Which Version of the Bible is the Word of God?

its important to know that there are two types of translation. A Paraphrased translation, and a Literal translation.
All bibles will have a 'Forward/Preface' note at the front of the book indicating the type of translation it is.I would always prefer a literal translation over a paraphrased because its sticks closely to the original language that its being translated from.In the Preface to the paraphrased Living Bible, the following statement is made: “Whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say. ... For when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide.”As an example, During the Church of England’s Synod in July 1978, an altercation developed between some bishops about the value of the popular Good News Bible. One claimed that the translation was too full of paraphrases and particularly in its rendering of the Greek word sarx at Galatians 5:19. Sarx means “flesh.” But rather then translating "erga tis sarkos" as “works of the flesh,” the Good News Bible paraphrases the three Greek words, attributing the vices listed in Galatians 5:19-21 simply to “human nature.”the problem here is that it implies that sinful activities are merely human nature as opposed to something we must strive to avoid.On the other hand a literal translation such as the King James for insance, keeps this verse in line with its original greek word..."the works of the flesh are manifest..."

Interlinear translations are literal translations prepared directly from the original language manuscripts and often have bothi probably should have said 'interlinear' rather then literal to save confusion....they are the same thing.A good example is the 1857 Benjamin Wilson translation called 'The Emphatic Diaglott'
It has a left-hand column with the Greek text, and under each Greek word is presented its English equivalent. In the right-hand column is the modern English translation as made by Benjamin Wilson.So a literal translation like this will allow the reader to see the greek word and what that word originally meant. There is less room for error.

no, the translation is also literal, except that it is as literal as possible in the language it is being translated into. So if the greek verse is talking about walking down a long stretch of road, the literal translation is also relaying the message of walking down a long stretch of road.thats what a literal translation is. It doesnt mean 'word for word'...because that would be very difficult to read due to the differences in grammerthe verse still needs to be translated into readable english, but the context and subject is as close as possible to the original.

all bibles in their original languages are the word of Godall bibles that have been translated correctly are the word of GodI would even go so far as to say that all bible translations are the word of God. Unfortunately, some of them are just badly translated.

Hi Nightrain,there are so many very old manuscripts in existence, that you can be 100% confident that what we have today is as authentic as what the 1st century christians were reading.the long and short conclusions of mark is evidence of how well documented the bible is. Those two conclusions are not to be considered as authentic because they are not found in some of the key ancient manuscripts.Of course we dont have any original writings anymore, but what we do have are copies of the originals...some manuscripts date back to the 1st century and so of course we have some very old specimens with which to keep as templates of all of todays translations.

one would be the Codex Sinaiticus another is the Codex Vaticanus No.1209. both of these date back to the 4th century and neither of them have the two conclusions in them.

one is to be found in the collection of the Fouad Papyri inventory number 266, in Cairo's egyption papyrus society, containing portions of the second half of Deuteronomy. It is dated 1st century.

hi bluescat
there are a few things that show its not merely man's wordsprophecy, and there are many very accurate prophecies that have come true. And the writers of prophecy even admitted they did not know what they were writing. eg. Daniel's writings show that he had no idea what the 'wild beast' prophecies were about.The truthfulness of the writers - they spoke openly about their own sins and their failings. Even Moses was punished by God and forbidden to see the promised land. Do you really think that if he was creating a new religion he would tell everyone how his God punished him? Leaders of nations dont usually do that.Laws - laws that man cannot enforce such as 'covetousness'- Its one of the 10 commandments, 'thou shalt not desire anything of your fellowmans' . Do you really believe that a man would invent a law that in unenforceable? And how could anyone know if someone was coveting their fellow mans possesions? How could a person be judged on such a law?

a lot is to be said for the ancient copyists
they did not need to author their work because they were not 'tranlsators' they were merely making copies of the original writers workso it wouldnt be reasonable to expect that a copy be signed by the person who copied it. Ezra was a skilled copiest and the jews had many such men trained to make copies of the scrolls.In one way, the writers of the bible are not the all important thing, but it is still very well established who the original writers were.
Most identify themselves within the writing.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Math 1.23 applies that prophecy to Jesusthe meaning of the name Immanuel is 'With Us Is God'

tell me anglagard, what would you rather readA. a translation made into english, directly from one of the existing bible manuscripts such as the Greek SeptuagintorB. a new translation made from an existing english translation that has been translated from a pre existing english translation?

its certainly not a quote mine. In verse 23, mathew is applying the scripture to jesus, hence why he says 'emmanuel'in verse 21 of my kjv, it uses the name 'emmanuel'and vs 25 explains that after joseph had accepted mary and the child, he called his name Jesus.Christians today to not have to interpret these things because quite clearly, the bible writers themselves provide the interpretation and the application of such prophecies. Mathew does in this instance, he says that the prophecy of Isiah is fullfilled in Jesus. As a christian, i must accept their interpretation.Other names were foretold for the Messiah too. Isaiah 9:6 states “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”Yet none of these were used as personal names for Jesus. Emmanuel was never meant to be a personal name for jesus either. The significance is in the meaning of the name...'with us is God'

There is no question as to who wrote Genesis. “The book of the law of Moses” and similar references to the first five books of the Bible, of which Genesis is one, are to be found often from the time of Moses’ successor, Joshua, onward. In fact, there are some 200 references to Moses in 27 of the later Bible books. Moses’ writership has never been questioned by the Jews.

thanks for the tip nighttraini do find the posts to contain a lot of information so i deliberately dont answer every poster and i dont go into too many threadsor i might pick just one or two points to reply to...hope they dont mindbut im enjoying evc. i have another forum that i usually post on, but they decided to ban religious discussions, so i had to find a forum where i could keep the conversations going.

i dont have any doubt that these 'disputes' are the falsehoods. The authoriship of the old testament writers were never questioned by the jews...the people who actually know...higher skeptics of the 19th century do not make for valuable reading in my books and i dont fall for their baseless claims.