It's hard to find one that you could classify that way because translating from one language to another leaves some words and phrases unable to be translated properly.

If you are implying which version is "without error concerning anything in it at all" then none - not even the 'original'. Even the original is compiled from selected documents written over a period of some 1000 years. The old testament contains many historical, archeological and factual errors (as well as plenty of accuracies). The new testament is harder to judge that way as it consists mainly of letters espousing opinions and advice on various aspects of life and spirituality. It is arguable that the King James Version is the closest English version to the original.

Taken as a work of fiction, then all bibles are accurate. Taken as accurate essays of factual and/or historical events, then none.

All and none, if the version you are using (The Bible) inspires you to seek the truth, it did what it was spouse to do. The purest version is written in your heart, it can not be corrupted or miss-translated. It’s readily known that the Bible is a word of God, and if so, it’s only in His mercy’s that he communicates His will to us, just in many different ways as there are people, hence the denominations, and differences in translations. I would not worry about political correctness to text, or any essential text being lost due to translation, it is the Holy Spirit that was released on all flesh after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ that bears witness to our hearts about what the truth is in our relation to God, and He will not lead us a stray… Long before the Bible became an instrument of God to communicate with the people, God reserved a simpler way, He made sure that His creation knows Him and hears Him. That never fails… I think prophet Isaiah has it right in: Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:10-12 (in Context) Isaiah 55 (Whole Chapter

I believe that the King James Version(also known as the Authorized Version of 1611) is. I've yet to see even one error in it. -In the Master's service. Thank you and God bless you!

"Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts". Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science." "The theological basis of the belief, in its simplest form, is that as God is perfect, the Bible, as the word of God, must also be perfect, thus, free from error." "Proponents of biblical inerrancy also teach that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture but that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality. Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. And while conservative scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, modern translations are considered to "faithfully represent the originals"." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy Biblical inerrancy is a doctrinal position! The answer will depend on your doctrinal position. Different churches have different views on this matter. The question is not so much which version of the Bible you take as which church / doctrinal position you follow.

None of them. No one has seen the original texts; however, even the oldest versions contain contradictions to each other, often themselves, science, and morals. Inerrant means without flaw, and no such Biblical text has ever been produced. For instance, every translation and text of Genesis has Yahweh creating light and plants, and several evening and mornings passing, before Yahweh creates the Sun (that which produces light on Earth, causes day and night, and the plants require for photosynthesis). Any version which references a child born to a virgin in Isaiah is not inerrant. Isaiah does not reference a virgin as the mother of the Messiah at all. The Hebrew word almah was mistranslated into the Greek to mean virgin. In fact, the Hebrew word almah simply means "young woman", and the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah.

The original manuscripts were inerrant. BUT, even though the translations are not perfect, they are pretty darn good. Panels of translation experts work years on them, throwing possible translations of words back and forward, working in groups, sending chapters for review to other scholars. What we have, in most modern translations, is a very accurate rendering of the original texts. The differences are minimal and getting less and less as knowledge of the original languages increases with archaeological discoveries. I have worked with many translations in my lifetime, and am very satisfied with all of them. The KJV would be my least favourite, because it is the oldest translation into English. The translation was masterful for its time, but has been surpassed.

Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no Biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred. How do we deal with this? First, it is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago. Second, we should not be quick to say “Oh, that is just a scribal error.” The vast majority, if not all, of Bible “errors” can be explained in a logical and believable manner. Those that cannot by explained, or are very difficult to explain – could very well have an answer that we simply do not know at this point. Just because we cannot find a solution does not mean that a solution doesn’t exist. Believing there to be a scribal error must be the absolute last resort in any supposed Bible “error.” Can we still trust the Bible? Absolutely! The Bible translations we have today are God’s Word. The Bible today is just as authoritative as it was in the 1st century A.D. We can completely trust the Bible as being God’s message to us today. Yes, the biblical promises of inspiration and inerrancy only apply directly to the original manuscripts. That does not impact, though, whether our modern Bibles are accurate and authoritative. God’s Word endures forever, despite the occasional failings and mistakes of copyists and translators.