We all "know" that the Bible is open to interpretation, and they're all equally valid. That is, until those who say they're all equally valid insist that theirs is the absolute, incontrovertible truth. You get this from atheists, who insist the Bible is too ambiguous to be true, yet somehow manage to find "contradictions", moral evils, scientific errors, and various other ways to criticise it. You get it from Liberal Christians, who want to be able to use the Bible to justify their anti-Christian ideas, yet when Scripture is against them, "that's just your interpretation". Of course, there are Roman Catholics, who will claim their Church alone has the authority to interpret the Bible, whereas to everyone else, it's an unintelligible mess... except when they expect you to interpret it their way.
With so many competing views, it almost seems to be true that the Bible is an unintelligible mess. These competing groups cannot all be correct, but on the one point they have in common - their hypocrisy - they could, ironically, have a solid point. How else could one man study Scripture and conclude that there is one God, yet another will see no conflict with the polytheistic views of Joseph Smith? Why else would a Muslim attribute the doctrine of the Trinity to the Council of Nicaea, yet even the pre-Christian Jews had a concept of God being multipersonal? And tell me, what is up with that whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate?
The truth is, on the one hand, the Bible is not open to interpretation. On the other hand, like all written works, it must be interpreted. It's called "reading". Or, more accurately, "studying". See, reading automatically requires interpretation. You're interpreting this article right now. And you can probably already tell that I am not an atheist, a Liberal, a Roman Catholic, a Muslim, or a Mormon. If you couldn't already glean such information from the first two paragraphs, this third one should be more than sufficient. If it isn't, it's because you are motivated.
Ironically enough, I have been accused of some of these things, most notably Roman Catholic. This is ironic, because I am so anti-Catholic, I won't even consider myself "Protestant" because I feel like labelling my views relative to the Roman Catholic Church gives it too much credit. But I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and I am a Biblical Creationist, so according to some people I have debated, I must be a Roman Catholic.
Do you see the problem yet? The problem isn't the Bible, it's the reader. The Bible itself is fairly clear. It's not designed to reward those who will not study it, so you won't understand it if it sits on your shelf gathering dust while your "verse of the day" app goes ping every so often. But you will absolutely come to a clearer understanding if you actively seek to understand it. That means more than the occasional glance.
It also means not actively seeking to misunderstand it. If, as is the case for most people, you are committed to a given interpretation regardless of the truth, you will be able to twist the Bible to support it, just as you can do with literally anything, and anyone. It's even worse when you've had it interpreted for you before you have studied it yourself. When you study Scripture independently, there are certain interpretations you're never going to draw. But then you spend time around certain people, they'll quote a verse in a particular way, and when you come to it yourself, you'll load their interpretation up in your mind. It will take extra study (or just a better teacher) to find the correct interpretation.
This, of course, is why the Church does matter. Bible study was never intended to be a purely independent, nor a purely group effort. Much like the rest of life, we learn, we teach, and we pool our knowledge. It's why you'll find more about origins than eschatology on this site. I've studied the former more than the latter, so I know more about the former than the latter. But other Christians might be able to explain 10 different views on the end times, and explain, with Scripture, which one is correct.
Think of it this way: You don't have to be a biologist to know the difference between a frog and a toad. Personally, I'm a wildlife photographer. I took the photo in the header image, so I can tell you, not only by looking at the photo, but also from being physically present when the animal was caught (and released) that it is not a frog. It is a common toad (bufo bufo).
Now, a toddler might disagree. To them, it looks like a frog, it sounds like a frog, it's a frog. Or maybe a fwog. It could also be the other way around. Maybe they'll see a frog and identify it as a toad. They don't know the difference. In fact, as I write this, I'm getting a random memory of Kipper the Dog, a children's TV show that aired between 1997 and 2000. The theme tune, for no obvious reason, featured a random pair of amphibians that would hop past Kipper in the same direction. "By the way, that's a toad, not a frog...", followed by the conclusion of the song: "Now that's a frog". I remember as a young boy, loving nature back then as much as I do now, wondering what the difference was. I couldn't see one. Watching it back on YouTube right now, I still can't really see how the show intended to distinguish the two. Maybe the shade of green? The frog seems slightly smaller.
One thing is for certain. A biologist may have the knowledge to correct me. I firmly believe I have a photo of a common toad. I'm also fairly confident in using its binomial name "bufo bufo". But suppose a biologist takes a look and says "well actually, that's a common frog (rana temporaria)". Well now I've got some thinking to do. I could choose to just believe the biologist and change my label for my own photo. He knows what he's talking about, right? I could also choose to disagree. It wouldn't be the first time. I remember in college, we took a trip to the zoo, and our professor insisted that a bird I'd photographed was a rhea (Rhea americana), a bird which she claims to have kept at some point. But neither me, nor my classmates, were convinced. So we pulled out the zoo guide, compared my photos, and sure enough, while there were rheas at the zoo, I had in fact photographed an emu (dromaius novaehollandiae)!
There is a common theme here (and no, it's not me somehow managing to correct a second college professor). The animals we have spoken of so far are similar animals. A toad at least looks like a frog. Similarly, a rhea could easily be confused for an emu. But a toad is not a frog, and a rhea is not an emu. One thing we can presumably all agree on, however, is that while we're bickering over whether that short-legged, rough-skinned amphibian is a frog or a toad, anyone who pops up and says "well actually, that's a rat" needs to be laughed out of the conversation.
There are similarities between frogs, toads, and rats. They all have four legs. Depending on the species, they may all be similar sizes. They may even inhabit the same environment. It absolutely would not shock me if I managed to get a photo of all three animals with one click. But one of these things is not like the others. Not even a biologist could convince me that the grumpy looking amphibian sitting in the grass is actually a rat.
In much the same way, the Bible does require at least a little study to understand. I could be convinced, especially by a more knowledgable theologian, that some of my interpretations are wrong. But in the same way, there are some interpretations I simply could never accept, simply because while I may mistake a frog for a toad, I am never going to mistake a rat for a frog.
But people do. For various reasons, people misinterpret the Bible, not because God has made that especially easy, but because sinners will fight Him even when it's hard. The Bible is filled with many frog vs. toad moments. But there are plenty of people who will tell you that if it looks like a frog, sounds like a frog, and acts like a frog, it's a rat. Rather than taking this as evidence that the Bible really is open to interpretation, we should simply stduy it with all due diligence, denying people who say "rat" a seat at the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post publication note: Following the announcement of this article on the Bible Brain Facebook page, it was pointed out that toads are a subclassification of frogs, thereby meaning all toads are frogs, whereas not all frogs are toads. Ultimately, this doesn't affect the point being made, but actually proves it; one can make mistakes based on appearances. Indeed, if you were to look up "difference between frog and toad" on a search engine, you will find a number of results which either do not mention, or do not highlight, that toads are a subclassification of frogs. Thus, ultimately, the correct interpretation is that I was right; I do have a photo of a toad, but I was also wrong in denying it is a frog. There is still no way to suggest it is a rat. In the same way, there are still a limited number of ways to correctly interpret Scripture, and while it is possible to draw some wrong interpretations, it will never be possible for the Bible to comfortably accommodate certain views.