Nitpicking the KJV to death / one English word for one Greek word?

Joined briefly in a discussion at KJV Only Debate , where I quickly discovered I really have no place in such a debate. They seem to be focused on taking apart the KJV, which is very far from my interests and beyond my abilities to answer.

The question that was raised in this case involved the KJV translators' use of three different English words words for the Greek "eis," asking how we are to understand their choices, suggesting it would be better to have just one English word for one Greek word.

For example, when reading verses about baptism, John baptized unto (eis) repentance and preached the baptism of repentance for (eis) the remission of sins. Peter preached that people should be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins. Paul said we are baptized into (eis) Christ, and that Israel was baptize unto (eis) Moses.

So I pondered it and came up with the following thoughts on it:

Being baptized UNTO repentance suggests that the baptism is because of the repentance. I said something more vague on the debate site but I now think there's something of fulfillment implied in the "unto" -- repentance is the reason for the baptism.

There isn't a really good parallel between this use of "unto" and that for Israel's being baptised UNTO Moses, though, except to say that "unto" must be allowed its nuances just as "eis" must.

The baptism of repentance FOR the remission of sins seems to be saying it's for the sake of / for the purpose of / for the cause of the remission of sins.

Same with baptism for the remission of sins.

Being baptised INTO Christ is probably the easiest one to understand as it reflects the believer's unity with Christ, and the idea that we are baptised into His death.

As for Israel being baptised UNTO Moses, they certainly weren't baptised INTO Moses as he isn't the Savior, or FOR Moses as if it were somehow for his sake, but UNTO him as their representative and leader.

The meanings would no doubt have been more easily understood in the time of the translation, but even if I'm not quite in tune with them it seems to me that using just one English word in all those places wouldn't work. I can't think which one of the three would do the job at all.

This is a question for the KJV translators themselves or for someone with their degree of expertise, who most likely doesn't exist today. It's not a question for a bunch of amateurs who can only guess at such things, and I don't think such amateurs should be questioning the KJV translators on such things anyway.

The very idea that only one English word should be used for one Greek word shows a lack of understanding of language. Languages hardly ever have a one-to-one correspondence of meaning between them like that. A word in one language may have so many nuances it requires many words in another to convey its various senses. This is no less true of tribal languages that have no literature than the languages of civilization. Forcing subtle differences of meaning into one arbitary term doesn't serve the needs of a translation. Yet apparently this is what Westcott and Hort did, according to Burgon. The word "sophomoric" comes to mind.

I believe the first thing that needs to be addressed in the Bible versions debate is the disaster brought on the Church by Westcott and Hort's use of corrupted Greek texts, along with their substitution of English terms chosen clearly with a desire only to distance their Bible from the KJV -- change for change's sake as Burgon recognized. Only after the disaster is fully recognized should the KJV's faults be considered at all. And then this should be the job of people qualified for the task and appointed by the Church, not a bunch of amateurs. It should be done by men who have really SOAKED in the languages involved, preferably all their lives, who've read all their literature etc. etc. Unfortunately there probably aren't any such qualified men these days.

===========
Follow-up comment: As I've continued discussing this with Pastor Jason S I've become clearer that his main concern is a pastoral one -- how to teach his people from KJV texts that are hard to understand, which he thinks in some cases is the fault of the translation. That may be so, or it may just be the expectable problems with difficult texts that no translation could ever be perfect enough to eliminate -- and there are some texts it even seems that God WANTS us to struggle with. Even if a translation was done faithfully to every conceivable standard it could nevertheless still not be completely easy for everyone to understand; in fact given the nature of God and the variety of human minds that seems a lot to ask. Nevertheless it could be something that should be changed in the KJV, I just think there isn't anyone around with the qualifications, the right authority and the undoubted trustworthiness these days to do that so it's up to the individual to make of it what he will, even using a modern version for comparison if necessary of course.

In any case, this is really a completely different concern from mine which is about the qualifications of the different Bible versions as such, whether the Greek texts were corrupted, whether Westcott and Hort violated their commitment to do the most minimal revision, and so on.