Most people don’t know it but there was a lot of “hanky/panky” going on between the different Jewish sects when translating from ancient greek of the OT into latin. Many are brainwashed into thinking the KJV is the one and only record of the , as the scholars say, the ancients.
Believe as you wish. KJV was great for hundreds of years, until the many Very Recent translations that change things subtly, often times limiting Jesus’ divinity. After all, the coming beast WILL need a bible for himself. Wonder which one he’ll choose. Prolly not the KJV.
I have more faith in God than I have of the different Jewish sects...
God says he will preserve His word, forever...I don't think a few Jewish sects tripped Him up...
I suspect a substantial proportion of those on FR knew there was, as you say, a little “hanky/panky” going on when translating the New Testament to get the well-known Vulgate Bible. However, the intentional and inappropriate insertions are few, and the Vulgate was for the most part a sincere effort to work from the best available Greek manuscripts of primarily the second century AD (including reference to Origen Adamantius' work) as a revision of the even more flawed "Old Latin" text. As for the Vulgate Old Testament, the older manuscripts that Jerome used whenever possible were in Hebrew/Aramaic (the Tanakh), and Greek (the Septuagint) was only a last resort. The Vulgate as far as I knew did a good job on the OT, other than the debate over whether to include what Jerome himself referred to and thoroughly documented as the apocrypha. Regarding the quality of St. Jerome's Vulgate translation, we have plenty of Greek manuscripts that were completely unaffected, which allow us to see and correct deviations.
As you might guess, I'm a fan of the Vulgate in concept and as a remarkable work for mostly one man. I'm also a fan of the KJV, which has a majestic, poetic brilliance well beyond the archaic language. I don't see KJV as the only possible "true" translation, but I see it as an excellent work. The big question in translation is how far to deviate from a word-for-word rendering. Too literal is unreadable or awkward, and too free a paraphrase may blur or change critical aspects of the meaning. When I read Aramaic or Greek side by side with the KJV, I think the translators in almost every passage did a miraculously good job. [Note: I am going from memory, since I don't have the relevant materials with me, and I apologize if there are any "oopsies" in my comments above]