One potential issue is that some English words have changed meaning since it was written, and sometimes in extremely confusing or misleading ways. For instance 'convenient' and 'prevent' used to have radically different meanings.

"Convenient" isn't that different, meant "fitting" back then

I mean I think that's _very_ different. It is _fitting_ to do good works, but it is _convenient_ not to bother.

The NIV has as a stated goal to preserve the "infallibility" of the Bible, which means their translation opts for internal consistency over accuracy. I personally think it's the least trustworthy translation, a product specifically of the American evangelical movement in the Boomer heyday. The generation that really hates. The one that supercharged the anti-abortion movement as a direct response to the Supreme Court striking down racial discrimination in (private) schools that receive taxpayer monies.

This is all the same group. Bin the NIV.

Meh, the text isn't setting the attitude -hence, people railing against homosexuality while wearing polycotton slacks. The issue is susceptibility to dogma, which is an attack vector. An attacker uses this to gain root, then they can pivot by editing the creed.

The downside is it was translated in the 1600s with the tools, knowledge and manuscripts available to them at the time. We just have a lot more now.

Also there are things that are just bad translations even for the era -- the KJV mentions unicorns 9 times, often in weird comparisons like "the strength of a unicorn" -- whatever the Hebrew original meant (many scholars think it was referring to wild cattle known as aurochs), it certainly didn't mean a unicorn out of Western mythology.