Truth in a story which is entirely dependent upon subjective interpretation

[Astonished]

I seriously don't get this. To make the claim that there is any truth, let alone the 'only', and absolute, undisputed truth, and yet having thousands of denominations disagreeing on every possible opinion (and justifiably so since it contradicts itself so much), how do people answer this? I've not seen a response on youtube and I don't know if a primarily atheist forum is a good place to get an answer, but I'd sure like to know. I mean, that's just the tip of the iceberg really. What passages are metaphorical and which literal? And how would one tell the difference? It seems like an impossible mess. Is this just another situation where it's ignored or some really bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping answer is all we get?

Isn't everything entirely up to subjective interpretation?  Especially, this seems to be the nature of language, that I have to interpret the meaning behind what you are saying.  Likewise, I can do so; trying to be accurate to your intentions, or I can interpret with the intent to distort your view.  Are you saying, that there isn't a difference?

I normally find the focus on the different denominations and disagreements, to be overblown, and taken out of context for dramatic effect.  I had a friend who was Eastern Orthodox, and while there are a couple of major differences (which are not really concerning the bible) normally, when discussing like rational adults, even what may seem like a major difference was normally not as drastic as first appeared (a lot of times it had to do with wording and differences in approaching the topic; not in substance).  The question I always ask in these situations, is why do you come to that conclusion?  Sometimes, you will find that they are basing their conclusion on something completely different.  Also; atheist I have noticed, often seem to boastfully and pridefully proclaim that they do not all hold the same values and conclusions (do not all agree).  So if we followed your logic in this question/statement, then they are no closer to an objective view of reality in this matter.

As to metaphorical or literal, I think this is a part of language.  There are ways to tell if something is metaphorical or literal (or perhaps I am missing the boat here).  I would agree, that parts of the Bible are unclear (there are parts, such as in Revelations; that I am not entirely sure of or dogmatic on their meaning).  There are also many parts, that are quite direct and literal.  I believe that someone else had said something to the effect, that the Bible is not primarily a manual (although it does contain instructions).  I also think that there are reasons, that some things are less clear.

Tl:dr, but I will address the parts that are nonsensical to me in your post.

First, don't try to cop out with 'everything it subjective', I'm so fucking sick of god getting out of jail free with EVERY damn thing. Mathematics is not subjective. We need never address this horseshit argument again.

And if you can't get a consensus of believers to say 'yes, this is clearly literal' or 'well, this here is obviously just a metaphor' about every point of contention in the bible, don't even bother trying to tell anyone you have the correct interpretation of which parts are which. This is the entire point of my thread, because you have no certain criteria for determining which parts are to be interpreted in what ways, and if I interpreted it the way I see it, no one is a true Christian if they're not stoning me and every other nonbeliever for heresy. That part, I take pretty fucking literally.