KJV is superior
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 :acceptance
Rounds 2-3:main arguments/ rebuttals
Round 4:conclusion/last minute rebuttals
Burden of proof is on both sides. I need to show KJV IS SUPERIOR To all translations since 1881. You need to show how AT LEAST ONE English translation since 1885 is superior to the KJV.
Very well. I accept your debate. I await your opening argument.
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.
I thank Pro for issuing this challenge. I will briefly make my case that later translations (specifically, the NASB translation) are superior to the KJV, then I will respond to Pro's only argument.
Essentially, translations are not inspired. Only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts were directly inspired by God, as per 2 Timothy 3:16. The translations were not inspired, and in fact the KJV contains many errors which have been corrected in later copies. Even if it hadn't been corrected, you can't lay claim that the KJV is superior because the translations were not inspired, only the original texts were inspired.
The KJV contains a number of errors in translation, most notably with some of the numbers. For example, in 2 Samuel 8:4, we read that David took with him seven-hundred horsemen, but in 1 Chronicles 18:4, we read that David took with him seven-thousand horsemen. Quite a difference, and a definite contradiction. Now, it's not a true contradiction, because we know that humans are flawed and that this is simply an error in translation (not an error with the original texts), but this illustrates that the KJV is not inspired, and is certainly not superior to other translations. There are many more contradictions present but this is sufficient to make my case.
I'm not about to read through all the verses and compare them to the KJV. I don't think it's necessary. The KJV is an archaic version, and later versions were used based on more reliable manuscripts to translate into our modern versions (the NASB is generally considered one of the most reliable modern translations).
I will give an example of a change the NASB makes that is a reasonable change from the KJV.
Let's take 1 John 5:7-8 for example. The KJV reads: "For there are three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in Earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree as one."
Verse seven was translated by King James' scribes as an obvious reference to the Trinity. The problem is this is not what the verse actually says in the original inspired texts.
The NASB renders 1 John 5:7-8 as follows: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
Very different renderings. The KJV adds the additional text due to additional text in some late manuscripts (and since they were additions to late manuscripts, that means they almost certainly don't belong in our Bibles). These additional words were inserted to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity can be shown through other verses, but the KJV adds verses that almost certainly don't belong.
So later translations are not guilty of "Satanic" omission of verses, and certainly any honest person, after weighing the evidence, would realize that the KJV is not superior. In fact, it is inferior to some modern versions.
I await Pro's reply.
Con said, "Essentially, translations are not inspired. Only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts were directly inspired by God, as per 2 Timothy 3:16. The translations were not inspired, and in fact the KJV contains many errors which have been corrected in later copies. Even if it hadn't been corrected, you can't lay claim that the KJV is superior because the translations were not inspired, only the original texts were inspired."
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."
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.
Con said, "For example, in 2 Samuel 8:4, we read that David took with him seven-hundred horsemen, but in 1 Chronicles 18:4, we read that David took with him seven-thousand horsemen. Quite a difference, and a definite contradiction."
Really? There is an easy answer. Obviously, the Syrians have 10 horsemen per chariot(2 Samuel 10:18, 1 Chron 19:18). This is proven by the fact that Solomon had 40,000 stalls for chariot horses. How many chariots did these 40,000 horses hook up to? The number of chariots is 4,000 according to 2 Chronicles 9:25-ten horses per chariot.
Con said, "There are many more contradictions present but this is sufficient to make my case." I would like to see them, because as far as I can tell, there are no contradictions in the KJV. However, there are contradictions in modern versions. For example:
In 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV says,"Elhanan slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath." Yet the NIV and other translations removes the phrase, "the brother of" making it read that Elhanan killed Goliath. This is a contradiction, though, because David killed Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:49-51.
Another example is this: Christ is called "the morning star" in Revelation 22:16. Lucifer is called "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV. Yet the NIV calls Lucifer "THE MORNING STAR" in Isaiah 14:12. What utter blasphemy to give Christ's title to Luifer! Further the Hebrew word for star(Kokab) is not found anywhere near Isaiah 14:12. Now, don't tell me that the new versions are just updating "archaic" words. Of course the KJV is superior!
