So no follow up questions?
Early manuscript evidence is one of the strongest arguments for the validity of Christianity. Modern findings and discoveries have confirmed the accuracy of the translations, I can cite sources if you're interested.
I can say with confidence that the message is consistent among the major translations. (KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV) The Bible has been the subject of intense scrutiny and if it were an unreliable text, you can bet it would be highy publicized. Any disputes among scholars are over semantics, punctuation or otherwise trivial matters when it comes to actual translation. So it is safe to say that you can have confidence that you are reading a reliable representation of the original intent of the authors. If fact, former atheist journalist and lawyer Lee Strobel was convinced of the truth of Christianity and converted to the faith in part because the historical accuracy and textual reliability of the translations. So I don't think it is quite so easily dismissed.
I'll drop the follow up to the originalist question, but it seems like you know where I was going with that. Perhaps part of the reason for confusion among different sects within Christianity is because it's treated like a "living" document. And, why you are bound to accept inconsistencies and contradictions in order to validate the "answers" you have found elsewhere. If it truly is as unreliable as you consider it to be, I don't know why quoting from it adds anything to your already formed opinion.
I don't want my post to come across as filled with animus or ill feelings, I'm just trying to apply logical consistency to the discussion. Sometimes that's difficult to do without sounding grumpy.