Not when read in context.
There are varied versions.
These usually result from a non-use of the Greek and Hebrew.
There are non-literal allegorical statements in scripture, like the parables told by Jesus.
No...these are not allegory. They are parables.
Translations between languages are less 100% accurate (Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English).
The NT was written in Greek so no Aramaic to worry about. If we go from Greek to any language there is a slight difference in translation. Hence it befalls upon the teacher to explain the nuances of Greek to be sure the English (or whatever language) hearer understands the text.
There are timelines (like the flood) which don’t hold up to archeological evidence.
You presume the Bible is in error in the account of the flood and or possibly creation. If these are not literal, actual accounts, why were there referenced in the NT?
Councils of people selected what was to be included and excluded.
If you're referring to the canon, the church decided what was included and not. There were several conditions the church required to have a text included.
Meanings and usage change over time. If I were to note in my journal in 1970 that someone was cool, by 2570 a reader might think it miraculous that their body temperature was abnormally low.
This is true and which is why we should rely upon the Greek in understanding the word. The Greek does not change.
Sounds like you are wedded to a fundamentalist, literal reading of scripture, and that you have a version which you believe to be infallible. You deny that there are conflicts within scripture. Try Google.
Do you know why Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels? Because John is so different.
If parables are not allegories (despite the generally accepted definitions of theses words), do you believe that Jesus was actually concerned with raising grain, grapes, fishing and sheep herding, rather than making (allegorical, non-literal) teaching points about human behavior? And if you insist on literal fundamentalism, isn’t there all of the Old Testament genocide, slavery, rape and torture to reinstate?
People absorbed by such dogmatic interpretation are likely to get sidetracked into quibbling over doctrinal differences of interpretation and generate schisms within the Christian community, rather than focusing on bringing everyone together and improving their holiness and happiness.
The point is the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, when it comes to spiritual realm - a very central message of Jesus to the legalistic and ritualistic religious leaders of his days on Earth.
The fundamentalist muslims of ISIS and al Quaeda are derisively called takfiri by other muslims. Takfiri means “those who declare others to be heretics”. Anyone who varies from their reading of scripture (and the rules they use to interpret it) they attack as heretics - kind of like another apparently fundamentalist poster accused me of blasphemy, for using the word “interpret” in reference to understanding scripture.