Con said, "I'm not about to read through all the verses and compare them to the KJV. I don't think it's necessary. The KJV is an archaic version, and later versions were used based on more reliable manuscripts to translate into our modern versions (the NASB is generally considered one of the most reliable modern translations)."
The fact of the matter is that the manuscripts that most new versions are based on are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Scholars 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?
I JOHN 5:7 REBUTTAL
Concerning 1 John 5:7, the verse is found or quoted in the Old Syriac versions(170 AD), Tatian(180 AD), Old Latin versions and Tertullian(200 AD), Cyprian(255 AD), Priscillian and Athanasius(350 AD), Council of Carthage(415 AD), Jerome's Vulgate(450 AD), Cassiodorus(480 AD) Fulgentius(510 AD), Codex Wianburgensis (750 AD), Miniscule 88(1150 AD), four different Waldensian Bibles(600-1400 AD), miniscule 629(14th century), miniscule 61(1519), and finally the KJV. And yes the Johannine Comma is found in Greek manuscripts. It is found in minuscule 629, minuscule 61, minuscule 918, minuscule 2473, and minuscule 2318. It is also in the margins of 221, 635, 88, 429, and 636.
Here's A Comparison between the KJV and the NASB
Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." NASB puts the last two phrases in brackets and says they are not in the oldest and best texts (which are the Catholic corrupted texts out of Alexandria Egypt). It's a lie that cannot be proven; in fact the opposite is easily proven. Many verses are done this way.
Matthew 6:33 KJV "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." NASB "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you."
Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" NASB "And behold, they cried out, saying, "What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"" NASB leaves out the word 'Jesus.' Where is Jesus?
I thank Pro for his response.
Pro has misunderstood my arguments. When I said that translations were not inspired, I did not mean that God did not inspire someone who was translating another language (such as when the New Testament writers translated from Hebrew to Greek). What I meant was the only texts that were inspired were the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. As per 2 Timothy 3:16, God inspired the original texts of the Old and New Testament. He did not inspire the translations. He did not move upon the translators to translate the texts correctly as He did the original authors (and/or their scribes) to record his words. This is very evident by the fact that the KJV contains numerous errors. God is perfect, so if the KJV contains even one error this would be enough to prove that it was not inspired by God, and therefore it would not be superior to other good modern translations (such as the NASB).
Now, 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the original autographs, not matter how much Pro wants to nit-pick. Yes, they had the Scriptures since they were kids. That doesn't mean they weren't reading Scripture, just like us opening our modern Bibles doesn't mean we're not reading Scriptures. But they weren't inspired as the original texts were inspired, just like our modern Bibles aren't. Second Timothy 3:16 refers to the original Scriptures as being inspired (literally God-breathed). The translations are not (especially those that contain mistakes, like the KJV).
Also, saying that God himself made a copy of the Ten Commandments is another nit-pick. Obviously God inspired the copy because he directly gave it to Moses. God did not directly give the translations to the KJV scribes, they translated from a copy of the Scriptures (and originally, the KJV included the Apocrypha, which no KJV supporter would accept as Scripture now). 
I didn't quite understand Pro's response to the obvious discrepancy regarding the horsemen, or how it resolves the fact that in one passage it clearly states he took seven-hundred horsemen, but in another it states he took seven-thousand. Perhaps he could explain more clearly next round.
But for thoroughness' sake, I'll illustrate a few more errors in the KJV:
In 2 Kings 25:17, we read the brass chapiter was three cubits high, but in Jeremiah 52:22 we read that it was five cubits high.
In 2 Kings 25:8, we read that Nebuzaradan came into Jerusalem on the seventh day of the month, but in Jeremiah 52:12 we read he came into Jerusalem on the tenth day of the month.
I agree that there are errors in the NIV, and I even think the KJV may be a better translation than the NIV. But the NASB is generally regarded as the best modern translation (I used to use the NKJV before finally making the transition). There may even be errors in the NASB (though I'm not currently aware of any). But this just makes my case. No modern translation of the Scriptures were "inspired" as the original texts were, as per 2 Timothy 3:16.
