Okay, point by point
1) is not The Old Testament an "English translated collection of ancient Jewish stories
2) mythologically and fabulistically describing what they have come to believe is their people's history
The fallacy here is that there is no basis for this belief. You have chosen to believe that they are "mythologically and fabulistically describing" persons, places and events, many of which have considerable archaeological evidence supporting the scriptural account. In other words, your belief in this particular matter is contrary to the evidence.
3) as passed down word of mouth and by some ancient written scroll texts found and then re-translated to English,
"re-translation" requires, first, translation. Most modern bible translations, and the bulk of the King James Version, were translated from original language texts, not from a translation.
4) and then re-written several dozen times by various feather & ink monk scribes and clergy, who may or may not have transcribed those documents or stories accurately
This, of course, happened in large part *prior* to any translation into English. We have existing Greek manuscripts from the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus), which contains the original language Greek manuscripts, and a Masoretic Text (Hebrew) from the 11th century, I believe, the Codex Leningradensis (CL). With the enormous number of manuscripts available, scholars are fairly well-able to discover alterations to the texts. This is not inevitable: there *is* the possibility that additions or alterations, particularly very ancient ones, have escaped the detection of scholars. Still, the ability to detect errors by the means of document comparison is quite persuasive.
5) and by now the "present text" that we read today has been changed countless times over and over,
This assertion has no foundation in fact. Comparison of the CL with fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, show very few, very minimal variations over a span of more than 1,000 years. Certainly, the word "countless" is not appropriate in any case.
6) and doesn't that mean that to take it as "eye-witness" infallible testimony, is rather "un-scholastically or common-sensically sound"
It is not sound to consider it "unfallible eye-witness testimony", but it *is* sound to consider it "the most authoritative and accurate account available". Admittedly, not the same thing, but still something of value.
7) given the above facts that are irrefutable,
As many have been quite simply refuted, this statement is untenable.
8) and even recognized as truth by religious scholars?
Name one? I mean, one who attests to all of these so-called irrefutable facts that you have listed?