Translations have both their benefits and their drawbacks. The benefit is that you do not have to learn the original languages to know the will of the Lord. The drawback is that some things can get lost in translation. There is no such thing as a perfect translation, especially between languages as radically different as Hebrew, Greek, and English.
Some heretics use this to their advantage. They know that if you study the Bible, you'll never draw their conclusions, but if they can convince you that, actually, the English language diminishes their view, but the original language supports them, they have an advantage.
There are several ways to nullify this advantage, the best of which would be to just learn the original languages yourself. If you can do this, go for it. But of course, not everyone has this opportunity. It's both expensive and time consuming. Thankfully, though not everyone does, people from every worldview do. For every scholar who tells you "the original Bible actually said (xyz)", you will be able to find at least one other to disagree with them (and the chances are most will).
English speakers are especially blessed in this regard. We don't need to run around looking for what various scholars say about specific Bible verses, because we have a plethora of translations. One thing you'll notice about heretics is that, aside from the fact they will tell you what they think the original language says in English, they will do so in a way that conflicts with every reputable* translation that has ever been produced. If there is any merit to their claim, at least one foot note in one reputable translation would highlight this, yet I find every time someone tells me "you're wrong because you read it in English instead of the original languages", their view is nowhere to be seen in any translation I have access to.
But by far the most hilarious flaw in this kind of argument is that, 9 times out of 10, the view being discussed was actually in existence long before the English language even existed. Sure, I could believe the bread and wine are symbolic of Christ's flesh and blood because there's no way to say "this is literally my flesh" and "this is literally my blood" (oh, look at that, turns out there is), but what about Origen? Somehow, I doubt he spoke much English, and so his view that the bread and wine are symbolic of the crucifixion cannot be attributed to the English language. Likewise, while I may not speak Hebrew, Josephus didn't speak a word of English, but he still thought Moses taught 6 days of creation. The Trinity is an especially interesting example, as an anti-Trinitarian once told me that the world's top scholar on Greek supports his anti-Trinitarian views. Tell me, when was the doctrine of the Trinity established, by anti-Trinitarian reckoning? Setting aside the Jewish literature regarding the Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity was quite well known before English came to be.
I could go on. I don't think there are many views I hold that I haven't heard the "original languages" response to at some point. You would think God was too incompetent to foresee a time when Greek and Hebrew would be minority languages... Thankfully, He wasn't, and so the translations we have today are quite sufficient for a faithful Christian to study the faith. Those who appeal to the original languages, more often than not, don't even speak them, but those who translated the Bible, more often than not, do. So, assuming you lack the opportunity to study the original languages yourself, don't panic. Just prayerfully and diligently study in the language you know, and let God sort the rest out.
*By reputable, I mean translated by at least one, preferably more qualified individual/s, rather than just some dude with an agenda.