Saying that the KJV was translated from texts dating back to the fourth century is simply wrong, for the most part. They did not use early manuscripts, they used the Stephens of 1550. Sixty-one percent of the KJV Bible was translated from other available translations, including the Geneva Bible and Tyndale Bible.  Not to mention, the KJV used today is not even the original KJV -- it's the 10th edition of the KJV. So which edition is inspired? The original with the Apocrypha? On of the next eight editions? Or the tenth edition we're using now?
Regarding 1 John 5:7, it is generally agreed that verse seven has been inserted and has no real authority. 
Here's the evidence regarding 1 John 5:7
There were about 300 existing Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John. Of these manuscripts, only four (61, 629, 918, and 2318) contain the disputed words of verse seven. All four are very late manuscripts (from the 16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D., respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek New Testaments, and all four manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin. Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.
Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period.
The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the fifth century A.D. Plus, the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the New Testament made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D. -- Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, or Slavic -- except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest).
The evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of 1 John 5:7 have no claim as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages. 
Regarding Matthew 6:33, all Pro does is give us differences between the two translations, which is to be expected.
In Matthew 6:13, it is not a lie that the two phrases in brackets are not in the oldest and best texts. It can most certainly be proven. It is bizarre that Pro would say this, considering scholars certainly have access to the manuscripts.
Regarding Matthew 8:29, if the NASB leaves out Jesus (being one of the best modern translations), then it's possible the word "Jesus" doesn't appear in the texts. This is a minor issue, considering Son of God is still in there (which is a phrase used of Jesus in the Scriptures). Pro seems to want to nit-pick his way to victory.
I think it's quite obvious that the KJV is not a superior translation, and to claim that it's inspired on par with the original Scriptures (which were directly given to man by God) is just silly and borderline heretical.
 The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha, Oxford World's Classics, 1998
 From the Schofield study Bible.
Okay, but why are these translations the ONLY INSPIRED ONES? Why cant English be inspired? Does my opponent believe God can't Translate His Word into English. God said He would preserve His Word(Psalm 12:6-7). Where is it then, after all the originals are lost. He would have to inspire a translation in a common language(English) to preserve His Word then.
Now, my opponent is correct that if the KJV contains errors, then its not inspired. However, he has to prove the KJV has errors in it then. Also, to show the NASB to be superior means you have to give an example of where its translation of a word or phrase is superior to the KJV reading.
Con said, "Now, 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the original autographs, not matter how much Pro wants to nit-pick. Yes, they had the Scriptures since they were kids. That doesn't mean they weren't reading Scripture, just like us opening our modern Bibles doesn't mean we're not reading Scriptures. But they weren't inspired as the original texts were inspired, just like our modern Bibles aren't. Second Timothy 3:16 refers to the original Scriptures as being inspired (literally God-breathed). The translations are not (especially those that contain mistakes, like the KJV)."
THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM HERE. IF Paul in verse 16 meant ONLY THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, THEN HE LIED TO TIMOTHY, for he told Timothy, "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD." Do you see the "ALL." That includes the "SCRIPTURE" of VERSE 15 THAT TIMOTHY HAD! IF "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, then the scripture Timothy had as a kid was INSPIRED BY GOD, AND IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINALS. My opponent has just destroyed himself.
Con said, "Also, saying that God himself made a copy of the Ten Commandments is another nit-pick. Obviously God inspired the copy because he directly gave it to Moses. God did not directly give the translations to the KJV scribes, they translated from a copy of the Scriptures (and originally, the KJV included the Apocrypha, which no KJV supporter would accept as Scripture now)."
Except the New Testament writers COPIED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW INTO GREEK(A TRANSLATION), WHICH WAS A COPY OF THE SCRIPTURES, JUST LIKE THE KJV TRANSLATORS. God CAN inspire the KJV translators just as much as he can the authors of the originals.
