There was a time when Christianity was whatever the elite wanted it to be. If you couldn't read Latin, Hebrew, or Greek, you probably didn't have access to a Bible. This was the heretic's dream world. "You can't read it, but I can, therefore you just have to trust me about what it says."
Then the printing press was invented, the Reformation happened, and now the chances are if you speak anything but Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, you have access to a Bible you can read, at least in the Western world. But many false teachers choose to forego this privilege, and they hope you will too. Rather than encouraging you to read what God's word says, they instead insist that God's word still only exists in the original languages, and that translations, in the words of the blasphemer who inspired this particular article, "have zero authority".
Their reasoning is that you can never have a perfect translation. No language is perfectly equivalent to another. And indeed, there are many minor problems with translations. However, there is no thought a human being can have that he cannot also communicate. Anything that is written in one language can be conveyed in another.
The irony is that these heretics actually prove it's impossible for a translation to have zero authority, because they cannot promote their view without providing their "translation". If you walk up to me and say "hey, Brian, you're wrong about this doctrine, because the Bible actually says >insert Hebrew phrase here<", that's not going to tell me anything about why you think I'm wrong. Why? Because I don't speak Hebrew. I'm monolingual. I know the language I learned as an infant, but I couldn't even pretend to have a basic grasp on any other language.
So, in order to tell me what you think the Bible actually teaches, you have to translate it into the language I already read it in. Therefore, you cannot claim that the translations I read are less authoritative without admitting that translation itself does not remove meaning or authority. Thus, what you are really saying is "my personal translation is more authoritative than yours".
But here's the thing: Most translations were done by whole groups of experts. More than that, they all say pretty much the same thing. There is no doctrine I hold to that I have to use a specific version to defend. To defend the doctrine of Creation, I can switch from the KJV to the HCSB without altering my argument. For the doctrine of Marriage, I can use the ESV or the NIV. For the Doctrine of the Trinity, I don't need the NKJV, I can just as easily use the RSV. I can even afford to switch to the translation the heretic prefers, like when I sometimes use the NABRE, a common Roman Catholic translation, to argue against Roman Catholicism. If there was any doctrine I held to that I needed a specific translation to defend, I wouldn't try to defend it.
And so the heretic has to come up with a very specific reason their personal translation is better than the English translations available to me. I can have a reasonable faith in the English translations available to me, because aside from the fact multiple scholars from multiple denominations usually work on just one translation, each translation usually agrees with all the rest. And actually, the whole concept of translation began with men who gave their lives so that "the boy that driveth the plough" would know the Scriptures. What possible motive would men like Tyndale have for giving their lives just to produce a translation they know is false or biased?
But the false teacher's motive is clear. If you can make me doubt my Bible, you can sell me yours. It's a classic manipulation technique. But the truth is, the Bible you have in English is probably more than sufficient. Obviously, there are corrupt translations, such as the NWT, the Queen James Bible, and the Passion Translation. But these are so obviously wrong, and you can prove it just by comparing them to other translations. Some of them, such as the aforementioned Queen James Bible, are even explicitly created with the intention of conveying a specific message. These are the exception, not the rule.