So I've noticed that people tend to use "translation" as a catch-all for various parts of the transmission and use of the Bible. Let me just give a short rundown what translation doesn't mean:

Transmission (I know, I already used it). Transmission is how the text got from when it was written to today. This especially involves the copying of manuscripts. At times, this may involve translation at times (e.g. the Septuagint), but they are distinct.

Interpretation. This is the process of determining what the text means, which could range from what it mean in a historical context to personal meanings. This may also involve translation, in this case done by the interpreter; but again, they are distinct.

Application. This is the process of determining how a text affects various aspects of theology, primarily ethics or practical theology. Translation is not usually involved.

What is translation? Translation is determining the meaning of the source language (e.g. Greek) and replicating it as best as you can I'm a target language (e.g. English).

Ergo, it's not accurate to say that the Bible has been "translated over and over" as though that affects the reliability of the Bible; generally, translations do not use other translations as source texts. This probably refers to transmission, especially copying.

It also isn't correct to say that "scribes translated the text accurately" again, this is referring to copying.

It is also often not true that there are "many different translations" as though that makes the text impossible to interpret; in many cases, differences between translations are insignificant, and a lot of interpretation starts with the source text, bypassing the problem.