Yet two further fascinating points raised by Adam Nicolson in his excellent book When God Spoke English both of which involve difficult choices. He points up the two very different approaches to the Christian religion which came to a head in the Jacobean period. On the one hand, the Puritan extremists insisted that 'the word' was everything and everything was in the word. There was absolutely no need for ceremony or symbols which, to them, smacked of a Man's interference with the purity of God's word. But to the hierarchy of the established Church, ceremony and symbols were of critical importance as a means of demonstrating God's will. You can see the sense in both approaches.
Part of me admires a religion which places me in direct line to God where I can use my own intelligence to work my way towards Him without interference but on the other hand the 'luvvie' in me warms to the 'theatre' of high church ceremony. Happily, as a longstanding member of the 'Church of Agnosticism' I have never had to make a choice.
Equally interesting, in that I have never considered it before, are the two radically different approaches to translating. Some strive hard to reproduce as exactly as they can the foreign words that face them. Others ignore exactitude and simply concentrate on reproducing the spirit of the words. There-in lies the difference between, say, the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible. In that controversy I have no trouble choosing the latter.