Why does the bible need to be interpreted by others?

[CryOfALion]

If you had a story you wanted people to believe, but the story was full of contradictions, wouldn't you say something like this?

Exactly what I said in my previous post. Especially bit about canon, and what that implies.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Exactly what I said in my previous post. Especially bit about canon, and what that implies.

I must be slow today, I reread it and don't see that.

I understand about the canon, but as with interpreting the bible, it's either just men making guesses, or the debaters were inspired by God.

 

[Tzaousios]

It is very ironic when atheists reduce the entirety of the Christian experience and reception of the Biblical text to the most woodenly literalist kind of fundamentalism they can think of. Then, when atheists try to demonstrate how the text should be interpreted, they strangely select the most scandalous Old Testament texts they can find, and proceed to "interpret" them in the same woodenly literalist manner of the fundamentalism they set up to condemn.

 

[CryOfALion]

I must be slow today, I reread it and don't see that.

I understand about the canon, but as with interpreting the bible, it's either just men making guesses, or the debaters were inspired by God.

You aren't being slow; if you are genuine, perhaps I am being overly cryptic.

One of God's biggest "deals" is men messing up His message with their own "interpretation." Or, more specifically, doing ignorant, evil stuff in His name .

With a canonical bible, men are dividing the word of God for other men, determining what is good for instruction, and what is not. That is a big part of the problem. Each human is responsible for his own soul first. So, at judgment day we cannot give the argument that a certain preacher mislead you because Christ gave every man the wisdom and understanding of God. That is the meat of the new testament; it isn't about abolishing the OT.

In terms of books of God written by men, that is for *you* as a sovereign human agent to determine for yourself whether or not it is right. In other words, you as a human in the Google age, for example, cannot claim you did not get all the information needed to foster a relationship with God (or deny it) because the Catholic Church Only allowed 66 books To Be Biblical canon. Seekers test everything - including what has been deemed apocryphal and heretical. As I said, you are responsible for your own soul.

If you trust other men to lead you, you will fail I promise you. If you are truly seeking truth, the Most High will not renege on your call. You as a human have to deal with the incredible politics and big business of religion, and sift through a bunch of misinformation. Do you think spiritual enlightenment will be easily sought when this planet of rulers fights wars for oil and water?

This is why looking at the entire history and processes makes a bigger difference. For example, when you see bible books were chosen to be canon by men, perhaps making guesses, then you can further understand the political influences of some books. another example of religion used as control, but yet misunderstood is Romans 9. This chapter is the champion of nations wanting to give the illusion of spiritual freedom whilst maintaining control of a population. But, when we realize Paul's books were written by Roman scribes (who me he trusted,) and that Paul's connections to Rome were because of his former hate of Hebrews turned Christian, the "ridiculous" interpretations are put into better perspective.

But, again, these are humans. The only human worthy of being looked up to spiritually is Christ. Yet, men of today worship other men - made up of the same primary four nucleobases for DNA.

The Word of the Most High stands alone without men, but yet men are still confused by its simplicity. Everything good in life is inspired by God. He filters the nonsense for faithful ones through experience and especially the Holy Spirit.

Also, look at mythology (Sumerian, Egyptian, Canaan, etc.) and compare notes on how similar things are, noting Hebrew culture was an oral one, and that the first found =/= first overall (read: Gilgamesh.)

Through mathematics, I don't have the luxury of denying the Most High's existence. I DOUBT people, and that is my right as a sovereign human. So, it is a very meticulous profess to intellectually undo 1800 years worth of gunk.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

It is very ironic when atheists reduce the entirety of the Christian experience and reception of the Biblical text to the most woodenly literalist kind of fundamentalism they can think of. Then, when atheists try to demonstrate how the text should be interpreted, they strangely select the most scandalous Old Testament texts they can find, and proceed to "interpret" them in the same woodenly literalist manner of the fundamentalism they set up to condemn.

How is not interpreting the scriptures interpreting the scriptures? That makes no sense.

I expect the bible to mean what it says. If it can be interpreted to take on other meanings, then everyone gets to put their own interpretation on the bible. This is is exactly what happens, hence the thousands of different denominations of Christianity, each with their own interpretations of the bible, and different, often contradictory, proclamations as to the profound truth of the bible.

