@KatawaGrey, he’s mostly full of crap.
The earliest parts of the Bible—the Torah—were originally probably oral. We don’t know exactly when they were first written down. Some scholars date their writing as late as 400 B.C.
We don’t have anything nearly that old for the Hebrew Bible. The oldest stuff is, iirc, the dead sea scrolls, which are first-century B.C. at the earliest. Then there’s the Septuigent, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from Roman times; we have some chunks of that. Most of what we use for the Hebrew Bible today comes from the Masoritic text, which is Hebrew but later than these two other sources. (I also believe there are some issues comparing the use of vowels in the Masoritic text, but I’ve forgotten).
Now, the New Testament—we don’t have any original writings. The earliest source for the New Testament is a little fragment of the gospel of John from the 100’s AD. Everything else are later copies. The New Testament was originally written in Greek; however, some scholars think that Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, so if anything in the NT is actually based directly on what Jesus said (which is possible but not particularly well-supported), it would have been a translation from Aramaic to Greek.
That said, I think a lot of the whole criticism of the Bible-as-translation is unfounded. In terms of historical documents in general, we have some pretty good, very old sources for Bible, and modern translations make use of these sources. I think modern Bible translations compare favorably to, for example, modern translations of Aristotle or the Hindu epics, for which we don’t have as rich and as old a variety of sources.
Also, a lot of people seem to make the argument that the Bible can’t be trusted because the modern Bible we have isn’t the “original text.” Well, no—the original text would have also been bullshit. It’s not like the ancient bronze age Hebrews had some shining perfect wisdom that was lost through copying and translation.