The KJV is not the best (or ONLY) version of the Christian Bible
Here I wish to debate the validity of the Kings James version over other versions of the Bible. There are those (such as at jesus-is-savior.com) who almost with a rage defend the KJV as THE ONLY TRUE TRANSLATION. They claim that all other translations are of the devil because these newer versions remove things that are essential to a set of doctrines that have been in effect for many centuries. The NIV is often referred to by these people as "the devil's bible". These also tend to be those folks who have no trouble telling you that you're going to hell (a future debate).
Now about myself. I was home-schooled, and as such, I had the option of studying New Testament Greek (known as Koine Greek, koine being the Greek work meaning "common", as it was the language of the common man) in my High School years. This placed me at the level of many who study NT Greek in college. Since my graduation, I have studied the language and the history of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT for over a decade. I've even begun a little side project of translating the book of Marcos (Mark) in the most accurate (and, consequently, most unconventional) way possible.
My stance on the topic at hand is that folks who cling to the KJV and its doctines cling to the scholarship of at least four centuries ago. Since the creation of the KJV, there have been many advances in Biblical scholorship, such as the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which concern the Christian "Old Testament") and the finding of many ancient manuscripts of the New Testament dating within only a few centuries of the time of Jesus. The newer translations are based upon this new understanding of the Greeek text behind the Bible. While the formation of the KJV relied upon a document formed from less than 10 manuscripts dating mostly from the 10th through 15th centuries, these newer translations are based upon those manuscripts that date as far back as c.250 AD. Consequently, the stuff that was added to the Greek texts later on do not make their appearance in the newer translations.
This is my argument, and I plan to support it with real facts.
Guidelines are as follows:
1. Both sides of this debate must draw upon facts to make their arguments, although sound theories based upon presented facts are allowed.
2. Arguments cannot be made from the English of any translation. In other words, don't tell me that I'm wrong because Paul in one of his letters says one thing or the other in your translation. This is a scholarly debate involving the original Greek manuscripts behind the translations, not a battle of which Biblical characters said what.
3. You will not accept this debate for the sake of joining a debate. I hope for this to be (again) scholarly and not a matter of what you might feel in your heart. I expect my opponent to be prepared with some real facts to challenge me on this particular topic.
4. Of course, both parties must act respectfully and professionally.
I look forward to discussing this topic, as it is the launchpad for many other debates to come. This website, I understand, is a bit restrictive in how much can be said in each round, but I think this would be a sufficient battleground on which to duel. After all, live debates are normally timed.
Who will answer my challenge?
While many Christians have pulled away from the King James version of the Bible, there are those who stick with it and claim that it is the ONLY version. The other versions, especially the NIV, are of the devil, in their eyes. I have found, however, that many the person I have argued with on this topic don't know why they believe in the KJV as they do. They only quote to me the same clich"s and catchphrases their pastors have fed them.
Often times I do come off as intimidating because I know more about the Greek of the New Testament than the average Christian, so the reactions I get are normally anger and frustration, since they have no chance of defending themselves in the higher realm of things they do not know. I don't know everything, but what I know is sufficient.
The King James Bible, despite what someone once told me, was NOT the first to be printed. Gutenberg invented the printing press around 1440. The first Bible printed was the Mazarin Bible, sometimes called the Gutenberg Bible, and it was in Latin.
Now, I would hope that most people know that there is no one Greek manuscript that has been handed down straight from the apostles to be translated in English. In fact, we do not have the original documents (or, autographs) of the apostles. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies. Unfortunately, we can see today that over time, the Greet text of the NT has changed over time. While many of these changes are simply misspellings and a change in word order (which doesn't usually affect translation), there are variants in the text, some fairly major, that can indeed affect one's look on doctrinal issues. Therefore, we enter into the world of textual criticism.
Textual criticism, among other things, mainly involves the effort of trying to compile one Greek text from multiple sources that is as close to the original writings of the apostles as possible. Today, every major version of the Bible is based off of a critical text, including the KJV. Here follows a history of that text.
