I ran across someone who claims the bible translation as we know it is wrong

score:3

Accepted answer

[Someone claims] that the bible was contaminated by catholic scholars.

Extremely unlikely. Many translations, most of which are in very close agreement (notable exceptions include translations by JWs and LDS, both of which are considered heretical and decisively non-Christian — meaning they reject even the most basic of shared beliefs — by mainstream Christians), have been carried out by multiple denominations. Even the KJV was translated by Anglicans! The likelihood of such alterations remaining unnoticed for thousands of years is virtually nil.

Where could I find the best original text?

Where can I find scans of original Biblical manuscripts? lists several sources. You'll need to know Greek, however, and at some point you're trusting that the language itself hasn't been corrupted.

That said, given that the Greek uses "Πατρὸς" ("Patros"), and given how many words in multiple languages are floating around that clearly derive from this root and which either mean "father" or some term related to "fathers" (e.g. "patriarchy"), if the word has been corrupted somehow, it would represent a conspiracy of almost inconceivable magnitude.

The ORIGINAL scripts never refer to a "God the father" but God the Creator.

First, to play a bit of "Devil's advocate"... Jesus referring to himself as "the Son" is totally plausible even if this claim is correct. There's also a certain extent of "does it matter?", since a father is in a sense a "creator" of his offspring.

That said... unless the meaning of "Patros" changed after the NT was written, and that change somehow spread throughout other existing languages (Latin, in particular) in such a way as to leave no trace, I don't see any plausible way in which such a claim could be true. You would also have to somehow account for other, less direct uses of parental imagery throughout the Scriptures, such as God's adoption of us as "children", inheritance, etc.

More likely the claimant is trying to deny a Biblical truth. The number of people, even "Christians", that deny one or more Biblical truths is exceedingly high, making that a far more plausible explanation.

I ran across someone who claims the bible translation as we know is wrong

In short, unless they're talking about a translation known to be bad (Watchtower, Mormon, Passion, etc.), such claims are almost surely bogus. ESV and NASB are regarded by many as the "best" translations, albeit more literal and sometimes harder to read. There's another highly regarded one, though I forget which it is (possibly CSB?). NIV is generally considered "okay" but some feel it is slightly biased. To an extent, your preference is likely to depend on your specific theology. That said, if the majority of mainstream translations (in which I would include, besides the preceding, [N]KJV, [N]RSV, NET, NLT and possibly CEB) agree on a point, you can be pretty confident that point is correct.

Upvote:-3

We do not have the original manuscripts, all we have are copies of copies of copies. Most of the things that were changed from the copies we do have, were grammatical changes that had little bearing on the text.

The major changes were mostly things added to the text at a later date. In some places the male scribes and translators replaced the name of Mary Magdalene with "Martha" so that Mary wouldn't overshadow the male disciples.
The story of the woman caught in adultery was added later on.
The end of Mark was made longer. The original ending is the women at the empty tomb keeping the news of the resurrection to themselves.

To me, the Bible is just a book and shouldn't be taken to literally. The issues with our translations isn't that big a deal, the bigger issue is how most modern Christians interpret the Bible.

More post

Search Posts

Related post