I'll first like to say I have not read any of the replies to the original post
I am lazy, but this thread does raise a interesting question of how the bible (and I suppose other holy scriptures) should be interpreted.
It is interesting to note the largest Christian Church, the Catholic Church, has in my opinion had a strange historical position on this sort of thing. On one hand, it has up until relatively recent been somewhat unconformable with not only the laity owning the Bible, but also with translations and interpretation of the Bible. While on the other hand, it wanted to help spread the word of Jesus; Which seems paradoxical to me at best.
During the medieval era in England, a struggle began over translating the Bible from Latin into a language that everyone could understand, in other words English. England was quite late in getting a vernacular bible. At the time John Wycliffe viewed the English translations by the Catholic Church as too condensed if not biased. He wanted everyone to be able to interpret it for themselves. At the time, most Christians only encountered the Bible orally in Latin; the problem was only the very rich and educated could read and understand Latin.
John Wycliffe was a radical who challenged many theological aspects of the Catholic church; for example, Mass, the idea that one could be trusted to read the Bible for themselves, and most importantly Magisterium. The Vatican's response was to declare his followers, the Lollardy (which was considered derogatory);Wycliffe's Bible was banned, and possession of his Bible was punishable by burning at the stake. As for John Wycliffe himself, he had like Martin Luther some powerful supporters; he was shielded by John of Gaunt and Oxford University (where as Martin Luther had Frederick III). After his death John Wycliffe his body was exhumed on the Pope orders and his bones were burnt.
It was not until 150 years or so later, during the reign of Henry VIII, that a combination of things happened that lead to the English translation of the Bible. Firstly, Martin Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church with the aim of reforming it rather than splitting it. Secondly, William Tyndale was inspired by Martin Luther to translate the first English translation to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. Most ironically, he was forced into exile from England during the reign of Henry VIII, as unlike Martin Luther and John Wycliffe he did not really have any powerful supporters. He went to Belgium and made a living from smuggling his very own Bible's. He was eventually betrayed by a English clergyman, held in some random castle near Brussels, before he was strangled to death and his dead body was burnt. Thirdly, the Catholic Church by annoying Henry VIII for not letting him divorce from Catherine of Aragon. It is worth noting Henry VIII seems to have never became a Protestant, advocated the fundamentals of Catholicism for throughout his life, and for much of his reign he brutally suppressed the Protestant reformation of the church. He was willing to tolerate Protestantism after he was excommunicated; Even as far as letting, the Archbishop of Canterbury, not only recommended that people read Tyndale’s Bible, but forced every parish in the country to have a copy.
The point I am trying to make, with the historical context, is the ability of one to translate and interpret the bible has led to some very profound theological questions. It has ultimately led to what is the greatest tragedy in Christianity, the fragmentation of Christianity in to a ridiculous amount of denominations; it was the other day I heard the Anglican's in North American have seem to have split into two. I think there would be much more proactive theological debates if Christian denominations just let people translate and interpret the bible freely, for being one of the best if not the best the philosophy. I not only talking about the Catholic Church, Protestants can just as bad; The 'King James Only' movement for example. I can't comment on the particular bibles in regards to the original post in this thread as I have not read them. That said, I don't really see the problem with translating the bible as long keeps the fundamental message of Christianity; love, tolerance, and having faith in Jesus.*
*Everyone feel free to disregard the last paragraph, as it's highly debatable if I am even a Christian at all. I have never had that much of a problem with Jesus' actual teachings. That said, I have a tremendous anarchistic disposition, therefore, I hate any religious establishment on principle. I view the term 'Christian Leader' as oxymoronic. Much like communists, Christians don't have a living leader; their leader is both 
and dead.
