Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Aractus]

A common claim about Christianity is "There are so many interpretations of the Bible! How can you know if any of it is true!"

What people who make this claim don't realize is that the differences over interpretation account for a minuscule fraction of what the Bible really says. So, while the Bible's stance on certain issues might not be wholly precise, the main claims are pretty clear. 

For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus. The Bible is pretty clear about most of his claims, and the basic facts of his life, etc.

The problem with people who make this claim is the overly broad and inaccurate generalizations.

The vast majority of discovered Biblical texts are for the most part identical to each other, and the minor discrepancies that do exist are over things like grammar and prepositions (like "on" versus "upon").

What knowledgeable atheists can rationally affirm is that only certain parts of the Bible might be ambiguous. The others are more or less clear.

You have confused the argument. The differences between translations of the Bible is largely irrelevant. The differences in interpretation (which leads to different theologies) is insurmountable.

Whilst I agree (of course since I've said it many many times) that Jesus is a historical person and some basic facts about him are well accepted, it's important to remember that claims pertaining to his birth, supernatural occurrences, and a post-death resurrection are all rejected by modern critical scholars. And that scholars don't wholly agree about what Jesus did and did not say either. He delivered the sermon on the mount as well as a number of parables, and other teachings. However we don't know if all of the things he said were his original thoughts or if they came from other sources. We also don't know whether he claimed to be the "son of god" - which is a very important aspect. Furthermore scholars disagree about how to interpret his references to the "Son of Man" - some say he is referencing himself, others say he is referencing another entity that he believes will be coming at the end of the age. Both sides agree that Jesus's usage of "Son of Man" is based on the one used in the book of Daniel.

If Genesis is wholly literal it teaches 6-day creationism. Some people argue that it is symbolic or a parable. In either case it isn't presented that way - and every parable in the Bible occurs in the physical world. There are only a handful of actual parables in the OT, and none of them are in the Pentateuch.

The thing is that creative-interpretation is the whole basis of dispensationalist theology. Without it the Genesis 12 Abramic covenant is a blatant lie from Jehovah. Why? Because it is an unconditional covenant that Jehovah later breaks (according to the Tanakh itself) long after Abraham has passed away believing God would fulfil the promise he made in Genesis 12.