Omitted verses.

Did you intend to say John 16:23-24? That is where the citation which you quote comes from. There are some conspiritorial claims that the NT was not written Greek, but in Aramaic, and so some have claimed (though it is very rare) that John 16:23-24 as found in the KJV (or even other modern Bibles) have edited out a few words or phrases. It's a very strange argument, because there's no mss evidence to base that claim off of. There isn't even a textual variant in existence to support that idea. Even the major Aramaic versions, such as the Peshitta (an Aramaic translation based from the Greek) agrees with the Greek witnesses. This idea that an original Aramaic phrase was edited out of the text stems from an interpolation that that had been added by the translator into the text. So essentially, people are arguing for Aramaic primacy based off an English interpolation. It's rather ridiculous.

In fact, there are very good internal reasons that can put this claim about Aramaic primacy to rest. On multiple occasions, Jesus’ words (which were spoken in Aramaic) had to be explained by the author of the book. For example, in Matt. 27:46, Jesus cries out (in Aramaic), “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” But then the author of Matthew has to then explain what it means.
Why would the author have to explain what the Aramaic phrase, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTANI?” means if the NT was originally written in Aramaic? That would be pretty redudant. The reason the Aramaic had to be explained was because his audience and readers knew Greek; it was the language of the day, spoken over vast regions.

I don't know why anyone would just stick with one translation. Or even argue over this.

Because there are some here that have based their whole belief in God on their false assumption that there is only ONE translation that is "true".
Instead of being a "Berean" willing to search and learn, they have placed their fingers in their ears and began reciting "there's NO translation but King Jimmy.... there's NO translation but King Jimmy..."
Even after the people that translated the King Jimmy version stated that even THEY did not consider their version to be the final and best translation, and even when scholars world wide have improved the accuracy of translations (not to mention putting them into modern, understandable language) .... Their faith is in a translation, instead of The One that the Bible is written about....

You cannot separate the two, the Lord and his word. No one worships the KJV. We simply believe it’s the word of God without error. There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish. All translation contain different words and different truths. Could a translation that contains errors, even “small” errors be the holy word of God?

A false witness cannot lie.

You cannot separate the two, the Lord and his word. No one worships the KJV. We simply believe it’s the word of God without error. There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish. All translation contain different words and different truths. Could a translation that contains errors, even “small” errors be the holy word of God?

A false witness cannot lie.

Yes, and assuming the persons are born again, then these verses would apply to them. ….
John 16:12-13 KJV
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
[13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John 14:26 KJV
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish.

Did you intend to say John 16:23-24? That is where the citation which you quote comes from. There are some conspiritorial claims that the NT was not written Greek, but in Aramaic, and so some have claimed (though it is very rare) that John 16:23-24 as found in the KJV (or even other modern Bibles) have edited out a few words or phrases. It's a very strange argument, because there's no mss evidence to base that claim off of. There isn't even a textual variant in existence to support that idea. Even the major Aramaic versions, such as the Peshitta (an Aramaic translation based from the Greek) agrees with the Greek witnesses. This idea that an original Aramaic phrase was edited out of the text stems from an interpolation that that had been added by the translator into the text. So essentially, people are arguing for Aramaic primacy based off an English interpolation. It's rather ridiculous.

In fact, there are very good internal reasons that can put this claim about Aramaic primacy to rest. On multiple occasions, Jesus’ words (which were spoken in Aramaic) had to be explained by the author of the book. For example, in Matt. 27:46, Jesus cries out (in Aramaic), “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” But then the author of Matthew has to then explain what it means.
Why would the author have to explain what the Aramaic phrase, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTANI?” means if the NT was originally written in Aramaic? That would be pretty redudant. The reason the Aramaic had to be explained was because his audience and readers knew Greek; it was the language of the day, spoken over vast regions.

You have given a good example how a translation can be inspired by God.

And in order to understand all truth, one needs the Holy Spirit and the correct words.

You cannot separate the two, the Lord and his word. No one worships the KJV. We simply believe it’s the word of God without error. There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish. All translation contain different words and different truths. Could a translation that contains errors, even “small” errors be the holy word of God?

A false witness cannot lie.

What then do you say to those who read a Bible translated into Farsi or Tagalog or Bantu?

There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish.

A false witness cannot lie.

You have given a good example how a translation can be inspired by God.

Because there are some here that have based their whole belief in God on their false assumption that there is only ONE translation that is "true".
Instead of being a "Berean" willing to search and learn, they have placed their fingers in their ears and began reciting "there's NO translation but King Jimmy.... there's NO translation but King Jimmy..."
Even after the people that translated the King Jimmy version stated that even THEY did not consider their version to be the final and best translation, and even when scholars world wide have improved the accuracy of translations (not to mention putting them into modern, understandable language) .... Their faith is in a translation, instead of The One that the Bible is written about....

That is completely false, and therein lies the problem. You think the KJV is absolutely 100% error free, and that is demonstrably wrong.
Even the translators of the KJV didn't think that way. You have raised that translation to "idol" status.
But we've been down this road before, a few years back.

What then do you say to those who read a Bible translated into Farsi or Tagalog or Bantu?

You are not making a lot of sense to be very honest.

That simply is not true. In many cases a given word in one language has more than one valid translations in another language. Further, the structural difference between languages leads to ambiguity regarding the ’correct’ rendering in the target language. If you had learned a second language, you might understand these things instead of presenting your unlearned opinions as though they are objective facts.


You really should proofread your posts.

You keep arguing for possibility instead of examining and accepting reality.

I am talking about English. Btw, God never promised to preserve his words in every language. For thousands of years God's word was only in Hebrew. What did the people do who spoke other languages?

Thanks for your opinion. We are in the search for truth. God's word never contradicts. When one translation contradicts another, they both cannot be the word of God. Surely you can understand this, yes?