The meaning of words within the immediate context in which they were written does in fact act as objective evidence about the meaning of that which the author has written. Why do you deny this?
Because you're wrong. This might work if you want to claim a completely literal interpretation of the bible. However that opens up a huge host of other problems for any interpretations you want to make.
Unless you're going to make the huge mistake of claiming a literal translation, then you can't hold up what's said as objective evidence. Evidence, yes, but not objective evidence. This is especially true in a book that relies so heavily on metaphor and literary device, not to mention one that makes so many fantastic claims.
For example, the bible says that prayer can move mountains. Was this a metaphor or did the author actually mean that he thought it would really happen? Just from the text it could easily go either way, especially since we're talking about a man who likely believed in all-powerful god.
To use your "son of god" bit as another example. That is a title that is actually given to a lot of things. In the OT it is used several times to refer to other people and things as well. Technically, if Christianity is true then we are all the sons/daughters of god. Most Christians though interpret this to mean that he is the literal son of god; as in he was born from god and is divine. Using the context of that passage one could take many interpretations as to the meaning of son of god.
Knowing the identity and intent of the author can be out great value in many settings, not all. Where concepts are being discussed that be be understood in multiple ways, the author's background is of paramount importance, however when the author is telling a story by recanting events, it's not so vital.
Except you know nothing about the authors. You don't even know if what you're reading has been altered or changed from the original. You know absolutely nothing about it. Even when and where it was written is rather tenuous.
So point a). The scriptures say Jesus is the son of God is not up for debate, it's fact, while point b.) The scriptures teach that Jesus is God, the Son is debatable because such a concept is not expressly stated and it goes against the Shema that much of scripture screams out.
This is you weaseling around. When Christians say that Jesus is the Son of God, they refer to his divinity.
Yes, it does say literally that Jesus if the son of god. However your position was that reading the scriptures and taking them for their word was the way to understand their meaning. So you have told me that it says
son of god (which I agree with, as irrelevant as it is). But what is the actual meaning
of it. And how do you prove it? You keep avoiding this.
Does it mean that he is divine, or is it using the term like it's used in most of the OT. How do you justify which one you believe it is? You said that you use the scriptures to correct people that misrepresent their meanings. But you've avoided talking about their meanings as you've interpreted them. If you're going to stick with "it's debatable" then obviously you're not in any position to be correcting people on much of anything as your method of interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.
You stated that "the issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures." To which my response is that the correctness of the scriptures is not something disernable by interpretation, but the messages, whether correct or not, can be gleaned from the pages in the overwhelming majority of circumstances.
Except that the messages can't be gleaned in most circumstances, as I've pointed out. We have several thousand different varieties of Christianity to prove that. All of which sound the same as you. All of which claim that others are misrepresenting what the bible actually says.
What you call speaking for God is no such thing, so no matter how often you repeat that errant assertion, or tell it out, it won't suddenly become true and correct.
Correct or not, so far it's pretty much gone unopposed by you. So perhaps I do have a point?
What then do you call it? When you claim an interpretation of gods scriptures and that those who don't read it the way you do are wrong, even though you still can't prove it?
To put words into someones mouth means to interpret what someone said so that the words mean what you want and not what the speaker wanted. Since you don't know what the speaker actually intended, aren't you doing exactly this?