When an author writes he creates more than he thinks he has. Ideally, he is writing the lines without thought as to what he writes between them--let others worry about that.
I'm not entirely sure of that Scott, often when I am writing, I am analyzing the content from multiple viewpoints. Methinks you are describing your own manner of writing and projecting it on all writers.
If religious text is admitted to be a communication from God revealed through the mind and spirit of a Prophet, then how much more true is that?
You see, that IS where we differ, completely. I utterly reject the common idea of "revelation". You will never convince me of the validity of such claims. I can assure you that when the average human animal is presented with larger aspects of their identity, the will almost ALWAYS assume that they have been in communication with god. It is a quite understandable, but incorrect, viewpoint. In a sense, such human animals become fixated on their errant perception and this often will have the unseemly result of them elevating their own imagined status.
If one does not allow that, then there is little point in discussing it.
I disagree. It is patently absurd to accept the words of someone who proffesses to talk for God, although much could potentially be learned from their distorted perceptions, though those lessons may not be the lessons such individuals teach directly.
For example, Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] states very clearly via the Qur'an that we are to have no intercessors between man and god. In reality, the words and actions of Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] AND the "noble" Qur'an can be considered to be intercessors in their own right, as are all religious text in that they come directly between man and his imagined god. They form a preconceived notion in the mind of the believer of what god is and what he expects. It isn't so much based on reality as it is based on liberal use of overactive imaginations.