I don't care about bible contradictions.

[Drich]

No, here's what I'd prefer, you telling me why there are so many versions of god's word.

Not versions, translations. Again, the bible was not originally written in English, so there are different ways to translate certain texts. This is true anytime a book is translated from one language to another. This is especially true when the orginal language is considered to be a dead language.

In the end that is why we have resources like the concordance/lexicon I linked you to. Because the vast majority of bibles are also linked to a set standard of codeces. (ancient greek/Hebrew texts) and one can then go back and look up the orginal words the various bibles are translated from.

Is it because of this type of dishonesty which you have demonstrated over and over again on this forum? There's something you don't like in this version of the bible, so you have to run to another version, and say this is the version I go by.

:Roflol: What you call dishonesty I call scholarship. Again, only a fool looks at a given translation and assumes whatever version you read is the final word on the subject.

The fist thing I do when one of you posts a scripture fragment to support whatever you are saying, is I look it up in your given translation and put that passage back into it's context. If context still seems to support your reading then I look the passage up in the Greek/Hebrew and closely examine the words or phrases you are hinging your point on. IF it supports what you say then I look for other verses to also support your take. if not I take a closer look at a couple different translations to try and better frame the passage so you can understand it better.

In this case the word the NIV (your translation) translates into the phrase "every word of God is flawless' In your case the context you left on the page was enough for a non biased person to see that the proverb speaks to the words of God (literally the direct words) and not to the word/bible of God. Biblical study would have shown you to the writer of this proverb the word of God would be the oral tradition of the prophets (The literal words of God) and the writtings of the torah. But, again not wanting to beat you to death with the history of Judaism I looked for greater clarity in the passage by using a couple of other translations that would help you see what your translation was actually saying without the bias spin you put on this particular passage.
Your subsequent rant shows me that it worked.

Then, when someone else quotes something from the ESV, you run right back to the NIV to quote from there. There's something wrong there, you wouldn't get it, but everyone else on here, that's not a christian, would.

Look again sport. What I posted from the ESV and ERV bibles does not change what the passage says. It simply frames it away from your personal reading of those passages, and puts the correct emphasis back onto not only what the 'words' of God are, but how they are perceived.

And, if you want to look at the Hebrew, I can show you clearly that the word the NIV translates into 'flawless' (צָרַף tsaraph)
is actual a word use to describe the whole gold refinement process. Since we do not have a single word in the English that can describe this whole process in a literal translation one tries to best approximate it's English counterpart. Those who wrote the NIV went with flawless because that is the net result of the whole refinement process, and the ESV and ERV went with word pure because as with flawless it describes the net result but it can also help describe or lend it self to the refinement process as well.

Eitherway, that particular passage in no way supports your reading of it.