Does that mean we have to read it in Aramic? Because whatever version you are reading has been translated from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. Over a thousand years.
My issue with the argument of God’s word, is that it is defined by a bunch of guys in Rome, Constaintinoble, Berlin, and London.
Not exactly a clear route.
It doesn’t have to go through all those paths. There are texts from which many translations are translated directly.
As for Latin, it is primarily the Catholic church which chooses to use that route, so that takes Latin out of the mix for many.
Pinging boatbums because of her knowledge of Bible history.
Another question. Isn’t the Catechism of the Catholic church translated into English itself? Or is it written in English and then translated into something else?
If there are issues with the different versions of the Bible because of translating from other languages, then the same holds true for the creeds, the CCC, the pronouncements of the magisterium.
There isn’t a document that people appeal to in challenge to Scripture which is free from the exact same concerns and criticisms that are used to diminish Scripture and its reliability.