Whether we like it or not, no human being is flawless. We are free from neither bias, nor cultural influence, nor even from our upbringing. Because we are so highly flawed, even a flawless source will not necessarily give us the wisdom we seek from it. That's not to say it's insufficient, but we are.
One particular difficulty is that just as Satan misquoted the scriptures to Jesus in the wilderness, so also do his minions do so today. Every false religion with any degree of reliance on the Bible has their own favored set of scriptures to misquote, and to the untrained mind, they seem convincing. How many times have you heard "I've always heard it taught this way...", only for a new, better interpretation to present itself? Of course, we don't all pop out of the womb with a Bible in hand, and a full set of literacy skills with which to read and understand it. Nevertheless, an awareness of bias, and a diligent and honest heart, is a perfect counter.
In the wilderness, Satan tempted Jesus 3 times. The second time, he quoted Psalm 91:11-12: "For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone." His conclusion? "...If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down...." (Matthew 4:6). Now, if a Christian heard this for the first time, they may well be tempted to heed Satan's idea. Indeed, many Christians are daft enough to take God's promises of protection as a licence for recklessness. But Jesus, knowing the scriptures, replied "...It is also written: Do not test the Lord your God." (Matthew 4:7).
And so obviously, Satan's interpretation of scripture was flawed. The solution? More scripture. And so this is one way we defeat our false beliefs in the modern day. Step 1: Be very wary of those who only ever cite one or two verses. When you cut the Bible up into little out-of-context sayings, it's easy to prove any doctrine you want. I can make the Bible say there is no God:
In the above image, I have crossed out every word except the title of the chapter (Psalm 14), the attribution of the Psalm (a Psalm of David), and "There is no God". Boom! The Bible is an atheistic book! Except it's not, is it? In fact, you can see the context I crossed out because I left the pen transparent (and before anyone freaks out, this was done digitally, my actual Bible is completely unharmed). The Bible, while it uses the exact words "There is no God", is not saying there is no God. Rather, it says the fool says in his heart "there is no God", and goes on to explain their corruption.
This extreme example that I have yet to see anyone take seriously illustrates the problem with the same tactic many people use on interpretations they do take seriously. Take, for example, the issue of baptism. Biblically speaking, baptism is an important tradition all Christians should take seriously. If you're a Christian and you're not baptised, go and get baptised. In scripture, it's usually done immediately upon salvation. We see this in the example of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip explains the Gospel to him, and on that same trip the Eunuch comes to believe. The instant they find water, he asks to be baptised, and it is done right there.
Nevertheless, no one with an understanding of the Gospel believes baptism is required for salvation. It's expected that the saved be baptised, but baptism comes after salvation, which is received via faith in Christ. If you have faith in Christ, you are saved, even before you are baptised. Yet, many pseudo-Christian religions teach that baptism is essential for salvation.
One verse they use to "prove" this interpretation is 1 Peter 3:21. "See?!", they cry. "It literally says 'baptism now saves you', so of course baptism is requires for salvation". But does the verse actually say that? Well, no. In fact, while heretics cite only those 4 words, the verse alone is 36 words! That is a lot of context to miss out.
The missing context explains exactly how baptism saves us. It is a "like figure". An antitype. It does not save us outright, but rather, it is an answer of clear conscience towards God.
One could think of this like a wedding ring. You could say the ring marries you, but in reality, the ring is a significant symbol. In the same way, baptism is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God".
This is just one example, and is commonly used by the largest pseudo-Christian religion in the world. The same trick can be used on other verses, many of which don't even need to be trimmed down, because the context is safely hidden away in the previous or following verses. Sometimes, you may even need to go to other scriptures to fully understand the context.
One question I encourage people to ask is "if I was not a member of this denomination, would I interpret this verse this way?" We all come to the Bible with biases, but only those who come to test their bias will have a chance of gaining wisdom. It is foolish to come to scripture with no intention of learning (Proverbs 18:2). If you only want to prove your own pre-existing opinions, you may do so. God is not obligated to zap you into the truth.
This actually works two ways. On the one hand, it helps you figure out if you're understanding the "proof texts" correctly. "Baptism now saves you"? Ok, if I didn't already believe baptism was required for salvation, would I interpret this verse as saying it? Well, no, the fact that I have to cut away 32 whole words to sustain that interpretation shows that my interpretation is unsustainable. But the second way it helps is by analysing "proof texts" for other views.
As I've shown before, faithful Christians have an advantage in that a lot of our expositions seem redundant. Often, while writing articles, I'll cite a scripture, then feel a bit stupid for basically having to say the same thing in different words. Of course, the whole point of a sermon is scriptural interpretation, so it's not like interpreting scripture further is complete folly. But scripture is so clear, particularly on important issues, that when you believe it, you can often just cite it aloud and it'll fight your battles for you. This leads me in to my "silent quote" strategy.
The silent quote strategy is my term for citation without attribution. That is, you quote another source with minimal, if any alteration, making it sound like it's your own words, when in reality you are quoting a source your listeners/readers would consider authoritative. This is very effective with scripture. For example, when debating a heretic on the topic of Sola Fide, you can define Sola Fide as the belief that "by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." "That's not true!", says the heretic. Well ok, but I just quoted Ephesians 2:8-9. It doesn't get much better for the heretic when you add verse 10 either. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Heretics have a variety of ways to reinterpret these verses, but the same question "if I did not already believe this, would I interpret this passage this way?" can be used to judge whether or not those interpretations are valid. The silent quote strategy generally demonstrates that the answer is no. Before people know the source of silent quotes, they tend to interpret them properly. By grace ye are saved through faith, and not of works? Well that obviously means we're saved by grace, through faith, not of works. Wait, that comes from the Bible... Well, it doesn't mean what you think it means! Even though it clearly says it and adding more context further demonstrates the point...
But even this is problematic. Unless you're going to silent quote the entire Bible, there could always be missing context. In fact, I once caught a deceptive atheist trying to use a similar quote. He asked what his quote "from the Qur'an" meant, citing "“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." But because I knew my Bible, I immediately recognised this as coming from Leviticus 25:44-45, not from the Qur'an.
The first clue to his deception is that instead of quoting without attribution, he quoted with false attribution. Attribution immediately changes the context. "We'll beat the enemy" has very different implications when it comes from the Allies than when it comes from the Nazis.
In the same way, just about everything has different implications when coming from the Bible than when coming from the Qur'an. This includes discussions on slavery. Christianity and Islam do discuss the issue of slavery, but in very different contexts. In Islam, the situation is so dire that Muslims are permitted to rape their slaves even if they have living husbands (Qur'an 4:24). Meanwhile, the Bible regulates slavery as a natural evil that will persist for a long time, but it is not the ideal. Kidnappers and rapists were killed under the Mosaic law, and even now are listed among those who will not make it to Heaven.
But here, again, context solves all problems. Leviticus 25:44-45 should not be read in isolation, and certainly not with any reference to the Qur'an.
All of the above illustrates just how vital independent Bible study is. Those who don't know scripture are easy targets for false teachers who do. Even those who do know scripture can be easily lead astray by pre-existing biases or areas of ignorance. the solution is to approach the Bible with both a diligent and honest heart, always seeking more context, testing your views over and over again until they either fall, or prove themselves worthy to stand. Read your Bible, or the devil is quite willing to read it for you.