So allowing interpretation makes the bible a useless document for proclaiming profound truths.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You aren't being slow; if you are genuine, perhaps I am being overly cryptic.

Nah, blame it on me. I've got a flu and am loaded up on tylenol and stuff.

I appreciate the time you took to explain it further. Thank you.

One of God's biggest "deals" is men messing up His message with their own "interpretation." Or, more specifically, doing ignorant, evil stuff in His name .

With a canonical bible, men are dividing the word of God for other men, determining what is good for instruction, and what is not. That is a big part of the problem. Each human is responsible for his own soul first. So, at judgment day we cannot give the argument that a certain preacher mislead you because Christ gave every man the wisdom and understanding of God. That is the meat of the new testament; it isn't about abolishing the OT.

If Christ gave me the wisdom and understanding of God, then that wisdom and understanding tells me that the bible must be taken literally, or it is a meaningless document as far as being evidence of a divine being.

In terms of books of God written by men, that is for *you* as a sovereign human agent to determine for yourself whether or not it is right. In other words, you as a human in the Google age, for example, cannot claim you did not get all the information needed to foster a relationship with God (or deny it) because the Catholic Church Only allowed 66 books To Be Biblical canon. Seekers test everything - including what has been deemed apocryphal and heretical. As I said, you are responsible for your own soul.

I have read the bible cover to cover, granted a long time ago.

To be honest, I found it to be a story of a very immoral being. One who sanctions slavery, mass murder, etc. Reading the bible is what led me to understand that the Christian God was not worthy of worship. That started me on the road atheism.

If you trust other men to lead you, you will fail I promise you. If you are truly seeking truth, the Most High will not renege on your call. You as a human have to deal with the incredible politics and big business of religion, and sift through a bunch of misinformation. Do you think spiritual enlightenment will be easily sought when this planet of rulers fights wars for oil and water?

I don't trust what anyone says. I believe in evidence. And without evidence, I can't believe in any God. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't. Just like you couldn't make yourself sincerely believe that a Pink Unicorn is orbiting the earth.

Through mathematics, I don't have the luxury of denying the Most High's existence. I DOUBT people, and that is my right as a sovereign human. So, it is a very meticulous profess to intellectually undo 1800 years worth of gunk.

I love math, and would be interested in learning how mathematics proves God's existence?

Thanks again for taking the time to fully explain your thoughts!

 

[Tzaousios]

How is not interpreting the scriptures interpreting the scriptures? That makes no sense.

Because if you were reading literally the prooftexts you provided then you would go out and try to purchase slaves and then beat them to death. Why would you do that? That makes no sense.

I expect the bible to mean what it says.

Why would you do that since you have been targeting the literalist interpretation as a bad thing?

Even then, your statement here creates a false dichotomy in that it implies that making interpretations does not permit anyone to arrive at the meaning. Are you doing this on purpose?

If it can be interpreted to take on other meanings, then everyone gets to put their own interpretation on the bible. This is is exactly what happens, hence the thousands of different denominations of Christianity, each with their own interpretations of the bible, and different, often contradictory, proclamations as to the profound truth of the bible.

False dilemma. Just because multiple interpretations are made does not mean that one should not interpret and that one cannot arrive at meaning by doing so.

The question becomes, how does one go about finding the meaning by using the most reasonable interpretation? Does one just cast about to find an interpretation that suits one's fancy? Should one adopt a particular individual's interpretation because they are charismatic in their presentation of it? Or, are there other historically-consistent guidelines that one can follow to distinguish the reasonable, traditional interpretations from the novel and cockemamy?

I cannot help but think that you already know this and are banking on someone not bringing it up so that you can maintain the reductionist, binary image of literalism.

So allowing interpretation makes the bible a useless document for proclaiming profound truths.

No, it does not. However, this statement creates a false dichotomy.

 

[Tzaousios]

If Christ gave me the wisdom and understanding of God, then that wisdom and understanding tells me that the bible must be taken literally, or it is a meaningless document as far as being evidence of a divine being.

Another false dichotomy. Just because Christians are promised the Spirit of Christ and aid of his wisdom, does not also mean that the means by which that is utilized does not include interpretation and exegesis.

To be honest, I found it to be a story of a very immoral being. One who sanctions slavery, mass murder, etc. Reading the bible is what led me to understand that the Christian God was not worthy of worship. That started me on the road atheism.

