It's hard to deny that things like symbolism and typology make up a large part of the bible, it's history, people, etc. However, there are certainly instances where you can make up some really elaborate and convincing things of this sort to claim that the bible teaches something that it likely doesn't. For instance, a lot of black nationalists hold to some interesting views: 1. That Africa was the birthplace of mankind and the original hebrews were black. (This probably has some validity.) 2. That Satan is the prince of this world, who comes as an angel of light and was described as the morning star/lucifer. The white man represents his princehood in being a leader in world dominance and politics. His complexion mirrors the appearance of the angel of light, coupled with the fact that he offers comfort and deliverence at the expense of faith. This is because black African countries are generally more religious but 'simpler', and white ones are generally more secular and 'advanced', because Satan claimed people could have peace and joy apart from dependence on God, who are generally supposed to be more humble. 3. The idea of envying white skin is like saying the way God made you is not good enough, which parallels the symbolism of Eve's deception where the snake tried to tell her he had some knowledge that she lacked and needed to reject God to obtain it. 4. That the primacy of Rome, and other western churches suggests a demonic conspiracy of whitewashing, especially since Hitler had some connection to it (though of course Catholics have often defended it by saying he was not a true Catholic or even Christian, as do many Protestants, no disagreement there). 5. Last, that the angels and demons seducing women in the time of Noah produced different races including the whites which is why he is the offspring of Satan and his demons. You might remember the movie Malcolm X, where he was in prison with blonde-dyed hair and a black nationalist confronted him about it, then showed him literature like the dictionary where he claimed that black was always used as a very negative symbol to show white bias. If you took the black nationalist apologetics at face value, you could see how they can be convinced that this is all true, even if it is not explicitly stated in the bible. Then, you would have to assume that Jesus was in fact a black jew who came to rid the world of white oppression specifically. On another note, and forgive me if this sounds crude, but I do recall some esotericists arguing once that the symbolism of Peter's name has several other meanings than is usually thought. They say that although it meant that he was the rock/a rock of the church, it predicted what would happen to his successors (or supposed succesors) later in history. That is, that Peter came to be an english slang word for a penis, and the meaning of rock meant an erection. This foreshadowed the lust spirit which would eventually infiltrate the church as we see today with many scandals and in other points of its history. And we know how some people debate about how much influence the Roman Church absorbed from its pagan neighbors. You could say that there is some truth to these parallels, and they exist because in terms of the grand scheme of things organized by Satan and his followers, there exists a perverse and inverted imitation of these symbols in addition to the authentic God-ordained meanings we can find attested in scripture. That would make sense, so as to help propagate a lot of false movements and perpetuate confusion as the church grows and moves throughout history.