A lot of modern Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the Bible, Sacred Scripture, contains errors. They will say things like, "The Gospels contradict each other, therefore, they are not reliable," or "Copyists made all of these copy errors; after all, we don't have the original manuscripts, therefore, the Gospels are unreliable." In the former, the assumption is that the manuscripts that we do have are reliable enough that errors between them can be firmly established; with the second, the manuscripts are not reliable enough to establish the contents of the original text. With the latter option, it is difficult to see how modern Biblical scholarship can claim to establish the existence of contradictions and/or errors in the text while at the same time claiming that the text is inherently unreliable. It seems to me that if you were going to claim that the text contains errors and/or contradictions then you must also claim that the text, as it exists today, is reliable.
The scholastic theologian and scholar Peter Abelard suggested a third alternative, one that is rarely mentioned by modern scholars, that the contradictions in Sacred Scripture were the result of copyist errors. In any case, as the One and Triune God, a Perfect Being, is the author of Sacred Scripture, it stands to reason that the Bible, at least in the original manuscripts, is without error of any kind.
As for the authenticity of modern Biblical texts, Saint Jerome, who created the Latin Vulgate, was far closer in space and time to the original events. It is undisputed that Jerome had access to manuscripts that have since been lost (how many will never be known for sure) and he was a master of the original languages -- Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and of course, Latin. Modern scholars, of course, consider their modern translations to be superior to that of Saint Jerome. If evidence were ever to surface that Jerome's translation was, in fact, superior, it might put a dent into the academic funding of "modern" New Testament research. In any case, I believe that there are excellent reasons to think that Jerome's translation was superior, and one fact is not in dispute -- Jerome was 1600 years closer to the actual events in question.