Is "religious truth" at bottom factual, like all other truth? Or is it "profound" and symbolic and illustrated by rituals and symbols? If the latter then no ancient text need be consulted since ever newer and more "relevant" symbols may communicate symbolic truth just as well as the older ones.
Liturgical chr*stians love to call Fundamentalist Protestants "logical positivists" for believing that religious truth is just that--true. The alternative is to remove "religious truth" from the real world altogether into a world of symbolic/ritual responses to some basic human psychological need. Naturally people think they can amend the rituals and texts, since they don't apply to the "real world" anyway and even the old dogmas are interpreted as something other than factual.
This loss of touch with physical reality of creation and the even more fundamental reality of the Lord's commands is instantiated among Catholics with such tendencies as liberation theology and the touchy-feeliness of the Neocatechumenate, among other organizations.
Among Protestants similar movements are afoot: the "Emerging Church" and "Purpose-Driven" gobbledygook.
These Protestant movements may not be as richly symbolic as my favorite human-authored book (The Divine Comedy), but they are symbolic as opposed to real, nonetheless.