.
If we use God as embodied by Jesus as the lens we can then read through the 66 different books that make up the Bible and understand where the writers got it wrong and where they got it more or less right. The whole Biblical narrative provides the story of a progressive understanding of the nature of God climaxing in Jesus.
Jar and Thug have commented on this part of your post and I'm going to add my bit. We are SUPPOSED to read the whole Bible through the "lens" of Christ, or the New Testament as a whole. But what conservative Reformed Christians get when we do this is the Christian understandinjg of the Old Testament, there is NO PLACE "where they got it wrong," because it was all inspired (God-breathed) through Jesus anyway. We are to interpret everything in the OT according to the revelationj of the New and when we do we do not contradict any of it, we understand its original meaning.
The problem though is that in actuality you don't read the Bible through the lens of Jesus. You understand the Bible as being inerrant, so that if the Bible says that God commanded His followers to publicly stone people to death or to commit genocide then you believe that to be historical. That though is completely incompatible with Jesus' command to love your enemy, turn the other cheek etc, The enemy at that time was considered to be the Romans, and that specifically at the time was who Jesus would be referring to. Your understanding of inerrancy is also completely incompatible with Jesus telling them to release the woman caught in adultery.
Jesus came to save in His first Advent. He will come in vengeance when He comes the second time. This is very clear in what he read in the synagogue in Isaiah about His mission to comfort, when He left out the line about God's vengeance, which is pushed forward to the Second Coming. We live in the salvation dispensation.
Jesus also does not teach about judgment on whole nations, except for the prophecy of the fall of the temple in 70 AD, but that was a major theme in the Old Testament, one I believe we are to take to heart in relation to our nation and all nations today. I believe the US is under Judgment by God and if we don't repent things can only get worse. But Jesus taught us as individuals, not as nations.
It is a choice. As a Christian you can believe that the "Word" of God is a library of books or it is Jesus. It can't be both.
Yes it can, and it is.
For that matter the Bible says that in Jesus the "Word" was made flesh. Neither the Bible nor Jesus says that the "Word" was embodied by a book.
Both are God's communications to the human race, and they do not contradict each other.