Many heretical Churches claim that they, and they alone, have the authority to interpret the Bible, and that anyone who reads it without their help will inevitably interpret it wrong. Of course, the Bible is widely available in a number of languages. English especially has a helpful range of translations, some of which were even produced by those heretical organisations. If you are literate, you can read the Bible for yourself, and you can use it to test those teachers.
"But how do you know your interpretation is correct?" they ask. The argument is that because there are so many different interpretations, therefore we need their authority. The issue with this line of reasoning is they haven't solved the problem of multiple interpretations, they've added another layer.
All words must be interpreted. If you have beliefs, it doesn't matter if you got them from studying the Bible, or from studying people who talk about the Bible, you must inevitably interpret someone. For the believer in the sufficiency of scripture, that someone is God. The Bible quite clearly tells us that it gives understanding even to the simple (Psalm 119:130). You do not need to be extremely intelligent to understand the Bible, and if you study it, you can be wiser than your foes, more learned than your teachers, and have more understanding than the ancients (Psalm 119:97-100). Furthermore, the scriptures say that they make the man of God complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Of course the Bible needs to be interpreted, but this can be done, even by the simple. It even says so.
But whereas in Christianity, even the simple can interpret the Bible, there are other religions that claim the Church must authoritatively interpret the Bible for the simple. But of course, then, the simple must interpret the Church. The problem of interpretation has not been solved, and indeed could never be solved, because you will always have to interpret someone. You will always be the final authority on what you believe.
But the point of communication is to present one's own thoughts in a way that can be understood by the intended audience. Right now, you are interpreting my words. I would hope I am communicating well. The thoughts which are in my head as I write this will hopefully be in your head when you read it. Let's test it: Cake.
When I wrote the word "cake", anything could have come to your mind. The word "cake" probably will not make you think of the same cake I am thinking of. Your brain filled in the blanks, and so you are likely picturing something very different to what I am. Now, the first thing to note is that although the cake you are thinking of is not the same cake I am thinking of, you are nevertheless thinking of a cake. You are not thinking of a kangaroo. Ok, now you are, but the word "cake" is not what made you think of kangaroos. I did not intend for you to think of kangaroos when I said cake. This will be important later.
Now let's fill in details about this cake. I'm going to tell you that it is fairly small, a little smaller than a tennis ball. The cake is almost a cube. The cube is covered in pink icing on all sides except the bottom. On top, the icing forms a curved lump, because there is a blob of cream inside. On top of the icing is a little more decoration: A white wavy pattern, as if the artist went back and forth and back and forth over the cake until he reached the other side.
What I have just described is called a "french fancy", a small type of cake produced by Mr. Kipling. If the description worked as I intended, you thought of something very similar to that cake. If you're familiar with them, you may have even figured out what I am describing before you saw the cake. At the very least, using my description, you would be able to identify the cake if you saw it.
Now let's imagine I asked you to go to the kitchen and fetch me that cake. Could you? Would you need someone else to describe a Battenberg? Would you need a lecture about the history of Mr. Kipling? Would someone else telling you I prefer McVities Jaffa Cakes be of any benefit to you? Answer to all of the above: No. I told you everything you need to know about the French fancy in order for you to fetch it for me. Even if you were not 100% clear on what a French Fancy is, my description should theoretically allow you to recognise one when you see it. Even if there were other French Fancies nearby (they typically come in packs of 8, with yellow and brown versions included), I specified pink, so you would be able to bring me the correct cake in spite of possible others.
Now, I am a flawed human being. I hope I am at least somewhat articulate, but people have misunderstood me in the past, and sometimes that is my fault for being a bad communicator. Is God? Of course not. God is perfect. He knows exactly what He needs to inspire His prophets and Apostles to write so that it may be understood.
This is the thing extra-Biblical Churches will never understand. Not only is the Bible a book, meaning it should be read like one, but it is literally the best book (to the point where the word "Bible" literally means "book") in all of history. Its Author is infallible. If God inspired a leaflet to describe the pink French Fancy, I guarantee you it would be better than what I wrote above.
So why the large number of interpretations? This is a common question that pops up. The answer is fairly simple: Sin. When Jesus spoke the truth, He silenced those who would dare oppose Him. Their response wasn't to repent and convert, but to switch from logic and reason to physical violence. They stopped arguing with Jesus, knowing full well they could never win, and nailed Him to a cross.
Now, that doesn't mean I believe everyone who interprets scripture differently would necessarily have killed Jesus. But there are a number of reasons for bad interpretations, both honest and dishonest. I will not be dealing with many of those reasons in this article, I just want to give one example.
So let's go back to the kangaroo. When I said cake, you thought cake. You did not think kangaroo. This is an example of clarity. Anyone who tells you when I say "cake", I really mean kangaroo, is either insane or dishonest. This is not a mistake you can make by accident; you have to disregard my words to interpret me as meaning kangaroo.
Let's take Mormonism as the example. In Isaiah 43:10, we read "“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.""
Three questions:
1. How many gods were there before ours?
2. How many gods are there now?
3. How many gods will there be in the future?
Three very obvious answers:
1. 0
2. 1
3. 1
But in Mormon theology, God is one of a long genealogy of gods, and if we accept His gospel in this life, we can become gods in the future. So, you would think a Mormon would stop being a Mormon once you show them Isaiah 43:10, right? My friends, I speak from a large amount of experience when I say Isaiah 43:10 will not convert many Mormons. In fact, having cited it multiple times against several pairs of Mormon missionaries, I managed to convert a total of zero of them. This is because although the verse is literally irrefutable proof that there is now, will always be, and has always been a grand total of one God (as is confirmed by multiple other scriptures), Mormons believe theirs is the one and only Church with the authority to interpret the Bible. In other words, they judge the Bible by their Church, they do not judge the Church by the Bible.
And that's the problem. Many heretical Churches insist that they have exclusive authority to interpret the Bible because they could not stand the test, and they know it.
But their claims always complicate things in greater ways than they claim the Bible is complicated. By adding traditions, they complicate the matter to the extent of claiming you need to fetch me a Battenberg, too, and that you should know the history of Mr. Kipling, and that when I asked for a French Fancy, I actually wanted a jaffa cake. I wanted the pink french fancy, I described the pink french fancy, the rest is either irrelevant, or not what I wanted.
Similarly, added traditions are irrelevant at best, and destructive at worst. God has described everything we will ever need to know (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He's not interested in our extra traditions, He doesn't care if we know what happened after the faith was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 1:3), and He wants us to believe and preach no other doctrines. Added traditions cause more problems than they will ever solve.