King James Onlyism
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
Thank you for your opening response. Memember, the burden of proof is on you in this case to prove that Christians should accept the KJV as the FINAL authority from God. As an atheist, I'm simply playing the devil's advocate for a good laugh and a noob snipping debate.
1. Modern translations do not remove verses
My opponent claims modern translations remove verses from the Bible. However, let's critically examine this claim. First, my opponent has to PROVE that the verses actually are legitamently missing from the modern translations. Another problem is that even IF modern translations do remove those verses, it does not prove the supremacy of the KJV. For example, I can make a modern translation without the verses missing. To claim that some modern translations are missing verses that are in the KJV prove the KJV is superior to all translations commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.
I'm now going to take a look at some of the verses my opponent provided. The first is going to be Mark 16 where my opponent claims that the modern translations remove the entire passage. Unfortunately, my opponent neglects to tell us that the passage is interpolated -- in otherwords, it is a later addition to the Gospel of Mark. I'm going to provide some evidence below.
1. Manuscript varians
There are manuscript variations to such a passage. This is found in the manuscript known as L, Psi, 009, 0112 and 274mg 579, K, Syrh which states, "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclomation of eternal salvation." 
2. Manuscript assertion
Matt Slick notes:
The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,)... The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document." 
Another example is the The Johanine Comma which states:
The verse does not appear anywhere except for the Latin vulgate and the KJV. 
2. Removing words
Are the modern translations removing words or are they translating them different? Changing "charity" to "love" is no big deal as it is modernizing an archaic phrase. Please cite only 2 examples.
2. http://www.amazon.com... notes on 1 John.
Now, my opponent says Mark 16:9-20 is interpolated. He uses a source that says its lacking in the "earliest" manuscripts. First off, there are only two early GREEK manuscripts that don't have it, B and Aleph,(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).There are another two very LATE Greek manuscripts 304 and 2386 that dont have it, but they are from the 11th and 12th centuries! While manuscript 2386 is listed as lacking this verse, we should note that the reason for this lack is due to the fact that this manuscript is missing the sheet upon which these verses would appear (which makes one wonder why textual critics would bother to include it pro or con at all).
A similar problem arises when dealing with ms. 304. While this manuscript is usually cited by textual critics as lacking the long ending of Mark, the evidence for this assertion may be less sound than they believe. Maurice Robinson states,
"The primary matter [in 304] is the commentary. The gospel text is merely interspersed between the blocks of commentary material, and should not be considered the same as a 'normal' continuous-text MS. Also, it is often very difficult to discern the text in contrast to the comments....Following gar at the close of [16:8], the MS has a mark like a filled-in 'o,' followed by many pages of commentary, all of which summarize the endings of the other gospels and even quote portions of them. Following this, the commentary then begins to summarize the eteron de ta para tou Markou, presumably to cover the non-duplicated portions germane to that gospel in contrast to the others. There remain quotes and references to the other gospels in regard to Mary Magdalene, Peter, Galilee, the fear of the women, etc. But at this point the commentary abruptly ends, without completing the remainder of the narrative or the parallels. I suspect that the commentary (which contains only Mt and Mk) originally continued the discussion and that a final page or pages at the end of this volume likely were lost....I would suggest that MS 304 should not be claimed as a witness to the shortest ending...."4
This is important because Greek was the language of the New Testament and so the earliest copies would be in Greek. This leads me to say that there are only TWO early GREEK manuscripts(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that don't have this passage out of approximately 1600 GREEK MANUSCRIPTS that contain the Gospel of Mark.
Now these two manuscripts(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are two of the most corrupt manuscripts available. They disagree more with each other than they do with any other manuscript available. Vaticanus, actually contains an entire blank column after v. 8 which is close to the right size to fit vv. 9-20, suggesting that the scribe who copied this manuscript was aware of the existence of this ending, and was unsure whether to omit the passage, so leaving a space should it need to be filled in later.
Furthermore, there are 678 verses in the book of Mark. If you remove those last 12 verses, you end up with 666. Just a thought man.
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. My opponent is wrong about it being ONLY in the Vulgate and the KJV.
Now my opponent also did not bring up John 7:53-8:11 which is a whole passage removed from modern versions. Interestingly enough, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have this passage either. Ain't that somethin'?
Now my opponent wanted me to cite 2 examples of the new versions translating differently. Well, let me give two examples of what conservative Christians would call heresy and contradiction. 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!
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.
Ruckman Reference Bible, second edition, 2009
In a nut shell: "What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on Debate.org who has read your argument is now dumebr for having read it. I aware you zero points and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy upon your soul."
