This objection is only raised by people who neither know a second language, nor know anything about the Bible.
Sometimes objections like this can be refuted (well, silenced at any rate) merely by pointing out that the person who raises the objection cannot possibly be in a position to know this. Sometimes just asking for an example is enough.
You can make this point in a clever and powerful way by memorizing a simple passage in several languages and then ask the objector for his opinion. Here’s an example:
You know, Mr Objector, John 3:16 in Greek says, “ekhay zowayn ayownon”, the Latin has “habeat vitam aeternam” - but the King James has “have everlasting life” while the NIV reads “have eternal life”. In your opinion, what do you think is the best translation of “ayownon”?
Also, it can be silenced by pointing out that the argument just doesn’t add up. Does anyone really think that Jews and Christians are so stupid that they would rely on translations of translations and so on, while this would cause intolerable variations among those who use the Bible in their religions?
Even Catholics only use a translation of a translation, but go no further. We have an English Bible that was translated from the Latin translation made by St Jerome, which he in turn made from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Bibles. You can do the same with these:
*You’re right, Mr Objector. A lot gets lost in translation. In fact, John 14:35 is “edakrusen ho Yaysous” in Greek, the Latin translation of that is “et lacrimatus est Iesus”, and the Catholic English translation-of-a-translation made from the Latin goes “And Jesus wept”. The word “edakrusen” became “wept”! Isn’t that hilarious? “Edakrusen”! I mean, what were they thinking? :rotfl: But seriously, how would **you *translate it?