KJV is superior

Let me respond to his claims now. Con said, "Essentially, translations are not inspired. Only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts were directly inspired by God, as per 2 Timothy 3:16. The translations were not inspired, and in fact the KJV contains many errors which have been corrected in later copies. Even if it hadn't been corrected, you can't lay claim that the KJV is superior because the translations were not inspired, only the original texts were inspired. " Let me give some proof that translations are inspired. When the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, such as Matthew 2:17-18, it translated Hebrew into Greek and both Testaments are inspired according to Christians. When Paul spoke to the Jews in Acts 22, he spoke Hebrew(Acts 21:40), yet the passage was written in Greek. When Joseph spoke in Genesis, he spoke Egyptian(Genesis 42:23), yet Genesis was written in Hebrew by Moses. Thus, my English KJV can be just as inspired as the original autographs, because translations are inspired according to the Bible. The decrees of Artaxerxes and Darius were translations, as those of Nebuchadnezzar(Daniel 3:29, Daniel 6:25, Esther 8:8-13). All the tongues in Acts 2 were translations directly God breathed by the Holy Ghost(Acts 2:6,11). More than 40 verses in the "original autographs" of the New Testanment were Greek translations from Hebrew(Matthew 1:22, 2:5, 2:17, 4:15, 8:17, 9:13, 11:10, 12:18, 15:7, 19:4, 21:42, 22:44, etc, etc). Latin, as well as Hebrew and Greek was inspired(Luke 23:38). Now what's this gas about "no translation can be inspired. " 2 Timothy 3:16 is not a reference to the original autographs. That is clear from the context. Verse 15 states, "And from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES. " How did Timothy know the "Holy Scriptures" FROM A CHILD IF ONLY THE ORIGINALS ARE SCRIPTURE? Do you mean to tell me that "little timothy" had the "original" of EVERY BOOK IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? Who had the original of Isaiah? Was it Jesus(Luke 4:17)? Or was it the Ethiopian Eunuch(Acts 8:32)? Did Timothy steal it from them? No, my friend, SCRIPTURE IS NEVER A REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINALS. Scripture is a reference to a COPY OF THE ORIGINALS. Further, God doesn't care about originals. The "original" Ten Commandments were destroyed(Exodus 32:19) and the "original" scroll Jeremiah wrote on was burned up(Jeremiah 36:23). Do you know what God did? HE MADE A COPY! Is the COPY NOT INSPIRED? ! A copy and a translation can be inspired. Con said, "For example, in 2 Samuel 8:4, we read that David took with him seven-hundred horsemen, but in 1 Chronicles 18:4, we read that David took with him seven-thousand horsemen. Quite a difference, and a definite contradiction. " Really? There is an easy answer. Obviously, the Syrians have 10 horsemen per chariot(2 Samuel 10:18, 1 Chron 19:18). This is proven by the fact that Solomon had 40,000 stalls for chariot horses. How many chariots did these 40,000 horses hook up to? The number of chariots is 4,000 according to 2 Chronicles 9:25-ten horses per chariot. Con said, "There are many more contradictions present but this is sufficient to make my case. " I would like to see them, because as far as I can tell, there are no contradictions in the KJV. However, there are contradictions in modern versions. For example: In 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV says,"Elhanan slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath. " Yet the NIV and other translations removes the phrase, "the brother of" making it read that Elhanan killed Goliath. This is a contradiction, though, because David killed Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:49-51. Another example is this: Christ is called "the morning star" in Revelation 22:16. Lucifer is called "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV. Yet the NIV calls Lucifer "THE MORNING STAR" in Isaiah 14:12. What utter blasphemy to give Christ's title to Luifer! Further the Hebrew word for star(Kokab) is not found anywhere near Isaiah 14:12. Now, don't tell me that the new versions are just updating "archaic" words. Of course the KJV is superior! Con said, "I'm not about to read through all the verses and compare them to the KJV. I don't think it's necessary. The KJV is an archaic version, and later versions were used based on more reliable manuscripts to translate into our modern versions (the NASB is generally considered one of the most reliable modern translations). " The fact of the matter is that the manuscripts that most new versions are based on are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Scholars claim these are, "the oldest and best manuscripts" when they are not. They are from the 4th century, meaning there were manuscripts from the 1st through 3rd centuries BEFORE THEM. The papyri from the 1st through 3rd centuries also contain these missing verses and support KJV readings. For example, papyrus 45 has the Byzantine text in 33 places, but has Vaticanus in 21 places and Siniaticus in 25 places. Papyrus 66 has the Byzantine text in 38 places, but has Vaticanus in 16 places and Siniaticus in 32 places. Even papyrus 75, a supposed opponent of the Byzantine text, supports it in a good number of 33 places while supporting Vaticanus in 11 places and Siniaticus in 36 places. It should be remembered that the Greek text of the KJV is the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. Why is it the Majority Text? Because 95% of all Greek manuscripts support its readings. However, the new versions are based on the Minority Text which includes the remaining 5% of manuscripts. These manuscripts include Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae. Furthermore, Sinaiticus was found in a trash basket ready to be burned. Constantin von Tischendorf was in St. Catherine's monastery when he found scribes burning manuscripts to keep warm. He stopped them and in the process found Sinaiticus in a trash can. Do you suppose God would keep the oldest and best manuscript in a trash basket? I JOHN 5:7 REBUTTAL Concerning 1 John 5:7, the verse is found or quoted in the Old Syriac versions(170 AD), Tatian(180 AD), Old Latin versions and Tertullian(200 AD), Cyprian(255 AD), Priscillian and Athanasius(350 AD), Council of Carthage(415 AD), Jerome's Vulgate(450 AD), Cassiodorus(480 AD) Fulgentius(510 AD), Codex Wianburgensis (750 AD), Miniscule 88(1150 AD), four different Waldensian Bibles(600-1400 AD), miniscule 629(14th century), miniscule 61(1519), and finally the KJV. And yes the Johannine Comma is found in Greek manuscripts. It is found in minuscule 629, minuscule 61, minuscule 918, minuscule 2473, and minuscule 2318. It is also in the margins of 221, 635, 88, 429, and 636. Here's A Comparison between the KJV and the NASB Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. " NASB puts the last two phrases in brackets and says they are not in the oldest and best texts (which are the Catholic corrupted texts out of Alexandria Egypt). It's a lie that cannot be proven; in fact the opposite is easily proven. Many verses are done this way. Matthew 6:33 KJV "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. " NASB "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you. " Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? " NASB "And behold, they cried out, saying, "What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time? "" NASB leaves out the word 'Jesus. ' Where is Jesus?