Heavens, michelle...
You've talked yourself into so many circles you've painted yourself into a huge corner on this one:
Your first post read:
record: 1. to write down for future use 2. to register, as on a graph 3. to register (sound or visual images) on a disc, tape, etc. for later reproduction - n. 1. the condition of being recorded 2. anything written down and preserved; account of events 3. a) the known facts about anyone or anything b) the recorded offenses or crimes of a person 4. a grooved disc for playing on a phonograph 5. the best official performance acheived.
This clearly shows that you ascribe the meaning as something WRITTEN.
Now, examples I cited from Shakespeare and the Oxford Dictionary of the English language, which you say prove you are correct show the OPPOSITE, that "record" (n). in late middle and early modern (1611) English is that it is INTERCHANGEABLE with the word "witness," as in "oral testimony."
In your earlier posts you wrote of "witness"
witness: 1. evidence, testimony 2. one who saw, or can give a firsthand account of, something 3.one who testifies in court 4. one who observes, and attests to, a signing, etc. -vt. 1. to testify to 2. to serve as evidence of 3. to act as witness of 4. to be present at - bear witness to testify.
What is nonsense, is the fact that it has been shown to you all the definitions of these two words, and how they are DIFFERENT enouph in meaning that makes a very important DISTINCTION
Then you turned around from defending the use of "record" to say that the problem was with the word "witness." For heaven's sake, michelle, make up your mind!
Witness = record in 1611 English; they are synonyms. (I assume you understand the definition of the word "synonym.") They represent the same word in the TR. If anything the rendering of them as the same word in MV's is more true to the TR than the KJV. Why? Because 1 word does not equal 2 words, though, in Early Modern English the words witness and record meant the exact same thing. NOW, however, they do NOT. Language changes, michelle. Consonantal shifts occur, making hard sounds softer. Usages change. Spellings even change over time. (If we are to believe Askjo that the words of the KJV are 100% preserved, then we should all be sure we stop using "s" and use "f" instead, "f" is sometimes used in Middle English and Early Modern English instead of the modern "s.", and words are composed of letters. Since all the jots and tittles don't pass away, then even the most recent KJV update is wrong, because of spelling changes from the original!). (That's what the word "archaic" often means in the dictionary). In this case the KJV's use of the word "record" reflects the archaic usage of the term as found in Shakespeare. (The use of Shakespearean quotes does NOT support your position, because your position says that the words are DIFFERENT in meaning, NOT the same.