I would also like to say that I had to read your argument several times because I could not comprehend what you were saying because your spelling and grammar is horrible. Please use the spell check.
1. Verses missing
At no point in his argument did he attempt to prove that the verses he claims to be "missing" from ALL the translations are in the original Hebrew. Moreover, I have proved that the Johannine Comma was NOT found in ANY Greek manuscript -- a claim that he has not even proved.
I also brought up the passage of Mark 16 that is missing. Let's take a look at what he states:
"Now this argument for the KJV can be proven using the Bible. The corrupt manuscripts Vaticanus (sic) and Sinaiticus (sic) 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!"
Wow! A ton of logical fallacies in this argument. This is the genetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org...;) because my opponent is making a claim of irrelavence based soley upon the origin of the manuscript rather than the meaning of it or the context. It overlooks any difference to be found in the present situtation. It is also guilt by association (http://en.wikipedia.org...;) because my opponent is asserting that the quality of one thing are inherently the qualities of another. In a logical syllogism form, this would be his argument:
1. Anything from Egypt is bad because Egypt is a bad place in the Bible.
1. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are from Alexandria, Egypt.
2. Therefore, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts are bad.
"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 (sic) 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 (sic) 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."
Once more, the same fallacies are in this line of reasoning. For clarification, I will also post the argument in syllogism form:
1. Anything from Antioch is good because Antioch was a good place in the Bible.
2. The texts from the KJV are from Antioch.
3. Therefore, the texts from the KJV are good; thus making the KJV also good.
Once more, we clearly see the irrelavence between his statements and the facts.
Another thing is that my opponent overlooks the fact that a good majority of the early heresies found their roots in the Antioch school (http://www.newadvent.org...;).
My opponent states, "Now my opponent also did not bring up John 7:53-8:11 which is a whole passage removed from modern versions. Interestingly enough, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have this passage either. Ain't that somethin'?" The truth is that the earliest manuscripts and lots of other ancient manuscripts and witnesses do not have that passage. Only a minority of manuscripts include such passages, wholly or in part, after John 7:36. (http://www.biblegateway.com...;). The Burden of Proof rests upon my opponent to prove that the portion of scripture is original.
In short, my opponent has failed in every way to meet his burden of proof.
2. Words missing
My opponent brought up the "fact" that words were missing from modern translations. I asked him for two examples of such to which he did. Let's examine the claims.
A. SLAYING OF GOLIATH
"Now my opponent wanted me to cite 2 examples of the new versions translating differently. Well, let me give two examples of what conservative Christians would call heresy and contradiction. 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."
The fact of the matter is that the phrase "the brother of" does not appear in the Hebrew manuscripts. It was added to the King James Version. In fact, we know that Elhanan did kill Goliath's brother from 1 Chronicles 20:5 which says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan, the son of Jair, killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." Moreover, the solution is that it appears to be simply a copyist error. (http://carm.org...;). No contradiction and no worries.
B. The morning star.
"Another example is this: Christ is called "the morning star" (sic) 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! (sic) Further the Hebrew word for star(Kokab) (sic) 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!"
The Hebrew word used here is הֵילֵל or heylel which is the following meaning:
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylonhttp://www.blueletterbible.org...
In the context of Isaiah 14, the heylel being described is the king of Babylon, King Nebuchadnezzar.
In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof. Vote negative!
Also, I will address my opponents statement as to the 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?
Now my opponent failed to answer this part of my argument in Mark 16. Again, there are only TWO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OUT OF 1600 MANUSCRIPTS that contain the Gospel of Mark which do not have the passage:Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Additionally, there is an ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN IN VATICANUS AFTER Mark 16:8 and it leaves about the RIGHT SIZE FOR VERSES 9-20. This means the scribe knew of a manuscript which had the passage and didnt know whether to include or omit it, so he left the column blank. AND AGAIN, with the passage gone, there would be 666 verses in the Book of Mark.
I don't know about you, but I don't want a Gospel with 666 verses!
Now, concerning the Antioch Vs. Alexandria argument, I was merely using the Bible to support my position for the KJV. After all, this whole debate is ABOUT THE BIBLE. If you don't think the Bible is an authority concerning WHICH VERSION OF IT TO USE, you, my friend, have some interesting logic. Furthermore, there were heresies that popped up in Alexandria as well. Origen believed men were to be castrated, believed in transmigration of the soul, was a universalist, and believed getting baptized would get your sins forgiven.
