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

[Delicate]

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. 

The main claims are the ones most fought over, dude. You've got christians asserting a literal, fire and brimstone hell, and christians asserting a "separation from god," and all manner of in between states. You've got christians for whom belief alone is all you need to get to heaven, or belief and works, or belief in a highly specific subset of christian claims... and meanwhile all of those christians have different positions on whether other christians can get to heaven, or atheists, followers of other religions, and so on. Is the bible inerrant? Is it to be taken literally? Is god okay with homosexuals or not? What did Jesus think was really important?

You'll find that every denomination has its own interpretation of these questions, and so simply dismissing the argument about the multitude of different christian faiths on the basis that really those disagreements only occupy a small percentage of the book is disingenuous, as the problem isn't how much of the book is disputed, but how important those disputed claims are to the overall narrative of the piece. It's like if you had two huge groups of Star Wars fans, one of which believed that the Rebels won and the other believing that the Empire won, and we atheists came to the conclusion that clearly, one or more groups is very wrong here. But then you come along and want to pretend that both groups believe the same thing because it's only one disagreement yet there's six whole movies.

I'll respond to this claim in lieu of many others, because it seems like the most substantive response managed by an atheist.

I don't think the exact nature of hell is anything near the most important claim in Christianity. I'll grant it might be the most arresting to those given to superficial theatrical portrayals of concepts- hell looks pretty dramatic. 

But it's not important. Hell doesn't figure as a motivator for Christian belief (people don't become Christians because they want to avoid hell, despite the misconceptions atheists have). Nonbelief is not motivated by hell (most people reject Christianity on the claim that they don't think God exists). And the primary distinction you draw, between fire and brimstone and "separation from God" can and are, in my view, different descriptive perspectives of the same thing, just as one might use different terms to refer to the same thing.

So obviously this particular distinction is exaggerated beyond reason. And I can bet if you look closely, other distinctions are likewise easily collapsible.

This whole thing about denominational differences is far bigger in the eyes on atheists than it is in reality.