Semantics and God

Semantics tells us that words have no intrinsic meanings, that means a word written must have a meaning associated with it by a person. I.e. nodachi cannot be understood by everyone who sees it, it is only if someone tells you it means field sword (refering to a sword greater than 5 shaku in length) can most people understand what a nodachi is. Likewise you notice shaku is presumably a unit of length (based on the meanings attatched to the words around it) that you can't quite comprehend in terms of it's exact distance and you begin to feel like you need to learn Japanese.
The problem is apparant in translation and in education where kids look at flash cards with words like cat, dog etc matched up to pictures of the objects they represent starting to associate meanings with words after having first learnt to associate sounds with words.
It becomes less apparant in sacred texts however. The Quaran/Koran is reprinted word for word with no deviation tolerated (the only interpretation allowed arises in translations) books of the bible preserve the word less so (changing Pharoah to King etc depending on the target audiance etc) and pretty much every holy book associated with a religion. The assembled words have no meaning whatsoever in themselves and cultural values such as homophobia in Catholacism are based on such words 'flimsy interpretations' I would dub them if I was quoting myself but I'm sure others have said it.
There is no magical inherant value in the particular sequences of words because you couldn't chuck the holy books in the back of a plane and drob them on some previously isolated amazonian tribe and expect them to pick up the gist of it.
When Jesus said 'I shall return' did he mean 'I'll return...with milk, anybody need anything while I'm nipping out' or 'I shall return on the day of armageddon where we will wage war on the forces of evil.' I don't know because 'I will return' is meaningless in and of itself, we choose the meaning we want to attach to it.
Catholics have come out with the Gospel of Judas and more or less said 'at the end of the day we will believe what we want to believe'
My boss's job is interpreting the Head office's boss' philosophy who in turn is interpreting the philosophies of the founding father. The fact that they were written down means the message probably lasts longer with less disparity between interpretation and intent but fundamentally is little better in the long term than an oral tradition.
Would the world be a better place if we could just admit:

If god does exist, his/her/their words are interpreted by man, who in turn speaks on behalf of god, exercises judgement for god and by extension controls god.

Which I think is true of absolutely all religions even if my blog was to become the basis of a religion for as Paul Atredies said 'The moment one accepts godhead one loses control of it' Faust got fucked out of his answer to the meaning of life when Mephisto tells him 'I would explain the answer to you but it is only possible in a language you would never understand'
Isn't anyone else pissed off the pope gets to sit in the Vatican where Dali paintings struggle to get wall space and all he does is attempt to interpret whatever the fuck god is getting at in the fucking Bible?