The Instigator
acvavra
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
davidtaylorjr
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

KJV is Superior

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,271 times Debate No: 25048
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

acvavra

Pro

I will argue that the King James Version is the Best Translation of the Bible and is inspired. You will argue that at least ONE english translation SINCE 1881, not before, is superior to the KJV.
Round 1-acceptance
Rounds 2-4:main argument, rebuttals
Round 5-last minute rebuttals, conclusion
davidtaylorjr

Con

I accept and look forward to the challenge.

Definitions:

KJV 1611 Edition
Inspired: God gave direct translation to the authors meaning they needed no other tools/resources to translate the text.
Debate Round No. 1
acvavra

Pro

The King James Version(KJV) is superior compared to modern versions for several reasons. In this round I would like to mention errors concerning the omission of verses found in modern versions.

The following verses are removed: Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24 New International Version(NIV)

New American Standard Version(NASV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, and Luke 24:40 are removed

Revised Standard Version(RSV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, Luke 24:40, Matt. 12:47, Matt 21:44, Mark 16:9-20(THATS A WHOLE PASSAGE), Luke 22:43,44, 24:12, John 7:53-8:11(WHOLE PASSAGE), and James 1:8

New Revised Standard Version(NRSV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and James 1:8

New Century Version(NCV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24

Now that is just examples from 5 modern versions. The King James Bible has all of those verses. I believe the Bible(KJV)is the Word of God and if so, then to remove whole verses(NIV removes 63,625 words altogether) is absolutely SATANIC! Removing 63,625 words would be the equivalent of removing Obadiah, Jonah, Haggai, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude. It just removes a word here and a word there so you dont notice it.

This is not the only reason that the KJV is superior but this reason alone should convince any honest person.

This is only one reason though. Let me present more:

Let me give some proof that translations are inspired.
When the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, such as Matthew 2:17-18, it translated Hebrew into Greek and both Testaments are inspired according to Christians. When Paul spoke to the Jews in Acts 22, he spoke Hebrew(Acts 21:40), yet the passage was written in Greek. When Joseph spoke in Genesis, he spoke Egyptian(Genesis 42:23), yet Genesis was written in Hebrew by Moses. Thus, my English KJV can be just as inspired as the original autographs, because translations are inspired according to the Bible. The decrees of Artaxerxes and Darius were translations, as those of Nebuchadnezzar(Daniel 3:29, Daniel 6:25, Esther 8:8-13). All the tongues in Acts 2 were translations directly God breathed by the Holy Ghost(Acts 2:6,11). More than 40 verses in the "original autographs" of the New Testanment were Greek translations from Hebrew(Matthew 1:22, 2:5, 2:17, 4:15, 8:17, 9:13, 11:10, 12:18, 15:7, 19:4, 21:42, 22:44, etc, etc). Latin, as well as Hebrew and Greek was inspired(Luke 23:38).
Now what's this gas about no translation can be inspired. The New Testament TRANSLATES from the Old Testament ALL THE TIME.

2 Timothy 3:16 is not a reference to the original autographs. That is clear from the context. Verse 15 states, "And from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES." How did Timothy know the "Holy Scriptures" FROM A CHILD IF ONLY THE ORIGINALS ARE SCRIPTURE? Do you mean to tell me that "little timothy" had the "original" of EVERY BOOK IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? Who had the original of Isaiah? Was it Jesus(Luke 4:17)? Or was it the Ethiopian Eunuch(Acts 8:32)? Did Timothy steal it from them? No, my friend, SCRIPTURE IS NEVER A REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINALS. Scripture is a reference to a COPY OF THE ORIGINALS. Further, God doesn't care about originals. The "original" Ten Commandments were destroyed(Exodus 32:19) and the "original" scroll Jeremiah wrote on was burned up(Jeremiah 36:23). Do you know what God did? HE MADE A COPY! Is the COPY NOT INSPIRED?! A copy and a translation can be inspired.

