The problem with reality or God is that (for us) they exist by the means of perception. People from different cultures, different geographical locations and from a different century all have different perceptions.

This is why in my view the same Truth/God perceived by people from a totally different background (culture, age group, century, etc) will “look” different (will have a different internal representation). This can be a reason why every culture has (and needs) its own different religion. They perceive God/Truth in a different way, their way. Buddhists don’t even use the concept of God, but they have a very strong sense of truth.
Who is right? Maybe we are all right.

In my view, the bible, as many other religious references should be read in the context and spirit of its creators and from its own cultural point of view. Only then you will find the truth. The Bible is written in metaphors (as I understand it) Comparing it with our latest model of truth, modern science is useless, fairly absurd and doesn’t make science nor religion more valid.

Agreed, you cannot phrase a question without words. But in my view, the essence of a question are not the words itself. Often the phrase formulating the question does not cover the entire contents/meaning of the question itself (this is a personal matter, and a phrase can have a different contents/meaning for each person).
I would even say that on a personal level sometimes you don’t have to formulate a question in words in order to make it exist for you. Saying this, I might be making a mess of the definition of “question”, which might lead to confusion and ……..more questions.

I therefore reject the notion that one person has his truth and another person another (opposing) truth. Because if that were true, the opposite of this statement would be true as well.

I don’t see how one could phrase a question without words. One even needs words to express the notion of not using words.

I personally wouldn’t question the source of a genuine personal experience. I personally experience something that maybe others would call “God”. I know a “force” which I feel present inside me. This “force” in itself is invisible but through “communication” (in many different ways) with me it shows its presence. I can feel it is very positive and for me it has no limits.
Personally I call it “the subconsciousness”, a term which I found more useful than the term “God” in my concept of life and as a practitioner of N.L.P. and other psychological reference models. Of course this choice is very personal as it works for me. I think both the term “God” and “the Subconsciousness” are very much abused concepts as they are not easy to comprehend and go far beyond our rational capabilities.
If you would tell me that what I experience in fact is God I could say that that is fine with me as it is “just” another label for my experience. The experience or contents matters, not the name.
So I would suggest that in your case God definitely exists. For me (let’s say a non-religious person) and my experience I would say under certain circumstances it makes sense to use the term “God” although this might lead to a total misunderstanding. For me it is important to respect and compare each others experiences by using the different reference models. Just the labeling is fairly uninteresting.