Some translators hold false doctrine (for example, John Nelson Darby in relation to baptism). Should this influence our view and use of their translation?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘Documentary Evidence, Textual Criticism and Translation’ (2007).

Not necessarily. We have to test all things and hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The dear Authorised Version, for instance—I love it and respect it—but if you compare our AV with Tyndale's version you will notice that the AV made various changes. In Tyndale's version when he came across the word ekklēsia he translated it 'congregation': 'Christ loved the congregation and gave himself for her.' Tyndale wanted to stress that when the Greek talked about the ekklēsia, the church, it doesn't mean the building it means the people. So he put 'Christ loved the congregation'. King James had it translated back to 'Christ loved the church', and appointed the Authorised Version to be read in churches! Not elsewhere, in your little conventicles. So you will scarcely find a translation that isn't motivated in some area or another. We have to learn to respect people and allow for their particular emphases and so forth. To say, 'I am not going to use the Authorised because of the views of some of the translators,' would seem to me to be highly unwise.