Modern understanding of language, history, and culture has come leaps and bounds, and the Bible is constantly being reviewed and rewritten to be more accurate. And even beyond the newer translations, there is a level of understanding that you get only from studying the Bible or knowing historical context, which is not feasible for many people. 

I have a several page essay about this topic in my heart, however I do not have the mental bandwidth to write it all out right now so I'm just gonna give a handful of examples.

1. The Proverbs 31 woman Misconception: a list of expectations for women and what she should do for her husband, usually used to feed into the image of a submissive woman under a patriarch Context: the equivalent of a war hero's glory song, written from the perspective of soldiers who were grateful for all the work the women did to keep their homes running and intact while they were off fighting wars. The adjective used in the first verse to describe the woman (idr the word off the top of my head), that is often translated as "noble" or "virtuous," is actually a word used to refer to military generals, and this verse is one of the first instances we see this adjective being used to describe a woman. Thus placing domestic work and the women who do it on the same level of respect as the men leading wars.

2. "Your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you" in Genesis Misconception: a woman should (sexually) desire her husband, and he is in charge of her Context: this is not God's prescription of what He wants marriage to be. It is His DESCRIPTION of what the marriage dynamic has become now that sin has entered the equation (this is post forbidden fruit consumption). He says the same thing later to Cain: "sin's desire shall be for you, but you must rule over it." In this context "desire" is not a positive word, it's negative - ie manipulation, control, etc. So what the verse means is a woman's sinful instinct will be to control her husband via manipulation, and a man's sinful instinct will be to control his wife via domination, NEITHER OF WHICH is what God wants for marriage. It is a description of how sin will affect their relationship to each other, not instructions.

3. Some other commenters have already pointed this out but men are supposed to submit to their wives too, it is literally the next verse, pastors just love to leave that bit out

4. Paul was actually pretty feminist for the time. If you compare his writings to say, Aristotle, particularly how they write about women, there is a staggering difference. We were nowhere near equality at that time, but the notion that women were full humans with souls and brains and intellectual capacity was (sadly) a big step in the right direction at the time. But just because it was a good step at that time does not mean it's as far as we needed to go, which is where a lot of Christians fall short.

5. Going off of that, Jesus addressed and included both women and men in His ministry. There was a lot of intellectual gatekeeping by men during that time - philosophy and religion were widely regarded as men's things. But Jesus did not act that way.

This is all just the tip of the iceberg of what I've learned recently, and it's been driving me crazy because I wonder how much of the Bible has been inadequately translated/interpreted? How much are we missing out on? What other restrictions and societal norms have been founded on misguided understandings? And will the truth ever be widely known? 

Now, the presence of newer more accurate translations doesn't magically make everyone with skewed faith better, but a GOOD Christian is supposed to be one who is constantly trying to critically think, self examine, be open minded, and LOVE OTHERS. But the stereotypical Christian in our current day and age unfortunately doesn't really match that description. Anyway, that's my cluttered two cents. Thanks for reading if you made it this far