I think the minimum you should come away with IS the fact that an English copy will most likely be flawed. Hebrew and Greek are the most likely accurate texts. My point has been that in order to truly study the meaning, you may have to go to such an early text.

I left a church that pretty much insisted on the NIV version and I disagreed with what they were telling us of the Greek meaning in a critical passage (from the Christian perspective).

***********************************************************
BTW; How do you do the cool "indented quote or code" thingy?
***********************************************************

You said, "Not relevant. I don't read books and take them to indicate the absolute TRUTH in the world. If they are history books then I know they were written by the "victors" and read the "story" for the purpose it was written."
If these questions are irrelevant for any book, why ask them of the bible and why post this thread?
Which one IS the original text?
Where is it located?
How long has it been there?
How do you verify its authenticity?
How do you PROVE it was written 2000 years ago?
How do you PROVE who wrote it?
How do you PROVE "where" it was written?"

Also, it would show the type of answers that would be acceptable to you.

First of all, many people saw the burning bush (from a distance). My point about Moses IS that maybe he could have carved two copies with the "evil" intention of breaking one in public and then going up again to retrieve the "reprint/recarving". So, even if I find that the "reprint/recarving" took a much shorter time than the "original", it is probably not good evidence for being "written by God's own hand". But I am interested and have not yet checked that out.