All understanding of a communication is biased by the recipient (reader/listener), and translation necessarily compounds this by filtering the message the translator understands again though the translator’s own understanding, preferences, and style with regard to the target language.
EDIT: Of course, with a religious work where you’ve waved off human fallibility in authorship and compilation by simply denying that those were human acts, but instead adopting doctrine that they were divine acts through human instruments, you can just do the same for your preferred translation and the problem is neatly solved, at least within your doctrinal framework.
Even the sender of a communication may be a source of error by phrasing something different from what they meant to convey.
From not communicating in one’s native tongue or not learning one’s native language well enough to simple brain-farts - there are numerous things that can lead to miscommunication on the sender side, too.
Communication of complicated concepts is just incredibly lossy every step of the way.
All understanding of a communication is biased by the recipient (reader/listener), and translation necessarily compounds this by filtering the message the translator understands again though the translator’s own understanding, preferences, and style with regard to the target language.
EDIT: Of course, with a religious work where you’ve waved off human fallibility in authorship and compilation by simply denying that those were human acts, but instead adopting doctrine that they were divine acts through human instruments, you can just do the same for your preferred translation and the problem is neatly solved, at least within your doctrinal framework.