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

[Delicate]

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.

[vorlon13]

How many nails were used to pin up God-boy ???

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Ambiguities and varied interpretations don't bother me -- it comes with the written word.

The big problem with the bible are the internal contradictions and flat-out errors written therein.

Another problem is the lack of any evidence for its major claims.

In short, the problem isn't interpretation, it's that the bible is horseshit.

[Delicate]

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.

Ambiguities and varied interpretations don't bother me -- it comes with the written word.

The big problem with the bible are the internal contradictions and flat-out errors written therein.

Another problem is the lack of any evidence for its major claims.

In short, the problem isn't interpretation, it's that the bible is horseshit.

This to be a bit more robust approach to criticizing the Bible. Level 2. Kudos.

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.

[Athene]

The interpretation issue would be a great question to pose to those who actually believe Bible, with there being upwards of 30,000 different denominations of Christianity...with many proclaiming that only their particular denomination have a lock on salvation.

[Delicate]

Of the 30,000, not more than a handful actually believe that.

And the vast majority of splits are less because of interpretation than about preferences.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Now, as for contradictions: We have a god alleged to be omniscient, yet continually asking questions out of ignorance. We have a god who is alleged to be omnipotent, and yet humans are sinful out of "free will". On the one hand we have Christ, the "Prince of Peace"; on the other, we have Christ himself saying he brings a sword. 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 could go on, but I think that's sufficient for now.

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.

True enough, I'm no Biblical scholar. But to paraphrase Justice Black's definition of obscenity, I know bullshit when I smell it.

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.

Nonsense. One of them has read the Bible and compared it to reality. They can both be obnoxious, certainly, but it's been my experience that very few true believers have read the Bible for content.

[Athene]

Interpretation of the need for and significance of baptism in not something most Christians would consider a mere preference...it's the path to salvation.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

Even if the Jesus character was exactly like he's depicted in the Bible that's more reason to disregard him.  He plainly said that he had been sent only to the Jews.  So unless you're a Jew his message doesn't apply to you and he sure won't let you into the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem.  That's because there's no gate for the Gentiles to enter it.  

The basic rule of the Bible (and of the Koran) is to believe and obey without exception.  If the God character tells you to stone your disobedient child you had better start throwing stones at the rug rat.  If he tells you to burn down a city because some people worship different gods then get the gas and matches and do it.  If he tells you not to curse your leaders and you do then say hello to the lake of fire.  You don't get to decide what you will and won't do.  You have to do exactly what it says when you encounter a real life situation that's spoken about in the book.  

There's nothing ambiguous about any of it.  If you follow all of it you will be totally insane.  Even the Bible says that you shouldn't believe Jewish fairy tales and that's one of the few true things in it.

[Losty]

"For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus."

What?? I disagree

Very very disagree