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

[Mudhammam]

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. 

Apparently you haven't read much theology. When theologians look at a word like "beginning" or "day" in Genesis 1, for example, and take away six different meanings for the word - none of which involve the common sense, straightforward, actual definition - you realize how silly a field like theology really is.

See, for example, chapter 17 of book XII in Augustine's Confessions: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110112.htm

[ReptilianPeon]

Interpretation isn't just down to disagreements between laymen and sects. Interpretation is also driven by the translation used. For example, the Sahih International Quran, being endorsed by Saudis, clearly has an agenda. Translators can be biased in their word choices.

[robvalue]

Some people take the view that virtually the entire Old Testament is metaphorical; others say it is literal. I don't know how they could disagree any more.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

That being said, very few claims of contradictions and errors actually hold up under scrutiny. 

Many skeptics study the issue just enough to support their conclusions and then ignore everything else. Then they blow the apparent discrepancy totally out of proportion.

But on the flipside, are the inerrantists who hold the Bible to be the literal, physical, magical word of God. Can't have two more ignorant groups of people go at it than these two.

Except "many skeptics", meaning atheists (including most of us here on the forum) started out as Christians when studying the Bible, for the purpose of confirming our beliefs, and instead ran into so many morally-unpalatable concepts and/or contradictions that we ended up rejecting the Bible as an appalling piece of Bronze Age tribal warrior-sheepherder-priest nonsense.

My personal favorite is the passage in Genesis 30:25-43, where the Bible praises Jacob, the founder of Israel, for his "cleverness" in realizing that Lamarckian inheritance/plasticity is real (it's not!) and using that principle to make spotted sheep via stripes of white he cut into the bark of poplar branches he placed in their watering troughs when they mated, since he got to keep the nonwhite sheep. This is what people thought about evolution before Gregor Mendel discovered genetics, and it's dead-wrong.

Equally amusing-while-being-disgusting are the places where it explains how to own permanent slaves as property you can will to your children, as long as they are of another race (Lev 25:44-46), how you can beat those slaves within an inch of their lives as long as they don't die for the first couple of days after the beating (Exo 21:20-21), and a list of "divine commands" for the Hebrews to kill, rape, and enslave in the name of God that are far, far, too numerous to cite here. (I use quote-marks to indicate irony, since of course there were no divine commands, just humans using the name of God as a way to give their genocidal motives some divine enhancement/justification.)

The Bible is chock-full of the fingerprints of human ignorance and bigotry, showing that it is clearly and entirely made up by humans, rather than being the work of divine transcriptionists acting as secretaries for what God "revealed" to them. Whether or not some parts of it are historically accurate (and yet, many parts are not) is irrelevant to the clear evidence that it was humans, not gods, who made it up, and humans, not gods, who determine what parts are to be "metaphorical" and interpreted as we wish, or which parts are literal (and to be interpreted as we think it wishes to be). The fingerprints are there, if we stop wearing blinders of faith that tell us to ignore those obvious signs of human motivation in the actions/claims/commands of this imaginary divine being.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Felt I needed to add this.

My favorite non-classical poem. A reason I adore Aussies.

[John V]

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.

Yes, atheists frequently say there's 38,000 Christian denominations, or whatever the number is that month. But, over 90% of those accept the apostle's creed.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

Yes, atheists frequently say there's 38,000 Christian denominations, or whatever the number is that month. But, over 90% of those accept the apostle's creed.

*slow clap*

Wow, near unanimity on a creed of utter garbage and childish nonsense with not a shred of good evidence to support it. If I were any more impressed, I'd be . . . impressed.

[Drich]

That being said, very few claims of contradictions and errors actually hold up under scrutiny. 

Really?  According to whom? Unbiased folks? Atheists?  Christians?

Here, we'll take one example:

Leviticus 11:13-19New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,

14 the red kite, any kind of black kite,

15 any kind of raven,

16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,

17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl,

18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,

19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

Now, you, I, and most folk alive today know that bats aren't birds; they're mammals.

The standard apologist rhetoric for this example is that the primitive Jews didn't know anything about taxonomy, but that's a baseless appeal.  If you look at the hunter-gatherer tribes still extant in Africa and New Guinea, you'll find that the have quite the sophisticated understanding of the flora and fauna in their area.

So how is it that this all-knowing god is thinking that bats are birds?

So what is the ancient Hebrew word for Mammal?

