To make it credible that the pictogram based word translation is to be taken seriously, the following should be fulfilled:
Further more, thought patterns are to be confirmed by structures at all levels (e.g. juxtaposition i.m.o. usually in additive ('bosonic'?) sense), letter,word, sentence, chapter, book, overall.
With respect to the existing translation:
There are various ways in which (computer) analysis could help. One of the problems with the combinations of pictorial meanings is that I cannot always generate the meanings that I find in a Lexicon. I can for about 95% deduce them from the lexicon meanings and than everything works very well, but generating meanings requires, except knowledge of the context, a good feeling for the way the people that wrote/read these texts thought, and what choices they would make when various options are open.
One way of dealing with this situation would be to look at mono-, di- and trigram relative frequencies. I have seen there are analysis programs on the network (I think it is at the Orion institute for the dead sea scrolls), but must check out what they exactly do. Also the combination of a limited number of words in histogram form could be very usefull. It is not unlikely that using that (statistical) information can add exactly that which is needed to also generate meanings accurately.
One of the main purposes of doing this is that there are a number of 'problem words' and subjects, which happen to coincide pretty well with problem areas in NT translation, of which I know for sure that certain concepts are maltranslated (because there is an abundance of greek writers availablt to compare with). It would appear that the pictorial meanings contribute in similar direction as the NT corrections, there is a pretty strong case to be made with this.