I wrote that I thought that 2 Peter 1:20 meant, "no prophecy of
Scripture (or, as one reader suggests, no written prophecy) is
merely the private opinion of the writer."

Tony Zamora replies (Sat 8 May 1993) that this in turn implies that
it is not subject to the private interpretation of the reader
either. I am not sure that I understand this.
     In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private
interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians
lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away
because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go
away because I want them to be otherwise.
     In another sense, every statement is subject to private
interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and
expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently
well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an
inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best
judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance --
it is just an inescapable fact.