levite

That depends very much on how one defines "revealed truth." If you mean fundamentalist literalism, then yes, you're right. But since most religious people are not fundamentalist literalists, then no, I'm not sure it is true.

Although what I was referring to was the context of the writings within the tradition, history, and culture (both social and literary) that produced them.

No single text is universally understood as inherently sacred, perhaps. But texts can be and are sacred to their adherents. You may not find the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) to be holy: fine, that is surely your prerogative, and nobody would have any business trying to change your mind. But those texts are sacred to the Jewish people, and to us they certainly are understood to have an inherent holiness. Of course, Judaism also teaches that Jewish sacred text was meant only for us: it is not relevant to non-Jews, whom we presume to have their own ways of interacting with God and passing on holy teachings (which, in turn, are not relevant to us).

All text has to be interpreted. But what I am talking about is the difference between (1) How did the authors of the text and their redactor successors understand the text, (2) How does the culture which produced the text understand the text, and (3) How can any casual reader of the text from outside its original cultural context interpret it and find meaning in it.

For example, let's say with the plays of Shakespeare: one can reasonably speculate on the kinds of meanings Shakespeare was likely to have imagined when he wrote "Hamlet." In doing so, one can readily defend a comparatively wide range of possible meanings, as it is an exceedingly complex play. And one can also consider how British (and to an extent, American) directors, actors, and audiences have interpreted the play, and what kinds of meanings they have decided to adapt into it. And while one is free to assign any meaning one likes to a play, one would be very hard pressed to make a case that, say, Shakespeare and his players at the Globe intended that "Hamlet" be a strong statement on gun control and the consequences of abusing the Second Amendment. If that's how one wants to read "Hamlet," that's surely one's right, and no one should take that right away; but such a reading, though interesting, is simply insupportable in the contexts both of the play's author's likely ideas and motivations, and in the predominate traditions of interpretation of the play.

There is a Rabbinic teaching about interpreting Torah: hafokh ba v'hafokh ba, ki d'kula ba; "Examine and re-examine it, for everything can be found within it." In other words, Rabbinic tradition presumes that the Torah is capable of infinite levels of meaning. Yet even so, there are meanings that, practically, we teach that the text will not support, and it is not permissible in Judaism to make those textual arguments. If one makes them, fine, that may be a way to interpret the text, but it is no longer Jewish.

Christians do this all the time: most of how they interpret the "Old Testament" is counter to what Judaism says one can do with the text. But Jews generally have no problem with Christians doing this, so long as they are clear that they are Christians, interpreting the texts Christologically. The only problem comes when the Christians claim supercessionary rights of interpretation, and tell us that our readings and parameters are wrong, and theirs are the "true" Jewish readings, because they are now the "real" Children of Israel.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)