Concerning John 7:53-8:11, Jerome (385 AD), who included it in the Vulgate after surveying older Greek copies, stating it was found "in many copies both Greek and Latin", before 415 AD. Also these bible s have the passage: The Ethiopic (5th century), Palestinian Syriac (5th Century), Georgian (5/6th century), some copies of the Armenian (4/5th century), Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions Ambrose (374 AD), Augustine (396), Chrysologus (433), Faustus (400), Gelasius (492), Pacian (370), Rufinus (400), Sedulius (434), Victorius (457), Vigilius (484) and others The Lectionary practice of the Eastern Church, from earliest times (i.e. the 2nd century.) These also have the passage: Codex D and the Old Latin codices b, c, e ff, g, h, j. Note that the Old Latin TEXT dates from the 2nd Century. Also, the Didache (3rd century document of Apostolic Teachings), Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) and Eusebius (324 AD) citing Papias (150 AD) as recognizing the passage. The Montanists (2nd century) were also aware of the passage. These seem pretty early to me.
Now, the rebuttal my opponent makes to 2 Samuel 21:19 shows the hypocrisy of the new versions. You see, the phrase, "the brother of" was added by the translators of the KJV. However, they put it in ITALICS show you would know that they added it themselves. Now the new versions do add words and phrases to their bibles as well, but do you think they put it in italics? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Concerning Isaiah 14:12, again for a translator to translate heylel as, "morning star" is a horrible translator because the Hebrew word for star(kokab) is not in any Hebrew text. Also, that translator doesn't care that Christ is also called "morning star in Revelation 22:16. Additionally, if the passage is talking about the King of Babylon and not Satan, then this HEATHEN king knew more about God then some professing Christians do, considering this king said,(and I quote NIV) "I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[b]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High
How about telling me how some heathen king, WITHOUT A BIBLE, knew so much about God, unless he was Satan?
The New American Standard goes so far as to give a cross reference from Isaiah 14:12 to 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16. They think this king is Jesus Christ. Amazing, the King of Babylon is now Jesus Christ! Here's the proof:
Isaiah 14:12 (NASB, 1995 ed.)
"How you have (A)fallen from heaven, O (B)star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
A. Isaiah 14:12 : Is 34:4; Luke 10:18; Rev 8:10; 9:1
B. Isaiah 14:12 : 2 Pet 1:19; Rev 2:28; 22:16
Now I would also like to mention that a translation can be inspired according to the Bible. 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. Moreover, God can inspire a copy that DOESN'T MATCH the original.
Consider this, In Jeremiah 36:4, Baruch writes down what Jeremiah was inspired by God to say(Jeremiah 36:4). Jehudi then reads this inspired original to the king in Jer. 36:21. Jehudi then casts this "original" into the fire(verse 23). God then tells Jeremiah to write another scroll or copy and ADDS MORE WORDS TO THIS ONE(Jeremiah 36:32). They both are inspired, but they do't match word-for-word. Thus, my KJV does not have to match the original autographs and BOTH ARE INSPIRED!
I am going to Dayton, OH and will not have time for a super long rebuttal. However, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. You have horrible grammar and the format makes it impossible to know where you are trying to go. In the next round, I'd request that you make it clearer where you are trying to go (i.e., bolded headings showing the contention that you are disputing).
Before I leave, I will make mention of John 8:1-11 which you cited. The problem is that the passage is absent from the earliest of the Greek manuscripts. It does not appear in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and most of the later Greek manuscripts also omit it. It is also interesting to note that the passage is sometimes omitted in John all together, but added in Luke (after 21:38)! The earliest translations of the Bible including the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions omit this passage. It was apparently unknown before Ambrose and Augustine. (http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...;)
Also, I am going to make note of something that you stated:
"Now my opponent failed to answer this part of my argument in Mark 16. Again, there are only TWO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OUT OF 1600 MANUSCRIPTS that contain the Gospel of Mark which do not have the passage:Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (sic). Additionally, there is an ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN IN VATICANUS (sic) AFTER Mark 16:8 and it leaves about the RIGHT SIZE FOR VERSES 9-20. This means the scribe knew of a manuscript which had the passage and didnt (sic) know whether to include or omit it, so he left the column blank. AND AGAIN, with the passage gone, there would be 666 verses in the Book of Mark."
My opponent once more uses the genetic fallacy for the number 666 (http://en.wikipedia.org...;), it also overlooks the fact that verses are not inspired, but are all man-made. Every scholar knows this so the exact real number of verses in the Gospel of Mark is 0!
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times?
