The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

King James Bible (Con) versus Holman Christian Standard Bible (Pro)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 5/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,063 times Debate No: 55690
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Edit: i will defend that the HCSB is a better Bible Translation than the KJV. BOP is shared, I must show it is, my opponent must show it is not.

Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals (No Response to Rebuttals)
Round 4: Defense (No Response to Defense)
Round 5: Response to Defense and Closing Arguments (No Comments On Response)

No Swearing or Offensive Language
No Personal Attacks on the Other Player
No Forfeits Without Explanation
Must Use References (Bible and Wikipedia will be acceptable.)


I accept the challenge. I believe the King James Bible is perfect and without error. When I say perfect, I am of course referring to its completeness not its divine choice of words, that is, any bible which is complete is perfect. I do not argue that a different word could have been used in certain cases during the translation process, but the words chosen are accurate and faithful. If an English bible says "Word" in John 1:1, and a spanish bibe says "Palabra," that spanish bible is perfect in that case, but if another spanish bible says "Verbo," then that spanish bible is imperfect as the word has been changed in such a way that the meaning is altered. Likewise, a bible would be imperfect if it omitted or added to a verse without sufficent reason (i.e. to make sense of a word being translated). I will clarify my position more if asked to in the following round.

On to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe the HCSB is a better translation. I will now present several reasons why this is so.

Contention 1: It Was Created for Better Reasons
The KJB was made because a king wanted an official translation.[1] There were several other translations equally good or better at the time including the Geneva Bible, (Created by the reformers)[2] and the Coverdale Bible, (Myles Coverdale).[3] There was no need for a new Bible, except for the fact that King James wanted a Bible that spoke better of the government, and changed certain words to accommodate English beliefs on pre-destination and the like.[4]

Contention 2: Inaccurate or Archaic Translation
The translation is archaic, and therefore does not apply the same today. The Greek word, "diafthora" is best translated, "to destroy", however the KJB translates it, "corrupt" in Matthew 6:19. Modern translations say, "destroy", and this is the case in the HCSB. The people at the "Christian Courier" present another fallibility.

"(1) When the King James translators rendered Acts 2:47 with the words, "such as should be saved," they ignored the Greek present tense form, "are being saved." The KJV thus yields a sense that accommodates the denominational notion of predestination."

Contention 3: Archaic Language
The language is old and nearly un-relatable to the modern Christian. With all the, "thees" and "thous" as well as lines we would not understand as fully as the original readers would. The HCSB uses modern dialect which today's audience can easily understand.

For these reasons, I believe the HCSB is a better translation than the KJB. Thank you for reading and have a great day!



As there are facets of superiority when it comes to the King James Bible verses other English translations, I will focus on one primarily for my main argument. Other facets of superiority will likely come up in my rebuttals or defense of arguments.

Main Argument


Quite simply, the King James Bible (KJB), or the Authorized Version as it has been known (so called as a result of people's recognition of it having been authorized by God as a unifying, principal translation), is superior to the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) because of the purity and reliability of its underlying texts. That is, the Greek, Hebrew and other language texts which underline the KJB are superior to those which have been utilized in the translation of the HCSB.


The texts used in the translation of the KJB New Testament are those which represent the majority of Greek manuscript readings. While no two manuscripts read exactly the same in all places, the trend of nearly every Greek manuscript is to follow the readings of the KJB approximately 99% of the time. Of the places which are not well testified in the Greek mss such as 1 John 5:7, ample evidence from other language sources are available (i.e. the Italic Latin bibles, et al). This point leads to a very important factor of the KJB's superiority: of the other language texts such as the Latin, Syriac, and Romaunt, the majority of them support the readings of the KJB, and these were also consulted during the translation process. Some of these texts include: of the Waldensian (Romaunt), the Geneva (English), Olivetan (French), Beza (Greek), Tepl (German), and Diodati (Italian), all of which incorporated Waldensian texts in their translation. The significance of this lies in the identity of the Waldenses, also known as the Vaudois (voh-dwah), and there bibles. These peoples and there text can be traced back to Antioch, having preserved the truth of the word of God in both written form and practice all throughout the Dark Ages. To the amazement of 16th century protestant scholars, the Waldensian text and its other representatives, such as the French Olivetan, matched the Greek text which had been produced by Erasmus as the result of his collation of Greek mss. So much agreement resulted in the confidence of more than 99% of the translation of the KJB.

As for the Old Testament of the KJB, the Masoretic Text was utilized, with other texts being occasionally consulted for the translation of certain words. The Masoretes were a group of Jews who could be traced back to the Sopherim (scribes) of the Second Temple during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. They were well known for there transmission abilities and textual accuracy. When, in the 16th century, Daniel Bomberg published the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, a collation of the Masoretic Text, it was recognized as the authoritative Hebrew Bible by most Christian scholars of the time. So together with the Textus Receptus (received text), the majority text, represented by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, and the testimony of other language bibles for the New Testament, and the authoritative Masoretic Text represented by the Second Great Rabbinic Bible for the Old Testament, the KJB became a translation more sure and more trustworthy than any English version before it.

As for some of the texts which underlie the HCSB, these were not collated until the late 1800s. The Alexandrian texts as they're called, so named for their readings which correlate to texts originating in Alexandria, were brought about as the result of the "scholarship" of men such as Tregelles, Westcott, Tischendorf, Hort, and Lachmann. The most influential of these texts were namely Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B). When the HCSB departs from the KJV reading (the majority reading), it is typically the result of the translator's utilization of the Alexandrian readings. These texts are purported to be superior to that of the Textus Receptus due to their perceived antiquity. As a result, the HCSB is significantly different, in a negative sense, than the KJB.