Perhaps this is because you came from a literalist fundamentalist sect that presented reading the Bible to you as only mediating "what the Bible plainly says" and demonized interpretation so that you would not go questioning this presentation.

It would seem that if one was really interested in resolving such dilemmas, one would venture a little outside of the literalist box to examine how Christians have interpreted biblical texts throughout the ages and which interpretations come out as being the most consistently reasonable. Reducing this to only the literalist view is not only inconsistent, but also unreasonable.

I don't trust what anyone says. I believe in evidence. And without evidence, I can't believe in any God. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't.

False dichotomy. Just because you claim not to trust anyone and to believe in "evidence," does not also mean that meaning cannot be found in interpretations and that they might aid in resolving problems with the text.

Just like you couldn't make yourself sincerely believe that a Pink Unicorn is orbiting the earth.

Adopting the divisive rhetoric of Dawkins and Hitchens does not make your performance here any less suspicious.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So God couldn't be bothered ensuring that His Word was passed on clearly and truly. But he expects me to believe his word, or else he will torture me for all eternity.

I can't imagine a more immoral act.

This seems to be the real heart of the issue for you. Not exegesis or biblical integrity, or what not. But your perception that if you don't have the right X, Y, Z understanding of the Bible means eternal torment and damnation.

Of course there's one problem with that: Nobody thus far has suggested that God is going to send you to eternal torment and damnation for not having the right X, Y, Z understanding of the Bible.

I certainly don't believe that.

But then I'm not a Fundamentalist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Because if you were reading literally the prooftexts you provided then you would go out and try to purchase slaves and then beat them to death. Why would you do that? That makes no sense.

Of course not. That would be immoral.

Yet God sanctions those things, so isn't He immoral?

Why would you do that since you have been targeting the literalist interpretation as a bad thing?

Even then, your statement here creates a false dichotomy in that it implies that making interpretations does not permit anyone to arrive at the meaning. Are you doing this on purpose?

Not it's not a false dichotomy.

Because if the bible is allowed to be interpreted, it is no longer the Word of God. Witness the thousands of different denominations of Christianity, some with conflicting beliefs, even regarding getting into heaven. Apparently there are going to be some very surprised Christians in Hell.

False dilemma. Just because multiple interpretations are made does not mean that one should not interpret and that one cannot arrive at meaning by doing so.

It certainly means that you can't be confident you arrived at the meaning God intended you to have. See above.

The question becomes, how does one go about finding the meaning by using the most reasonable interpretation? Does one just cast about to find an interpretation that suits one's fancy? Should one adopt a particular individual's interpretation because they are charismatic in their presentation of it? Or, are there other historically-consistent guidelines that one can follow to distinguish the reasonable, traditional interpretations from the novel and cockemamy?

I cannot help but think that you already know this and are banking on someone not bringing it up so that you can maintain the reductionist, binary image of literalism.

Originally I want to know if the bible is the Word of God.

Now I would also like to know how you know that the methodology you use ensures you are making the correct interpretation. Because there are thousands of Christian denominations that will say you are wrong.

 

[oi_antz]

oi_antz

The quote function isn't working with your post, I'll just reply.

Two verses I was told needed interpreting are in my Post #15, in which god sanctions slavery, and then says it is OK to beat a slave almost to death.

Yes, I can see why some Christians feel the need to try to change the meaning, they are very unpalatable.

Are you able to quote or link to the conversation in which this happened? It certainly doesn't seem like a verse that needs much interpretation. Maybe it needs to be read within the context of culture, and treated with care when it is applied to a different culture. For instance, it is clearly talking about Israelites being instructed to take slaves. This in no reasonable way can be applied as an instruction to non-Israelites to take slaves. The commandment makes that explicitly clear. I am left to wonder whether the person who you were speaking with might have failed to sufficiently convey their meaning, and that "interpretation" might have been an incorrect word to use. That is not the only explanation though, so I would like to see the original statement and what had led to it, if it is possible.

oi_antz:
I would like to know how you might justify the idea that it is written by people who were not inspired by God. Can you describe that to me?

I wasn't trying to justify anything.

No, I knew you weren't, but you appeared to think that was is a viable option. I just wanted to know how you could justify that idea as such. It is not an option that I think is viable, that's all.

I always take what is written in the bible to be the Word of God, whether written by him, or inspired by him.

