So then how can we know what the original texts stated as a whole if they don't exist? Not to mention all of the books that didn't make the final cut (the book of Mary Magdalene, the book of Enoch, etc.)
The books themselves exist. Genesis exists; the books of the Kingdoms exists; Judith exists. The utter originals of them do not, but we still have the books.
1st Enoch was actually very popular among Jews and even early Christians. A verse of it is even quoted from in the Catholic Letter of St. Jude. However, it fell out of favor probably because it wasn't considered authentic (which is true) but more importantly because it wasn't considered to be up to scratch when compared to books that were definitely considered canonical. Since 1st Enoch is an apocalyptic and prophetic book, its closest comparison would be the Book of Daniel, which was immensely popular particularly by Christians. Another viable reason was the fact that it very well may have not been written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek. Today, it only exists in full in Ge'ez (with partials [and less] in Latin, Arabic, Greek, and Aramaic), which, while a Semitic language, isn't located in the Holy Land but in Ethiopia, which leads some scholars to believe that its original place of authorship was there. All the other books were written in the Holy Land.
In the end, the Church debated the issue and slowly but surely, 1st Enoch fell out of favor and it didn't make it into the Holy Canon, with one exception: it is considered part of the Holy Canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is a part of the Oriental Orthodox Church. However, no other member of that Communion, let alone the rest of Christianity, considers it canonical.
The Gospel of Mary is a different matter altogether. Written at least a good two decades if not later than the rest of the NT books (120-180 ce), the book is clearly Gnostic in its theology, and Gnosticism was indirectly referred to as something negative in books of the NT. Therefore, it was rejected due to its heretical theology.
This goes back to an understanding of the Bible being nothing more than a specific person's interpretation of those words.
The word you are looking for is translated, not interpreted.
Look again at the example I gave. In Spanish, "Quantos anos, tienes?" could be translated into Engish literally ("How many years do you have?") or metaphorically ("How old are you?"). Both are actuate, but the latter has two advantages: 1st, take a look on how many words in English with Spanish; it is off only by 1, compared to off by 3 in the formal equivalency. 2nd, the formal equivalency is very awkward in English; while it isn't
wrong, it is usual. The dynamic equivalency, on the other hand, means the same thing and is common with we English-speakers.
That isn't to say that interpretation
cannot be a part of translation into different languages. The very advantage of a formal equivalency is that this issue is minimized: you go word-for-word, ignoring anything else. What you get sound
very strange sometimes but you very rarely ever have to worry about a word choice that is clearly part of a theological position. On the other hand, dynamic equivalencies, because they are thought-for-thought, allow the translator to insert his or her own twist potentially. This doesn't mean it will
always be the case, but it can, does, and has happened.
The Septuagint is a formal equivalency of the Hebrew and Aramaic, for example. Very little is dynamically translated, and since it was a Jewish product and the Jews of the time used it commonly, we can safely assume those dynamic portions were not theologically contrary to the Hebrew and Aramaic they were translated from.
Some modern Bibles do have their theological biases. The NIV is a noted Evangelical Protestant translation; it is a dynamic equivalency which was translated by mostly Evangelical Protestant scholars. The NAB is a Roman Catholic translation; it is a dynamic equivalency with was translated by primarily Roman Catholic scholars with the help of various Anglican and Mainline Protestant scholars as well. In certain places, you'll find some areas where there is a theological slant, although admittedly, those places are not as populous as you may think.
Compare them to, say, the NRSV, which is a formal equivalency which was translated by an eclectic mix of Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Mainline Protestant, and at least one Eastern Orthodox scholars. The advantage especially with the NRSV is, since there is such an eclectic mix AND it is a formal equivalency, theological slants are very few.
When reading the Bible, it does help therefore to have a number of translations. Some translations get some areas better than others, either because of awkward translations and, admittedly, sometimes due to theological slants. When you read them together however, you get a clear picture.
The other option, of course, is to learn Hebrew and Koine Greek, and read the source texts yourself. This has immense benefits, but it'll take a lot of time for you to be good enough with the languages yourself before you can easily read them with proficiency.
Through all the years, language translations, and edits (books taken out) you honestly believe that the Bible is an accurate account of events of the time? Based on what?
What do you mean by "events of the time"? If you mean if I believe that the Bible is relatively unchanged, then yes; despite the variances, the Bible is overall surprisingly unchanged in 2,000 years. When you pick up a Bible translated into English today, you are getting essentially the Bible that 2nd century Christians had.
And god's plan was to have the devil torture humanity so that they can choose to serve a "higher power" (which killed more people than the devil), himself? That sounds kind of narcissistic and sadistic to me.
Whoever said that was God's plan? I never said it was God's idea for the devil to torture humanity. Perhaps someone else did, but that isn't a Christian idea.
As I said in my first post, it is very much akin to Tolkien's story. Instead of fighting Melkor (essentially, the devil) and driving him away during the Music, Manwe, the vala (a divine power; an archangel, if you will) decided to lead the chorus that was faithful to Eru Illuvatar's (God, essentially) Theme to
add non-contradictory portions of Melkor's vain perversion into the Theme. This was possible because Melkor had no power to make Music of his own, but to adapt what was there already; in other words, Melkor had no power to
create like Eru Illuvatar.
As such, the issue with Melkor's song was not that it was music (remember what I said earlier that all creation is "good"), but that it was
contrary to its intended purpose. However, Manwe preceived enough of Eru's mind to understand that Melkor's perversion was already known to Eru, which is why he led the other valar and maiar spirits to weave in portions of Melkor's song into the original Theme. Not to add misery, but to incorporate what would happen so that it could eventually be
remedied.
That is the essential idea of the devil in Christianity. The devil has already lost; it was always in God's plan for him to lose and so he did when Christ was crucified, died, and was raised. He allowed the devil's darkness (the contrary of the Theme) because He knew it would be destroyed. As such, He allowed Adam and Eve to be tempted and allow sin into the world (thus "adding the non-contrary notes"). He would have preferred that humanity never have to deal with it, but He knew that this particular angel of His would rebel and therefore, before time even began, to make sure not only His Will would be done, but what His intended from the beginning idea would come to fruition.
That too is actually in Tolkien. In Dagor Dagorath, Melkor somehow is able to free himself from the void and assemble all his past might to him, including the likes of his former lieutentant, Sauron. He's a fool though, because it was already known through the Music. His forces are destroyed and Turin Turmabar himself, with his sword, slays the fallen valar once and for all. Then, there is the Second Music: Beleriard, the land that sank under the waves after the War of Wrath arises from the depths and the Children of Illuvatar Sing with the Ainur. This time, the Song is aright, and the Light of the Two Trees shines forth into all of Ea (existence; the world).
This is Christianity. This is why God "allows" the devil to "have his way." He detests what the devil does and what humans have done by our bad choices, but in Christ, He has fixed, is fixing, and will fix it all.
I might add that you did read right: the Children of Illuvatar will have a hand in it. Christians have a hand in God's plan. This is called synergism; the cooperation of humanity with God in the healing of the world. Through it, our corrupt nature and broken souls are healed and cured. It is all possible because of the Incarnation, crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of God the Son.
The point of the story should be slaughter.
But it isn't. If you want to understand what Christians mean by what we read in the Bible, you need to understand how we interpret it.
God had families slaughtered. The Bible explicitly states he killed children! What could a child do to deserve death? I would not follow a god that advocated gratuitous violence to please himself.
Whoever said God did it? Again, I replied in another thread you posted in about evolution. Think about my reply there and how it would work in this context.
Silly me. I keep forgetting that my posts are invisible in EC. 
