KJV is superior

Con said, "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)." Okay, but why are these translations the ONLY INSPIRED ONES? Why cant English be inspired? Does my opponent believe God can't Translate His Word into English. God said He would preserve His Word(Psalm 12:6-7). Where is it then, after all the originals are lost. He would have to inspire a translation in a common language(English) to preserve His Word then. Now, my opponent is correct that if the KJV contains errors, then its not inspired. However, he has to prove the KJV has errors in it then. Also, to show the NASB to be superior means you have to give an example of where its translation of a word or phrase is superior to the KJV reading. Con said, "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)." THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM HERE. IF Paul in verse 16 meant ONLY THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, THEN HE LIED TO TIMOTHY, for he told Timothy, "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD." Do you see the "ALL." That includes the "SCRIPTURE" of VERSE 15 THAT TIMOTHY HAD! IF "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, then the scripture Timothy had as a kid was INSPIRED BY GOD, AND IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINALS. My opponent has just destroyed himself. Con said, "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)." Except the New Testament writers COPIED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW INTO GREEK(A TRANSLATION), WHICH WAS A COPY OF THE SCRIPTURES, JUST LIKE THE KJV TRANSLATORS. God CAN inspire the KJV translators just as much as he can the authors of the originals. Concerning the Apocrypha, there is a difference between how a Catholic Bible and the 1611 KJV contained it. A Catholic Bible has the apocrypha interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The 1611 KJV had it BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS, between the Old and New Testaments. They called it "recommended reading" but not scripture. If they had considered it scripture, it would have been in the Old Testament. So since not even the translators believed it to be scripture, I am not going to either. I would like to mention that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which new versions are based on, DO HAVE the apocrypha interspersed throughout the Old Testament! If these manuscripts are so great, why do the new versions not have the apocrypha in them, then(including the NASB)? The translators of these new versions are not being honest. It would hurt their sales. If the Protestant Christians knew that their new version was based on manuscripts which have the apocrypha IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, they would throw that version away. Protestants don't want a Bible based on Catholic manuscripts. Con said, "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." Again, there were 10 men per chariot. There is either 700 groups of men with ten men in each group, or maybe 10 groups of men, with 700 in each group. Keep in mind that the other figures in these two passages (the footmen, chariots, and the reserves) are in complete agreement with each other. Con said, "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." Both pillars are given to be eighteen cubits high. Notice, first of all, that if the pommels(2 Chronicles 4:2) are counted as part of the chapiter, a five cubit measurement would be right one time, and a three cubit measurement right another time(excluding the pommel). Again, one pillar could have had 2 cubits knocked off the chapiter(considering 2 kings 16:17, 2 chron 25:23). After all, the second PILLAR also and the pomegrantes matched the first pillar(Jer 52:22). Have you ever considered that the writer who said "3 cubits" could be writing about the pillars AFTER Nebuchaddnezzar showed up, while the writer writing down "5 cubits" could be referring to them BEFORE they were cut up? Con said, "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." Well, he could have commenced fire on the city on the 7th day,(he came there), and then entered on the 10th day after the fire was over. You cant prove this wrong. Con said, "There may even be errors in the NASB (though I'm not currently aware of any)." Well, allow me to make you aware. Just as the NIV says, "morning star in Isaiah 14:12, so the NASB says star of the morning. This still gives Christ's title to Lucifer. Con said, "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." Again, every piece of papyrus from the 1st and 2nd century agrees with every KJV reading(Biblical Scholarship p.66, Peter s. Ruckman). The Textus Receptus(Greek text for the KJV) comes from the Majority of ALL Greek manuscripts(The Byzantine manuscripts). Every KJV edition is inspired. These revisions were nothing like what modern versions do. These revisions merely updated spelling such as changing " King Iames" to "King James" or corrected typographical errors. Printing errors were common in those days, but they were corrected quickly. It's amazing how people are always focusing on the original this or that. I'm concerned about the Bible I have in my hand, and it has no errors. Remember this, the revisions of the modern versions give Christ's Title to Lucifer(Isaiah 14:12) or remove whole verses from the Bible and passages as well. Naturally, any KJV would be superior to that! I John 5:7 The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. They had to combat Sabellianism, so deleting 1 John 5:7 would help them. The fact that is found in Old Syriac versions from 170 AD shows its an ancient reading. Matthew 6:13: Marcion THE HERETIC ripped apart the Lord's Prayer. Do you agree with the Gnostic Marcion? Matthew 8:29: KJV gives more honor to Christ Matthew 6:33: KJV reading is superior Now I have little room left for a conclusion. However, I will end on this note. If God's words were only PERFECTLY CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINALS, then why would God say He would preserve His Word(Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35)? It didn't say His "Message" would be preserved, it said His WORDS would be. Further, you are a LYING HYPOCRITE if you hold up a translation and say "This is the Word of God!" when REALLY, only the originals were, right? I mean, if the Word of God is supposed to be inerrant and perfect, then any translation can't REALLY be the Word of God. No, my friend, the KJV is the Word of God and its error free.