2. What Bible would you recommend before 1611? Where was the Bible before then?
3. Did Paul/Jesus use the KJV?
4. Why do you reject the apocypha since the original 1611 version contained it?
5. If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha?
Again, I can barely understand what you are attempting to say. I will respond to anything I did not respond to in the next round. Moreover, you still failed to fulfill the burden of proof -- which is yours.
I feel like my opponent overlooked everything I said earlier about this passage. Remember Jerome included it in his Vulgate and said,"...in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts,
both Greek and
Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman
who was accused before the
(See Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina,
vol. 23, col. 579)
Jerome said the passage was in many copies of Greek and Latin. Again,These also have the passage: Codex D and the Old Latin codices b, c, e ff, g, h, j. Note that the Old Latin TEXT dates from the 2nd Century. The Montanists (2nd century) were also aware of the passage.Eusebius (324 AD) cites Papias (150 AD) as recognizing the passage. These indicate the passage is extremely earlier.Just because Vaticanus and Sinaiticus don't have the passage(which I mentioned before my opponent did) doesn't mean they shouldn't belong. I have already mentioned how corrupt these manuscripts are. They disagree more with each other! Further, the passage was known before Ambrose and Augustine because Eusebius cites Papias from 150 AD as recognizing the passage.http://ecclesia.org...
My opponent uses the verse numbering of 666 against me, but thatWAS NOT my main argument. My main argument was,
"there are only TWO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OUT OF 1600 MANUSCRIPTS that contain the Gospel of Mark which do not have the passage:Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Additionally, there is an ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN IN VATICANUS AFTER Mark 16:8 and it leaves about the RIGHT SIZE FOR VERSES 9-20. This means the scribe knew of a manuscript which had the passage and didnt (sic) know whether to include or omit it, so he left the column blank. "
That was the physical evidence that he CANNOTsay is a genetic fallacy. My note on the verses being 666 without the passage was merely an interesting side note.
Cross Examination Questions
Before I answer these, I would like to point out that these questions are nothing new. There are all kinds of websites against "King James Onlyism" and my opponent likely got these questions from there. If so, my opponent is not coming up with his own "original" arguments.
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times?
ANSWER: All of them are. 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!
2. What Bible would you recommend before 1611? Where was the Bible before then?
I would recommend Tyndale's version, or Coverdale's or Matthew's or the Geneva Bible, etc. All of these versions come from a good Greek Text: Textus Receptus. Secondly, the Bible was in the Byzantine manuscripts before 1611. This was what was used for the King James Bible, so that's what was there before 1611. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, God had to preserve it(Psalm 12:6 and Matthew 24:35). Of course the Word of God was around before 1611, in Byzantine manuscripts from Antioch instead of Alexandria.
3. Did Paul or Jesus use the KJV?
This one almost makes me laugh. No, they did not. Jesus quoted from Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, as did Paul, and Paul wrote most of the New Testament. This question comes from scholars laughing at ignorant, hillbillies that always say," It(KJV) was good enough for Paul and Silas, and its good enough for me." Obviously untrue, but not all KJV defenders are this dumb. It amazes me that scholars never consider this though: " It(KJV) was good enough for Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Peter Cartwright, J. Frank Norris, Bob Jones Sr., Gypsy Smith, Charles Finney, and any other preacher from the 17 and 18OOs, BUT ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?"
4. Why do you reject the apocrypha since the original 1611 version contained it?
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? 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.
5. If the KJV translators were inspired, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha?
Because it was recommended reading. I recommend to people to read books on Mormons, Seventh day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Why? Because they have some things that line up with the Bible, movies do as well sometimes, and so you know what they believe. But do I think their books are scripture, not at all. So why would the KJV translators be any different? There is no harm in knowing what Catholics believe, and that's what the KJV translators were driving at. I believe the marginal reference is in Hebrews 11 where they give a reference to 2 Maccabees over a verse about persecution. Both references are just about persecution, so the apocrypha lined up with the Bible, so the translators had no problem giving the reference then.
I would like to conclude by saying the KJV is superior to the new versions based on the manuscript evidence, the bad translating of new versions(Isaiah 14:12), and the missing verses in the new versions. Modern translators believe that you have to go to the "Greek" to fully understand the Bible. But why can't God translate his Word in another language? I believe He can based on what I said at the end of round 4. I believe I have the very words of God in my King James Bible. The scholars believe that they were lost when the original autographs got lost. But if so, why did God say He would preserve His Word(Psalm 12:6, Matthew 23:35)? I would like to end with a 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.
Microsuck forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I use three main versions oif the Bible the origional KJV version, the NKJV that uses modorn english and the NASB tat is closest to the origional greek translation, I do however agree with PRO that not all translations are correct to the origional text.
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.