Is not the Bible the Word of God? How could our interpretation be wrong? This subject is the central concern in Christianity at this time due to the fundamentalist surge. Innumerable corruptions are rationalized as being God's word as found in the Bible.

Inspiration cannot be guessed at properly by humans. If words do not have a meaning based upon the test of evidence and logic, supposed inspiration is a sham. God does not produce communication in conflict with evidence and logic. Different sects cannot agree upon inspiration, so why would God confuse everyone with supposedly purified inspiration. God influences everything, but he does not purify what he influences.

Therefore, the purpose here is to correct this problem. Here's the right way to read and interpret the Bible.

The four Gospels are the most important part of the Bible. They are so reliable that they can be viewed as unquestionable truth. The communication in them is so clear that it is not easily misinterpreted. There is an important moral principle here. Moral persons try to assure that their words are not misinterpreted, while corrupters try to be vague, so they can exploit a subject. Notice how vague Paul is. Judge the validity of words by their clarity. Clarity with words is a moral responsibility. Persons who defy this principle are dead to sin. Yet the world tries to convince people of the opposite—that godliness is really screwing up other peoples' minds, because gods know so much more than anyone else. About all historical philosophy consisted of was an attempt by gods to screw up other peoples’ minds as a method of demonstrating superiority.

Christ used super-human communication abilities and wisdom to make sure his words would be correctly interpreted. Parables and examples are used to shows material representations of abstract concepts thereby making conceptualization easier as well as stabilizing the meaning and preventing it from changing with interpretations. For this reason, it doesn't matter that someone else wrote the Gospels. The points being made are so clear and obvious to moral persons that they cannot be misrepresented. Could anyone get the "golden rule" wrong? Not hardly. Could anyone screw up the parable of a farmer sowing some wheat? Could anyone misinterpret what it means to pull a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath?

But the minute you get away from the four Gospels, the questions become endless. Due to vagaries and unanswered questions, the concern is not whether God is the source but what the words are supposed to mean regardless of who is the source. If a meaning can be determined based upon correct laws of the universe as indicated by the lessons in life, then it doesn't matter who is the source. And if the meaning is not in the visible laws of the universe, then whatever god produced such words is corrupt.

This means that the Bible cannot be any different from any other source of communication in creating responsibilities for correct evaluation. The words in the Bible have to be taken for whatever they are worth. Words can only point to something. They cannot replace what they point to. What words point to must be evaluated correctly regardless of whether God is the source of the words or someone else is. Otherwise, even the most intelligent words of God will be misinterpreted.

With these concerns in mind, there are a lot of problems with everything in the Bible beyond the four Gospels. One of the problems is that words do not easily convey what the author is trying to say. Another problem is that a lot of corrupters and imperfect persons put words in the Bible, sometimes making alterations, as the lying Scribes did.

Consider some of the most innocent problems in Biblical text. The writer of Hebrews defined faith as "confident assurance concerning what we hope for, and conviction about things we do not see" (Heb 11:1). The problem is that this definition fits "blind faith" better than correct faith. Real faith includes the above plus the knowledge and morality required to align it properly.

Also consider the description of sin by John the elder. He said sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). Sin includes lawlessness, but it also includes a lot more than that. A definition should be more inclusive. This is not to say that John was attempting to produce a totally adequate definition; it just says that words are very problematic and must be evaluated correctly.

Next, let's look at Genesis and Job. I find no problems with either book, but a lot of persons get erroneous concepts from them. Fundamentalists view Genesis as a biology lesson. There is no biology in it. The six day creation story had the only purpose of creating a seven day calendar week. There are only a few paragraphs on creation in Genesis. Most of the book is an allegorical description of conditions before religion existed. Made-up stories are used to show the consequences of sin when there is no religion. A person supposedly woke up with the wrong women on his marriage night. It didn't actually happen, but it is a dramatization of a situation. What was the consequence? Of course, someone was awful mad, and more sin was the result. It shows that there was a need for religion and what religion was supposed to accomplish. Religion was supposed to correct those types of problems. This message is missed by literalists who try to read history in Genesis. They assume that the purpose of religion is to find out how thoroughly God blessed their sin, because they are the most worthy of persons.

Job was written much like Genesis, and at about the same time—around 200 BC. The supposed believers never got the story of Job right either. The allegory of Job shows very clearly the morality of victimization. Job did not create his own problems. Nor did God create them. Satan got permission from God to create Job's problems. But to the casual observers, supposed friends and well-off persons, Job supposedly created his own problems. Along with this over-all theme, a secondary theme is to show that the victim and accusers use exactly the same words to say exactly the same things. It's not the words that determine the truth; it's the objective reality that determines the truth. Has there ever been a destroyer who has not used the same sanctimonious rhetoric as everyone else?

Victims are assumed to be the cause of their own problems; and the logic is very simple. The well-off persons do not have those problems, so there must be something wrong with the victims. Christ said otherwise, but he must have had an overly bleeding heart for degenerates. What the story of Job says is that satan picks his enemies on the basis of who he hates most; and who satan hates most are the most moral and worthy persons. The reason why others are well off is that they have a better relationship with satan than the victims of injustice. That result is not something to be self-righteous about. The supposed believers do not get that subject figured out right. A literal interpretation of God's infallible word in the Bible does not fix the problems in their minds.