James Lopez de Stubica was commissioned by a wealth Spanish cardinal to create what became known as the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, printed in 1514 (http://www.bible-researcher.com...). While it contained the first printed critical text, it was not the first to be approved by the pope and published.
When Swiss printer Johann Froben commissioned Dutch Roman Catholic humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1515 to beat out the polyglot with his own Greek NT edition, Erasmus did not have the luxury of obtaining very ancient manuscripts from the Vatican as Lopez de Stubica had. Froben gave Erasmus 6 months to complete his text, but by the end, work had extended to 10 months.
Erasmus lamented at his task, for he had access to only six Greek manuscripts, and they were all of them incomplete. His oldest and best was from the 10th century, but he hardly used it. The gospels were in 4 of the manuscripts, the oldest from the 15th century. Acts and the general epistles were in 3, the oldest from the 12th century. Revelation was in only one (12th cent.) and was missing the last page, so for his work, he had to back translate from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. In the places of his work where the Greek was missing or unclear, there too he used the Catholic Vulgate, resulting in at least a dozen places where his reading is supported by NO Greek manuscript. This was released in 1516 and did beat Lopez's work in distribution.
Due to his being rushed, Erasmus then worked on a 2nd edition (1522) which contained over 400 corrections and changes. It was from this edition that Martin Luther made his German translation.
For his 3rd edition, the Catholic Church placed pressure upon him because his earlier two editions did not contain I John 5:7, a verse that was only found in later copies of the Vulgate. He told them that he would not put it in his text unless they could produce for him a Greek MS that contained it. So they soon returned to him with what is known today as MS 61, one of 2 Gk MSS that have I John 5:7, and they both date to the 15th century. [MS 61 was made to order by an Oxford scribe named Roy.] It was from this edition, as well as Luther's German Bible and the Latin Vulgate, that William Tyndale created the first English New Testament based upon a Greek text. Erasmus made a couple more editions, but they never gained much fame.
Robert Estienne, a.k.a. Stephanus, used Eramus's 3rd edition and added his own Grk MSS to the mix (Codex Bezae, late 5th/early 6th cent.) Theodore Beza added in some readings from his own 6th cent. MSS. Then Dutch brothers, the Elzivirs, took mainly this text and produced 7 of their own editions. The 2nd one came to be known as the Textus Receptus, "Received Text", not because of scholarly opinion, but because the brothers had made such a lofty claim in the advertising of it.
And it is this Greek text that forms the backbone of the KJV New Testament, which also, by the way, relies upon other translations. This is from the 1611 title page:
"Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Comandement."
Today, we have over 5,800 manuscripts of the Greek NT, ranging from the size of a credit card to complete volumes containing books not even in most Bibles today. Therefore, tt is noticable that textual variants are regional, and so manuscripts are classified today as being either Alexandrian, Egyptian, Eclectic, Western, and Byzantine. Because they tend to contain alien readings, it is usual that the Egyptian and Eclectic texts cannot be seriously considered in the realm of textual criticism.
The Western manuscripts (including Codex Bazae) tend toward paraphrase at times and contain very deliberate changes. As such, even though it does have its place in textual criticism, I consider these manuscripts to be poor sources for the named reason.
The Byzantine texts collectively are referred to as the "Majority Text", as they do indeed make up a vast majority of the Greek NT MSS available to this day. I point out here that the Textus Receptus differs from the majority text in 1,838 places. In other words, there are 1,838 differences between the majority of manuscripts and the KJV, and some of them are fairly significant.
The Alexandrian texts contain the oldest manuscripts we have of the Greek New Testament. This is mostly due to the dry conditions where these came from. How old are these MSS? While small, mostly insignificant fragments date as early as about 135-150 AD, the more useful ones are from the 3rd and 4th centuries. The Codex Sinaiticus (330-360 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (325-350 AD) form the backbone of Westcott & Hort's critical text (1881). I own a copy of this text, and it includes all the textual variants between it, the Received Text, and Nestle & Aland Text. The later, the Nestle & Aland, is the source for most Bible versions today, as it takes into account the large cache of ancient papyrus MSS found buried in the Egyptian desert, those papyrus manuscripts dating as far back as the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The differences between the Textus Receptus and Nestle & Aland are not few: approximately 8,000. You can find a VERY partial listing at http://www.kjvtoday.com....
