The idea that holy texts mean different things to different people ('Moreover, part of their value is that the prompt they give will be different for every reader, and that this is what the writer wants.') is a pretty compelling argument that these texts are human in origin, and not divine or even divinely inspired, taking 'divine' in the literal, narrow sense.
Using the Christian New Testament as an example - since it seems to be the one with which most members are familiar -, the goal of this work is to instruct people how to behave and believe in order to get to Heaven. Since God wants people to get to Heaven (per the text), it would be in the best interests all parties concerned that the text be interpreted in the same manner. BUT...if the texts are intentionally ambiguous and open to as many interpretations as there are readers, the clear conclusion is that the texts were concocted by human writers who were writing from imperfect knowledge and the typical human emotions (greed, fear, prejudice and greed).
In short, the holy texts aren't 'holy' at all.
Boru
Using the Christian New Testament as an example - since it seems to be the one with which most members are familiar -, the goal of this work is to instruct people how to behave and believe in order to get to Heaven. Since God wants people to get to Heaven (per the text), it would be in the best interests all parties concerned that the text be interpreted in the same manner. BUT...if the texts are intentionally ambiguous and open to as many interpretations as there are readers, the clear conclusion is that the texts were concocted by human writers who were writing from imperfect knowledge and the typical human emotions (greed, fear, prejudice and greed).
In short, the holy texts aren't 'holy' at all.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
