If that's true, then I'll take it. :) My preference would be for all true Christians to be as unified as possible.
The sticky point is "plain [meaning of scripture] at what time?" No one wants an extravagant interpretation, but we want the reading that conforms with the intent of the writer, and he lived 2,000 years ago.
You're right, the writer did live 2,000 years ago. He also lives today. He also lived before the creation of the earth. Since God invented time, He knew how to get the maximum benefit out of language in order to communicate ideas that would become timeless. The writer used different voices to convey one perfect message. The intent of one part of the message can be discerned by looking at other parts of the message to see if there is unity of purpose within the message as a whole.
God inspired the scripture but He did not write it, except perhaps the Ten Commandments where the finger of God is expressly mentioned. The New Testament, as I mentioned before, is particularly free from that Koranic "finger of God" style. Luke addresses his book to a friend, John points to his book being far from complete, Paul instructs what to do with his tunic. The style reflects not the Eternal but the personalities of the authors: Matthew is awed and given to detail, Mark is terse and laconic, Luke elegant and stylish, John mysterious and poetic, Peter intense and combative, Paul combines intellectual complexity with serene poetry. Much of the original Greek is difficult to comprehend even to the Greeks. Many aspects are left without explanation, such as Mary's "know not man". Fundamental theological truths, such as the Trinity, are left without a scriptural definition. The book of Acts ends with unresolved suspense. Clearly God wanted us to perceive the Gospels as a scripture rooted in its historical and personal context.
I find it completely logical. At the root of our faith is Christ the true Man and true God, Whose life on Earth is a matter of historical record. If God wanted to give us a book rather than Christ, he would have done just that, in the manner of the abundant philosophers and theologians from Confucius to Marx. Those you can read and find the precise answers that stand completely outside of history and linguistics. No one really needs to know anything about, say, Kant in order to understand Kantian philosophy. His books are completely self-sufficient, ahistorical, translate without much difficulty, if we were Kantians rather than Christians we would all subscribe to Sola Scriptura; it would be ridiculous not to.