There are two main schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the texts of the Bible. The literal and the historical-critical. The literal approach attempts to interpret the texts just as they are without taking into account the various translations, or interpretations, that have shaped Biblical ideology throughout the centuries. This is the approach of the fundamentalist. The idea is that the text can be interpreted at any time throughout the ages because of the inerrancy and relevatory nature of the scriptures. Therefore, according to this method, it doesn't matter that the texts have been reinterpreted and translated because the essential meaning, or the intended, is retained. What is most interesting about this approach is that there isn't a seminary, theological school, or other academic institution that offers degrees in theology which endorses this approach because it is logically unsound. In no other aspect of contemporary society would one accept the surface meaning of a word from any language without looking at the various aspects that go into the creation and evolution of the word. This contradiction brings one to the other approach, and, consequently, the one used in all institutions of higher learning, which is the historical-critical approah. Under this method, one first looks at the original understanding of a word or phrase as it applies to its original use and the period in which it was used. Then, one must trace the evolution of the word, if, in fact, it is still in use in the contemporary period for which it is being applied. If it is, then one must find attributable evidence to show that the word carries the same connotations that it had in its inception. However, if the word has evolved, or gone out of use, then one either must trace the reasons that led to its evolvement to a new understanding (definition), or discern why the archaic nature of the word led to its disuse in contemporary language. The ultimate answers under both scenarios will lead the interpreter to a broader understanding of how the word, or phrase, in question can be applied to contemporary society.
It's true that the historical-critical approach takes much more work to decipher what a word, or phrase, means. I tend to believe that the literal approach was created with the intention of bringing Biblical interpretation to the layman in a way that made it accessible and not so daunting. Unfortunately, the literal approach is based on an unstable thesis because the supposed inerrancy of the Bible cannot be maintained after so many interpretations from previous interpretations. There is a type of poetic art called the mistranslation. This form of poetry can be very funny, or, at times, better than the original but the poem "mistranslated" is in no way related to the original text. This process works best with poems written in a language unknown to the translator who, then, attempts to formulate words in their own language based on how the foreign words sound when sounded out. Of course, any real translation of the poem under these circumstances would be pure folly. How can one translate what they don't understand? The art is in discovering what the poet can create. However, I would argue that there is no art in misinterpreting the Bible based on ignorance of the texts and then teaching the misinterpretation as "the word of God."