Concerning the Apocrypha, there is a difference between how a Catholic Bible and the 1611 KJV contained it. A Catholic Bible has the apocrypha interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The 1611 KJV had it BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS, between the Old and New Testaments. They called it "recommended reading" but not scripture. If they had considered it scripture, it would have been in the Old Testament. So since not even the translators believed it to be scripture, I am not going to either. I would like to mention that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which new versions are based on, DO HAVE the apocrypha interspersed throughout the Old Testament! If these manuscripts are so great, why do the new versions not have the apocrypha in them, then(including the NASB)? The translators of these new versions are not being honest. It would hurt their sales. If the Protestant Christians knew that their new version was based on manuscripts which have the apocrypha IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, they would throw that version away. Protestants don't want a Bible based on Catholic manuscripts.
Con said, "I didn't quite understand Pro's response to the obvious discrepancy regarding the horsemen, or how it resolves the fact that in one passage it clearly states he took seven-hundred horsemen, but in another it states he took seven-thousand."
Again, there were 10 men per chariot. There is either 700 groups of men with ten men in each group, or maybe 10 groups of men, with 700 in each group. Keep in mind that the other figures in these two passages (the footmen, chariots, and the reserves) are in complete agreement with each other.
Con said, "In 2 Kings 25:17, we read the brass chapiter was three cubits high, but in Jeremiah 52:22 we read that it was five cubits high."
Both pillars are given to be eighteen cubits high. Notice, first of all, that if the pommels(2 Chronicles 4:2) are counted as part of the chapiter, a five cubit measurement would be right one time, and a three cubit measurement right another time(excluding the pommel). Again, one pillar could have had 2 cubits knocked off the chapiter(considering 2 kings 16:17, 2 chron 25:23). After all, the second PILLAR also and the pomegrantes matched the first pillar(Jer 52:22). Have you ever considered that the writer who said "3 cubits" could be writing about the pillars AFTER Nebuchaddnezzar showed up, while the writer writing down "5 cubits" could be referring to them BEFORE they were cut up?
Con said, "In 2 Kings 25:8, we read that Nebuzaradan came into Jerusalem on the seventh day of the month, but in Jeremiah 52:12 we read he came into Jerusalem on the tenth day of the month."
Well, he could have commenced fire on the city on the 7th day,(he came there), and then entered on the 10th day after the fire was over. You cant prove this wrong.
Con said, "There may even be errors in the NASB (though I'm not currently aware of any)." Well, allow me to make you aware. Just as the NIV says, "morning star in Isaiah 14:12, so the NASB says star of the morning. This still gives Christ's title to Lucifer.
Con said, "Saying that the KJV was translated from texts dating back to the fourth century is simply wrong, for the most part. They did not use early manuscripts." Again, every piece of papyrus from the 1st and 2nd century agrees with every KJV reading(Biblical Scholarship p.66, Peter s. Ruckman). The Textus Receptus(Greek text for the KJV) comes from the Majority of ALL Greek manuscripts(The Byzantine manuscripts). Every KJV edition is inspired. These revisions were nothing like what modern versions do. These revisions merely updated spelling such as changing " King Iames" to "King James" or corrected typographical errors. Printing errors were common in those days, but they were corrected quickly. It's amazing how people are always focusing on the original this or that. I'm concerned about the Bible I have in my hand, and it has no errors. Remember this, the revisions of the modern versions give Christ's Title to Lucifer(Isaiah 14:12) or remove whole verses from the Bible and passages as well. Naturally, any KJV would be superior to that!
I John 5:7
The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. They had to combat Sabellianism, so deleting 1 John 5:7 would help them. The fact that is found in Old Syriac versions from 170 AD shows its an ancient reading.
Matthew 6:13: Marcion THE HERETIC ripped apart the Lord's Prayer. Do you agree with the Gnostic Marcion?
Matthew 8:29: KJV gives more honor to Christ
Matthew 6:33: KJV reading is superior
Now I have little room left for a conclusion. However, I will end on this note. If God's words were only PERFECTLY CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINALS, then why would God say He would preserve His Word(Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35)? It didn't say His "Message" would be preserved, it said His WORDS would be. Further, you are a LYING HYPOCRITE if you hold up a translation and say "This is the Word of God!" when REALLY, only the originals were, right? I mean, if the Word of God is supposed to be inerrant and perfect, then any translation can't REALLY be the Word of God. No, my friend, the KJV is the Word of God and its error free.
