While I agree that bias can play a role in scriptural understanding it doesn't have to.
What you are proposing is simply not possible. One's biases and presuppositions are interwoven into the very formation and expression of human thinking. They are not simply buttons that can be turned on and off; they shape how we use language, how we think about the world, how we read literature, and how we appropriate the things that we read and hear into our internal representation of reality. To suggest that we can simply suspend these completely simply represents a fundamental ignorance about the most basic aspects of human epistemology.
True scriptural scholarship strives to let scripture speak for itself. What does the text say?
The text "says" what we interpret it to say. The notion of the texts containing a contextual-less, "objective" meaning is simply fanciful. As literature, the words of Scripture are the result of the thinking of the authors (and the innumerable influences which led them to write what they did); in the same way, when we read the Scriptures, we necessarily and actively engage them with our own experiences, biases, and presuppositions about reality, God, etc. While we can be self-aware of how these shape our ultimate understanding of what we read, we cannot simply stop being "who we are" in order to arrive at the "real" meaning that the Scriptures are "saying".
What you seem to be saying here is we can never really get the true meaning of scripture or really understand it because our bias always gets in the way. If that is true then it's just pure luck if we happen to get it right.
Luck has nothing to do with anything, as there is no "true" meaning of Scripture. This notion belies the assumption that the Scriptures are objective repositories of truth that are transcendent of human thinking and experience. However, as they were written by humans, the same implications of personal biases and presuppositions that color our interpretations most certainly played a role in the authorship as well. So then, there is no mind-transcendent meaning in Scripture that is simply awaiting the right interpretive paradigm to unlock the "true meaning"; meaning is rather created through the conversation between author and reader.
So, then, the best place we can start is to try our best to understand how the biases, presuppositions, and experiences of the authors shaped the things that they wrote, allowing these conclusions to inform our interpretations. If we, as you propose, simply "let the Scriptures speak for themselves", this will signal that we are taking the easy road, a road which will inevitably lead to interpretations that align more with our preconceived notions, than with the intentions of the ancient authors.
What I find, when it comes,to scriptural understanding, is that our bias usually comes from an outside source. Perhaps a book we read or a science we follow.
Yes, obviously. But this is inevitable. There is no "objective" approach to interpreting the Scriptures. Regardless of how you approach them, you and I each bring along our own philosophical baggage that will indelibly color the conclusions that we reach. The best we can do is try to become as self-aware about how our biases and presuppositions affect the outcomes. If we believe that we can transcend our own thinking in the act of interpretation, we deceive ourselves.
But real biblical scholarship takes proper hermeneutics and exegesis and applies that to,scripture and lets,the text do the talking. As Paul said
Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing mistakes, for correcting, and for training character, so that the person who belongs to God can be equipped to do everything that is good.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 CEB
http://bible.com/37/2ti.3.16-17.CEB
But you're just making my point! You suggest that we need to simply apply "proper hermeneutics and exegesis"...not realizing, of course, that these are the very tools that are influenced by the inherent biases and presuppositions that the interpreter brings to the task of interpretation. The notion that there is a "proper" version of these belies the same misunderstanding as before. There is no "objective" paradigm for hermeneutics or exegesis; the "propriety" of any particular approach will be determined by our philosophical leanings, our worldview, etc.
It is all inspired and useful. How can we possibly teach, reprove and exhort if we cannot say what we are saying is correct? If,all interpretation is biased then we have no ability to truly understand or use scripture correctly.
This conclusion is based on the falacious premise that we have to be able to "establish" the "truthfulness" of Scripture in order for it to be useful. That is a standard that you are applying out of the repository of your biases and worldview. This is very much in keeping with the western, modern bias for historicity; it values only that which corresponds to "proofs" and demonstrable evidence (the criteria for which is arbitrary, but nevermind that!!), and dismisses as false and useless anything which does not.
There is, however, no objective reason why such a conclusion is necessary; it is yet another result of the very point I have been making all along.
Our goal when studying scripture should be to strip away our bias and let the word,of God transform our thoughts. Let scripture strip away our bias and let our thoughts conform to what the bible says.
Once again, the sentiment is noble, but does not reflect how human thinking actually works.
When God says he created in six days it means he created in six days.
The very fact that you make a decision to interpret this literally (and by literally, I mean specifically according to the parameters of modern, western notions of historicity) proves my point entirely. There is nothing within the text itself that requires such an interpretation; however, you have made it because you, like most of us in the West, value the "historical" and the "literal" above all else, and eschew that which is "figurative" or (gasp!) "mythological".
But let's be clear: you are certainly not suspending any biases in making this interpretation. To the contrary, you are walking lock-step with the conclusions that the biases of modern, western thinking would prescribe. In doing so, you have proven my point in its fulness.
And the real tragedy in this? You haven't given the smallest thought to what the author might have been trying to say in the recitation of this creation narrative. You don't care about how this type of genre was used in other ANE literature; you don't care about the oral traditions that might lie behind it; and you certainly don't care about the theological intentions that the author might have had in composing this text.
No, you have an overriding bias and presupposition (the Scriptures are "true", which means they correspond to my western, modern notions of historicity and "fact"), and you have allowed it to be the dominating paradigm for interpreting the text. Rather than "allowing the text to speak" as you nobly claim you wish to do, your
actual actions suggest that you are concerned very little about that, and are more interested in buttressing the biases you hold about the nature of Scripture itself.
