The Instigator
keimm1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

KJB is the Perfect Word of God in the English Language without error

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 863 times Debate No: 29627
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

keimm1

Pro

This debate is simply over the question "Has God perfectly preserved His words for us in the English Language?" If he has which Bible is it in? I am would submit to you that the KJB is the Bible that God has preserved for us. So I will gladly invite anybody to a debate of why the KJB is not the perfect Word of God, or how we do not have any preserved scriptures. I will also entertain the debate of why another Bible would be the Word of God over the KJB.

So to begin my argument lets start off with some reasons that the KJB is the perfect infallible and inspired Word of God: (I have obtained this information through various resources handed down to me and from other articles both online and in hard copy books)

REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE KJV AS GOD"S PRESERVED WORD.
1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?
2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.
3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.
4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).
5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.
7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?
8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)
9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.
10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I negate.

I don't think that God perfectly preserved anything in the English language, but if He did I'm sure it's not the 'KJB'.

Definitions (from the Oxford English Dictionary):

Perfect: 'free from any imperfection or defect of quality'

There is no reason to simply assume the 'KJV' is free from defects, so it ought to be the burden of my opponent to show that it is flawless. I'll throw out one contention, just for the heck of it, and then attack my opponent's arguments.

Contention One: The KJV is faulted

The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which is widely acknowledged as a complete disaster. The translation of it was greatly rushed, because Erasmus was hurrying to get his version printed before someone elses, and as a consequence it is utterly riddled with typographical errors. [1]. This can result in deviations from the most ancient and accurate manuscripts.

In addition, some translations in the KJV are just plain bizarre. For example, unicorns.

'His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.' - Deuteronomy 33:17 (KVJ)

'Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?' - Job 39:9-10 (KJV)

'He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.' - Psalms 29:6 (KJV)

'And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.' - Isaiah 34:7 (KJV)

Rebuttals:

My opponent writes 'God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?'

Douay-Rheims only.

My opponent writes 'It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.'

This doesn't support the resolution. Irregardlessly, the Douay-Rheims has no copyright either. In fact, it was published before the KJV.

My opponent writes 'The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.'

All my opponent has really done for this is pretty much just asserted that the KJV produces good fruit. I think the KJV produces horrible fruit, untold heresies, and generally aids in perpetuating nearly irrevocable damage.

My opponent writes 'The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).'

Wat. My opponent is throwing out some horrible exegesis of Revelation that doesn't make any sense. Most of what he's saying is pretty much just assertions, with a quick scribble of scripture after it to make it look like it has some backing. For example, it'll take a great deal to even prove that there was a Philadelphia church period, let alone that the KJV was translated during it.

My opponent writes 'The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.'

Did they do so in 2 Samuel 21:19 when they added a word out of nowhere, taking it upon themselves to 'correct' what the manuscripts said?

My opponent writes 'All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.'

I've never heard of a new translation comparing itself to the KJV. The only reason for which I could ever see a translation doing that is if it wants a pathetic standard by which to measure itself.

My opponent writes 'The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?'

Who knows what the KJV translators thought? I would definitely not pick the KJV translators, because (for starters) they were all heretics.

My opponent writes 'The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)'

Source, plz?

My opponent writes 'No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.'

What rubbish. No one has ever proven that the Douay-Rheims is not God's word, and it should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

My opponent writes 'The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!'

The KJV's no better than anything else.

Conclusion

Very few of my opponent's arguments even support the resolution. Even if other versions are flawed, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the KJV is perfect, although my opponent has done little to even show other versions flawed.

Sources:
1. http://www.skypoint.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
keimm1

Pro

keimm1 forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

That's disappointing.
Debate Round No. 2
keimm1

Pro

keimm1 forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Come at me.
Debate Round No. 3
keimm1

Pro

keimm1 forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

You'd better forfeit you noob.
Debate Round No. 4
keimm1

Pro

keimm1 forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Wanna fight?
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
66 cannons FTW!
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Looks like we've got another hit-and-run debater.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Pro can't seem to decide if it's called "KJB" (King James Bible) or "KJV" (King James Version).
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
keimm1AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Pro can't ignore Con's contention and meet the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
keimm1AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit