Except for that one typo where Celebrate was accidentally published as Celibate.

I certainly don't think so.It was written by human beings,it was edited by human beings,and it was translated (and mis-translated) by human beings.It is rife with inconsistancies,and then there's all those "lost books" the Catholic Church decided NOT to include in it.

Is a bear Catholic?  Does the Pope sh*t in the woods?  If Jesus was Jewish, how come he has a Puerto Rican name?  If the Virgin Mary was actually married to that cuckold Joseph, and had the Only Begotten Son by someone else who was not her husband, does that make her an adulterer and Ecce Homo a bastard?  After the Fall, how was mankind populated?  Did Eve boff her sons, or did the children of Our Ancestral Parents get down together?  If so, that's kinda kinky, don't you think?  How did Noah collect two specimens of all species on the planet?  Has anyone else since been able to duplicate this feat to determine whether it was feasible?  How did he keep the predators from preying on the others?  How did they fit all those animals on the ark?  Musta been a big ark.  Like the size of Rhode Island.  Where did the extra water in the atmosphere come from to create the flood?  Where did the flood waters recede to?  Isn't the eurcharist cannibalism?  Doesn't the host, through the process of human digestion, turn the body and blood of Christ into a fleck of crap in the communicant's lower bowel?  Weren't the so-called "miracles" of Jesus nothing but magic tricks, and therefore, necromancy?  If God is all-good and created everything, why did he create Evil?  Why did he do this to sully His great work?  Let's face it, folks, that roll of toilet paper known as The Bible is just a pack of delusional, contradictory, illogical fairy tales, superstitions, myths and other feel-good and/or guilt trip nonsense concocted by ignorant religious weirdos who needed to explain the universe around us in the absence of empiricism and the scientific method.  So, every single word in The Bible might be true in and of itself, taken together, it's all bullsh*t and hogwash.

Every word in the Bible is God's Word, and are as true as God is.

God said it... I believe it... and that settles it!

I imagine some of the words must be incorrect. For instance the Bible mentions unicorns several times. Indeed, have unicorns ever existed?

Good point made by Dee. It is important to discern the metaphorical truths in the Bible.

I think Jesus said it best when he said that his words are spirit. His words are spiritually discerned, and the carnal mind cannot understand spiritual things. If we took many passages of scripture literally, then we'd see people literally cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes when they offend them, or see people literally moving physical mountains with their faith and literally casting them into the sea.

ORIGINAL COMMENT OF 11/06/2006: This concern would merit interest in regards to each of said "words" as per the original language: English and even the Romance languages are significantly different. So, Flick01's thoughts below (also 11/06/2006) rate consideration.

ADDITION TO ORIGINAL 11/06/2006 REVIEW. (Excuse the length).

The title page of the 1582 Douai-Rheims New Testament, states: "specially for the discouerie of the CORRVPTIONS of diuers late translations, and for cleering the CONTROVERSIES in religion."

Wikipedia on the Douai-Rheims Bible: "The center of English Catholicism was the English College at Douai, in France, founded (in 1568) by William Allen, formerly of Queen's College, Oxford, and Canon of York, and subsequently cardinal, for the purpose of training priests to convert the English again to Catholicism. And it was here where the officially authorized Catholic translation of the Bible into English was produced."

"The Douai Bible is based on the work of Saint Jerome (345-420) who translated the Septuagint (the LXX) and Hebrew texts into a Latin version of the Bible which is known as the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic Church. While the Catholic scholars "conferred" with the Hebrew and Greek originals, as well as with other editions in diverse languages (see below), their avowed purpose was to translate from the Latin Vulgate, for reasons of accuracy as stated in their Preface, but which also tended to produce, in places, stilted syntax and Latinisms.

"...short passage (from Ephesians 3:6-12), taken almost at random, is a fair example, admittedly without updating the spelling conventions then in use: The Gentils to be coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ JESUS by the Gospel: whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power. To me the least of al the sainctes is given this grace, among the Gentils to evangelize the unsearcheable riches of Christ, and to illuminate al men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created al things: that the manifold wisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, according to the prefinition of worldes, which he made in Christ JESUS our Lord. In whom we have affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him."

It was a translation of a translation of the Bible.

Wikipedia continues: "The New Testament was published in one large volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The Old Testament followed in 1609 in two large volumes, also extensively annotated. The notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing England. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation."

The above, unless challenged, might qualify as factual, for the chips to fall as they may.

The question should be "Is any word in the bible true?"

I believe if the Bible or the Word of God is spoken in context then yes it is true. I understand what Sparks is saying about metaphors and the like but the underlying truth is still valid. Some words can not be taken to heart without an understanding of the complete context of the entire message being delivered. Some words appear foolish to some readers, the Word itself states this. All words in the Bible have meaning and hold truth, I guess it's all in how you look at it. It's important to study to show your self approved, your soul depends on it.

Thanks to a bunch of corrupt rulers that did whatever suited them with the Bible, no.

