Which Translation Shoud We Trust?

Received the following...

I do not know if you have this e-book or not but is very handy to keep for a reference.

Which Translation Should You Trust?

A Defence Of The Authorized King James Version Of 1611
Chapter V

by Timothy S. Morton

Are We Too Critical?
Some may think we are being too critical of our fundamentalist brethren since some are soul-winners and experienced preachers (as Mr. Rice). Let them remember, however, that no matter how godly, devoted, or educated a person may be, this in no way equips him to stand in judgment on the scriptures. Since God has magnified His word above His own name (Psalm 138:2!), no mere human should even think about passing judgment on them or on God's ability to preserve them. The author read the works of many of these "authorities" (like Mr. Rice's book above) soon after his conversion and was persuaded by their "scholarship" that the King James Version contained many errors and was not the best Bible (or even the second best) to use for "serious study." He swallowed their "only the original manuscripts are inspired" mentality and abandoned the Authorized Version as his final authority. They took his one infallible Bible away and put several conflicting "reliable translations" in its place! And since the translations they recommended contradicted each other in many places, this left him in a void WITHOUT a written final authority. It was nearly three years later before God could convince him of the fallacy of this position.
This does not mean that a believer should not follow what is scriptural in the lives of these men (soul-winning, prayer, etc.), but only that he should not be gullible enough to follow them when they correct the Bible. Follow them where they follow Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), and where they do not follow Christ (and His word), ABANDON THEM! A TRUE Bible scholar is one who uses his knowledge and education to DEFEND the Bible. Many who claim scholarship, however, use their education as a basis to QUESTION it. Unfortunately, in this age of apostasy, there are more of the latter than the former.

Furthermore, the reader should not think the author does not believe the "fundamentals of the faith" just because of the way he speaks of "fundamentalists." He not only believes all the fundamentals, he also believes the book they came out of (KJV)! A true Bible Believer believes the entire Bible (KJV), not just some truths extracted from it.

Can God Use "Sinners" To Preserve His Word?
When one considers the above reason the scholars give for manuscript copies not being preserved without flaw their situation becomes even more ludicrous. They will admit the original human writers were "sinners" and that God used them to produce an infallible text, but they will not allow other sinners to be used in preserving that text. If God can use a sinner to write His pure word, why can't He use one to preserve it? Also, what possible reason could He have for giving His word by inspiration and having it written down and then allowing it to be hopelessly corrupted? When the scholars are confronted with questions like this they will usually produce some Greek texts that were miss-copied by someone centuries ago and say, "We have proof that manuscripts have been corrupted." This, however, does not prove that ALL the manuscripts have been. And if one believes God meant what He said, he knows that some have not been. God did not have to guarantee that all the manuscripts had to be perfect anyway, only that His word would be preserved in some manner in pure form. The reader will find as we go along that it is much easier, safer, and more logical to take God at His word than follow the reasoning of the "doctors."