Terry,
Sometimes I'm amazed at your intellectual self-indulgence.
You were talking about Bible translation and whether there is a Bible to translate in the first place (I'm making your initial thesis look slightly better than it did, pardon me).
The question was not whether the Bible is worth translating. Nor whether it is historically true, factual, inerrant, divinely inspired, etc.
The question was whether there is a text to translate. Whether this text is good or bad, history or fiction, opinion or revelation, is simply irrelevant to that issue.
What I said about Plato or Aristotle was (obviously enough) not from the standpoint of contents, but of textual transmission. I could have taken Homer, Hesiod, Eschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes or Menander instead. The point being, all are available only in copies of copies with many variant readings. All require textual criticism upstream of translation.
Of course you can question the methodology of textual criticism -- but you'll have to do that for all ancient works.
From a more philosophical standpoint you might also wonder if any translation (of any text, ancient or modern) is possible at all, arguing that the translation of any work is actually another work. You didn't venture into that.
Now if you accept the common working standards for the translation of ancient works, you have strictly no basis to deny the equal validity of Bible translation.