I make this my 2nd round argument because it lays the base for everything I have to say hereafter. Based upon the facts, the newer translations OMIT nothing. Because they are based on the earliest texts, we must surmise that the KJV is full of ADDITIONS.
Here I step back and let con take the stage with his first arguments.
HotSauce forfeited this round.
I would like to begin by addressing some of the things con has said.
He claims that the KJV was made with the puritans in mind, and that they brought the KJV with them to America. First of all, the Geneva Bible was the Bible the puritans used, as it featured clear Calvinistic teachings in its notes. King James, to combat this, decreed that there not be any notes in his Bible. Also, after his version was published, he made it a felony to be found with a copy of the Geneva Bible. While the term "puritan" is a bit of a generalized term, the group on the Mayflower did indeed bring with them the Geneva Bible. Every history I've found says this, except for in those websites where the authors are clearly fundamentalist. Yes, the KJV was written with the puritans in mind, mainly because the king wanted them silenced.
Con also spends much of his argument praising the KJV for the wonder that was at those times and still is today. Here I do agree. The KJV was indeed a great achievement and well represents the oppressive government in England from which the American forefathers fought to separate. It's ironic then that the KJV, written by the powers of the Church of England, was the most popular version in the Americas for a few centuries.
While the KJV can (and should, in my opinion) be appreciated for the book that it is, doing so does not mean that it is a viable source to be used in the study of Scripture. For those who are interested in the so-called "Word of God", the KJV is not the book to which they should go.
In the last round, I gave a brief overview of the makings of the Greek text behind the KJV. Now I would like to get more in-depth with the actual words of the Bible.
As far as the Tanach, or "Old Testament", is concerned, I have no problem with the Hebrew text behind the KJV. It is the Masoretic Text, of which the Dead Sea Scrolls have mostly confirmed. Many of the newer Bibles base some of their readings off of the Greek Septuagint, a manuscript that is flawed in many ways. On the plus side of that, these translations usually have notes that usually point out the readings of the Masoretic Text. I say the the Septuagint is flawed because of how it was created. It's very unfortunate that the majority of quotes the NT writers use from Scripture are from the Greek Septuagint, because this has led to some awful doctrine. But that is for another debate.
My 2 problems with the KJV's Old Testament deals with 1) how it is not only based upon the Masoretic Text but also the Latin Vulgate and other previous translations; and 2) how poorly it is translated.
Here follows some examples of the second problem:
In Isaiah 14, we find a "proverb against the king of Babylon" (vs.4), yet for some reason, many pastors teach that this is about the devil. In verse 12 we see the name "Lucifer", the only time such a name appears in the Bible. Now pick up any other modern translation and see that the name is not there. The Hebrew word (not a name) used there is HEYLEL, and it refers to the planet Venus, or "the morning star". "Lucifer" comes from the Latin Vulgate (not the Hebrew) word "lucifer" (lowercase) which refers, again, to the morning star, the planet Venus. It is a title of position, as one who shines the brightest in the sky, save for the sun which represents God. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus is given this title as being the brightest below God. To be fair, all other translations before the KJV also read "Lucifer", but it is correct not to use that name in the Bible. Therefore, the idea of the chief devil being named Lucifer is wrong.
In the same passage, we see in verses 9 and 15 that the king of Babylon is on his way to "hell", since he is obviously not in God's favor. However, the Hebrew word used here is SHEOL, which refers not to a place of eternal punishment, but the mass grave where everyone goes when they die. It's translated as "hell" here to help with that particular false doctrine. SHEOL is in the Hebrew of the OT sixty-five times; it is translated "hell" thirty-one times, "the grave" thirty-one times, and "the pit" three times. It's translated as "hell" only when referring to the death of a bad person. Obviously, church doctrine has played a large part in the way the Bible has been translated.