The ancient Jews did not classify animals as we do, the word, or idea of the word mammals and all life classified under it is relitivly new. Your comparing a classification system that is only a couple hundred years old to a text/understanding of a people several thousand years old. A people who had no concept of your modern classification. How is that a fair compareson? How do we know your compareson is unfair?

One their is no ancient Hebrew word for mammal, two the word we translate to 'bird' in the English is:עוֹף ʻôwph in the Hebrew, it literally means ANYTHING that flies. Bugs, birds, winged insects, fish ect. Now because this is a word that describes a whole class of creature that does not conside with how we classify creatures, it should lead an Intellectually Honest person (would not only be able to identify that his system of classification was new/not available to the Ancient Jews,) who could understand that it would be foolish for God to have Moses write out a command using a term like 'Mammal' when no one he would be writing to for several thousand years would come to understand that term.

That said you are 1/2 right about one thing, people in that time could indeed subdivide various flying creatures into tighter sub catagories. This is exactly what Moses was doing here, just again not to the modern standard, using modern terms. why would he? who would be able to understand him? Rather God used terms the people he was directly speaking to could understand. just like Jesus did in the telling of his parables. For instance the act of obtaining the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the physical act of borrowing bread. Yet he used those very words to describe a process that one could obtain the Holy Spirit through. why? because that is the level the people Jesus was speaking to was on. It was simple and easy for them to understand. So He used their terms, rather than His own or ours.

Now, as for contradictions: We have a god alleged to be omniscient, yet continually asking questions out of ignorance

Such as?
Without an example this is a baseless claim.

. We have a god who is alleged to be omnipotent, and yet humans are sinful out of "free will".

This statement presupposes that God wants us in this life to all be perfect, and without sin. Which is not true. That (to be without sin) is the qualifier for eternity, not this life. Here we live in a proving ground. This life is where we prove to ourselves where/how we wish to spend eternity. for that we need to have the ablity to be outside of God's expressed will/Sin.

On the one hand we have Christ, the "Prince of Peace"; on the other, we have Christ himself saying he brings a sword.

Define peace.. Not what peace means to you in this time, but what Peace meant for the first century follower. The Peace here is to describe the peace/potential friendship God can now have for sinful man. where as before Christ, God only had wrath for sin, but now we can live in peace with God. the Death of Christ brought peace between God and Man.

We have a Christ who commands "Love one another as I have loved you"; on the other we have a Christ who says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

I don't see a contradiction here unless you are trying to superimpose some perverted bastardized modern version of the word 'love' which has one completely submit and tolerant of everything. Not one of the 5 greek words comes close to our understanding of that kind of Love. So when the bible speaks of love just assume you do not understand the concept. unles you know which of the 5 words are being used in the proper context.

Example:
The command in John used the word:ἀγαπάω agapáō, (ἀγαπάω agapáō, one another as I have ἀγαπάω agapáō, you) ἀγαπάω agapáō, Means to show a moral respect/To honor. It has nothing to do with submitting to another nor does it mean we must show a blanket tolerance as your word means.

Now lets look at the other verse you quoted.
luke 14:25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

Do you see it? Probably not because you only understand hate to be one thing..

Look at to the passage in John "Love each other, as I have loved/Agape you." The Love here in John is based on Moral respect. The love between child and parent is called στοργή storgē the Love between a Husband and wife is called ἔρως érōs.

The Hate described in Luke 14 is μισέω miséō, it does means To hate as you understand it, but it can also mean to simply love less than.
From the Strong's lexicon:
μισέω miséō, mis-eh'-o; from a primary μῖσος mîsos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less,—hate(-ful).

Or to contextually translate "any one who loves their parents or spouces More than me, or their own life more than me, is not worthy of me."

Once one get's over or past the idea that the bible was not originally written in English, and once said person can understand that even translating modern text some ideas or cultural are simply confused or even lost in translation, then that person can avoid looking foolish when trying to hold a ancient Greek textual standard to a modern English vanacular.

I could go on, but I think that's sufficient for now.

By all means.

[Minimalist]

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 same is true of Star Wars, Gone With The Wind or Moby Dick.  So what?  Novels are fictional and until you can produce evidence - and your fucking bible is not evidence - that any of that shit happened you may as well go hunt whales....or Death Stars.

[John V]

So what?

So why do atheists frequently bring up the number of denominations? It's disingenuous to assert that it's a problem, then when it's defended, pretend like no one thought it was a problem.