Counter-Intuition: Assumptions About Bible Translations That Are Just Isn't So

Assumption: Bibles are the same if they have the same meaning
Root assumption: Specific words are unimportant as long they get the meaning across
Counter: The Bible says God preserved the words, not meaning or ideas
Counter: Changing just one word in any text can drastically even completely reverse the meaning of said text. (Adding a "not" in Genesis 1:1 will completely destroy the meaning of the whole Bible)

Assumption: Only original languages are holy
Root assumption: God made the original languages only
Counter: God made all languages at the Tower of Babel

Assumption: Bible translations can never be inspired, inerrant, preserved, etc.
Root assumption: Bible translations are removed from the divine process
Counter: The Bible's original languages already has been translated en route. The Bible in Jesus' day was a translation of Aramaic, not the Hebrew. The New Testament uses Greek translated Old Testament references. All of these translations were inspired.

Assumption: Jesus/Paul/etc. didn't use the KJV/a translation
Root assumption: There was no translation before the Bible was completed
Counter: Jesus read from an Aramaic translation (of Isaiah) of the Hebrew Bible in the Gospels. We also see the apostles mention Aramaic words in OT quotes, not Hebrew.
Counter: So if Jesus used a translation, He doesn't need to use the KJV, point is, translations were used.

Assumption: There is no proper way to translate the Bible so scholars have to do so
Root assumption: Bible translations has never been done in Bible times.
Counter: Bible translation has been done in Bible times, and we can pattern the our Bible translation after them. For example, we know how the apostles translated the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament references to Greek in the New Testament

Assumption: Bible translations can never be better than the original
Root assumption: Originals are always better
Root assumption: Translations are never mentioned in the Bible
Counter: Adam the original and Enoch the translated. The Bible uses the same words for inspiration of humanity as the same inspiration for the Word of God and hence we can make the leap that the translation of Enoch is in the same vein as inspiration and translation for text.

Assumption: Only the originals are perfect
Root assumption: The originals were perfect
Counter: The originals were not perfect, or rather, they were perfect for their time and time only.
Counter: God destroys the original writings in Jeremiah, and many like words were added.
Counter: The Bible says that patience has her perfect work. Nowhere do we see anything in the Bible instantly completely perfect (perfect as in both in form and maturity) without a time period of testing, trial, and purification. Jesus was born a baby, and had to grow in favor with God and man first, before going into ministry.

Assumption: No Bible translation can be the perfect Word of God because that means people before its translation didn't have the perfect Word of God
Root assumption: There can't be a progression because it is monolithic
Counter: There is a progression. God didn't give the whole original Bible at once, either. Revelation didn't come with Genesis. The Old Testament books were enough for the Jews for their time. The New Testament was added because it was enough for the Church for their time. It was collected all in one even long after he apostles' death in one place.
Root assumption: If there was no perfect Word of God back then, then the Bibles they had back then didn't do much
Counter: The Bibles they had were enough for them in their time period for what God wanted it to do
Counter: Jesus the perfect Word didn't come until many thousands of years later. Why didn't He come earlier to save?

Assumption: Bible translation beyond the original languages reduces the meaning of the originals
Root assumption: Reducing meaning is bad
Counter: Reducing meaning is good as it makes the language more specific.
Counter: (see below)

Assumption: Bible translations need to have word-for-word equivalency
Root assumption: Languages have only one word-to-word equivalency
Counter: They don't. However, translating always niches down to the correct specific word needed to be used. For example, we see the apostles translate Hebrew to Greek in more specific, specialized words or to more generic words but with less synonyms. For example, Hebrew Elohim can refer to God, gods, kings, angels, judges. Greek translates some to God, some to others, according to context. Hence translations should niche down to specific wording, instead of wider meaning. 

Assumption: Bible translations lose the force of the original languages
Root assumption: The force of the original languages is necessary (Contradicting the updated relevancy assumption)
Counter: Bible translations need the full force of the translated language, not the original language.

Assumption: Bible translations need to be relevant and updated to the modern speaker
Root assumption: Bible translations need to be updated for relevancy, not accuracy
Counter: The Bible in fact acknowledges archaic language even in light of modern words in I Samuel (seer versus prophet, where the book says prophet is the modern word, but continues to use archaic seer). There are times when archaic words are more accurate than modern words.
Counter: The main Bible versions have always been translated into the earliest, most basic form of languages. For example, early form Hebrew for OT, early form Aramaic for Daniel and translation, and koine Greek for New Testament, a Greek 400 years older from the apostles' time. And in that same vein, the English of 1611 is a language 400 years removed from us today, and even earlier.

Assumption: There can be more than one Bible version in any language and it still be the Word of God
Root assumption: There were multiple versions of other languages accepted as God's Word
Counter: There is only one version of Hebrew accepted. There is only one version of Aramaic translation of that Hebrew accepted. There is only one version of Greek translation of that Hebrew and Aramaic accepted. Hence it follows that there can only be one version for one language.