Skeptics and pseudo-Christians have one thing in common: a mistreatment of the Bible. Either they’ll misquote the Bible as if theirs is the only valid interpretation, or you'll quote it, and suddenly “that’s just your interpretation”. But here’s the thing: that renders both our views invalid.
With regard to an atheist’s misuse of the Bible, you cannot prove the Bible wrong if it’s so open to interpretation. Take the issue of prayer, for example. If an atheist says prayer doesn’t work, they usually mean God doesn't immediately answer any prayer exactly the way we want. When you use the Bible to show that’s not how prayer is supposed to work (prayer is supposed to be done in good faith and according to the will of God), they say “that’s just your interpretation”. The problem? If the Bible can’t be used to show prayer isn't supposed to work as the atheist says it should work, it also cannot be used to show that it is supposed to work as the atheist says it’s supposed to work. Therefore, the atheist either has an invalid argument because it only works if their interpretation is right, or has an invalid argument because it’s objectively wrong. No matter which way you cut the cake, the argument from unanswered prayers fails.
With regard to a pseudo-Christian’s misuse of the Bible, you cannot prove your own denomination right if the Bible is open to interpretation. Take, for example, the henotheistic (there are many gods, but only one we need to worry about) views of Mormonism. The Bible clearly teaches that there is one God, who never had a beginning, nor will He have an end, and He will never share His glory with man. There were no gods before God, nor shall there ever be. If the Mormon responds by saying “that’s just your interpretation”, he loses the ability to prove his own views with the Bible because anything he says is also just his interpretation. Therefore, his arguments are invalid because they only work if his interpretation is correct, or his argument is invalid because the Bible clearly says he’s wrong.
The answer to both of these scenarios, and all related scenarios, is to take the Bible as it was written. It’s not an empty book, nor are there any spaces for us to fill in the blanks. When it was written, God had an interpretation in mind. The truth is, you can interpret the Bible as easily as you can interpret your fellow man. Sure, it’s possible to interpret it in different ways, but that doesn’t mean it’s open to interpretation. When two interpretations conflict, only one can be right. And it’s not just about who can assert their view the most vehemently. The one who is right can be discovered through study.
The Bible was written in ink on paper, not in felt tip on a whiteboard. As I like to say: “the only pen you should use on a Bible is a highlighter”. The Bible is not open to interpretation. Whenever two interpretations conflict, it is due to human error, not scriptural ambiguity.