Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Angrboda]

The oldest sizable extant copy of the Hebrew OT is dated to 2nd century BC, a complete copy 1000 AD. There are two 7th century BC silver scrolls of the Torah. Translations are made from any of these, as they all match. Since some meaning is lost in any translation, it makes sense to examine the original in cases of importance.

I still don't understand why, if there are in existence ancient scrolls of the Torah which all match, why is there not a definitive translation that everyone can agree on. If it is not possible to make a translation that everyone agrees on how is the bible the inerrant word of god ? If we were talking about a Sophocles play or some other ancient texts that are not making supernatural claims, then we could just agree to disagree about the meaning of any particular word and it would just be a matter of scholarly interest. This is the (origins of) the Bible however, and if I were a christian I would be terrified that a particular doctrine or position came about simply because a scribe thousands of years ago made a mistake.

On another tack, it occurs to me to wonder why the creator of the universe chose to write the instructions to his creations in Hebrew (or Arabic in the Koran if you're a Muslim). Why not in every language that was in existence at that time ?

"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else."

— Thomas Paine, Age of Reason