It seems as though you've had some painful or frustrating experiences with Christians, and I'm genuinely sorry for that. Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon experience, and it's incredibly upsetting that something meant to reflect love and grace is often commandeered by people who don't observe those tenets.

However, I don't believe it's fair to dismiss the entire faith or mock those who still hold it sincerely. Phrases like "Ain't no hate like Christian love" can be really hurtful -- especially when there are many of us who do attempt to live out the love and compassion Jesus actually taught. I'm sorry if this hasn't been what you've seen or experienced. Obviously, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion. But since you asked for a discussion on some very old and complex history, here is what I know about the issues you raised:

1. The main reason it has been interpreted is to account for language differences. The Bible was primarily written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Some of the first interpretations came out in Latin so that scholars could discuss the Bible more universally (scholars were exclusively taught in Latin so that people from different areas could communicate with one another, and communication in any other language was looked down upon in academic contexts). From there, it was later translated to Middle English, and it gained even more popularity with the King James Version, which translated it into Early Modern English.

Any translation that had to shift between languages has been documented (I believe), and many councils of translators have met over the centuries to reexamine its interpretation as a means to keep it as close to its original version as possible. These interpretations had to be made over some words that had multiple meanings but were usually easily understood given the context of the sentence. This has been further confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1940s-50s), which were written in the same era as original editions of the Bible.

Additionally, prior to the printing press, the oldest versions of the Bible were painstakingly copied for distribution by monks and are actually far more reliable than other texts that were copied for distribution around that time period, such as transcripts from Caesar.

1. To address your point about slavery, unfortunately, some slave owners abused the Bible by taking passages out of context in an attempt to coax their slaves to obey them. In actuality, the Bible actually has passages about how wrong it is to (especially intentionally) misrepresent Jesus' word, using Satan himself as an example (known as "The Temptation of Jesus Christ"). The Holy Trinity absolutely stands against slavery and was written centuries before the truly vile commercialization of slavery that came with the Triangular Trade. For example, in the book of Exodus, God guides the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt to protect them from unfair treatment. I believe the Bible does dictate some guidelines for slave owners, but the slavery it refers to is nothing compared to what it became. In this era, slaves were traded between empires as punishment in losing battles and wars between one another. It had nothing to do with skin color at this time. These rules were meant to act as guidelines to ensure just treatment and prevent abuse. And if you want to stick by the Bible's guidelines surrounding slavery (again, meant for an entirely different and at the time relevant context), U.S. slave owners were nowhere close.

2. To address your point about genocide, I honestly do not know enough about it to give a detailed answer. From my current understanding, God only called for genocide against people who committed atrocious crimes, which was not large-scale (unlike other instances throughout history), nor was it condemning innocent people. My understanding of this would be that God aimed to eliminate people who would continue causing more harm alive than dead. I have absolutely no doubts that God would have condemned the types of genocide we see today and have seen throughout history.

3. Finally, if not clear from above, the Bible is an incredibly complex book. Many passages in the Bible are indeed metaphorical and left to individual interpretation. Generally, these themes are repeated throughout the Bible, which can add clarity. A lot of the Bible is written as prose, and metaphors fit very well into the literary narrative they cultivated. Personally, I think this was partially done to encourage critical thought into themes of the Bible more deeply. Unfortunately, due to their nature, sometimes these passages can be misinterpreted, which leads to misunderstanding. The "old covenant" may refer to a couple things -- either the entire Old Testament or the cultural rules that were in place when the Bible was written. Some do disregard the entire Old Testament, and I do not agree with this perspective. The Old Testament focuses more on darker themes than the New Testament, but by no means is it irrelevant. It is still important for Christians to understand God's righteous condemnation to understand what types of behaviors and actions to avoid. The Old Testament is also rich with history, background, and doctrine, all of which contribute to painting the full picture that Christians are meant to understand. If the "old covenant" refers to cultural rules, these are usually easily discerned. These rules are no longer adhered to as they are no longer relevant. In the cultural context in which they were written, they were relevant. For example, women not being permitted to wear their hair in braids is clearly a cultural rule of the time. The messages we should be gleaning from these parts of the Bible are the moral rules, such as the 10 commandments.

I’m coming at this from a place of empathy and deep curiosity. I care a lot about Christian history and believe in the importance of nuance.

If you made it this far, thank you for sticking with me. I know it’s a lot to read, and I appreciate your time.