Also in good will, I would ask you to name some examples of what you consider to be historical facts—whether of ancient Greece or Rome, or of the Far East, Africa or anywhere else—that doesn’t come with exactly the same sort of problems such as “alterations of texts,” “unintentional errors,” and “linguistic and translational issues.”
And would you please explain why, when it comes to such historical information, Bible skeptics refuse to be “skeptical and very cautious not to jump to conclusions as some gullible fool?”
Historical texts suffer from the same ills that befall biblical sources, but there is a world of difference.
The difference is that no one is required to accept historical sources as "divinely inspired" or as "words of God." Historical science neither requires, nor appeals to, nor relies upon such dubious "evidence" as "miracles," or "revealed truth" that is "inerrant" which must be believed.
The best example as to why the two cases are different would be Socrates.
I have no idea whether or not he existed, and there's arguments for and against. But it makes no difference to me whether he was a real man or not; someone constructed the Socratic method and his writings. I don't need him to be a real person to use his method or learn from his writings.
The same is not true of the Bible. It makes claims that are quite different, and the discussion of Christ, Moses, or Adam not being real people have a greater effect on the information claimed in the Bible that are not present in historical texts.
Historical texts don't make supernatural claims that have repurcussions on the individual soul and its fate, or the fate of mankind.
Historical texts as far as I know don't require you to believe them based on anything that approaches faith, nor is there any celestial punishment or reward for not believing whether or not something like the Battle of Thermopylae or the Battle of Tours actually took place.