After what I have told you about what the authors of the bible appear to mean with that terminology, do you think that perhaps that is not necessarily the right view to have? Jesus said "you diligently study the scriptures because you think that in them you have life. But the scriptures point to me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life". Which is a clear statement that words on paper are dead, and cannot give life. Now, Jesus also said "The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.", and the most succinct statement in the bible about what the Word of God is, says this: "In him was life". So if you think that God is not alive or that God does not give life, then you may as well believe that the bible is the Word. However, if you believe that the understanding of God according to Jesus and the authors of the bible is the correct anchor to measure your own understanding against, then you will see that the Word of God is not constrained by or necessarily conveyed by the words in the bible. The reason for this is as I had explained in my first post, reader preferences which distort the meaning of the words. It is your choice to make as a reader. It is difficult for everyone, to varying degrees, and it can get easier or harder depending how you choose to respond.

Otherwise why would anyone believe what is written?

I cannot make a single general statement about why people believe what the bible says, but I can make statements about why I believe things that the authors of biblical texts have said.

If what is said (by anyone, btw) makes sense and seems to be true, then I will use those words on occasion when I choose to convey those truths. That is one reason I have for believing things that are said in the bible (most commonly applied for theological concepts such as Genesis and opinion, eg claims made by Jesus and concepts proposed by St Paul).

The other major reason I have for believing things in the bible, is because it does not make sense to doubt it. Take for an example, that Jesus was uncompromising about truth. That is why He was not accepted by everyone. His disciples must have known this, and to suggest that they would compromise that value and conflate the truth is not reasonable. Therefore, it does not make sense to think that the disciples lied about Jesus to promote His cause.

Having said that, please observe that I don't just accept everything that the bible says is correct. There is simply not enough evidence to support that belief. I am referring mainly to the first parts of the book of Genesis. If I knew the origin of that information, I would be able to make an informed decision. Until that information becomes available, I have to be honest and say it is not reliable fact.

oi_antz:
The bible is not the Word of God. It does contain some words which are attributed to God. The Word of God is and always has been with God and is God.

If the bible isn't the word of God, then why does anyone believe it? I can't understand this.

I am sure you can. Witnesses in court are not the Word of God, yet their testimony is often considered reliable, and often what they describe is true. So too with statements in the bible. The authors of the bible appear to be making statements of perceived fact.

I suspect there is probably something in your mind that you think is unbelievable. I expect that there are things in the bible that you do think are believable. If that is the case, can you see any significant difference in the two statements that could explain why you treat their reliability differently?

oi_antz:
Why wuld they not? (TFY - Believe it is true if it wasn't written by god)

Because then why wouldn't I believe Harry Potter is true? This seems like the path to gullibility, not truth.

Harry Potter is open fiction. It is not an alleged statement of fact. I think that is what the Strawman Fallacy describes, please correct me if I am wrong.

Edit: For clarification, this was a genuine question. I would like to know what reasons you think there might be to not believe the things in the bible.

 

[bling]

Originally I want to know if the bible is the Word of God.

Now I would also like to know how you know that the methodology you use ensures you are making the correct interpretation. Because there are thousands of Christian denominations that will say you are wrong.

If the Bible was written directly to you (ThinkForYourself) you would be able to understand every word, but the Bible was not written directly to any of us, but each letter in the New Testamant was written to a specific church or group of churches and was carried by a mature close associate of the author to those churches, who could give further emphasis.

Also the New Testamant was written for Christians to help them as one of the many tools they have. This means nonbelievers or even immature Christians may not understand. The Bible is not written to “convert” the non-Christian, since that is Christ’s job working through and in true Christians.

God is not trying to sell you on some “book”, but on Godly type Love which is also God Himself.

The Muslims want to hold the Quran up as God’s written specific words, so the words themselves become Holy, the Book itself becomes an object of worship, the language it is written in become sacred, and the “message” becomes God’s gift to man. In Christianity the Bible message is way below the messenger Christ. It is Christ/God that is worshipped, holy and deserving.

The greatest “tool” available to true Christians is the indwelling Holy Spirit and not the Bible.

 

[graceandpeace]

It is very easy to arrive at the correct interpretation. Just as it is when we read Harry Potter.

So, you advocate for a fundamentalist, strictly literalist hermeneutic - while at the same time criticizing where such rigid readings lead?

