Bangkokboy,
I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Part of the problem with translations is (much like you mention) that many words can have quite a few meanings, even in their own tongue. When the translator plies his trade, he may or may not select the best word to transmit the original meaning. Additionally, some translations, even if as accurate as possible, can contain phrases that are archaic and have no reference that the current reader can understand. As a result, some translators attempt to convey what they think is the best fit to current understanding (which can be an ongoing process). Often, the original feeling behind the phrase is lost (or altered).
Also, the declared accuracy of a text is pretty much just that, declared to be so by a scholar or some other interested party. This isn't to say that they're wrong, but it is important to realize the limitations on being able to determine the degree of accuracy. An awful lot of the texts are written versions of oral history and events. Those oral versions often spanned generations. There's a pretty good chance that some of those oral stories have changed a bit over the telling, no matter how careful the tellers were. It's only necessary to consider the old school game of sitting in a circle, having one person make a statement to the next, and so on down the chain, with the resulting phrase often much different from the starting one. I will admit that oral histories were kept in higher regard, and there was a good degree of tradition and repetition to reinforce the story, but the nature of human memory and the process of recitation will cause some differences after a while.
Even if we allow that the transcription of oral history to written history was accomplished without mistake, and if the chain of translation was undertaken with the greatest regard for accuracy and closest meaning, we're still left with the fact that the determination of which texts to include in a canon, and which to exclude, were still decided by humans. And even if we further accept that these humans had the greatest regard for the task, there is still the fact that not all of the canonical commitees had all of the texts with which to make their decisions. And even if we allow that they did have full posession of all texts, there remains the fact that different commitees included or excluded different texts.
In various forms and canons, there are the apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, as well as the various non-canonical coptic documents from Nag Hamadi, and so forth.
Various sects have their preferred canon, with a particular translation given as definitive, and particular texts either included or not. One of the more obvious examples of this difference is the protestant and catholic bibles, with many differences, the most notable being the presence of the apocrypa in the catholic bible.
Given all of the above, and given the fact that humans aren't perfect (even at their best), and given that even within the ranks of Christianity as a whole there are differences in translation and interpretation and inclusion (just as an example, not to mention the myriad other views), it's pretty clear that no one can meaningfully lay claim to the unvarnished truth.
I have available to me quite a few of the biblical translations, including KJV, the Peshitta (Syriac Aramaic translation), selected chapters of the septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. It's interesting to read these side by side and note the differences (and similarities).
You've mentioned that I challenge the scholars, and I fully admit to that. The scholars themselves challenge each other, as well as those who have gone before. When one selects an interpretation they prefer, they are also implicitly selecting the particular scholarly tradition that reinforces their selection.
I freely admit that there is value in the texts, both in the form of history and in allegorical teachings intended to demonstrate preferred character traits with that social context. What I *cannot* do is treat any such text as the complete and literal truth. If it truly was complete and inerrant, then it would stand to reason that it would be clearly so, and there would be little or no room for various interpretations. The fact that so many within the various sects disagree as to what is and isn't correct in translation, what should or should not be included, and so on (and this includes the scholars and experts), indicates that the real truth is anything but obvious or clearly defined.
The world of faith is filled with Christians (catholics, baptists, calvinists, methodists, etc.), Jews (hasidic, samaritan, etc.), Moslems (sunni, shiite, etc.), and so forth, all convinced beyond argument that their particular viewpoint is the sole unalterable truth, and each viewpoint different from all the others in one degree or another. Not to mention that many of the above sects all trace their history back to the same basic texts and sources (to greater or lesser distances in time), which goes back to interpretation again.
I've posted this before in this thread, but I think it's relevant in this context:
"Do not say 'I have found the one true path of Spirit,' but rather say,
'I have found Spirit walking on my path,' for Spirit walks on all paths. --Khalil Gibran--
