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

[Neo-Scholastic]

---

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.

---

On top of the issue of 'errancy' in the bible, your position ignores the fact that many of those groups, based on different interpretations, have a history of violence towards others, using the interpretations as a pretext for that violence. These are not petty or trivial matters of distinction; people have died over them. These are not 'unified' groups, these are independently functioning cells of differing belief, not to be glossed over in an apologetic.

Care to put a number on that? Maybe one that cannot otherwise be more accurately attributed to geopolitical disputes?