We aren't invalidating anything.
The point I was trying to make was that it was written by men, and even devout and conscientious men are fallible and make mistakes in copying and translating. Others are susceptible to temptations of power –*and what's more powerful than having some control over what a bible says?
So maybe we shouldn't try to be so literal, and instead try to glean the meaning.
Take Leviticus, for example. It is the foundation of Mosaic and Davidic law. It not only concerns ritual laws, but also establishes guidelines of health, hygiene and public welfare. At the time, these were very important rules. An outbreak of mildew or dysentery in a desert community would be devastating. Rabbis were trained to address such problems, and the people were directed to take specific steps to avoid them.
However, much of Mosaic and Davidic law has been since disregarded as "obsolete," and rightly so. Improvements in civilization, agriculture, architecture, sanitation and the like have made calling a rabbi when you have mildew in your bathtub no longer necessary. But the spirit of the law remains: It is your responsibility to show your god your appreciation by taking care of your health, home and community.
That's why reading the whole thing, not just the bumper stickers, is so important.
The people that truly invalidate the christian bible are the "cafeteria christians," of which there are many. They want to be free of 90% of the canon of Mosaic law –*from which antinomianism frees them entirely, anyway –*yet cling to the remaining 10% that they believe validates their bigotry.
So then isn't what you're doing simply invalidating the literal while trying to keep the spirit?
I understand the reasons, you don't have to repeat them. But I don't understand why you wouldn't call it invalidating.