This is utter nonsense. Paul did not write in Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language in the first century, it was only read in the synagogue. Yes, Paul studied Hebrew, but Greek and Aramaic were the common languages. In fact, the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BC, because once Alexander conquered the world, he replaced all languages with Greek. People could no longer understand Hebrew, so it was translated into Greek, so it was accessible again. That's 300 years BEFORE Christ.
There are NO extant manuscripts of the NT books in Hebrew found anywhere. There are 4 schools of Greek manuscripts, and we have over 6000 parts or whole texts dating from the 2nd century to about the 15th century. Luke was a Greek physician. He wrote to another Greek - Theophilus for Acts and Luke. Why on earth would he have used Hebrew? The only possible book in the NT that could possibly have been written in Hebrew was Matthew, who wrote to the Jews. Yet, no copies have ever been found in Hebrew, because they didn't exist. As I said earlier, the Hellenization of the world worked - and everyone spoke Greek.
A single language spoken in the world, was also a sign of the coming of the time of Christ. It made the spread of the gospel much easier. Everyone spoke Greek, including the Romans. It was the best time in history for the gospel to be shared in the known world!
So, no, Luke did not write in Hebrew, and it is doubtful any of the NT writers did, or surely there would be copies? Even the Jews were losing their Hebrew totally later on. So, the Masoretic OT was not written until the 8th-10th century AD. Because the Hebrew pronunciations were getting lost, they figured out the Nicky dot vowels to put above, below and beside the consonants, so the sounds and the various verb forms would not be lost.
So your whole theory that translations are inspired is also nonsense. Certainly, the KJV, with all its mistakes and additions could never be considered as inspired in the way the original autographs in their languages were.