I agree about the translation never being perfect, but does that matter, unless you consider the contents inerrant? Your other point about Genesis asd a science treatise is true. Nahmanides account of the first few seconds of creation from Genesis 1:1 reads just like the Big Bang.
(See Schroeder, "Gensis and the Big Bang", 1990)

That's the problem isn't it. In order to make any kind of reasonable debate about the content's fallibility you have to have a translation that, while perhaps not free of inaccuracy, is at the very least free of bias. I am not arguing here for the infallibility of the Bible. Stripping away the various trappings of of dogma and bias gives me a better basis for understanding, though. And thanks for the reference, I will check it out. :)