Your point about Bible versions is definately valid... Here is the same verse from "Young's Literal Translation" which is a version of the translation of the bible attempting to do a "literal" translation as it's name says.
Jesus saith to him, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;
"no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;" Is the part that sounds out fairly obvious to me, though I do value your assessment of the context of the time. There are many other scriptures that take on a different meaning when in true context of the time (such as the turn the other cheek scripture).
Between 30-50 years after his death, Jesus was purported to say, by someone who didn't know him in life
Fair statement... however in history and science books we don't always append "Between 300-2000 years after the event, these people were purported to say". Instead we challenge the historical accuracy of the author and the writing, there are many tests and these tests have been applied to the gospel books of the bible. From what I have studied it is very possible to assume the statements from these books as valid and accurate, though I would highly recommend you or anyone else to research the validity of these books on your own. There are many resources and many studies done challenging whether or not those books are a valid and I have seen more than s ufficient proof (for myself) to beleive in their accuracy. Just as I would read a certain history book and deem it valid enough of a representation.
I still say it is conjecture, my understanding is suitable for me, and your understanding is suitable for you and they may or may not be suitable for each other....
Therin lies the glory.
Not to mean anything offensively but therin lies the glory for you. Your statements are very subjective. On the contrary I beleive in things as being objective. To me saying that if a beleif is good enough for the person then it must be valid and true is false. To me that is very subjective and I beleive subjectivity has it's place in evaluating situations, though I don't beleive in reality being subjective.
For example, say we had a friend that we both valued. Say that friend went off into a land and we never heard from them for years. Finally we get word back that our friend is dead. Now lets say we both heard two different reports of them, one says they did good deeds and helped many people. Lets say the other said they did horrible deads and killed and hurt many people (this often is the same view of military or political leaders from different perspectives).
Lets say you chose to beleive that they were good and did good things and conversely I chose to beleive they were bad and did bad things. Now if reality and beleifs are subjective then whatever we each beleived would be true and accurate... but it isn't. Now the words "bad" or "good" attached to the deeds are relative and that indeed is subjective; however, what the person did was not subjective, their actions and results were not subjective even if people's views on them are. Those are there even if we choose not to seek them.
Not disauding your view, if anything I value that you have your view and stick with it, just relating that not everyone beleives in things being subjective.