There are historical, traditional, & scholarly considerations for reading & interpreting Scripture. The same holds true for almost any texts from antiquity. It is impossible to actually converse & learn though if one is committed to an extremist position.

 

[Tzaousios]

Of course not. That would be immoral.

Yet God sanctions those things, so isn't He immoral?

Sanctions what?

In context, the prooftext that you quoted does not prescribe slavery as an institution of any positive moral or spiritual value. Rather, it addresses the conduct of Hebrew slave owners, and legislates that they treat slaves in a manner that sets them apart from surrounding nations, such as the Assyrians, who were notorious for their devaluing of human life.

I do not see in your prooftext where slave owners are prescribed to beat and kill their slaves as a matter of principle, nor hoist them on pikes, or skin them alive, for that matter, as the Assyrians were wont to do.

Finally, in examining the New Testament, which Christians must do in concert with the Old, we see the relationship between masters and slaves is discussed with even more of a desire to preserve the humanity and ethics of the participants.

Not it's not a false dichotomy.

Because if the bible is allowed to be interpreted, it is no longer the Word of God. Witness the thousands of different denominations of Christianity, some with conflicting beliefs, even regarding getting into heaven. Apparently there are going to be some very surprised Christians in Hell.

It is a false dichotomy, because reason would suggest that interpretation is involved, and good can come out of it, unless one reduces all of Christianity to an fundamentalist exegetical practice which demands absolute wooden literalism.

It would seem that this is what you are doing in order to set up a strawman representation of Christianity and the practice of interpretation.

False dilemma. Just because multiple interpretations are made does not mean that one should not interpret and that one cannot arrive at meaning by doing so.

It certainly means that you can't be confident you arrived at the meaning God intended you to have.

That is the nature of the false dilemma. Of course, on this side of heaven, there is never going to be full confidence. However, this does not require in turn giving up on interprertation and the quest to find meaning. That is, unless one's motive is to find an easy, convenient escape hatch which one can take as a pretext towards rejecting Christianity as a whole.

Originally I want to know if the bible is the Word of God.

What? Based upon your performance in this thread, as well as in others, it would seem to indicate to the vigilant observer that you have already decided that the Bible is not the Word of God.

Thus, there is no presuppositional or epistemological basis for Christians to have a meaningful discussion about such matters. That is why it is all the more puzzling to see you adopt the woodenly literalist interpretation of fundamentalism as if it actually constitutes a viable choice for you.

Now I would also like to know how you know that the methodology you use ensures you are making the correct interpretation. Because there are thousands of Christian denominations that will say you are wrong.

Indeed, there are. However, I would point out that I have made no absolutist claims about the methodology that I have chosen. Nor do I think that it is the best course of action to adopt such absolutist claims.

Rather, based upon the presuppositions that I choose to hold, first that God exists and the Bible constitutes his primary means of revelation to humankind, and also based upon my study of church history and the art of scriptural interpretation, the methodology I use is the most useful and reasonable towards apprehending the meaning of the text.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Sanctions what?

In context, the prooftext that you quoted does not prescribe slavery as an institution of any positive moral or spiritual value. Rather, it addresses the conduct of Hebrew slave owners, and legislates that they treat slaves in a manner that sets them apart from surrounding nations, such as the Assyrians, who were notorious for their devaluing of human life.

It is immoral to keep slaves. It is immoral to kill slaves (even if they die a couple of days after the beating).

If I was God, I would have said "No Slaves". Simple.

That makes me moral than your God.

Finally, in examining the New Testament, which Christians must do in concert with the Old, we see the relationship between masters and slaves is discussed with even more of a desire to preserve the humanity and ethics of the participants.

Again, if your God was moral, he would said "No Slaves". End of story.

If God is moral, why didn't he do that?

It is a false dichotomy, because reason would suggest that interpretation is involved, and good can come out of it, unless one reduces all of Christianity to an fundamentalist exegetical practice which demands absolute wooden literalism.

It would seem that this is what you are doing in order to set up a strawman representation of Christianity and the practice of interpretation.

Accepting the words of the bible is creating a strawman?

You seem to want to twist the words of the bible to get around some uncomfortable verses.

What? Based upon your performance in this thread, as well as in others, it would seem to indicate to the vigilant observer that you have already decided that the Bible is not the Word of God.

