Are you sure that Paul VI "personally signed off" on this translation, rather than this being something done in his name? Besides contradicting the Bible, it also contradicts the official [Latin] version of the new Mass. The Catholic Church has spoken clearly about whether our Lord's words can be rendered as "for all". In the Roman catechism, it says:
When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.
Even if Paul VI personally approved the English translation of the Mass, which I earnestly hope he did not, it seems to me that the official version of the Mass, which is for the whole church, is more to be trusted than the English translation, which is for a particular group, English speakers, when there is a conflict.
All liturgical decisions are reserved to the Holy See. Paul VI might not have personally examined every word of the translation(s), but he had to sign off.
You are not the first person to say that the formula of Consecration "contradicts" the Bible. Theologically, it does not, as explained by Ratzinger.
In terms of the actual text, WHICH 'formula' from the Bible should we use? Matthew? Peter? John? Acts?
There is no, repeat, ZERO requirement that the text must follow any particular narrative, nor all of them.
Whoever taught you that question should be slapped.