Bad example; sorry.

Let’s say someone said “Harry defeated Voldemort because Jesus was on his side.”

Sure, they could ramble for hours about how Harry is a Christ figure—or maybe Dumbledore and/or Snape are Christ figures who supported Harry—but at the end of the day, that’s explicitly not what happened. That’s them twisting a narrative to say what they wanted it to say and mean what they wanted it to mean. That’s not valid. That’s like saying “The United States Declaration of Independence says I have the right to own slaves because having other people do my work for me would allow me to pursue my happiness.” Like, sometimes your interpretation is just wrong.

To an extent.

We've all read Harry Potter, right? You don't get to say "Harry defeated Voldemort because love always conquers evil!" when the text explicitly says "Harry defeated Voldemort because Voldemort wasn't the true owner of the wand in his hand and the series established in the first book that wands choose their owners and don't work right for just anyone."

It's one thing to have your own interpretation when the text is intentionally vague, but if the text explicitly says something--or very obviously implies something--you don't just get to say, "Well that's what I think, so that's how it is."

That kind of attitude doesn't promote critical thinking or thoughtful analysis of evidence and I don't think it should be encouraged or supported.