Great! Let's look at 3 words: witness, testimony and record. What is witness? What is testimony? What is record?
In the context of the OP, which, btw let me remind you that YOU authored, it wasn't a word you were contesting..... it was two phrases (a group of words with meaning) taken out of the context of two different stories, which, when compared together, give a superficial appearance of a contradiction of meaning. After framing them as a contradiction, you then assert that both cannot be true .......... and if only one can be true then the Bible is not all true and if the Bible is the Word of God does God lie?
What is the problem?
Is it that the words are translated the same in the KJV?
Is it that both sentences say different things?
Is it the version of the Bible, which you've later introduced in the thread?
I gave you in my first post in this thread, the breakdown of the context which is EVERYTHING to seeing there is no contradiction.
Could it be that either you are enjoying an argument over nothing and trying to make an issue of it for the 'joy' of arguing
OR
you have a mental (and probably a spiritual) block to receiving the truth?
When reading the Bible, realize that in the orignal autographs there were no paragraphs and limited punctuation, no verses, no chapters. These are 'inventions' of modern reference to help us find specific passages, and, in most cases, keep the order of one subject together.
It was as if Jesus was saying, and I'm paraphrasing which means this is not a Bible quote
" You people ask for a witness to my authority. [you people have a saying] If I give testimony of my self my testimony is not true. [I know your traditions] I'll give you three, which is more than you require of each other when you receive and take confidence in each other of your countrymen: I have the witness of the scriptures which tell of me, the testimony of John, whom you believed, and the power of the Father in the works which I do, which you see are good. Now what is your problem that you still will not believe?" John 5 with the unspoken inference (of thought content) presented as brackets taken in the context. (Which I don't recommend but am taking a liberty to do. Another way of saying it is that it is a smiggen of sarcasm by which Jesus addressed by mirroring in his speech the very thoughts they [the people] carried in their heads while answering in reply.)
In John 8, it was the pharisees who declared Jesus had no authority and that he was testifying of himself. As his works and miracles and prophesy had the power of the Father's authority and blessing, and WAS a testimony which could not be honestly denied, he acknowledged that even IF he gives testimony of himself, yet his testimony IS TRUE. [This was in contradiction to their 'tradition' that they should not trust the testimony of one. They were blind to the evidence and determined to prove him a liar....regardless of the evidence.... just like people do today..... trying to find fault in God's Word. While there may be differences and problems in translating from one language to the next.... and the interpretation we later give to words as they change in common usage.... the ultimate and bottom line is that GOD is TRUE and NEVER LIES and that He has promised to preserve his word: We can depend that His word is true....... and if we have problems with it then it is due to human error: And given the scholarly discipline of so many who've involved themselves in the critique and inspection of the various translations, in most or all cases, the problem is within the reader.]
In cruising through the various English versions of the Bible, it helps to keep in mind that without a different phrasing of words, or using different words, there would be no different versions or copy-write protections for the scholars or publishers. In considering the variance of versions, it is helpful to realize also that to those who depend on the Bible for their spiritual growth, knowledge and faith in God the Savior and Lord, a version which did not stick to truth would not sell...... which is the bottom line for most publishers. The KJV of the Bible has the most limited vocabulary...... so the same word is often translated the same. More recent versions use synonyms as seemingly more appropriate to passage or context (which increases the vocabulary used) and more modern or customary phrasing.
While I have a preference for the poetic and reverent beauty, simplicity, consistency of meaning, stability, and the scholarly intensity with which the KJV was translated, I think it is serious offense and discouragement to the confidence we have in God's Word, if, without some very obvious errors specific to a translation, we start casting a generalized doubt upon the authority and infallibility of God's Word.
The most important calling we have as Christians is to live the life and bear the witness. Few of us are called to that area of specialty whereby by scholarship and intensity we are properly refined to expose errors, critique, and lower confidence in a particular translation, knowing that this charge may also contribute to the barriers and resistance the natural man already has in his heart to resist the truth. This does not mean that errors (if present) shouldn't be pointed out..... but that one who does so should first have a good understanding and find collaboration of other scholars and trustworthy believers that a charge of 'error' is valid
