While the intention of language is to be interpreted, a flaw in all human language is that it can often be interpreted multiple ways. Nevertheless, these ways are almost always limited, usually have only one correct interpretation, and there are various ways to figure out which of the limited ways are correct.
An example of this can be seen in a recent text I sent my mother. "Ultimate irony: Fox is now more afraid of my gopro than me". What did I mean by this?
The text alone gives very little context, but it does contain a lot of information. To begin with, whatever "fox" is, it is clearly an entity that is capable of feeling fear, particularly fear of a GoPro. Furthermore, it is exhibiting that fear in some way that is relevant to me.
For context, I am a wildlife photographer, and last year, I discovered my street is frequently visited by foxes. Wanting photos, I began leaving food out for them, which has now become a nightly habit of mine. When it's warm enough, I sit outside to watch them take it, hopefully also getting photos (much like the one seen in the header image).
Although the text does not give that context, it does convey enough information to draw two possible interpretations. The first is that "Fox" is more afraid of my GoPro than it is of me. This is the correct interpretation. Although it is still very cautious around me, at this point, it is well aware of where the food comes from, and while it used to flee at the mere sight of me sitting near the food, it will now follow a trail of food leading towards me, or even run towards me if I throw some for it. However, it really doesn't like the GoPro. If it spots it, it spends a lot of time staring at it, pacing back and forth, and generally acting as if approaching the bait will trigger an explosion.
But there is a second plausible interpretation. "Fox" may be more scared of the GoPro than it is of me, but it's also possible, based on the words alone, that it is more scared of the GoPro than I am. This interpretation, which fits the wording of the text, shifts the fear somewhat. In this interpretation, "Fox" is still afraid of the GoPro, but to a lesser extent, so am I. Of course, it's highly unlikely that I would be afraid of my own GoPro, and so even though this is a plausible interpretation based on the words, it's automatically less likely than the other interpretation. With that being said, since I am not afraid of my GoPro at all, this interpretation still technically works. It's just not what I was going for.
Completely excluded from this discussion is the interpretation that "Fox" is not afraid of the GoPro at all. In order to be more afraid of something than something or someone else, the amount of fear must be greater than 0. Regardless of whether I am afraid of the GoPro or not, in order for the fox to be more afraid of the GoPro than me, it must be afraid of the GoPro. Thus, we can completely exclude the interpretation that the fox is not afraid of the GoPro.
In our Relativisitic culture, in which even atheists are apparently permitted to call themselves "Christians", we hear a lot about the Bible being open to interpretation. However, much like my text to my mother, the truth is, every verse in Scripture is open only to a handful of interpretations. Furthermore, it is never wise to base one's interpretation of a verse just on that one verse. In fact, the very concept of verses is a brand new system intended for ease of reference. It's far easier to find "Isaiah 40:31" than "somewhere in Isaiah". Thus, Bible verses should never be read as if they were alone, but with context from verses surrounding them.
To give an example, consider the popular view that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. This view is very popular in our Relativistic culture. However, there is no valid interpretation of the Qur'an in which Jesus is God, and no valid interpretation of the Bible in which He isn't.
Take, for example, the entire first chapter of Hebrews. Here, we see God Himself call Jesus God! By contrast, in Islam, Jesus is certainly not God. He is a mere prophet, and He didn't even die on the cross, much less rise again. Confessing Him as Lord is actually considered "shirk".
"The Bible is open to interpretation" is not a valid response to this simple fact, because the Bible is not open to that interpretation. There are debates we can have about the divine nature of Christ. For example, we can ask why, though being God, the Son does not know the day or the hour (Mark 13:32)? But unless you abandon the rules of interpretation that would allow you to read this very article, you simply cannot interpret the Bible as saying Jesus is not God, any more than you can suggest I was trying to tell my mother that the fox is so unafraid of the GoPro that it asked me if it could borrow it!
Contrary to popular cliche, the Bible is not "open for interpretation". It does, of course, require interpretation. It's called "reading". But it is not so open for interpretation as to support the vast array of heresies and denominations that exist in the world today. Therefore, they way to discuss these things isn't to just brush off anything we disagree with as "the Bible is open to interpretation". Nor is it to simply throw the word "context" around whenever we find something we don't like. Rather, it is to sit down and examine the text, figuring out which interpretation is the most likely.
As we are sinners, it's unfortunate that we more often tend towards the invalid interpretations. God says "thou shalt not", and we ask "can we, though?" For this, God says we deserve death. But He also tells us plainly that He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), not wanting anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9), and taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11). Therefore, He made a way, a single way, for us to be saved. Through confessing Jesus as the risen Lord, believing it in our hearts, we will be saved. Every other "interpretation" leads to His everlasting wrath.