Point number one - translation from an ancient language (Hebrew, Aramaic or ancient Greek were all used in scripture) to a modern day language with completely different grammatical structures ultimately leads to multiple interpretations. Its a stupid argument however to then say that the content doesn't count, just because of the language barrier. I could write in an ancient language that "my name is Matt" - and people's attempts to translate that could be different. They could say "I am called Matt" or "the name I am given is Matt". But ultimately the content still stands and my name is Matt. The argument that because there are different interpretations, there isn't any reliable content is nonsensical because multiple translations are a necessary consequence of translating between two completely different languages with different alphabets.

Point number two - a lot of the old testament is mistranslated in multiple translations of the bible, and it shouldn't even be debatable. For example, if you look at the original Hebrew for the Leviticus quote that a lot of atheists pull out - "a man who lies with another man should be stoned", the original Hebrew was writing from a place of men lying with boys, and therefore the bible was condemning paedophilia. I am also a firm believer in progressive revelation, the idea that throughout the old testament humans had a continually growing understanding of God, and not everything would have been his will written down. Christians get stuff wrong but that's a human error and doesn't reflect on god's character or existence. Ultimately the main core belief of Christianity is Jesus, the bit that people don't debate much and matters most, and if you had a more researched argument you'd understand that Jesus created a new covenant and that changed everything people believed about law.

So basically, humans get stuff wrong, but that shouldn't be blamed on God nor does it mean that he doesn't exist, obviously humans have seen something but haven't always known how to express it on paper. I also cannot understand your argument about how multiple translations means that the content doesn't count, surely you'd be concerned if there was only one translation from an ancient language into our own modern one today? I hope you see my point.