"That's A Bad Translation"

Inspired by this video. 

 
I recognize that some of the critical responses (in the comment section for that video) are not really fair.

Some are also needlessly unkind. But setting that aside, some of the responses are very fair and definitely correct. I don't know if I want to make the time to list every misunderstanding, or every failed attempt at logic. For now, this one issue caught my attention.

If (ever) the cause of someone finding serious fault with a bible is "a bad translation", then: The "that's a bad translation"-response is basically admitting that the offended-person is right to be offended (or otherwise critical) but then to say "if you come over to this better translation, you'll find that God's REAL word is saying something else". But that "solution" has some serious problems. 1. It means the religiously-devoted person is cherry picking verse-translations based on whatever wordings they think "surely must be what God really thinks". Granted, they could argue that the critic is cherry picking *too* (but with the opposite bias). However, in Kristi Burke's case (common for many who de-convert into atheism after spending years as a Christian), they weren't cherry picking at all. It's usually just whatever Bible-version the Christians they grew up around were using. Meanwhile, ... 2. Let's not lose sight of the fact that most (pretty much all) Christians use term "The Bible" to refer to really any version at all; barring maybe the Jehovah's Witness version. Pretty much all Bible-versions are "the word of God"; according to almost-all Christians. 3. Those Christians (especially; but any Christians, really) can't justify conveniently jumping between bible-versions every time a single passage in Bible-A is troubling in a way that the same passage in Bible-B isn't. - And then switching back later when something in Bible-B isn't as God-flattering as something in Bible-A. 4. Most bible versions will agree that a problematic/troubling translation is correct; -forcing Christians to dumpster-dive into a larger collection of usually-ignored Bible-versions; just to find a passage-rendering they like. 5. If a "God" doesn't want people mistaking a bad-translation as "his word(s)", then he should be using his omni-powers to prevent bad-translations from being written in the first place. -OR, much better yet, just SKIP that terrible way of communicating. And then just directly mind-deliver all "essential truths" that any given human is presently primed-and-ready to be 'receptive' to. 6. It's really not the reader's moral duty or job to assume there are less troubling translations of a verse; nor then to go hunting for one. 7. Nor should anyone shop around to find one, just so they can end up with a conceptualization of "God" they can live with. But some do. And whenever that happens, ... 8. the religiously-devoted person is internally generating a conceptualization of "God", and of "right" and of "wrong"; based on their own subjective intuitions. 9. And then they shop around between bible-versions (and religious sects) to find one that (most of the time) matches what a "true God" would "surely" think. So then, ... 10. they pretend to get their moral intuitions from the book. When really they just read their own subjective *intuitions back into their cherry-picked renderings. [*influenced heavily by culture; which is influenced heavily by secular ideals] So then, ... 11. Every time they find a passage that is (or seems to be) the least problematic, it means: The religiously-devoted person esteems their self to be truly qualified to intuit what a true God must surely think, and feel, and (thus) must surely have said. But in doing so, they are doing the very same thing the critics are doing; to decide which words it's OK for a "God" to say and which aren't.