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

[robvalue]

"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

"A man named Jesus"?

Sure. There still are men named Jesus.

It is in fact not at all clear that there was any historical character behind the myth. It's possible, but it's no slam dunk. And to make things worse, if there was such a man, he was not called Jesus. The letter "J" did not exist at that time in the language in which it was written. His name was later changed to Jesus.

So there was no Jesus of Nazareth, I can say that categorically. Even if there was, I couldn't care less. I'm already aware that people existed at that time, I don't deny that. Some of them were bound to have said a load of crazy things.

As for the bible, does God want us to understand the message properly and accurately, or not? If he does, he has failed. If he doesn't, then he is the author of confusion and actually wants none of us to properly know his message. In which case, I'm not interested in anyone's interpretation because God actually planned for everyone to get it wrong.

[Losty]

Even ignoring the whole whether he existed part, his name wasn't even Jesus it was supposedly Yahushua or Yeshua which as far as I can tell translates much better to Joshua than it does to Jesus.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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

You have to be kidding right?

Are you not guilty of what you insist on above? i.e. using preference over the reality of the text?

The bible has several claims which contradict not just reality, but also themselves. Many of them have never been reconciled with reality (eg. Genesis? The Flood? The Exodus?)

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.

The premise of the Bible is the biggest flaw (i.e. that there is an elevated Jewish war god among the pantheon of ancient Middle Eastern Gods which subsequently created the Universe and knows everything about everything). You don't even need to read the bible to conclude that you'd need a hell of a lot of evidence to support that claim (a claim, mind, made within the bible, which people say you need to read to evidence said claim).

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.

Hmm. I don't think you have any real basis for judging or concluding which interpretation is correct.

[robvalue]

I agree that there are some messages in the bible which are totally unambiguous. Such as, just to get us started:

Yahweh is a psycopathic, jealous, petty, bloodthirsty tyrant.

Slavery is fine.

Abortion is fine (it even tells you how to do it).

Killing people is fine, as long as God told you to do it.

Raping a virgin is nothing more than a property crime against the girl's father.

Women shouldn't speak in church.

Picking up sticks on the sabbath is reasonably punished by death.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"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

Dude named Jesus did my hedges for years.

[Thumpalumpacus]

<double-post edited>

[Homeless Nutter]

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

By "scrutiny", you mean - of course - making up ad hoc sh*t, until the alleged "word of god" appears anything other than obviously fabricated nonsense, if you squint your brain hard enough?

You can "explain" anything, if you're not constrained by reality...

[brewer]

Stop talking about a fairy tale book (magical, dark, disturbing, make believe..........) and show me your god. Until then I don't have any real interest.

[Ben Davis]

---

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.

[houseofcantor]

What knowledgeable atheists can rationally affirm is that only certain parts of the Bible might be ambiguous. The others are more or less clear.

There she goes again, telling me what I believe.

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

Couldn't leave that one hanging there. :/