Now this argument for the KJV can be proven using the Bible. The corrupt manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are from Alexandria, Egypt. Egypt is always a bad place in the Bible. God called the Jews out of Egypt with Moses(Exodus 14). He called his Son Jesus out of Egypt after Herod was dead(Matt. 2:20). God had Jeremiah tell the Jews to not go to Egypt(Jeremiah 42:19). God pronounces a bunch of judgements against Egypt in Isaiah 19 concluding in destruction(verse 1) ,war(verse 4), plague(verse 5) and drying up rivers(verse 5). The Alexandrians are also mentioned in Acts 6:9 where they have Stephen stoned for being a Christian(Acts 7). Alexandria, Egypt, is not the place to go for Bible Manuscripts!
In contrast, the KJV got its manuscripts from a Byzantine text. This means the manuscripts it came from were near Antioch, Syria. Now in the Bible, Antioch, Syria, is a good place. It produced the first Bible teachers and missionaries (Acts 13:1-4, Acts 15:35). Furthermore, in Acts 18:24-25, a Jew named Apollos from ALEXANDRIA was teaching the wrong things about the Bible. Aquila and Priscilla have to expound and teach the Scriptures to him(Acts 18:26). He did not no his Bible as well as Aquila and Priscilla and Apollos was from ALEXANDRIA(Acts 18:24). I want a Bible whose manuscripts come from Antioch and the KJV is just that. Its Greek text is the Textus Receptus or Majority Text(Majority text because the majority of manuscripts agree with it). This Textus Receptus is based on Byzantine manuscripts, meaning manuscripts from Antioch, Syria.

Also, I will address the usual argument given to justify missing verses. Scholars remove these verses ALMOST ALWAYS BASED ON VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS ALONE. They claim these are, "the oldest and best manuscripts" when they are not. They are from the 4th century, meaning there were manuscripts from the 1st through 3rd centuries BEFORE THEM. The papyri from the 1st through 3rd centuries also contain these missing verses and support KJV readings. For example, papyrus 45 has the Byzantine text in 33 places, but has Vaticanus in 21 places and Siniaticus in 25 places. Papyrus 66 has the Byzantine text in 38 places, but has Vaticanus in 16 places and Siniaticus in 32 places. Even papyrus 75, a supposed opponent of the Byzantine text, supports it in a good number of 33 places while supporting Vaticanus in 11 places and Siniaticus in 36 places. It should be remembered that the Greek text of the KJV is the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. Why is it the Majority Text? Because 95% of all Greek manuscripts support its readings. However, the new versions are based on the Minority Text which includes the remaining 5% of manuscripts. These manuscripts include Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae. Furthermore, Sinaiticus was found in a trash basket ready to be burned. Constantin von Tischendorf was in St. Catherine's monastery when he found scribes burning manuscripts to keep warm. He stopped them and in the process found Sinaiticus in a trash can. Do you suppose God would keep the oldest and best manuscript in a trash basket?
davidtaylorjr

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity of this debate. It has always fascinated me that people believe the 1611 KJV is superior to all other translations.

My opponent has asked that I show at least one translation that is superior to the 1611 KJV created since 1881.

For starters, I will say that most people, and I assume my opponent, would not even be able to read a 1611 KJV translation as it is an older English.

2nd, in 1900 the KJV was updated[1]. This was a revised version of the KJV and is what most KJV enthusiasts use today. In fact, very few people use the actual 1611 original.

It seems to me that a translation cannot be superior if most people cannot even read it. The 1900 edition that most people use today was after the 1881 mark so I would ask my opponent to explain which version he indeed uses and which one is most correct.

Refrences:
[1] http://www.logos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
acvavra

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for posting.

Now my opponent assumes that most people(even me) would not be able to read a 1611 KJV. Well, for starters, I have an original 1611 edition of the KJV. There are not many of them left. I can read it as well. What my opponent has failed to tell you is that the 1611 edition ONLY USED OLD SPELLING. For example, "James" is SPELLED as "Iames." "Evening" is spelled as "Euening." The "u's" became "v's." "Israel" is spelled "Ifrael." ANYONE WITH A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA CAN READ SUCH AN EDITION by reading the sentences. The spelling DOESN'T MAKE IT A FOREIGN LANGUAGE as my opponent would have you believe.

