You asked me to explain my reasoning and I declined - because it would take several years and you'd throw up straw men like a poorly translated bible quote anyway.
You are free to decline. No need to justify your claims when you can just assert them.
You are wrong about translation error when it comes to violence in the bible. That is well recognized. Nor does it rest on any single verse.
''The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain narratives, poetry, and instruction describing, recording, encouraging, commanding, condemning, rewarding, punishing and regulating violent actions by God, individuals, groups, governments, and nation-states. Among the violent acts included are war, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, murder, rape, and criminal punishment.[1]:Introduction The texts have a history of interpretation within the Abrahamic religions and Western culture that includes justification and opposition to acts of violence.[2]
Sociologists Frank Robert Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn question "the applicability of the term [genocide] to earlier periods of history, and the judgmental and moral loadings that have become associated with it."[149] Since most societies of the past endured and practiced genocide, it was accepted as "being in the nature of life" because of the "coarseness and brutality" of life.[149]:27 Chalk and Jonassohn say the Old Testament contains cases they would consider genocide (if they were factual) because of women and children being killed even though it was war and casualties in war are excluded from the definition of genocide. They also say: "The evidence for genocide in antiquity is circumstantial, inferential, and ambiguous, and it comes to us exclusively from the perpetrators."[149]:64''
