So is only the KJV an inspired version according to this definition, or can any other Bible claim the same priviledge? My point is this: if “inspired” means from God in any sense, how can any human claim to know what happened between God and a group of people? none of us were there when the KJV was written, nor were any of us there when (for example) the ESV was written. Thus, it is impossible for us to even make a claim about inspiration since it necessarily means knowing what went on between God and a group of people. Maybe you are ready to say that you know this, but I do not have the arrgoance to make such a claim.
It's not arrogancy that is making me make such a claim. It's called obedience. Inspired means literally God breathed. This does not mean in any sense. He had a purpose in mind. That purpose was His Word. And not just any bible either. If you compare the versions written today you'll see what I mean. We will compare verses later.
What if we alter the meaning a little and say that inspiration depends on the results of what a Bible does? Then it becomes even less clear, for God is not limited by anything! Someone could find the name “Jesus” written in a newspaper and God could use that to save, for “all things are possible” through God.
Why alter the meaning? That means to change the meaning. Changing the meaning is a no-no in God's book. That's exactly what these new versions do, is change the meaning.`Here are just a few words the new versions "alter." This comes from the book New Age Bible Versions: Lucifer is called Morning Star, Jehovah is Lord (In the Old Testament KJV Jehovah is called Lord, but with all caps, there is a difference between all cap and just the L being capitalized.) Holy One of Israel is called One, Holy Ghost is called Spirit, (just plain Spirit, nothing else), Lord Jesus Christ is called Lord (You have Jesus and God being called Lord and they are, but the KJV makes a difference between the two, in other words, it's more to the point.) Godhead is Divine Being.
You told me I was wrong in my translation meaning. You chose a single phrase. You said it had different meanings. True, words do have more than one meaning. Explain this if you will. Again I'm using New Age Bible Versions book. I'm using one example. When the KJV used the phrase: I abhor myself, the other versions say My conscience is clear. These other versions also omit a lot of things, but I'll leave that for my closing arguement.
You really shouldn't skip what I said about the Catholic Church. You say it's been around. Believe me when I tell it's a touchy subject.
You said: First off, any version of the Bible is going to come down to us through the Catholic church, since it was the only church in the world for at least a little while. Thus, that point is moot. In terms of spiritualists, this is just a false allegation
This is false. The Catholic Church started around 325 A.D. God has always had a remnant.
When I was talking about the people tranlating the bible being spiritualists, you said it was a lie. Prove it. It's not. It's documented. The footnote says: Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Wescott, Vol.II (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited 1903 p. 252.
In conclusion you said:
I am not advocating that one translation is better than another. I am simply advocating that God preserved His word in many forms, who are we to tell Him how He must do things?
Well, I am advocating one translation. It's the right translation. Your "other" translations omit a lot of things which I will get into in my closing argument and change the meanings.
And another thing, you haven't shown me any scripture.