From what I have learned on this thread, by the standards of today's Catholicism, the Bible is virtually obsolete as a revelation of faith, ON ITS OWN. The Bible appears to only become useful to anyone, through the prism of the Catholic Church.
The scripture is verified and explained primarily with other scripture, and with linguistics. This is why "all" is not "all", etc. This has been explained to you a dosen times on this thread. Where alternative readings logically exist, but one reading is supported by Tradition for extrascriptural reasons, I pointed it out. For example, there is no scripture to positively say that Mary remained a virgin; the Purgatory is not the only possible explanation of the parable of unmerciful debtor, etc.
There is a certain fallaceous pattern in how you have argued the scripture, at least with me. First, a doctrine is picked with scant scriptural support. Next, I admit that it is something positively known from Tradition but not contradicted by Scripture. Then you rise to the challenge and bring up something in the scripture that could be interpreted your way. I explain that it also can be explained the Catholic way, and back it up with other scripture and linguistics. Then you say "-- But I read it the natural way". At this point the purpose of the exercise is forgotten and we argue about what is the natural reading. But this is not the issue, and in fact what is the natural reading to the 21 century American quite often is not the natural reading to a 1 century Jew anyway. The issue is, -- Is the Catholic reading possible, not -- Is it natural.
But you're not arguing that the Catholic view is possible, you are arguing that it is correct, the same as I do for my view. I believe that the plain meaning strongly supports my views over Catholic interpretation, so of course I use that in my argument. Who wouldn't in my shoes?
And, when you say that today's plain meaning is quite often different from the plain meaning to a 1st century Jew, that could be true in some cases. However, remember that I am agreeing with people not only from just 500 years ago, but also with the writings of some early Church Fathers. Some of the writings of these Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Tertullian) were thrown out by the Church as heresy, but which support what I believe today on some subjects. They certainly knew what was plain to a 1st century Jew.