Second, my opponent would have you believe that since the KJV was revised, the new versions can revise as well. There is a difference. The modern KJV editions UPDATED SPELLING. The new versions remove verses(see round 2), attack the deity of Christ(1 Timothy 3:16), attack the blood atonement(Colossians 1:14), attack the Trinity(1 John 5:7), change "sodomite" to "temple prostitute," and give Christ's Title(morning star) to Lucifer(Isaiah 14:12).

Third, I mentioned a DIFFERENT TRANSLATION since 1881, NOT A DIFFERENT KJV edition. My opponent is skirting the issue.

Now, I hope I didn't type 8,000 characters in round 2 for nothing. You have not presented A SINGLE REBUTTAL to my arguments. I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and assume he will answer my arguments soon.
davidtaylorjr

Con

In rebuttal to my opponents first arguments:

New American Standard Version(NASV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, and Luke 24:40 are removed

I personally use the NASB and took the time time to look up these references. Apparently my opponent has not done his research as all of these verses are located in the version.[1]

I haven't looked through all of the other translations but I know that some of the verses listed are also found in other translations as well.

In regards to the accuracy of the NASB translation, I would like to submit the translation notes from the Lockman Foundation themselves:

[2]

New American Standard Bible
Translation Principles

The New American Standard Bible translation team adhered to the literal philosophy of translation. This is the most exacting and demanding method of translation, and requires a word-for-word translation that is accurate and precise, yet easily readable. This philosophy of translation follows the word and sentence patterns of the original authors so that the reader is free to understand God's message as the Holy Spirit leads.

What is the process of translation?

No initial translation work was ever done by a single individual working privately. The renderings were always the outgrowth of a pooling of ideas and input from a group of translators. Sometimes done by the entire translation committee and sometimes by a subcommittee thereof, the initial draft was then shipped to consultants in other areas, who were given several weeks to evaluate the translated portion. Their comments were then combined and the whole package submitted to the translation committee which at this point finalized the translation for that given portion. Though a constant refining of the text ensued, this, in essence, was the work that was eventually published.

The Fourfold Aim That Guides All of Our Translation Work

1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.

Introduction to the New American Standard Bible

The King James Version, a landmark in the history of English Bible translation, is a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568. The KJV became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship, and accuracy.

Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, The Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV, by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

Under the sponsorship of The Lockman Foundation of La Habra, California, a dedicated team of scholars worked for more than ten years to produce the New American Standard Bible. First published in its compete form in 1971, the NASB is excellent for Bible study because it aims at a precise translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. As such, it renders, where practical, the original order of words and phrases. In passages where this literalness produces unacceptable English, the translators used modern English idioms and indicated the literal renderings in marginal notes.

In New Testament Greek, questions are worded in a way that shows whether the expected answer is yes or no. The NASB translation is faithful to this treatment. In places where the English language would describe past action with a past-tense verb, the Greek uses the present tense for special vividness. The NASB indicates such cases with an asterisk (or star) before the past-tense verb. Among the other distinctive are the NASB's clear indicating of all phrases that quote or allude to the Old Testament; it includes quotation marks for dialogue and quoted material and capitalizes personal pronouns and words referring to Deity; and supplied words are in italic type.

Underlying the New American Standard Bible is the evangelical commitment of the translators: all of whom believe that the words of the original manuscripts of Scripture were given by God.

HEBREW TEXT: The latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.


So we can see that the NASB is a true translation to the original texts, and that my opponent made false claims about the translation itself.

I yield the floor.

Refrences:

[1]
New American Standard Bible
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved. http://www.lockman.org...

[2] http://www.lockman.org...
Debate Round No. 3
acvavra

Pro

Rebuttal to NASV:

When I said the NASV removes Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, and Luke 24:40, I was SAYING that the NASV committee DOESN'T BELIEVE THEY BELONG IN THE TEXT. They put them in the text in PARENTHESIS AND TELL YOU IN THE FOOTNOTES IT DOESN'T REALLY BELONG. Don't believe me? OK, here's a link:

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Con said, "The New American Standard Bible translation team adhered to the literal philosophy of translation. This is the most exacting and demanding method of translation, and requires a word-for-word translation that is accurate and precise, yet easily readable." There are two main errors in this kind of logic:

1. There is no "original greek text" so how can you make a word-for-word translation?
2. Greek grammar is far different than English grammar. This means a word-for-word translation would make NO SENSE IN ENGLISH. For example, in English, a sentence might begin "Jesus said, or Jesus did," BUT IN GREEK you have to have definite articles before nouns. Thus, in Greek, it would read "The Jesus said" or "the Jesus did." This is not grammatically correct in English. Thus, the NASV is not a word-for-word translation because it would have a TON OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS.

