Four questions for Christians

[Ryantology]

Sure. You take the original text, compare the words, phrases and sayings with the usage of the same in other texts of the period. Transpose the cultural references to the present and viola, you have it.

Now, are you good for your method of black = white translation? I mean, even every English translation contradicts directly what you're saying.
It's not like the words you're contradicting are even questionable or in doubt according to ANY translation. This is completely unique and unsupported trash.

I think translation is one problem among many in this discussion, and one which deserves to be addressed only after other problems have been resolved. Problems such as:

1. At what point are you certain that a text is truly the original text, and not a copy of something earlier which is lost to us?
2. How can you be certain that the original text is accurate (especially regarding stories such as Genesis, which depicted many events without even the weak support of eyewitness testimony, or the stories which were written down centuries after they were supposed to have taken place)?
3. How do you definitively establish that any of the spiritual stuff in the Bible is legitimate? Sure, you can have your visions or revelations, but is that as reliable as evidence gets? Minds are terribly suggestive, especially when one's own self is doing the suggesting.
4. How much of the internal bias are you supposed to accept? The Bible is not telling facts neutrally; it is told very much from a certain point of view. It seems as if most Christians form their arguments from that internal perspective and insist that this is necessary to derive the truth from what is on the pages. I should think that, if there was actual truth in it, you would find it in spite of the clear partiality, rather than it being necessary to hold the same point of view (see: the entire argument about God killing Amalekites; you have to take for granted (and not seriously question) the internal assertion that God cannot do evil for many of his actions to be perceived as not some of the most cruel examples of evil in history). Scripture doesn't use the word 'rape' to describe what is very obviously rape (indeed, scripture does not make any attempt to avoid the implication that it's rape), but how are we wrong for calling it rape?
5. What is the single, gold standard by which all scripture should be interpreted? Given that virtually every Christian gets something different out of the Bible when they read it, with little consistency in interpretations from cover to cover, there seems to be no reason that our unflattering interpretation is any less correct a way to describe its contents than those which are pitifully fawning. And, what's more, once that standard is established, what objective facts support its legitimacy?

In my experience, Christians have no interest in exploring these matters, but I think they are serious. What difference do the various translations make, really, when the sources themselves are so questionable and vaporous? That puts the cart miles ahead of the horse.