KJV is superior

Those translations are the only inspired one because the New Testament writers were in the process of writing the New Testament. God was directly inspiring those documents, as he inspired the Old Testament documents. He had to inspire them because the New Testament had not be written yet. God needed to make sure that the translations were correct. But once the New Testament had been written, copies were made and God did not inspire those copies, neither did he inspire the translations that came later, Martin Luther's German translation, the KJV, the NIV, etc. Only the original texts were inspired.Also, one might put the burden of proof on you. Why is it that only the KJV is inspired? Why not the NIV, or the NASB, or any other modern translation? The reality is we know the KJV is inspired because as I have shown, it contains errors. If it contains even one error, then it was not directly inspired by a perfect God.God would not have to inspire a modern version in order to preserve his word. We know within a 99.95% accuracy what the other texts did because of all the manuscript evidence, plus the early church fathers who quoted from the Scriptures in their writings.I don't have to prove the NASB superior, as that's not my job in this debate. I just have to show that the KJV is not superior to the other translations that we have.Pro is in error. Paul saying that Timothy had the Scriptures from when he was young was not a lie. If I were to write a letter to my friend who had been a Christian since he was a kid, I could tell him to keep true to the Scriptures that he has since he was a kid, if he had been reading the NASB all his life, then I would not be lying to him since he had the Scriptures. I could even tell him that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That wouldn't mean I was saying the NASB was directly inspired of God, just that the Scriptures are inspired of God so my friend (like Timothy) can trust them.Additionally, Pro has given no reason why the KJV was inspired by not any of the other translations, like the NASB. For if Paul meant that even the translations were inspired of God, then that would mean the NIV and the NASB (among other translations) would be inspired of God. So the KJV still would not be the superior version.Pro makes a confusing statement. He says that Protestants buing the NASB would throw their Bibles away if they had the Apocrypha (meaning that we should have the Apocrypha in our Bibles but Protestants just don't want it), but he also says that they're not considered Scripture, just "recommended reading." So his assertion about Protestants and the Apocrypha is an ad hominem attack, nothing more. The Apocrypha should not be in the Bible because it is not inspired Scritpure (which is a debate for another time). So either Apocrypha should not be in there (in which case the 1611 KJV was in error), or the Apocrypha should be in there, so modern KJVs are in error. Which is it?Con's explanation still does not resolve the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4. The verses are quite specific about the number of horsemen: 700 in 2 Samuel, and 7,000 in 1 Chronicles. The explanation is simply that it was a copyist error, which is to be expected. This does not cast doubt on the Scriptures, it just casts doubt that the KJV was “inspired” as the original autographs were.Regarding the pillars, I don't know enough about them so I'll concede that point for now (as I don't have time to research it). However, Pro's explanation for when Nebuzaradan entered Jerusalem is no explanation at all. You can't make up a reason then say "you can't prove this wrong." All we can see is that there's a discrepancy in the verses. Again, likely a copyist error.Pro has not made his case that the NASB contains an error. Pro has not proven that "morning star" is a name given to Lucifer. After all, Jesus is called the "Bright and Morning Star" in Revelation 22:16, even in the KJV. If this is a name given to Lucifer that should not be attributed to God, then Pro must concede the KJV has errors in it, too, because it gives an account of Jesus using this name for himself.Plus, even if the NASB contains errors, that just proves my point. No modern translations are inspired as the original texts were, not the KJV, not even the NASB (though it is considered one of the most accurate modern translations).Pro claims that every KJV edition is inspired, but some contained the Apocrypha and some didn't. So some, at least, are in error. Pro is simply incorrect in his assertions.I believe I have sufficiently made my case. We can see the KJV is not inspired because of the errors it contains. Pro's responses were not sufficient to resolve some of these, and the KJV even refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (which Pro says is an error in other translations). So obviously, the KJV (while a good translation) was not inspired like the original texts, and it's not even one of the best translations. Thank you for reading.