I believe the Bible is God's Word. I believe in Biblical Infallibility. But there is a catch. I believe in the infallibility of the original text. Translations and translators may not be infallible. Especially where the original text uses a word, but a translator uses the same word in two (or more) differant ways.
An example would be Acts 12:4, where the word passover is translated as Easter by the KJV. I know there are those who will defend this usage by saying the Jews kept Easter. My question is, then why didn't Luke say so? Did the translators know more than Luke, who wrote the book of Acts?
Most of us are not going to become scholars in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so we can understand the original Bible texts. But many people have, and when they produce a Bible, they often put the original words in brackets. The Scofield, for example, does a great job of this. Now we can all be experts. The original translation is preserved, as in the 1611 Authorized or King James Bible. I use one of these.
Some will say, Why not leave it alone? The King James has beauty and power. What Bible has done so much and continues to do so? None that I know of.
I want both, really. With the original text in brackets though, I can be rid of Easter and Hell. The original text does that for me. We still have the beautiful language of Shakespear's time, only without these concepts. Could these wonderful people have had a secret agenda in their translation, to promote these false concepts?