Somehow you still manage to miss the point. Today with modern technology you can make exact copy. There is no such thing as exact translation on the other hand. I speak several foreign languages and I can easily think of several sentences in each that can not be translated into say English. You can write an entire page explaining the original, but the English speaker is still going to be robbed of something without actually learning the original language.
Yes, I see we are talking pass each other. I agree that translation to English one can miss out on the meaning. English has one word for love. Greek has 4 words for the English love (maybe more if you count the "I love pizza" definition). I have learned the meanings of those 4 words. I know that agape is the predominate love word of the Bible. That is why there are seminaries for ministers to learn Biblical Greek and Hebrew and there have been tons of theses over the centuries digging into the meaning of the texts. I don't know Greek so when I dig deep into a passage I read from several different translations and read commentaries on the passage. I believe I am getting the meaning of the text.
So, back to your point about "original" Greek text. You can claim the translation is 97% correct, what ever that means, but how correct is the Greek text the translation is based on? How removed from the actual first bible is it? When you actually take a look at that you will see that "original" Greek is actually centuries from the first copy ever written. And the first copy does not exist any more so nothing to compare it with.
The oldest complete Bible is roughly 300 years after the original texts, however there are 7 incomplete manuscripts before 200AD and 41 before 300AD. (It is from the answer in question 7.) The oldest fragment (from the Gospel of John) could be less that 30 years after the original writing. There are also the many writings of the Church Fathers that quote the scriptures. I would surmise that you would say this is not enough evidence to convince you that the New Testment we have today is not corrupt. Correct? If you say that, what you do is say that there is not enough evidence for any ancient document. The New Testament has by far the most and oldest (relative to the originals) manuscripts.
So having a 100% correct copy of corrupt oldest now available copy is a useless metric. Besides all that, we know bible is full allegory (compelling case can be made that entire Jesus myth is allegory taken literally and later embellished by trying to insert it into history. See for example http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm), so taking allegory literally is just idiotic.
This is where we really differ. You see the story of Jesus as a myth set in an historical setting. Correct? I see it as historical story, because it is in a historical setting and the known geography. And I guess that you would discount any miracles as impossible because they violate the laws of nature. Am I correct? Whereas I see the miracles of Jesus and him rising from the dead as God outside of this universe reaching into the universe to demonstrate his love and concern for us. This seems to me to be the big difference between us (if I am correct in what you believe).