Re: Which translation is correct?
Wow! You really believe that there would be no Saducees or Pharisees? Dude, people today argue about whether world means world or love means love. There will still be endless debates over what the bible says.
Originally Posted by rejoice44
Not if I have to memorize it in a language I don't speak, i.e. the kings english of the 1600s!
2. Superior advantage in memorization.
Not a valid point, IMO. The book didn't save me. God did. The book was important to me AFTER I got saved.
3. The Muslims wouldn’t be able to claim that we don’t know what the Word of God is.
See my response to point 1. I've seen more disunity in KJVO churches than I care to discuss and they believe in only 1 book for the bible. It certainly didn't help them be united.
4. A uniting effect at bible studies
Even if one is raised from the dead, some won't believe. The problem with unbelief is not the translations. Your arguments seem very similar to the rich man that lifted up his eyes in hell. "If only X, they would believe". Not so.
5. It would help build confidence in unbelievers that we do have the Word of God, instead of confusion.
And this would come from having one book?
6. God would be happy that we acknowledge that we are incapable of knowing God’s thoughts.
Or gets the word out to more people so they can better understand what God is trying to tell them.
The benefits of having many Bibles, which contain a great variety of words.
1. Helps lower unemployment numbers.
"May the Lamb that was slain receive the just reward for His sufferings." A quote by Moravian missionary that sold himself (along with a friend) into slavery to reach those that the slave owner prevented from hearing the gospel.
May I live for Him and not for me.