Did Jesus sacrifice his soul to save ours?

what I am asking is that you evaluate my interpretation of the Scriptures

Faulty / Insufficient.

The conclusions you have drawn from these verses are quite different from what most Christian scholars through the ages have concluded. In fact they are almost completely novel. Arriving at a novel conclusion not held by your own or any other major tradition is usually a pretty good sign that you've done something wrong. This is one of the the main reasons studying history and general theology is an important accompaniment to reading the Scriptures. As humans we are individually far too prone to er for our own judgment in isolation to be a reliable guide.

The related issues raised by this question have of course been discussed forward and backwards many times in the course of history. Many of the issues have never been universally agreed upon (e.g. does man have a unitary, bipartite, or tripartite nature?) and the various implications of different positions have been drawn out in different ways by different frameworks. What's notably different about your question is you are trying to solve detail that must come late the chain training without having laid the necessary interpretive groundwork to even use the related terminology. It's sort of like trying to select a windshield for purchase before figuring out whether you own a motorcycle or a car.

I think the first major place your reasoning jumped the tracks would be in not taking into account the basic historical and grammatical context of the verses you include in your search. This is leg work that you need to do early on. In this case skipping this step left you fitting together pieces that don't even belong to the same puzzle--a common enough problem you don't actually follow a disciplined step of examining the language and context involved.

For example, in the expressions "in whom my soul is well pleased" and "my soul is exceeding sorrowful" you assume that the word soul refers to something specific that the original language likely did not intend. If I were to say "that story broke my heart", you would not call up the closest hospital looking for a cardiologist to fix the organ pumping blood through my body. You instinctively understand that I am using an expression to tell you something about how deeply my emotions were effected. This is easy if you are fluent in English. Translate that into a language that uses different idioms and they might take you all wrong. Likewise if you do an English word search for "soul" in the Bible, a large portion of the references are not even going to be about your soul and you will be missing several that are! You should be much, much more cautious about linking verses in the way this question does before you have determined what the author of each was trying to communicate. Until you strike on a passage that is specifically trying to teach something about the physical vs. non-physical nature of man, don't try to use it to interpret other verses. This error is what must commonly leads to bogus proof-texting.

We do use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but it must be done by using passages that are clear on a subject to understand ones that are not. Using ones that are not even about a subject to interpret other ones is not a sound plan. Having arrived at a novel conclusion about a significant theological issue should send you back to check your methodology.

Using the King James translation here has certainly not set you up for success. I suggest you research and find a replacement (or at least a companion) translation to use in your studies. Looking through your list there appear to be several verses where you have tripped up for no other reason than because of the changing nuances of English. The KJV is actually a very faithful and remarkable translation. However, it was written to the understanding of a people speaking a language that you do not speak. You speak a derivative of that language, granted, but not the same one. Enough has changed that unless you are a period language expert, the KJV rendering is often going to lead you astray rather than towards the truth.

As far as the other specifics of your question, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to attempt an answer speaking for all of Christianity when it is not even apparent what the question would be (if any) given the lack of interpretive groundwork. But --as a gross generalization-- I think the answer would be no: the main thing happening on the cross was not especially related to Jesus soul. What it was is a subject for another question (or venue).