I thought the bible was supposed to be the word of God. But from what the Christians here are saying, it sure doesn't sound like it.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

So, you advocate for a fundamentalist, strictly literalist hermeneutic - while at the same time criticizing where such rigid readings lead?

If the bible is divinely inspired, then it should be taken literally. Unless you think God is incapable of writing at a high school level.

There are historical, traditional, & scholarly considerations for reading & interpreting Scripture. The same holds true for almost any texts from antiquity. It is impossible to actually converse & learn though if one is committed to an extremist position.

Of course we can interpret other ancient text to put it into context. But the bible isn't supposed to be just another ancient text, it's supposed to be divinely inspired.

I can see why everyone needs to interpret it. Otherwise Christians are faced with the dilemma of realizing they are more moral than their God.

For instance, the bible relegates women to being essentially chattel, something that is immoral. God is supposed to be all-knowing, he must have realized that this would happen. Why didn't he make one of his ten commandments "Women shall be treated equally"? And how about "Though shall not keep slaves"? If I was God, I would have, and that makes me more moral than your God.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

bling:

Please see posts #35 and #36, I think I answer your questions.

 

[Tzaousios]

Again, if your God was moral, he would said "No Slaves". End of story.

This is the kind of statement that should tip people off about what you are trying to do here. It is based upon fallacious reasoning (false dichotomy) which fails to take into account the ways in which Christians have interpreted the Scripture and dealt positively with the institution of slavery over the centuries.

If you were not an atheist of the radical, evangelistic, Hitchens-Dawkins type, you would have enough tolerance and intellectual integrity to take appeals to context and history into account when Christians try to discuss these issues.

Instead, you make an absurd reduction of all of Christianity and its exegetical practices into the most extreme, absolute literalist and fundamentalist caricature. Then, you suspiciously adopt that very extreme position (the exact same kind of decontextualized, binary absolutism atheists usually complain about in fundamentalists) as your own and the only correct way when there are Christians who disagree with that representation and provide alternatives. It is a type of bait-and-switch that is not lost on me, at least.

Thus, I believe my initial assessment is correct, and that people should take this into account when they discuss these kinds of issues with you.

 

[bling]

If the bible is divinely inspired, then it should be taken literally. Unless you think God is incapable of writing at a high school level.



Of course we can interpret other ancient text to put it into context. But the bible isn't supposed to be just another ancient text, it's supposed to be divinely inspired.

I can see why everyone needs to interpret it. Otherwise Christians are faced with the dilemma of realizing they are more moral than their God.


For instance, the bible relegates women to being essentially chattel, something that is immoral. God is supposed to be all-knowing, he must have realized that this would happen. Why didn't he make one of his ten commandments "Women shall be treated equally"? And how about "Though shall not keep slaves"? If I was God, I would have, and that makes me more moral than your God.

Would you say: “Anything else less than a perfectly written book would mean it could not have been inspired?” You seem to be expecting nothing less than the very best?

If the Bible was “obviously” way beyond anything humans could have written, than there would be scientific “proof” that God exist. You would not need “faith” in God’s existence but have knowledge of God’s existence; proof derived from your scientific linguistic investigation of the Bible, that it could not have come from man?

The problem with that result is: You need faith!

Knowing God exists prior to becoming a Christian can actually work against you becoming a Christian, since you used your own self-reliance to avoid humble dependence on faith, to derive your answer, so that will not make you more self-reliant and less reliant on God?

The writers of the New Testamant were not trying to sell books and did not consider that these letters would be read by lots of other people than whom they were addressing.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

This is the kind of statement that should tip people off about what you are trying to do here.

I was trying to find out if Christians thought the bible was the inspired/written by God.

It answer is clear: The parts they like were inspired, the parts they don't like need to be interpreted.

Instead, you make an absurd reduction of all of Christianity and its exegetical practices into the most extreme, absolute literalist and fundamentalist caricature.

How else would I take divinely inspired text?

You are saying that God couldn't write at a high school level, and make clear to his followers what he meant. Or that he couldn't be bothered making the text of His book clear, and instead let mankind mess it up, and this from the God who made the first three commandments all about worshiping Him. It makes no sense whatsoever that God couldn't make the bible clear.

I admire your mental gymnastics, truly impressive.