The sentence is something along the lines of, "Congress shall make no law protecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free excersize thereof". It's saying that congress can't be a theocracy by promoting certain religions.
But the non-English speaker translated it, and stopped the phrase after "no law" so he concludes it means something else. Maybe it would be better to study it in the English.
He made different languages because he got angry at us because we built a building.
That is your understanding. It is not a one normative within many religious communities. If you are going to stay within your particular view then, yes, you will end up with your particular conclusions. But then to ask for other opinions won't be helpful to your understanding because they require a different outlook.
The entire bible was written in Hebrew originally, so the contradicting laws applies to the Hebrews.
The text was given in a combination of a few languages but yes, mostly Hebrew. So the laws were understood by and applied to the group whose language it was. This is what I am saying, yes. But to that group, what you cite as a contradiction wouldn't have been one.
American and Ukrainian laws are different from each other. Biblical laws are supposed to be for all christians, irrespective of their nationality.
Christians? Who cares about them? The laws are Jewish laws and the language is the national language of Judaism (if we view "Jew" as a tag of nationality, but that's a semantic sidepoint).
Move to the US and you get to follow American laws.
Very true! Convert to Judaism, and you get to follow Jewish laws.