>And even then it is estimated there were over 40 different human authors who may have been inspired by God, but still you are relying on the understanding, interpretation, verbal repeat of the information, and later writing and then translation of the original inspiration.

That is actually one of the really interesting thing about that book, and something that has puzzled men for centuries. Besides of having 40 people writing this scripture, it also happened during a timespan of thousands of years apart. There was no communication possible between those persons, and yet they somehow agreed with each other, even though they lived in different times and in different societies. Imagine writing a piece of code that will together with someone elses code that the other person is going to write in only 100 years from now. The huge material of manuscript evidence shows how consistent and accurate the tradition of the scriptures has been kept, this has been confirmed after more very old fragments have been found of the years. The book of Job is the oldest book in the world and it contains some of the most profound questions and thoughts of humanity.

The part of the interpretation is far less of a concern than many people would imagine. Most parts that were written don't require lots of interpretation. Now if you talk about some of the more difficult prophecies or some parts that are hard to understand because they are written in poetic form - I can understand that interpretation would play a large role. But the vast majority of the text is pretty straightforward, especially the New Testament as a whole requires almost no interpretation whatsoever. For instance to understand "The love of money is the root of all evil" does not require any interpretation skills, and yet a lot of people would prefer not to understand exactly what the writer meant by that statement and would confront you that it actually means something else than it actually says.

Also there were many proofs offered during the years that the old Bible could not contain the truth. One of the famous arguments of scientists in the last century for instance took the story in the Book of Revelation as proof that the text is scientifically inaccurate. Because it says that the Antichrist would execute two people publicly in Jerusalem, and it goes on to tell that all the people in the world (so also outside of Israel) would see those two dead bodies with their own eyes. Now that was a simple case of an unscientific statement, because it would be virtually impossible for all people to travel to Jerusalem in only three days from all parts of the world. That proof has stood for a very long time, and people could see that it is just showing the ignorance of the folks who would believe such nonsense. Imagine some people having a protest in Jerusalem, and to see what's actually happening there, you have to get into a place and travel all the way to Jerusalem. Now, besides of this, Israel did not exist before 1948, so how could the Bible say something would happen in Israel if it was gone for almost 2000 years.

So the question remains, why would John in this case write something so obviously impossible 2000 years ago, and expect everybody to believe his story?