The problem with understanding the Bible is two-fold. First, many times the translation is wrong, and second the interpretation is wrong.

Even when the translation is correct many times it is difficult to understand what the real meaning of the verse is or what it was originally meant to be.

For example, the verse

“…I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

The correct translation for world should be age . Since men only live around 80 years at most, it only makes sense that He was saying that he would be with them until that age or until that range of years had ended. It wouldn’t make sense to tell them that he would be with them after the end of their lives since they would already be with him.

So obviously, the word “aion” in greek which literally means “age” would have been the better choice for the translation. But this specific case makes little difference, it is only an example. There are other much more serious problems when it comes to translation, as you can imagine.

In certain circumstances, the incorrect translation of one single word can make the verse have a completely meaning than what it was originally meant to be.

The second problem comes where the passage or verse may be correctly translated but because of the interpretation one single word it may have a completely different meaning depending on what the word is thought to have meant originally.

In this second example, I cite a common one, “I and my Father are one.” As you know, many words, if not most can have more than one meaning. This small three letter word can mean the two are one in the same person. It also can have the connotation as unity, meaning “I and my Father are unified as to our plans, message and actions.

What I am getting at here is that these types of verses can not be used to base a doctrine on since there is no one single interpretation for the verse and even in translation, many times there are differences of opinion as to what a given translation should be.

A doctrine should be based on a verse or passage or passages in which the translations are indisputed and there is only one possible interpretation, or at least the meaning is pretty obvious.

An example of this would be,

“…one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”.

In this verse there would be no dispute as to the translaton and there is only one single way that this verse could possibly be interpreted.

Now there are those that would take this verse and try to make it mean what they want it to mean by applying other verses to it that have serveral possible meanings or even disputed translations, because these verses fit their prefered meanings. Then they will try to make one verse say something that was never meant.

In the following particular case there are 3 subjects: God, Jesus Christ and men. Now if Jesus is the mediator, or go-between in the middle of God and man, it is impossible that Jesus and God are one in the same entity.

So then we must apply the obvious meaning to the meaning in question to get the correct interpretation and not vise-versa.

This means that when Jesus said, “I and my Father are one“, the one could not possibly have meant, one in the same. It had to be in the sense of “I and my Father are unified as to our plans, message and actions”.

Another verse that backs up this view is, “that they may be one, as we are” (Jn 17:11). Here Jesus uses the same analogy that He uses in Jn 14 — one in the sense of unity. If we applied one as meaning “one in the same”, it would be rediculous. Jesus would be saying that we would be God just as Jesus is God. So this interpretation is impossible.