The 1917 JPS Tanakh renders the name “Molech”. And these are not in and of themselves Hebrew names, but transliterations from other languages. So what got “mistranslated” from what?
—
Of course a Bible site is going to reference the name as Moloch, but that has nothing to do with the translation of the written name: mlk from Ugarit or Canaanite or Phoenicio-Punic; all of which preceded the translations of the Bible from Aramaic or Hebrew, to Latin to Old English to Middle English to modern English - take your pick of which language got it wrong and when.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch
“Since 1935 scholars have debated whether the term (mlk) instead refers to a type of sacrifice on the basis of a similar term, also spelled as mlk, used to mean “sacrifice” in the Punic language. This second position has grown increasingly popular but remains contested. Among proponents of this second position, controversy continues as to whether the sacrifices were offered to Yahweh or another deity, and whether they were a native Israelite religious custom or a Phoenician import.
“The notion that Moloch refers to a deity has been challenged for several reasons. Moloch is rarely mentioned in the Bible, is not mentioned at all outside of it, and connections to other deities with similar names are uncertain. Moreover, it is possible that some of the supposed deities named Mlk are epithets for another god, given that mlk can also mean “king”. The Israelite rite conforms, on the other hand, to the Punic mlk rite in that both involved the sacrifice of children. None of the proposed gods Moloch could be identified with is associated with human sacrifice, the god Mlk of Ugarit appears to have only received animal sacrifice, and the mlk sacrifice is never offered to a god name Mlk but rather to another deity.”