KJV is superior

Pro has misunderstood my arguments. When I said that translations were not inspired, I did not mean that God did not inspire someone who was translating another language (such as when the New Testament writers translated from Hebrew to Greek). What I meant was the only texts that were inspired were the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. As per 2 Timothy 3:16, God inspired the original texts of the Old and New Testament. He did not inspire the translations. He did not move upon the translators to translate the texts correctly as He did the original authors (and/or their scribes) to record his words. This is very evident by the fact that the KJV contains numerous errors. God is perfect, so if the KJV contains even one error this would be enough to prove that it was not inspired by God, and therefore it would not be superior to other good modern translations (such as the NASB). Now, 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the original autographs, not matter how much Pro wants to nit-pick. Yes, they had the Scriptures since they were kids. That doesn't mean they weren't reading Scripture, just like us opening our modern Bibles doesn't mean we're not reading Scriptures. But they weren't inspired as the original texts were inspired, just like our modern Bibles aren't. Second Timothy 3:16 refers to the original Scriptures as being inspired (literally God-breathed). The translations are not (especially those that contain mistakes, like the KJV). Also, saying that God himself made a copy of the Ten Commandments is another nit-pick. Obviously God inspired the copy because he directly gave it to Moses. God did not directly give the translations to the KJV scribes, they translated from a copy of the Scriptures (and originally, the KJV included the Apocrypha, which no KJV supporter would accept as Scripture now). [1]I didn't quite understand Pro's response to the obvious discrepancy regarding the horsemen, or how it resolves the fact that in one passage it clearly states he took seven-hundred horsemen, but in another it states he took seven-thousand. Perhaps he could explain more clearly next round. But for thoroughness' sake, I'll illustrate a few more errors in the KJV:In 2 Kings 25:17, we read the brass chapiter was three cubits high, but in Jeremiah 52:22 we read that it was five cubits high. In 2 Kings 25:8, we read that Nebuzaradan came into Jerusalem on the seventh day of the month, but in Jeremiah 52:12 we read he came into Jerusalem on the tenth day of the month. I agree that there are errors in the NIV, and I even think the KJV may be a better translation than the NIV. But the NASB is generally regarded as the best modern translation (I used to use the NKJV before finally making the transition). There may even be errors in the NASB (though I'm not currently aware of any). But this just makes my case. No modern translation of the Scriptures were "inspired" as the original texts were, as per 2 Timothy 3:16. Saying that the KJV was translated from texts dating back to the fourth century is simply wrong, for the most part. They did not use early manuscripts, they used the Stephens of 1550. Sixty-one percent of the KJV Bible was translated from other available translations, including the Geneva Bible and Tyndale Bible. [2] Not to mention, the KJV used today is not even the original KJV -- it's the 10th edition of the KJV. So which edition is inspired? The original with the Apocrypha? On of the next eight editions? Or the tenth edition we're using now? Regarding 1 John 5:7, it is generally agreed that verse seven has been inserted and has no real authority. [3]Here's the evidence regarding 1 John 5:7There were about 300 existing Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John. Of these manuscripts, only four (61, 629, 918, and 2318) contain the disputed words of verse seven. All four are very late manuscripts (from the 16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A. D. , respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek New Testaments, and all four manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin. Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers. Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A. D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period. The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the fifth century A. D. Plus, the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the New Testament made in the 2nd-10th centuries A. D. -- Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, or Slavic -- except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest). The evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of 1 John 5:7 have no claim as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages. [4]Regarding Matthew 6:33, all Pro does is give us differences between the two translations, which is to be expected. In Matthew 6:13, it is not a lie that the two phrases in brackets are not in the oldest and best texts. It can most certainly be proven. It is bizarre that Pro would say this, considering scholars certainly have access to the manuscripts. Regarding Matthew 8:29, if the NASB leaves out Jesus (being one of the best modern translations), then it's possible the word "Jesus" doesn't appear in the texts. This is a minor issue, considering Son of God is still in there (which is a phrase used of Jesus in the Scriptures). Pro seems to want to nit-pick his way to victory. I think it's quite obvious that the KJV is not a superior translation, and to claim that it's inspired on par with the original Scriptures (which were directly given to man by God) is just silly and borderline heretical. [1] The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha, Oxford World's Classics, 1998 [2] . http://www.rapidnet.com...;[3] From the Schofield study Bible. [4] . http://www.kjv-only.com...;