UPDATE: Oi... numbah is gonna have to step in here.
Item one, God speaks Ancient Hebrew (chuckles).
Item two, man has put his grubby little hands on the inspired word of God and I'd bet God is kinda pissed that man hasn't always been straight up about how they deal with his word.
Item three, you can still get the message if you read this book CAREFULLY.
Item four, the King James version is not the end all translation that some make it out to be and I find it a little rough to digest despite its somewhat fun style.

Every word in the WalMart catalogue is the absolute holy truth. You will bow!

Yes, period!

again, wonderful answer, Sharon!

No, period.

I've learned to smile and nod my head when some of my Christian friends try to come to my rescue because my view of the Bible takes a slightly different path from those who examine and diagnose every word and phrase. This has nothing to do with my reverence for the book, just how I interpret what it says. I need to qualify this first by saying that I am speaking only for myself. In most instances I don't care about translation conflicts a thousand years ago or the innuendos that we sometimes hear concerning the Bible coming from it's original language to eventually becoming the paperback you can buy at any bookstore. I want something that God will stand behind and honor today. From what I have seen, both in my own life and within the various churches that I've attended over the years, God gives His approval to the two standard versions that are most popular. As for what is true in the Bible, this problem was solved for me before I actually became a Christian when I heard something on a Christian radio talk show. There was this guy who was doing missionary work in some far off village deep in some jungle. The people that he was living with were far removed from civilzation as we know it, still living the same way that their ancestors had lived for centuries. The missionary guy wanted to translate the Bible into their language but he was having great difficulty because the language of these people contained only a couple of hundred words. He went on to say that God gave him the answer one night in a dream. He said that God told him that ..."it is not important that the Bible be translated word for word. It is important that it be translated thought for thought." As soon as I heard that I felt that it made perfect sense. With that kind of interpretation in mind any story can be properly translated into any language. Take the story of Adam and Eve for example. Regardless of the language, it boils down to two people who had it made as long as they obeyed a rule. They got deceived, they disobeyed the rule, and these are the consequences they suffered. So I decided early on that I would view the Bible thought for thought more than strictly word for word. If the Bible says that some guy lived 900 years, hey, how do we know the way they measured their years at that time? Maybe it was 900 cycles of the moon, I don't know and frankly, I don't care. The guy got rewarded by being allowed to live for a long long time. That is all I need to know, today, in the 21st century. Now I don't know about anyone else, but if others have the same reaction as me, then they will find that viewing the Bible thought for thought let's you cut through the language and focus with a little more clarity on the heart of God. The words don't lose their meaning because without them there would be no thoughts, but you don't get caught up in the semantics and the small stuff. I'm not worried about the small stuff. God honors this Bible. I read it for its thoughts, not its words, per se. Therefore, based on thought for thought, it's all true.

Yes, it's litteral and figurative. There's nothing new under the sun.

Depends on how much of its content you want to believe.

The Christian canon as we know it today came into existence gradually, with the version of writings that constitute the New Testament being adopted at the Synod of Hippo in Carthage in 393 AD. The creation of an accepted canon was necessary to establish a common course and set of beliefs for Christians, and to isolate forgeries and heretical teachings which were circulating at the time. However, it is now widely accepted that some scriptures that were included in the final accepted version of the bible were in fact forgeries, such as the epistles from Paul to Timothy and Titus. Other scriptures show signs of having been edited after their composition by over-zealous scribes. I have to believe that the process by which the scriptures were canonized had at least something to do with the direction of the church desired by the powerful patriarchs in the infant church, such as Tertullian and Eusebius. It was a process undertaken by humans, to sift through writings by humans, who may or may not have been divinely inspired, writings which had transcribed again and again over the centuries by other humans by the time the biblical canon was finalized. So I cannot accept that it is the true unadulterated word of God, no. Perhaps, if I were a believer, I would believe that God is infallible and that his word was true, but even then, a sober look at how the bible came into being would convince me that everything that is in the Bible may not be God's word.

Not an issue. The Bible is a magnificent work that has been through far too many translations to be taken literally. It wasn't the Red Sea but the Reed Sea. (Which was much smaller thus not as interesting as an image. . .) Any Bible scholar will tell you dozens of instances where the translations are incorrect. It is a book with lessons of how to live one's life and how to maintain a good philosophy- but only snake-handling idiots think it's the literal word of god.

Firstly, it would be better of saying that the whole Bible is the truth and nothing but the truth. With the Bible, although a lot of it is literal, there is also a lot of symbolism and things which were within the context of a particular culture. I wouldn't go as far to say yes or no. I would say no, because some words are symbolic or within the context of a particular culture and time period, but I would also say yes because every word in the Bible is God breathed and is truth. But don't mistake literal for truth. Because every word in the Bible is the truth.

There's always a little bit of truth in every big lie.

No of course not. It was a story told by men who loved Jesus and his teachings. Thats why it is interpreted so many ways, and because of it can only be a symbol at most of your faith. The bible is the work of Geniuses however, the work of men who were taught by a higher entity. Whatever you want to call him, God or something else. When I read it I always feel like there is a specific message there if you are willing to accept it. That message will be good for you if you let it. That is a miracle in itself. That is what gives it power for all people and that is a Godly thing. Its too bad that so many pervert it to serve their own agenda, and then call it the word of God. I would rather call it A book that has words that bring you to God.