You show your lack of understanding as not all those who believe that the KJB is the Bible believe that the translators were inspired. This is double inspiration and is not what we have here in my opinion. The text is still inspired though through preservation.
There is no weakness in my OP. I have noticed your attacking method here because I have questioned the KJVs wrong choice of word in this verse. All that I have read from you is trying to show that what I have said is wrong and your feeble attempt to defend the KJV. You are more interested in trying to win your argument by any means. I have no problem with all that I have said in the OP and subsequent posts.
You just cannot be honest and answer if you are KJVO
If you're going to debate this, keep it civil. There's been enough ad hominem and snark already. In addition, this is in the wrong forum, so it is being sent to the correct one. Keep it clean or it will be closed.
John 1:18,
KJV, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
ESV, No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known
NASB 1977, 1995, No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
ISV, No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him
NET, No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known
Textual evidence for the reading with "God", is older and stronger. Which of these two are "Inspired" by the Holy Spirit?
I've taken a brief look at varying English translations from the period 1390 to 1611 and it appears that you are correct.
However, in the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, we find this:
" Engañoso es el corazón más que todas las cosas, y perverso; ¿quién lo conocerá?"
For those that do not know Spanish ( or have at least a working knowledge of it like I do ), punch that into "Google Translate" and see what you get. :)
Interesting point.
Speaking for myself, I have never maintained that the AV is an absolutely perfect translation of the Bible...
But I do believe that it is the best and most accurate to what I believe are God's preserved words in both Greek and Hebrew, using the English of its time.
Even more so, I also believe it to be superior to anything ( in English ) that is in widespread print today.
That said, what exactly is the point of this thread?
To prove that the AV isn't perfect?
I actually agree with you on that point.;)
As for what it should have been translated as, I agree with @rlvaughn in his post # 20.