Do you consider the Bible (it's stories, teachings, philosophies, etc., etc.) is largely open for interpretation, or more concrete/straight forward/dictatorial?

I think they have to be taken at something more than just a modern literal view.

Interpretation. I think much of it is straightforward but others are confusing, largely because of the Old Testament vs New Testament. Also, how things were worded, and interpreted then, were much different from languages in modern times.

Indeeeeed. I have a friend who is a lot better versed in the Bible, and also in how it interprets, than I am, and we were discussing the passage of in the Old Testament a woman had to wear a veil to go to the temple or whatever, and she says that back then both men and women wore veils and they weren't like the veils we think of, just a head covering, so I take it as meaning that'd be more like a turban or something.

Private Interpretation isn't a very Biblical idea. I was never one to fall into the private interpretation trap.

EVERYTHING is an intepretation! Anything that can be read and processed by an individual, MUST be intepreted by that individual. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant, naive fool and ultimately setting themselves up to be brainwashed and led astray.

The whole idea that something can be intepreted "for someone else" is an idea that in Christianity was spawned by the Catholic Church in order to maintain a degree of power and control. That idea (along with many others) have then filtered down to most of the Protestant Christian churches as well. And that is generally the main problem with organized religion to date.

It is apparent from all the contradictory teachings of the many denominations and cults of Christendom, that they all cannot be right. For the most part, each claim to use the Bible as the source of their teachings. For example, most evangelical churches teach that salvation is by one's faith through God's grace apart from works. However, some churches emphatically teach that works such as baptism is necessary for salvation. Both may claim the Bible as the source of their belief. Most Protestants practice baptism by sprinkling whereas Baptists baptize by immersion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches it is the only true church, and that Peter was the first pope based on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18. No one else outside Catholicism accepts this interpretation.

Jehovah's Witnesses use the Bible to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the existence of Hell, and most cardinal doctrines of "mainstream Christianity". The Mormons use the Bible verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:29 as the source for their practice of baptisms for the dead. No one else accepts this interpretation. Seventh Day Adventists have their church services on Saturday, the Jewish "Sabbath Day." They teach this based on their understanding of the Bible's instruction concerning the Sabbath. Pentecostal churches and the modern Charismatic movement teach speaking in "tongues" and miracle healings are valid gifts of the Holy Spirit today. All fundamentalists and most other Christian denominations strongly disagree.

Here is what must be intepreted in the bible:

1. Who wrote/spoke the passage and to whom was it addressed?
2. What does the passage say?
3. Are there any words or phrases in the passage that need to be examined?
4. What is the immediate context?
5. What is the broader context in the chapter and book?
6. What are the related verses to the passage’s subject and how do they affect the understanding of this passage?
7. What is the historical and cultural background?
8. What do I conclude about the passage?
9. Do my conclusions agree or disagree with related areas of Scripture and others who have studied the passage?
10. What have I learned and what must I apply to my life?

In addition, if you don't know the writing style of the author, the differences in language or the errors in translation, then you really don't know what the hell you're even reading. Unless of course you just want to go off of some churches "intepretation" and hope that they are correct. I can pick almost any scripture out of the bible and without giving you any context, not only will different church denominations have their own intepretation of it, but so will every individual here! The only "correct" intepretation is that of the individual with guidance from the Holy Spirit. Any other intepretation is by it's own very nature FALSE. Because no man, nor church can intepret God's word for another individual. Only the Holy Spirit can do that, and that's MY INTEPRETATION of the biblical verse that PROVES IT!

1 Corinthians 2:9-11
But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. 11 No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit.

Shale wrote:

You have to be aware of the historical context of the bible - that things were done differently by custom then and without that knowledge you won't even know what they are talking about.

Take an image of a camel going thru the eye of a needle. To our modern minds that is an absurdity, but it could have been a valid reference to one of the gates to Jerusalem, called the eye of the needle because it was so narrow and camels had to be off-loaded to squeeze thru it. The story is valid and the image makes sense.

Also, you have to realize that the bible has been translated several times and that translators could have made errors.

I was actually going to bring these two points up myself, but you made them better and simpler than I would have. Kudos! On a side note, I find it rather irnoic that the LEAST religious people often know more about the bible and how to correctly intepret it than the most religious.

The former for the most part. The bible is a book of man made stories. Take it anyway you.want to.

Those who believe in the bible all are excepting someones interpretation. None may be correct, it may all be so much hooey.