I notice that you didn't follow my advice and actually take some time to think.
So basically my analytical techniques demonstrate that I do not know how to properly analyze literary texts. I can man up and concede that that is in fact possible.
No, your analytical techniques are not analytical techniques at all. You don't know how to analyze a text, it's that simple.
And you're still avoiding the issue that keeps coming up. You were supposed to either respond to the question for once and justify your stance, or man up and admit that you can't and that what everyone is saying is true.
Once again, you've simply tried to shift the subject. It's a very simple thing, ToT. Can you either answer what everyone has been asking and actually give any credence to your position, or can you admit that you are wrong? Because this is about the fourth time we've all gone down this road with you, and I don't know about the others but I'm finding it very tiresome that you keep backing out when you start it.
When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?
That there is no such thing as a right or wrong interpretation for a text. Everyone gets their own meaning from what they read. When you try to claim that others are misusing the bible, you are wrong because they are just as right as you are.
Again, you and I went over this previously (before you backed out yet again). You are simply cowering away from the subject. The question still remains, asked by just about everyone by this point.