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

[Longhorn]

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.

Good job pulling both of those out of your ass
._.

The thing is, you won't find two people of the same faith and denomination that believe in the same god. Personal interpretations vary greatly, even without 'official' theological differences between sects.

[Reforged]

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.

Implications of your claim that the Bible is accurate save for afew *minor* discrepancies; 

-Gods cool with incest 
-Gods cool with slavery 
-Gods cool with genocide 
-Gods cool with human sacrifice 
-Gods cool with"vicarious redemption", identical to human sacrifice
-Gods cool with women being property

Do you think maybe if the Bible is accurate and literal that you might have bigger problems?

[Minimalist]

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.

To point out to you fools how you can't even agree among yourselves.  It's amusing to us.  One god but 40,000 religions.

Nothing dumber than a xtian.

[Faith No More]

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.

Who really cares? The "so many interpretations" argument is trivial when it comes the problems the bible has. I think most atheists just like to use the argument to give Christians some shit.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

To point out to you fools how you can't even agree among yourselves.  It's amusing to us.  One god but 40,000 religions.

Nothing dumber than a xtian.

Whoa, now, let's be fair... there's LOTS of religion that's dumber than Christianity. Lots dumber.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

The fact that all these practices and orders emanated from a god reputed to be perfectly good is another contradiction.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

I'm not saying they should know the Linnaean system. I'm saying that they should know the difference between avians and mammals. Do you honestly think they were so stupid they couldn't tell? And even if they couldn't, wouldn't your god know? I mean, he's the one who issued those dietary restrictions. He's the one alleged to have created both classes in question. When your god's knowledge is limited by the knowledge of the culture that venerates him, that's a good indicator that he's an invention.

An all-knowing god could simply "inspire" the biblical author to say "don't eat these birds, and don't eat bats." Another option: he could actually show his followers something about the world they didn't know:

"Hey, Mo, tell your people not to eat birds and bats."
"Birds and bats, Lord? aren't they the same?"
"Of course not, Moses. Look at a bat. Does it have a beak? How are its eyes located? Does it have feathers? What is its body shaped like? And do birds have teeth? Ears? claws on their wings?"

The Bible would be more useful if it taught something, anyway.

I may or may not get to the rest of your drivel. It's too soon after waking up for me to wade through Biblical horseshit or inane walls of text.

[robvalue]

It's not so much that it's easy to think of much better ways for God to communicate, it's that it's hard to think of many worse ways.

[John V]

Who really cares?  

The atheists who bring it up, apparently. You've surely seen atheists make the charge of thousands of denominations before.

[TheRealJoeFish]

It's not so much that it's easy to think of much better ways for God to communicate, it's that it's hard to think of many worse ways.

Yeah, I mean... beaming the message into everyone's head when they reach the age of 13 or 14 or 16 or whatever would be so much more efficient.