Translated bible , wrongly?

[Chuck1]

HI , I was reading a history book the other day and it said in the middle ages when monks copied out the bible mistakes were made , so my questions is .

1- since it’s the bible we use now doesn’t that mean its incorrect ?
2- if Martin Luther reformed and translated the bible into English and edit some words and phrases doesn’t that mean the reform one is right ?

3- Over time has the church corrected the wrongs of the middle ages like corruption and the mistakes in the bible so to speak ?

4-I mean it was in a school history book and everything so is the bible today right since I has been re translated into modern English or what ?

Thanks chuck

 

[Julia_Mae]

HI , I was reading a history book the other day and it said in the middle ages when monks copied out the bible mistakes were made , so my questions is .

1- since it’s the bible we use now doesn’t that mean its incorrect ?

No. It’s not like there was one big “bible repository” and a set of monks who made copies and passed them out to the world. There were copies of Scripture all over, Europe, Asia, Africa, India, and all were copied in various places from the very beginning. In modern times, scholars were able to gather ancient manuscripts in a variety of languages from around the world and compare them to the oldest Greek manuscripts and have found them remarkably accurate.

That whole thing about the monks is essentially internet mythology promoted by atheists who don’t seem to know much about the history of Scripture.

 

[triumphguy]

(Comparatively) Recent discoveries of more original manuscripts, some in the original languages have helped scholars eliminate “glosses” and mistakes.

 

[curlycool89]

HI , I was reading a history book the other day and it said in the middle ages when monks copied out the bible mistakes were made , so my questions is .

1- since it’s the bible we use now doesn’t that mean its incorrect ?

This one’e easy to answer.

Any Bible translation worth anything will go back to the oldest authoritative sources we have. That means the Hebrew of the OT or the Greek of the OT (the Septuagint), and whatever we can find of the NT (Koine Greek I believe usually). Sometimes the old Latin of the Vulgate is used as a further reference if the Greek or Hebrew are missing or have other problems.

No major english Catholic Bible (NAB, RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, the Jerusalem Bible) uses Middle Ages texts (Latin or otherwise) as the basis for it’s translations. All good translations are checked against the original languages (Greek or Hebrew).

The Church called for new translations in Divino Afflante Spiritu and said that all vernacular translations should use the original Hebrew and Greek.

 

[runningdude]

The only perfect version of scripture is Jesus Christ:

[BIBLEDRB]John 1:1[/BIBLEDRB]

Everything else is an imperfect translation into human language. What is important is that the Catholic Church is itself founded by Jesus Christ and continually guided by the Holy Spirit. Even with imperfect translations, the Catholic Church has never taught any error.

Today’s translations are based on stricter scholarship and use the earliest existing copies of scripture. These might reflect more closely the original language used by the biblical authors, but there will always be imperfections. This is why God gave us the church to teach and interpret the scriptures and sacred tradition.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are old manuscripts which are used to verify authenticity, the Vatican has one, one came from Alexandria, and I forgot where another one is.

Update:
Sinai is the third one… codexsinaiticus.org/en/

 

[ProVobis]

HI , I was reading a history book the other day and it said in the middle ages when monks copied out the bible mistakes were made , so my questions is .

It must be remembered that papyrus, parchment, etc did not survive time. Coins which Romans wrote on held their own much better but monks made copies of copies of copies and over time inconsistencies appeared. Parts were skipped, handwriting illegible, etc. Only an examination of many of the copies provided the first printed Bible we know today as the Clementine version. This would have been the best duplication of the St. Jerome’s version, which we trust was a consolidation of the earlier Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and earlier Latin which contained some original books.

Creative and copyrighted translations into modern languages are a different thing.

 

[amsjj]

---

• if Martin Luther reformed and translated the bible into English and edit some words and phrases doesn’t that mean the reform one is right ?

---

Just double-checking, you did mean this one as a hypothetical, yes? B/c I don’t think he translated the Bible into English.

 

[JaMc]

---

• if Martin Luther reformed and translated the bible into English and edit some words and phrases doesn’t that mean the reform one is right ?

---

Just double-checking, you did mean this one as a hypothetical, yes? B/c I don’t think he translated the Bible into English.

Luther, being German, translated the Bible into German, not English. And his German translation took some liberties, which just happened to suit his Protestant theology.