I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect translation. The translators were not divinely inspired in the same capacity as the Bible authors.
But what about the "original" text? (Obviously, the autographs no longer exist, so we are talking about copies of copies of copies, etc. from the original text, hereafter called simply "original" for simplicity.)
The original languages included Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, and Greek, with dashes of loanwords from other Semitic languages such as Phoenician, Canaanite, etc.
With respect to the Hebrew text, it was meticulously preserved by the Jewish scribes. Mistakes in copying were not tolerated: more than one or two on a single page-worth of text and the entire manuscript would be discarded and rewritten. Such was the integrity of the copyists that they would not even correct misspellings--whatever their "original" manuscript contained would be copied
exactly as it was--although they might add a marginal note to indicate they believed it should be different. These marginal notes are what inform us today of their fastidious ethic and high standard for accuracy.
I have heard it said, but have not yet researched this aspect carefully, that there are only about 17 variances of any significance in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Old Testament.
The New Testament, however, is a different story. Various manuscript copies exist, with quite some significant alterations among them. Edits, some appearing to be quite intentional with an eye to doctrinal change, have been done on the Greek text--even before it gets translated to the various versions we read in English today. One salient example, in my mind, is the change of the word "hiuos" ("son") to "theos" ("god") in John 1:18 in at least one Greek manuscript, which is then followed by many modern translations to create a self-contradictory translation that says "the only God" is at the Father's side! (See the ESV translation, for example.)
Erasmus, in his day, did faithful and careful work in compiling the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Ellen White appears to commend him for his work, but says something quite interesting regarding the accuracy of the text.
. . . In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. {GC 245.1}
While "many errors...were corrected," she does not say they all were. We can know that some remain. Unless, however, we have a clear Biblical basis by which to identify the errors, it should not be our work to look for them. The less attention given to supposed errors, the better; yet no one should be so dogmatic as to claim there are none.
