What "it actually says" is something that cannot possible be determined apart from prior hermeneutical principles. It is just squiggles on a page or vibrations in the air unless there is some agreement as to what it signifies.
What "it actually says" are those squiggles on a page. They are words.
Such agreement requires the intent of the speaker, the understanding of the listener, and the mutual community that establishes the "rules," so to speak.
What you are describing is the
meaning(s) of those squiggles on a page or the vibrations in the air. That is a step beyond recognizing what the words are.
Interpreting and applying the words of a judicial order requires the extra-textual knowledge that it is a judicial order. If the text itself claims to be a judicial order, properly interpreting and applying it means believing that claim. There is no "what the text actually says" completely divorced from that framework.
John 3:16
says: Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
Would you argue that it doesn't say that? Agreeing that those are the words in that verse does not require any extra-textual knowledge. It simply requires the text. For someone with no knowledge of Greek, they are just scribbles on a page with no meaning; but that doesn't change the fact that that's what the text says. That's what's written in the book.
Once one seeks to decipher those scribbles, to give meaning to them, it requires extra-biblical knowledge, e.g., what each of those words mean? What grammar is being employed? How might we express the same ideas in English?
People who read the Bible as something other than the Word of God never arrive at "what it actually says." They need the Holy Spirit to intervene.
I make a distinction between "what it actually says" and "what it means". You don't seem to make that difference. Or perhaps better expressed: "The words that God has given us" vs. "The meaning(s) of the words God has given us."
For instance, God has given us the word, ἠγάπησεν, in the above verse. It is the third person singular aorist indicative active form of ἀγαπάω. That is what I mean by "what it says."
Seeking the meaning(s) of ἀγαπάω and which ones best apply in this sentence and how to express the aorist tense in English is moving to the next step.
τὸν κόσμον are words given to us in the verse. It is the object of God's ἠγάπησεν. Seeing the word in the text is step one. Biases have no affect on noting the words that are in the text. Looking up κόσμος in BDAG and noting that there are 8 different definitions is step two. Deciding on which definition(s) best fits this context is step three - and one's biases certainly come into play with such decisions.
