I think you’ve set up a straw man. I never said that Scripture has instances of correction “against the Word of God” and I never said that there are scriptural instances of correction of “clear interpretations” thereof. What I said was that there is no Scriptural basis for claiming that scripture is always easy to understand. There are MANY instances of correction against the COMMON understanding — a common understanding that also happens to be wrong. Furthermore, to read Scripture in a purely literal way is to get it wrong, in many instances. “Literal” does not always equal “Correct” does not always equal “Clear”.
If I did, it was unintentional - The comment was there to buttress my point, which was that to the very letter (IIRC) what the Apostles and Christ Himeslf railed against were the additions and traditions that added to or took away from the Scriptures themselves. Thereby, It isn't a matter of interpreting, or these, who are more worthy than any of us, would have spent their time instructing upon the interpretations rather than fixing what the authorities of the day scrambled up with their traditions. One could, I submit, extrapolate the very same as being relevant today, and throughout the entirety of history.
What I said was that there is no Scriptural basis for claiming that scripture is always easy to understand.
True to the degree that one supposes only one true meaning to a thing, and to the extent of the definition of 'always easy'. The Bible is explicit in it's declaration that there is a simple message, easy to understand, and a more difficult and nuanced message that is harder to digest - the 'milk' and the 'meat' as it were. So at the very least, there are two levels of understanding. I would submit that the levels are infinite and profound - and we are to continually be about our work of ferreting out every bit of it. That in fact, is the main reason I find the Word to be inspired - so simple and yet so very complex.
But in effect, for the purpose of this conversation, if relying upon the 'milk', it IS easy to understand.
And one can also fall back to the commandment that the Torah was to be read in it's entirety before the entire assembly every seven years - in part so that those children who had never heard the Word of YHWH would hear it. The clear implication in that is that a child of seven years is able to get something from the Torah... Since the Author of the Book (through the inspiration of His agents) is YHWH Himself, one should be able to apply that same principle to the whole of the Book.
There are MANY instances of correction against the COMMON understanding — a common understanding that also happens to be wrong.
I would like an example of same.
Furthermore, to read Scripture in a purely literal way is to get it wrong, in many instances. “Literal” does not always equal “Correct” does not always equal “Clear”.
As I am among the most fundamental of fundamentalists, I have knocked down that particular straw man many times. Even among my peers, there is only a preference toward literalism, not a perfect literalism. But even so, a direct reading is usually the best, and one can quite often derive an accurate interpretation thereby. Certainly there is little need for the monstrous interpretive bodies that are currently institutionalized (not pointing at y'all only, but I AM pointing at y'all).
The Roman church *loves* to point out the differences between the protestant denominations, but refuses to credit the similarities, which are vast by comparison. and some of our more congregational brethren have deliberative bodies which are nothing more than an handful of elders... And still they wind up believing pretty much the same things.