I think I'm more in line with the second way of thinking than the first. I mean both seem right, but one is just assuming what you know is the only thing there is and that there can be no other way, but God's way right? I mean to assume that we could fully interpret the will or ideas of God in any time or place is a little bit weird to say. I find it hard to blame those traditions because how can we expect anyone to make doctrine or dogma that is full-proof for thousands of years? Does that then mean that religion is to be interpreted differently as time moves forward? Then that brings into question the idea from the first way about God's Word. Is it something that is unaffected by perspective or focus? I feel like we are pulling pretty far away from the original subject, but this is a cool discussion.