Yes, they had many political reasons to add to their doctrines such ideas as Papal infallibility and Papal supremacy (which didn't exist for the first roughly 900 years of their shared history with us Orthodox Christians).While I grant that many of the 30,000 sects separated on trivial matters, I think you exaggerate the factor. For most of its long existence, the Roman Catholic Church claimed to be the only path to Heaven, for example.
Christian nations belonging to the same exact Church in good standing have gone to war against each other. There are always reasons to persecute and kill other people. That has to do with politics, not faith. No Christian church teaches that it's fine to kill heretics or anybody else. Only in cases where the church and state are inextricably intertwined do we see anything like that, and even then it's the state's fault for its corrupting influence, not the church's.In recent years, there has been a better understanding between the churches but it was not always that way. And, if the Bible was interpreted correctly by that elite group of experts you claimed, Christians would not have killed and persecuted other Christians as they once did.
Every single human language ever spoken on the face of this planet will either go extinct or evolve beyond intelligibility. English spoken today bears precious little resemblance to English spoken 1000 years ago. And that's not even getting into dialectal variation. Some linguistic theories suggest that 90% of a language's lexicon will change every 1000 years. It doesn't matter what language God chose to gave us the Bible in, that language would have evolved over time and the source texts would have to be translated.My question is not about causality or responsibility. It's about whether inspiring the Bible in a human language that would become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted would have been a smart thing to do or a dumb thing to do for an all-knowing god.
If God gave us the Bible in something other than a human language, then we wouldn't understand a word of it in the first place. What language do you propose He should have given us the Bible in? Caterpillar language?If an all-knowing, all-powerful god intended to give us a moral guide, we would have a simple, cross-cultural guide not dependent on human languages. We may have that in the intuitive feeling that we refer to as "conscience."
There's no such thing as a cross-cultural form of communication understood by all people. Even signs and symbols have pre-determined cultural associations. Compare the swastika as used in Nazi Germany to the swastika as used by the Navajo people, for example. Some might say music, but even music without vocals can only convey emotions, not ideas.
The Bible says that Christians should bless when cursed, love when hated, and pray for those who persecute us. It also tells us not to judge those outside the Church, because it's God's job, not ours. Wives and husbands should serve each other. I fail to see how that is a wrong way to treat women and homosexuals, or anyone else, really.For example, it is conscience that has told us that the Bible is wrong and Slavery should have been condemned. It is conscience that is telling us that the Bible has been wrong about the way women and homosexuals should be treated.