[bwoj]

For most people that hew to the teachings of the book, understanding the proper context involves a religious authority telling them which parts of the book matter and which ones to ignore because they don't matter any more. I would like for a divinely inspired book of ageless wisdom to not be so subject to the whims of interpretation.

[bjmarte]

And how to you keep a book from being interpreted? I can barely utter a phrase without having to deal with my wife's misinterpretation.

[dalke]

I believe that is the point.

crazy_geek says apparent conflicting views in the Bible can be reconciled by sufficient study.

bwoj points out that there isn't a universal agreement of what the Bible says. (I'll add, compare the Catholic Church to Jehovah's Witnesses for an example of the differences.)

It would be easier to interpret the Bible if parts of it were labeled "the following is not meant to be read as an actual history." At the very least, this would reduce the number of people think there was a global flood, or think that the 1 million+ Jews were enslaved in Egypt then spent 40 years wandering in the desert.

There would still be misinterpretations, but they would only be of a religious nature, and not include the historical misinterpretations which, in the case of the Exodus, took over 2,000 years to correct.

[fraytormenta]

Everything is interpreted if it passes through a thinking brain. There is no point in trying to avoid interpretation, but it is good to aim for high quality in interpretation. In classic Christianity, good interpretation has to (1) satisfy and harmonize with the rest of the material in the Bible, (2) harmonize with the character and example of Christ, (3) carry some weight and adherence in the Church over many generations.

[bkev]

...how do you keep a book from being interpreted

You pose an interesting question - one you'd think a god would be able to answer, especially if that god supposedly created us. In fact, if he can't answer it, I would question whether he is a god.