Let me elaborate on what I mean when I say that you interpret the Bible differently from any other book.

In any other context, and with any other book, you would consciously or unconsciously employ certain "rules of thumb" (formally called rules of textual criticism) for ferreting out the truth. You wouldn't just take the author's contentions at face value but would instead scrutinize the author's motives and biases and agenda to figure out the "true" message--one free of the author's spin. And you'd do this regardless of whether you were reading a history book, a religious book or a book of fiction. Humans do this all the time everyday in our ordinary interactions with others.

Although the rules of textual criticism can be confusing, the most useful is quite simple and intuitive: Facts that go against the interest of the author/speaker (so-called "admissions against interest") are almost certainly true, while those that advance the author's agenda can't necessarily be accepted without further confirmation and so must be suspect.

For instance, we can be almost certain that those elements of the gospels that hint at or suggest that Rome was responsible for Jesus's death are true since we know for a fact that non-Jewish, Roman editors during the time of Constantine/Eusebius compiled and revised our present day gospels, putting them in their current and “final” form. Those Romans would have been inclined to minimize Rome's involvement in Jesus's death, if anything. Thus, "unhelpful facts" (such as the fact that Jesus was tried and sentenced by the Roman official, Pilate) constitute an admission that goes against the Roman editors' interests, and it is almost certainly true. It remains in our gospels very likely only because it was so well known that it could not be subsequently denied or deleted, only subsequently “spun” (as the last gospel, the Gospel of John, does so well).

Why is this rule of textual criticism so useful in making sense of accounts of historical events? Well, when compiling a history, it goes without saying that unhelpful facts are only mentioned when they are so well known that they can't credibly be denied or ignored. By contrast, helpful "facts" can often be invented and secretly added to an account so as to change the reader's impression of the unhelpful ones without drawing too much suspicion. Thus, it is much easier to add a "clarifying fact" (even an invented one) to an historical account than it is to deny or ignore the original well-known historical fact altogether.

Propagandists do this all the time. In modern times we call the process of acknowledging unhelpful facts while supplementing them with falsehoods so as to change the overall impression "spin". But, spin is not a new invention. Thus, when reading a history, any history, admissions against interest are almost always true, while those little "helpful" facts--those that advance the interests of the writer of the history by attempting to soften the impact of the unhelpful ones--must be taken with a large grain of salt. It does not mean for certain that they are untrue, but we should at least seek independent corroboration before buying into them lock, stock, and barrel.

Thus, because our Bibles were compiled and edited primarily by Gentiles in churches founded primarily by Paul, and because Rome redacted and edited our Bibles further during the time of Constantine, any remaining admissions against Paul's or Rome's interests are very likely true (and are included only because the were so well-known that they couldn't be credibly denied), while anything that makes Paul or Rome look "good" or "less culpable" is potentially false and must at least be second-guessed.

For example, non-biblical sources present Pilate as a cruel, hot-headed and blood-thirsty dictator who was ultimately recalled to Rome to explain his harsh policies, but the Bible presents him as a reasonable and very reluctant executioner of Jesus who went so far as to "wash his hands" of responsibility. Thus, the fact that Pilate (a Roman) sentenced Jesus to death is an unfavorable fact as to Rome and is therefore almost certainly true, while the "spin" that Pilate did so very reluctantly and only to appease the rowdy Jewish crowd, is, given all we know about him form other sources, likely false. That Jesus counted anti-Roman zealots among his family and followers can't be denied (even by the Bible), so this fact is almost certainly true, but the Bible's suggestion that Jesus was a pacifist who opposed their cause must be questioned. That Jesus criticized the establishment Pharisees and Sadducees is almost certainly true, but not the Bible's suggestion that he did so only because they were so stubbornly JEWISH and LOYAL to the law of Moses. The truth is almost certainly the opposite: Jesus opposed them because they were COLLABORATORS who had softened the requirements of God's law (in matters such a circumcision, diet, divorce, etc.) in order to make accommodations with Roman culture.

Anyone who raises children can immediately understand why this technique of textual criticism—accepting “unhelpful” facts as true while questioning “helpful” ones--is such a useful means of getting at the truth of a situation. Consider this parenting example:

A child "borrows" his parent's car without permission and then in gets into an auto accident. The parents are angry and begin questioning the child. What does the child then (rather predictably) say? Something like this: "Yeah, Dad, it's true I snuck out with the car, and I'm really sorry for that, but I was never going to do anything bad with the car, and I tried to call you to ask permission first but I couldn’t get a hold of you. And, besides, the accident wasn't my fault!"

Well, the first assertion (that the kid snuck out with the car) is almost certainly true and can be taken at face value since the child admitted against his interest what simply couldn't credibly be denied. But the second one (that he didn't intend to do anything "bad" with it) and the third one (that he tried to call to get permission first), and the fourth one (that the accident wasn’t his fault), simply can’t be accepted at face value by any self-respecting parent. If parents expect to get to the truth, they will have to delve a little deeper.

This is one of the major problems with "faithful" interpretations of the Bible, those that insist that the Bible is "infallible". They never “delve a little deeper.” They never question the motives or biases of the author of the text. Rather, they simply accept every word at face value, assuming it not only to be “true”, but also “infallibly” so. Is that really a reasonable way of getting to the truth of any matter? By accepting the words of one side to the story without question? Would we interpret ANY other document in ANY other context that way?

Of course we wouldn't.

In short, despite your attempts to rationalize it away, your double standard (of interpreting the Bible differently than anything else) betrays the truth--that you are willing to abandon reason and common sense to preserve your "faithful" understanding of Christianity. Why? Because it makes you feel good. It gives you hope.

Even it were true that "when you eliminate God you eliminate objective truth"...so what? Respectfully, you are coming at the question ass backwards. You have a natural bias, a strong desire, that objective truth exists. And the only way to validate that bias is to believe in God. And so you believe. "It makes me feel better if there's objective truth in the world. For there to be objective truth, God must exist. Therefore, God must exist." Surely you see that's a non sequitur.