Is there a version of the Bible that is an exact copy of the original text?

Question

Exact copy(ies) of the first time the books were written?
I want to study the original text.
I want no twisted scripture, missing parts, mistakes, added parts etc.
I want the true interpretations.

The closest thing to the original text that exists today?

Answer 1

All these answer proves God is not in control of his own book. It doesn't exist but the bonehead religious will take the bible at face value.

The religious have not clue about the history of the bible.

Answer 2

None of the original autographs have survived (perhaps Sally Y can tell us exactly by whom, when and where they were destroyed by the Catholic Church!). There are very early manuscripts which do exist, however.

With respect, I don't think you are going to find what *I think* you're looking for (but I might well be completely wrong). There is some variation in what certain early manuscripts contain and therefore, there absolutely has to be an element of academic and spiritual decision making in establishing what a 'best' original langauages version will be. Check out a copy of the Nestlé-Aland Greek new Testament and take note of the sigla markings. These refer you to what are considered the best early original language manuscripts available. If you are very serious, it's copies of all these you want for comparison's sake. I'm sure there must be similar critical apparatus for the Hebrew Old Testament, but that is not my home turf.

The ambiguity points the serious thinker to the unvoidable conclusion that the Church has created the Bible and that the Bible has not created the Church - Jesus did that. It also forces one to see the need to make a decision on the thorny issue of the Holy Spirit's inspiration in the Church (as promised by Christ), or not. Either the Holy Spirit continues to infallibly inspire the Church, or He does not. In this way one clearly sees that the Bible and the Church cannot be separated. There is no either/or, rather it's all or nothing.

Answer 3

We do not possess the original Bible books, sometimes called texts or autographs. We do, however, have many thousands of Biblical manuscripts (5,500+) which are copies of the originals. It is best to think of our manuscripts as descendants of the originals. Each generation hand-copied their own. The originals became damaged or worn and were destroyed.

These manuscripts have their own family trees. The texts would be copied and then distributed to different centers so they could read them aloud to their own congregations. Each Christian center then would have its own family tree. Once a copy got to the center, then the whole document along with its mistakes would be repeated as scribes copied that document. The variances are minimal. Their own copy would resemble the original.
The Old Latin Vulgate (or Itala), is known to have been in existence by AD 157.


To sum it up do you own an original hand written book from ANY author other than something that you yourself may have written. Almost ALL books today are "copies"of the original

Answer 4

Well, you're in for some problems, because there are no copies of the original texts that are known (the original texts are sometimes known as autographs). They have come down to us through the work of copyists even before they were translated into Latin and the modern languages. Consequently no-one knows what the Bible originally said. There are many errors, contradictions, and mis-translations in the Bible--as might be expected of a work of such antiquity with many different authors. Nevertheless it contains many inspiring passages, as well as much that is outmoded and barbaric. But the Sermon on the Mount is great!

Answer 5

To study the original texts you would have to know Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. However, there are no Hebrew text extant that date before the Babylonian capitivity.
Translations into English can vary in wording since English is a language that has absorbed many other languages. That is why we might have a word that can mean more than one thing depending on how it is used and many words for the same thing. I once said something about "John the Baptiser" and was corrected that it was "John the Baptist." However, the word in Aramaic that was used merely means "one who baptises."
Jesus spoke Aramaic. A person of Lebanese background said Middle Eastern people use speech idioms and Jesus was no exception. He said the Aramaic is very similar to Lebanese.
I understand it is very difficult to translate from the original languages into English and keep the same meaning and make it readable. That is why you have footnotes. Actually a person should have commentaries from real scholars who
understand Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Usually these people cross religious lines and work together to get a better understanding of the texts.

Answer 6

No.

The oldest complete NT texts date from the fourth century. There are incomplete books from the third century. Anything before that is just fragments.

The closest thing that exists today would be the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus. Both are in Greek. A pdf of a transcription of the Codex Vaticanus is available online.

You might also try bible-researcher for more information.

Answer 7

The english translations were translated from the original texts, but they are still translations. Some translations are more reliable than other. The King James Version is much more reliable than the newer modern versions, NIV, etc. Different manuscripts were used for the newer versions, and even though they are older, they are less reliable. If you could read Greek and Hebrew, you can read the original scrolls. See the source for more info.

Answer 8

What i discover exciting is that the King James bible became translated interior the 1600's and in those final days that's no longer good adequate . There are 2 explanation why i think of people war with it ( and different like translations) is by way of the fact everybody is in seek of for some devine revelation that no person else has had ( delight ), or they pick their ears tickled . they do no longer pick to have faith Paul spoke what the Holy Spirit advised him to speak via fact they do no longer pick to abide with the help of what he stated . those everybody is indignant with the help of the be responsive to God , or do no longer understand what they're examining and stay with the help of what they pick it to declare . And to discover a bible that helps their lack of information is all the extra desirable . as a result : there are a gazillion translations . Why will not be able to people have faith that God isn't careless , and does no longer leave a e book of nonsence to those that love Him ? i think of that translations are effective as long as they have not been guy dealt with via fact of a greek be conscious. One Greek be conscious could have many many meanings . and people have re-writen the bible that weren't even from Greece. Or who did no longer even understand Greek . King James a minimum of introduced people to England from Greece to translate . And having stated all that , the recent king James is a strong and good translation .

Answer 9

no because the bible is a collection of the books written by prophets and priests. and most of it is in Hebrew. If you want to study the original text you won't be studying the bible because there is A LOT left out of the bible itself

Answer 10

No there is no original text available about the Bible. What we have are the fragments left from the original text which are edited in every new edition of the Bible.