As English speakers living in the 21st century, we have easy, even free access to the Bible, on demand, and in our own language. To a diligent student, this is a great blessing, and one might even say an advantage over generations past, where previously, only the "elite" could access the Bible with such ease. But to many opponents of Christianity, the variety of translations either shows that Christianity is impossible to study with confidence, or even that it has been flat out changed.
On the one hand, they claim it is impossible to study with confidence, because the view you will come to hold may be dependent upon the translation you use. This, they claim, may even result in it being impossible to study the authentic Christian faith, because it's nigh impossible to perfectly translate any document from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic.
Other conspiracy theorists take it a step further, claiming that translations are quite deliberately designed to alter the faith. This particular argument comes from both outside the faith, and within. Of course, atheists in particular, closely followed by Muslims, will take any opportunity to claim the Bible has been corrupted. The number of translations makes it fairly easy for them to do so. But adding to that are various heretical groups who claim that translating the Bible is problematic at best, and even some who, while they accept that translation is necessary, will swear allegiance to their favorite. This is especially the case with the KJV, with an entire movement declaring all other translations "New Age", and suggesting they were written for sinful purposes, whereas the KJV alone was guided by God Himself.
All of these objections can be quite easily answered academically. We can look back through history and see that the Christian faith is fundamentally identical today to its ancient counterpart. We can go to linguistic scholars and have them present a case for the accuracy of any given translation. But as I am neither a historian, nor a linguistic scholar, my testimony on these things is virtually meaningless.
One advantage I do have in this particular area is that I frequently change my primary study translation. And I say primary because even in my studies, I don't actually stick to just one. The result is that I have read the Bible, in its entirety, at least 8 times. That does not include the possibility that I lost count after the 7th, or that, by studying individual books aside from my linear readings, I may have exceeded it without knowing. Certainly, I have read Genesis, Revelation, Galatians, Romans, James, and each of the Gospels, more than 10 times each.
This is not an attempt to boast, but rather, I'm attempting to show that I "know the area", so to speak. I am in a very good position to testify that the translation you read, at least if it is among the more popular versions, will not affect your view of Christianity. Why? Simply because it didn't affect mine.
In the header image, I selected a number of translations I use. These are the KJV, NIV, ESV (my current primary), HCSB (my 2023 primary), NKJV (my 2022 primary, and current most cited on Bible Brain), NLT, and NABRE. I then answered 3 questions: "Have I read it", "Did I notice any major differences", and "Did any differences actually affect my beliefs?"
The degree to which I have read each translation may affect the weight of my testimony on each. It is, after all, entirely possible that the parts I didn't read might be corrupted. It would seem to be too much of a coincidence that the corrupted parts just happen to be the bits I missed, but it's not impossible. At any rate, I have read the KJV, NKJV, and HCSB in their entirety, and can confirm that these 3 contain no faith-altering differences.
Ironically, the NIV is the most hated version among KJVOnlyists, who suggest it is intentionally mistranslated in order to support homosexuality. However, this is the first translation I read when I first converted to the faith, during which time I was actively gay. Yet, before I ceased reading the NIV (ironically, because I became briefly convinced by KJVOnlyism), I had repented of homosexuality. Thus, this is a very specific area where I can prove, beyond dispute, that the NIV does not corrupt the Scriptures in the way KJVOnlyists claim it does. Even more ironic is the fact that many modern Liberals will claim modern translations are deliberately corrupted to seem more anti-gay.
The second question I answered is whether or not I noticed any major differences. Obviously, there would have to be some differences. Otherwise, it's not even a different translation. But I wanted to answer if there was anything majorly different. As in could I tell I was reading a different version?
The KJV, of course, iss radically different from almost every other translation I've looked at. Being so old, it's certainly not written for modern audiences. Indeed, some words have literally changed meaning since the KJV was written. Closet, instant, even unicorn, all have very different meanings in the modern day. The KJV even casually uses the word "piss" several times, even though it is now considered a cuss word.
The NLT is an anomaly among the others, mainly because of its translation style. Most of the others favor formal equivalence (i.e. "word for word"), whereas the NLT uses dynamic equivalence ("thought for thought"). The result is that it reads very differently, and quite intentionally so. It is designed to be easily read, even by younger audiences, or those less fluent in English. For example, where most English translations will render John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word...", the NLT renders it "In the beginning the Word already existed...." This still says the exact same thing, but gets the point across more clearly. This isn't a translation I would recommend, simply because it does require the translator to interpret the text rather than merely translating it, but you will notice, it doesn't change the message.
The HCSB is the one that most frequently tripped me up. There are no major differences, certainly nothing that would alter my faith, but there were enough verses where I'd be reading the passage and suddenly think "wait, doesn't it say this?", and switch to another translation to check.
The final question I asked is whether or not these differences affect my faith? The answer is a resounding no. Even the NABRE, a popular Roman Catholic version I study alongside my regular translations, doesn't move a single needle for me. I still don't believe in a Pope, or in Purgatory. I still don't pray to Mary. I'm still a firmly convinced Biblical Creationist, still an immovable Trinitarian, still believe in the eternality of Hell, and so on and so forth. Whenever I read the Bible, it doesn't matter what translation I study, I still come to the same conclusions. I learn more, of course, and particularly during the first time, I changed my views quite drastically, but that is because I'm learning the same Scripture in a different way.
With all of this in mind, I can firmly testify that the plethora of English translations of the Bible is a strength, not a weakness. It enables us to find one that suits our learning style, allowing us to get the most out of our Bible study, and thereby growing closer to God. There are bad translations, such as the New World Translation, which was produced by the Watchtower for the Watchtower. But only someone with a Watchtower background would consider this a translation, much less allow it to shape their views. By contrast, any commonly read translation will, if your heart is open to it, steer you in the right direction.