I'm sympathetic to what I think you are trying to say, but I have to tell you: this really sticks in my craw.
In the first place, your statement begs the presumption that there is an "accurate" interpretation to be had, and I simply cannot endorse this idea when it is applied to "scripture". I know at this point that I might be construed as hypocritical, given that I have come down on people on this forum many times in the past for reading the text wrong. I need to qualify first off that while I do not believe that there is any fixed meaning in scripture, I am also convinced that not all readings are equal. In fact, a "good" reading from a past generation may no longer be useful, and will need to be replaced.
I would like to draw attention back to my Genesis example from post #645 on p. 33 above. At one time, the plain reading of Genesis 1:1–2:4 was useful and served as a perfectly reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos. It effectively borrowed from past perceptions and improved on some of them. It simply does not work plainly today, which is why the "better" interpretation is likely one that is more reflective and sensitive to elements from the passage that still hold currency. I prefer to read it as an pertinent description of the ongoing struggle between chaos and order; the establishment of society and the forces at odds with it.
This is not a matter of "misunderstanding"—this is rather a matter of "misappropriation", and this is where the biblicists fail at every turn as they continue to beat their breasts and insist on providing answers to questions that people stopped asking a long time ago.
Second, I also do not think it is unChristian nor unwise to recognize that there are indeed "biblical teachings" that are simply wrong. No matter how much we wish we could, we cannot gloss over or rehabilitate the misogynistic, or ethnically prejudiced doctrines throughout scripture. It will not do for us to attempt to recast slavery or genocide or ritual mutilation into something other than what it actually was. It helps to realize that the Bible is not an "instruction book", and that it is best not to receive it as a codification of divine legislation. It is a record of faith—a description of people's exceedingly varied experiences and perceptions of God and the world around them. We can look to these and clearly see how some of them are off or wanting, but these in turn can help to inform us better about ourselves. I recently read a pretty good book titled
The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It) in which author Thom Stark drew a great analogy for what he has called the "condemned texts" of scripture. He says that imprecatory, barbaric and incredulous stories and teachings in scripture are a little like the alcoholic uncle who comes to Christmas dinner every year. We loathe what the uncle does—we may even hate the man himself—but we cannot excise him from our family. He will always be our uncle, and we tolerate him in part because we recognize who he is and what happened to him. In Stark's words:
"Scripture is a mirror...When we peer into the looking glass and see the many faces of God, we see ourselves among them. The mirror reflects our doubt and our mediocrity. It mirrors our best and worst possible selves. It shows us who we can be, both good and evil, and everything in between.
To cut the condemned texts out of the canon would be to shatter the mirror. It would be to hide from ourselves our very own capacity to become what we most loathe. It would be to lie to ourselves about what we are capable of. It would be to doom ourselves to repeat history."
The problem is not that scripture is wrong; the problem is not that it is misunderstood. The problem is that far too many people fail to reflect: they either miss seeing what scripture is, or they take no notice of their own image it casts back, or both.