Those translations are the only inspired one because the New Testament writers were in the process of writing the New Testament. God was directly inspiring those documents, as he inspired the Old Testament documents. He had to inspire them because the New Testament had not be written yet. God needed to make sure that the translations were correct. But once the New Testament had been written, copies were made and God did not inspire those copies, neither did he inspire the translations that came later, Martin Luther's German translation, the KJV, the NIV, etc. Only the original texts were inspired.
Also, one might put the burden of proof on you. Why is it that only the KJV is inspired? Why not the NIV, or the NASB, or any other modern translation? The reality is we know the KJV is inspired because as I have shown, it contains errors. If it contains even one error, then it was not directly inspired by a perfect God.
God would not have to inspire a modern version in order to preserve his word. We know within a 99.95% accuracy what the other texts did because of all the manuscript evidence, plus the early church fathers who quoted from the Scriptures in their writings.
I don't have to prove the NASB superior, as that's not my job in this debate. I just have to show that the KJV is not superior to the other translations that we have.
Pro is in error. Paul saying that Timothy had the Scriptures from when he was young was not a lie. If I were to write a letter to my friend who had been a Christian since he was a kid, I could tell him to keep true to the Scriptures that he has since he was a kid, if he had been reading the NASB all his life, then I would not be lying to him since he had the Scriptures. I could even tell him that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That wouldn't mean I was saying the NASB was directly inspired of God, just that the Scriptures are inspired of God so my friend (like Timothy) can trust them.
Additionally, Pro has given no reason why the KJV was inspired by not any of the other translations, like the NASB. For if Paul meant that even the translations were inspired of God, then that would mean the NIV and the NASB (among other translations) would be inspired of God. So the KJV still would not be the superior version.
Pro makes a confusing statement. He says that Protestants buing the NASB would throw their Bibles away if they had the Apocrypha (meaning that we should have the Apocrypha in our Bibles but Protestants just don't want it), but he also says that they're not considered Scripture, just "recommended reading." So his assertion about Protestants and the Apocrypha is an ad hominem attack, nothing more. The Apocrypha should not be in the Bible because it is not inspired Scritpure (which is a debate for another time). So either Apocrypha should not be in there (in which case the 1611 KJV was in error), or the Apocrypha should be in there, so modern KJVs are in error. Which is it?
Con's explanation still does not resolve the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4. The verses are quite specific about the number of horsemen: 700 in 2 Samuel, and 7,000 in 1 Chronicles. The explanation is simply that it was a copyist error, which is to be expected. This does not cast doubt on the Scriptures, it just casts doubt that the KJV was “inspired” as the original autographs were.
Regarding the pillars, I don't know enough about them so I'll concede that point for now (as I don't have time to research it). However, Pro's explanation for when Nebuzaradan entered Jerusalem is no explanation at all. You can't make up a reason then say "you can't prove this wrong." All we can see is that there's a discrepancy in the verses. Again, likely a copyist error.
Pro has not made his case that the NASB contains an error. Pro has not proven that "morning star" is a name given to Lucifer. After all, Jesus is called the "Bright and Morning Star" in Revelation 22:16, even in the KJV. If this is a name given to Lucifer that should not be attributed to God, then Pro must concede the KJV has errors in it, too, because it gives an account of Jesus using this name for himself.
Plus, even if the NASB contains errors, that just proves my point. No modern translations are inspired as the original texts were, not the KJV, not even the NASB (though it is considered one of the most accurate modern translations).
Pro claims that every KJV edition is inspired, but some contained the Apocrypha and some didn't. So some, at least, are in error. Pro is simply incorrect in his assertions.
I believe I have sufficiently made my case. We can see the KJV is not inspired because of the errors it contains. Pro's responses were not sufficient to resolve some of these, and the KJV even refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (which Pro says is an error in other translations). So obviously, the KJV (while a good translation) was not inspired like the original texts, and it's not even one of the best translations. Thank you for reading.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.