There's a fundamental intellectual error in assuming that there is any "correct" way to interpret a mythology, because myths are reality-free tales one can interpret more or less in any way one chooses. Furthermore, all mythologies are necessarily regressive because they are rooted in the past, when different social customs pertained. As myths claim eternal "truths" that were supposedly handed down by one or more invisible magical creatures, it's very difficult to update a myth in order for it to be less dissonant with contemporary moeurs. This is why religionists have always, everywhere and at every time, been in opposition to secular progress. The very notion of progress is inconsistent with the fundamental idea that "here are the stories one needs in order to live a 'good' life" because progress invariably renders such tales anachronistic. It is, consequently, easier to argue that overtly regressive religionists are in fact more accurate in their interpretation of their myth than those who'd like to imagine the myths can be adapted to become less inconsistent with contemporary social trends. In the end, believing that the folk-tales of ignorant illiterate and innumerate goat-herders who lived more than 2,000 years ago can act as a guide to life is the root of the problem, not any particular arbitrary interpretation of those folk-tales.