Quite the contrary. You merely beg the question.
Literal text is obvious:
Jesus rose on the third day.
David was annointed King by Samuel.
We can admit that fair minded people are yet full of error in dividing metaphor from narrative. But, the problem is inherent in us, not in the text. Or at least, this is another of those fundamental divisions in approach.
Of course the literal text is obvious. That is part of the meaning of "literal".
The literal text is just as obvious in passages such as these:
This is my body which is given for you.
Their vine comes from the vinestock of Sodom, from the vineyards of Gomorrah.
Yet in the first examples we take the literal meaning to be THE meaning and in the second case we do not.
There is much of scripture where I have absolutely no right whatsoever to force upon the text my "interpretation" or even my approval for different "intrepretations".
Let us be clear here.
There is no such thing as an uninterpreted text. I am sure you learned this in your biblical studies. When you choose not to accept a figurative interpretation of the text, it does not follow that you are abstaining from interpretation.
You are choosing an interpretation: the literal interpretation as what is, in your opinion, the most suitable one in the context.
Please don't insult my intelligence or yours by claiming this is not an interpretation of the text.
You always have the right to your interpretation by virtue of the fact that it is impossible to read any text without interpreting it.
But, of course, some interpretations are better than others. That is where debate comes in. As for forced interpretations, a literal interpretation may be just as forced as any figurative one.
Let's just ask that question. How could anyone have the right to say the resurrection was not historical narrative or whether it is narrative or not is simply a matter of intrepretation?
Everyone has that right. In some cases adopting a certain interpretation will mean one can no longer portray oneself as a Christian, but everyone has the right to an interpretation.
For a Christian, it is not possible to say that that the resurrection never happened. But it is possible to have some variations in opinion about the details of the event. Have you ever noticed that unlike the events of Jesus' earthly ministry, not a single resurrection appearance is recorded in more than one gospel? And what does it mean that the figure of the resurrected Jesus is so mysterious, sometimes recognizable and sometimes not?
These are really questions for a different thread. The point is that even accepting the resurrection as factual event doesn't mean accepting every account of the resurrection as fully historical. Theology plays as much a role as history in the evangelists' choices of what to present and how to present it.
Now the idea that people tend to vary might be one argument on these things. But how is that an argument approved of God or approved in the Word itself?
No argument about the text can possibly be approved in the text. So the text can give us no guidance as to which argument is approved by God. Hermeneutics is a human enterprise.
I admit that human beings have a dilemma and real trouble in approaching the very idea of something God has spoken.
Maybe, but that is not really the issue. Granting that God has spoken, we still have the task of interpreting what God has said.
But that fact that there is a problem in people is not license to contradict the Word. That would be sin.
But obviously no one considers that their own interpretation is a contradiction. Which interpretation, if any, does contradict the Word is the very matter to be debated.
Lets put aside "origins" texts for a moment and our dispute about what they say. My point is simply there are literal texts for which there is no license for simply allegorizing the text. Recognizing them can admittedly be a problem.
Actually, you could get a strong argument against that from some medieval interpreters who did allegorize pretty much every statement in scripture. But since we are both post-Enlightenment thinkers, we both agree that some texts are best not allegorized just as we both agree that some texts are best not literalized.
So we come back to the same point. When we disagree on which is the best interpretation, what can we bring to the table to help us determine who is right?
Since the text itself cannot guide us to the interpretation of the text, what does?
Here is where I see the great divide between YEC and OEC/TE. The latter believe we can and ought to bring what we know of God's other revelation (created nature) to the table as an interpretive help. YEC denies this, since
a priori it denies that science has or even can interpret nature properly. YEC asserts
a priori that any interpretation of nature that conflicts with its interpretation of scripture cannot be valid.
This YEC axiom comes down to a denial of what I have been calling the "intelligibility of nature" that is the proposition that God made nature to be knowable to the human mind.
But what is it based on? It is based on the YEC hermeneutic, so any defence of the YEC hermeneutic based on this denial is, in effect, circular reasoning.
