but defintionally when one reads the Bible, one is interpreting it. One can not read without interpreting.

So the only question is whose interpretation justifed how.

I believe it was Luther who suggested that we are each open to our own interpretation (as indeed we must be if we do not grant a God endowed ecclesiatical authority such as the Pope).

It is worth noting that Luther apparently did not accept what is typically known as the protestant canon: it appears that he reserved the personal right to judge which books are canonical.

And I believe we are back to the position I suggested in post 123. I think we have shown a logical error in your ppost 124.

Musing,
I would not say that we can know unequivocally what EVERY passage means exactly, but I reject the idea that it is all open to interpretation.
Scripture is full of law and doctrine that can absolutely be understood as it was intended.

so I have been sitting by and watching this discussion and some thoughts strike me:

1) a persons interpretation of the Bible (and it is always an interpretation) seems to say more about the person than what it says about the intent of the passage in the Bible

2) the conversation is progressing as if one can, sitting where one is today, know unequivocally what any given Biblical passage means

I suggest that since humans are finite and fallible beings, all we can say for sure is what we interpret the Bible to mean, not what it either actually means, was intended by the authors to mean, or was intended by God to be understood.

My personal suspicion is that what we expect for others is what will most likely be visited upon ourselves. John 8:3-11 for example.

That’s just the point. You are using your finite rationale to form an opinion of what an infinite God should be like. You seem to want Him to overlook sins and ensure that everyone has a good time.
Why is it such a horrible thing that the Creator would destroy a creation that defiantly opposed Him?

…and I am far less deserving of eternal torture than Heaven

Due to your agnosticism, you won’t agree with this, but the beauty of salvation is that it’s not something you earn. God doesn’t weigh your bad and good deeds and determine where you end up. God provided a propitiation so that wicked people would not have to rely on their own works. They can attain salvation through the works of another.

…BTW, I do think you are asking good questions. I appreciate a good agnostic!

Well as a theistic-agnostic I can tell in reading certain passages of the Bible, I wouldn’t want anything to do with, for instance the Being who supposedly destroyed all of humanity in the flood except for a handfull. However, I far less would like to spend time in an eternal torture chamber (and I am far less deserving of eternal torture than Heaven). If on the other hand Hell is like continuing life on Earth a part from God, a place where you can play pool with your buddies and crack dirty jokes for all eternity, perhaps I could accept the justness of the concept. Otherwise you are asking me to believe something that is as rational as God sending 19 highjackers into the WTC and rewarding them with virgins.