"How does one interpret the Bible? Once we recognize that all our readings are influenced by such things as cultural context, church traditions, psychological make-up and educational background we recognize that none of us merely 'translates' the Bible, but we interpret it in a variety of ways, so it's hard to decide which reading is good and which is not. 
  In order to answer this, we need to reflect upon two important concepts - the 'transfinite' and the 'infinite'. 
Infinity is a term used to describe the set of numbers that never ends. 
Transfinite signals the infinite range of numbers that exists between finite numbers. 
For example: between the numbers 1 and 2 we have 1.1 and 1.2 and 1.3 and so on. 
While we must acknowledge that the Bible holds such a wealth of meaning that it can be read in a never-ending number of ways, this does not mean that it can be read in an infinite number of ways. 

To give an example consider artwork: a painting can be read in multiple ways, but there are limits to the range of legitimate interpretations one can have. For instance, an image of two people embracing cannot be legitimately thought of as an image of war. 
In this way a piece of art has a transfinite set of interpretations rather than an infinite set of interpretations. The same goes with the Bible. While people will understand the phrase "God is love" differently, depending upon their cultural context, it cannot be legitimately understood as a call to hate or do violence to others.

  With this in mind, we must grasp that the central interpretive tool that Jesus employed when interpreting the Scriptures was the prejudice of love: He exhibited this prejudice when interpreting them in relations to His concrete interaction with those who were poor, weak and marginalized. He thus remained faithful to the text by reading it with the poor, weak and marginalized in mind. 
Failure to engage in this loving prejudice towards the poor can result in readings from power, reading in which we legitimate our own desires over and above the needs of those around us. 
  At there best, our traditions provide us with appropriate ways to engage with the various commonplace situations that arise in daily life. However, there are a myriad of situations that arise in life which have not been directly faced in the past. These events often require a response which cannot be discerned via reference to our already existing interpretive maps, and instead demand a step of creative and loving interpretation. 
For instance, the advances in life-saving technology in the late twentieth century have cast up numerous problems in medical ethics to which no Bible passage can give a definitive answer. When thinking of this Christlike prejudice of love, I am reminded of the Buddhist story in which a disciple plucks up courage to point out to the Buddha that some of the things he taught were not in the scriptures. In response the Buddha replied, "Then put them in." after an embarrassed silence the disciple spoke again: "May I be so bold as to suggest, sir, that some of the things you teach actually contradict the scriptures." 
To which the Buddha, without hesitation, smiled and said, "Then I suggest you take them out."  Peter Rollins from his book, "How (Not) to speak of God"