But it's been written, translated, and rewritten so many times

I see the bible as a compilation of explanations, for parents to tell their kids

Because they are incapable of making up explanations themselves

Fair point, I'd like to move over to Darth Dawkins though. I take issue with his perception of the world, and his stubborn interest in not allowing anybody else to refute his belief.

If I could, I'd preface my question with; "Humor me for a second, and assume that there is no god" - Which he will definitely not want to, so I will ask him nicely again, and insist, "Hypothetically, can we humor the idea that there may not be a god". And he if agrees, I'd ask the question: "If someone were to provide you exact evidence that god does in fact not exist, would you then believe the evidence, and further showcase the evidence for others, or will you completely refute it, because you believe the bible itself is evidence enough against it?"

Similarly, I'd like to ask him: "How come we have hundreds of fields of study, that completely dispute the idea that the earth is a most, around 6000 years old, and all you have is your book, yet you still can't humor the idea that you might be wrong about that theory?"

I also take issue with his extremely poor debate etiquette

My point of view about the argument of providing causality is this:

Isn't it a bit convenient that the number 1 argument for causality has been pushed into every nook and cranny of the world, making it very near impossible to actually implement any other theory?

At every turn you attempt provide another theory, it's basically turned around, pushing it towards God with phrases like: "Well, that's basically god anyways"