The same goes for the HCSB's Old Testament. The Septuagint (LXX) is consulted in most places where the HCSB differs from the KJB. The LXX is itself a text supposed to have been translated by 72 Jewish scribes in Alexandria, Egypt (who would have guessed?). These scribes are claimed to have translated the Hebrew Tenakh (OT) into Greek. Most of the evidence for this story comes primarily from one questionable letter which details this fable. Regardless, the text itself is recognized to be riddled with errors, inconsistencies, and dynamic equivalences. This LXX is also the propagator of the Apocryphal books, as the books of 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Esther (with additions), 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Psalms of Solomon. Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Daniel (with additions), and 4 Maccabees are apart of the LXX text. The LXX is represented in such codices as Vaticanus (4th century) and Alexandrinus (5th century). The underlining texts of the HCSB, namely the Alexandrian texts, are corrupt as they demonstrable contain scribal changes which convey Gnostic, Arian, and many other heretical biases (

I will provide references for my claims above in my defence in round 4 (ran out of space).

Verse Comparisons

I have basically claimed that the KJB is superior to the HCSB due to the nature of their underlying texts. Now I will show that these sources have truely affected the way certain passages read and ultimately affect doctrine. I will focus on New Testament changes, showing at least one change in most of the books. There are of course hundreds of more examples but these should suffice.

Matthew 20:20 (Did Jesus accept true worship?)

"Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons approached Him with her sons. She knelt down to ask Him for something." (HCSB)

"Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him." (KJB)

Mark 2:17 (Did Jesus come to call sinners to repentance?)

"I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners." (HCSB)

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (KJB)

Luke 2:33 (Is Joseph Jesus' father? Consider Matthew 18:10, et al.)

"His father and mother were amazed at what was being said about Him." (HCSB)

"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." (KJB)

John 3:16 (Is Jesus the only son of God? Consider Genesis 6:1-4, John 1:12, et al)

". . .He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." (HCSB)

". . .That he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (KJB)

Romans 14:10 (Will Christ be the judge or not?)

". . .For we will all stand before the tribunal of God." (HCSB)

". . .for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (KJB)

2 Corinthians 2:15 (Is salvation a process? Consider 2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13, et al)

"For to God we are the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved. . ." (HCSB)

"For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved. . ." (KJB)

Galatians 2:20 (Do we live by the faith of Jesus or by merely faith in Jesus? And does Christ live in us?)

". . .The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God. . ." (HCSB)

". . .I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God. . ." (KJB)

Ephesians 3:12 (Do we have access by the faith of Him or faith in Him?)

"In Him we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him." (HCSB)

"In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him." (KJB)

Philippians 2:6 (Did Jesus not think it roberry to be equal with God or did He merely not wish to use it to His advantage?)

"who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage." (HCSB)

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (KJB)

Colossians 1:14 (Do we have redemption through His blood? Consider Hebrews 9, et al)

"We have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, in Him." (HCSB)

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (KJB)

2 Thessalonians (Did Paul wish for God to direct their hearts to Christ's endurance or into the patient waiting for Him?)

"May the Lord direct your hearts to God’s love and Christ’s endurance." (HCSB)

"And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ." (KJB)

1 Timothy 3:16 (Was Jesus God manifest in the flesh?)

"And most certainly, the mystery of godlinessis great: He was manifested in the flesh. . ." (HCSB)

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh. . ." (KJB)

2 Timothy 1:3 (Did Paul's ancestors ever have a pure concience? Conisder Hebrews 9:9-14, et al)

"I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience as my ancestors did. . ." (HCSB)

"I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience. . ." (KJB)

Hebrews 3:16 (Did Joshua and Caleb die?)

"For who heard and rebelled? Wasn’t it really all who came out of Egypt under Moses?" (HCSB)

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses." (KJB)

1 John 5:7 (Are there three that testify in heaven?)

"For there are three that testify." (HCSB)

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (KJB)

Revelation 1:11 (So much for Revelation 22:19!)

??? (HCSB)

". . .I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. . ." (KJB)

Debate Round No. 2


I will be unable to post any further arguments, as my OS was corrupted, and I am going on vacation tomorrow. I apologize, and ask that, 1) the remaining three rounds be voided, and 2) voters base their opinions on the opening arguments. I apologize creationtruth, and will offer a rematch once I get a new computer.
Debate Round No. 3


Chest forfeited this round.


creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Chest forfeited this round.


creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Chest 2 years ago
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
I look forward to a rematch :)
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
Wow the Holman Christian Standard Version? Interesting.
Posted by Chest 2 years ago
I like the HCSB and NIV personally, although I will not defend the NIV, because it is pretty weak. I will edit the resolution.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
I would rather debate that the KJB is best compared to a particular translation or group of translations such as NIV, NASB, and ESV. Otherwise I have to defend against more than 100 English translations. Which ones do you think are better and we can debate those vs the KJB.
Posted by Chest 2 years ago
Best overall translation. (Sources, language, style inspiration e.t.c.) I.e., the one people should be using.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
What is the resolution exactly? What determines "best?"
No votes have been placed for this debate.