Con said, "No initial translation work was ever done by a single individual working privately. The renderings were always the outgrowth of a pooling of ideas and input from a group of translators. Sometimes done by the entire translation committee and sometimes by a subcommittee thereof, the initial draft was then shipped to consultants in other areas, who were given several weeks to evaluate the translated portion. Their comments were then combined and the whole package submitted to the translation committee which at this point finalized the translation for that given portion. Though a constant refining of the text ensued, this, in essence, was the work that was eventually published."

Yes, but so did the KJV committee. They all consulted each other's work as well.

Con said, "The Fourfold Aim That Guides All of Our Translation Work

1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

PROBLEM: There are no originals.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.

Then its not a word-for-word translation as I showed above.
3. They shall be understandable.

Ok, does this make it the Word of God, though? `1 Corinthians 2:14 says, "But the natural man RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD... NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM." Its not meant to be understandable to the natural man.

4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized."
Is his proper place to remove the last half of his prayer to His father in Matthew 6:13? How about completely changing 1 John 5:7 so that Christ is no longer Deity?

Con said, "Underlying the New American Standard Bible is the evangelical commitment of the translators: all of whom believe that the words of the original manuscripts of Scripture were given by God."
They probably think 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the original manuscripts. However I already refuted this in round 2.

Does my opponent know that Rudolf Kittel was largely Anti-semitic? Does he know that Kittel's son, Gerhard Kittel, printed propaganda for Adolf Hitler? Does he know that Rudolph Kittel printed the ben Chayim text in 1909 and 1913 which underlies the KJV, BUT THEN switched to the corrupt ben Asher edition? Does he know the manuscript used was the Leningrad codex? This was copied in Cairo, Egypt. Need I remind him everything that's Biblically wrong with Egypt?

The Greek text ORIGINALLY used for the NASV was Nestles 23rd edition. The 1995 revision was the 26th edition. The 23rd edition is based on the corrupt manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

So we can see that the NASB is a CORRUPT TRANSLATION TO THE ORIGINAL TEXTS. After all, since there are no originals, what "original text" are you referring to?
davidtaylorjr

Con

davidtaylorjr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
acvavra

Pro

I will let my original arguments stand then, as they have been unchallenged. Let me conclude with this poem:

I heard the old-time preacher speak
without one reference to the Greek,
"This precious Book within my hand
is God's own Word on which I stand."
And then the scholars came along
and said the preacher had it wrong:
"Conflations here, rescissions there,
and scribal errors everywhere."
A book "essentially correct" but not in every last respect.
Then in despair I bowed my head.
"We have no Word of God," I said. If some of this old Book is wrong,
pray tell, what else does not belong?"
Will still more manuscripts be found
to make us go another round? Correcting, changing,taking out;
creating questions, fear and doubt?
How will we ever know we're through-that we possess
a sripture true? If man must find God's Word,
my friend, when will the changes ever end?
Then to the Book again I fled
to find out what my Father said.
"Forever settled... never fade"
This promise God the Spirit made.
A thousand generations hence
that seems a pretty strong defense.
A "perfect Book" Then it must be
man can't improve what God gave me.
-R.B. Ouellette
davidtaylorjr

Con

I do apologize for missing a round as I lost internet connectivity this weekend.

I will close with this that my opponent has failed to give 100% proof that the KJV 1611 edition is superior to all other translations to follow. I have proven that the NASB is a good translation and uses modern day language which would make it superior for the understanding of today's readers.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
Does my opponent really expect me to beleive he has an original 1611 and reads out of it daily? I find that very hard to believe.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
This ought to be interesting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.