The KJV also follows a tradition of great offence as it renders the Hebrew name of God, YHWH, as "the LORD" almost 7,000 times. God says to Moses in Exodus 3:15, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: 'YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob has sent me to you.' This is My name forever and this is My title from generation to generation." But how many people who say they follow after God actually attempt to use his name? The Jews stopped using it a couple millennia ago because they feared using it in vain, so they began using the Hebrew ADONAI (lord) in place of His name in their readings. The KJV does use the rendering "Jehovah" for the name several times, but that is a faulty rendering of the name--there were no J or V sounds in ancient Hebrew. "Yahweh" is closer to the original pronunciation, though it also may be wrong.
And speaking of God's name, KJV incorrectly has God say in Ex. 3:14 "I AM THAT I AM", which really makes no sense. It is a better translation to say "I AM WHO I AM", or even "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE". Another translation may be "I am the existing Being which is the existing Being". In other words, of all the gods that Moses from Egypt knew of, YHWH is the one who actually exists. Therefore, why did he have to have a name for Moses to use if He is the only true God? But he supplied one anyway to placate Moses.
(Sadly, Marauder, II Kings 2:23-25 is correct. The Hebrew words used refer to young boys in age from infancy to adolescence.)
My knowledge of the Old Testament is limited, as my main area of study is the New Testament, particularly the book of Mark, which I have been translating for some time. As such, I'd rather be there.
As many of us know, the books of Matthew and Luke drew their material either from Mark or from a shared source with Mark. Yet there are some places where Mark volunteers extra info that isn't included in the other books.
In the KJV of Mark 1:2 we see "As it is written in the prophets...". This phrase comes from a "corrected reading". All of the oldest sources instead say something like, "Just as it was written in the prophet Isaiah..." Now the problem with that is the fact that one of the two verses next quoted is not from Isaiah but instead looks like a mishmash of Mal 3:1 and Exod 23:20. It appears that somewhere along the line, certain scribes thought to change the wording of Mark to hide the obvious error. Most modern versions go with the oldest readings, regardless of Mark's mistake.
The Textus Receptus, and therefore the KJV, have things that were copied between the gospels to make them more consistant. The so-called Lord's prayer, for example, differs more in the older texts than in the TR.
In John 1:18, the TR refers to Jesus as the "only begotten son"; the oldest manuscripts read "only begotten god". I plan to talk more about this in another debate.
In John 5:3-4, the TR adds a part about an angel coming to stir the water.
Speaking of angels, the texts behind the KJV add Luke 22:43-44 where it talks about an angel coming to Jesus and his sweat being blood.
The oldest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20. This section was added to create a more satisfying ending to the book, and it draws upon material from other books. As such, I wouldn't drink poison or handle vipers because of what's written here.
I'm running out of room, so I'll cease for now. But first:
Have you noticed that most KJV Bibles don't contain notes about variances in the text, while most modern Bibles have translation notes pointing to the alternative readings found in the Textus Receptus. Why do you think that is?
HotSauce forfeited this round.
It seems that con has not posted an argument for round 3, so I shall continue.
In that previous round I briefly mentioned "hell" as it is in the OT. Now I will point out this deception of the KJV in the New Testament. In the KJV NT, we find the word "hell" 23 times. However, there are three different Greek words rendered as the same one word: "hell".
GEENNA (12 times) is a Greek form of the Hebrew name for the Valley of Hinnom, which is just south of Jerusalem's wall; in other words, an actual, physical place. Some Bible maps feature it. This valley was also called Tophet, and it was where children were passed through the fires of Molech before King Josiah defiled it. In the time of Jesus (and for many centuries afterward) this valley was used as the city's garbage dump, and it was always burning, burning with a foul stench. As one might expect, maggots fed there constantly on the rot. The bodies of those who were not worthy of burial were cast here. This is what Jesus was talking about when he spoke of having both body and soul destroyed in an unquenchable fire where the worm doesn't die.
HADES (10 times) is the Greek word used in place of the Hebrew SHEOL. In other words, when Hebrew Scripture that contains the word SHEOL is quoted in the NT, the Greek word used is HADES. Now, the only time of the ten times that it seems to refer to a place of fiery torment is in Luke 16. As you may know, Luke was a Hellenistic gentile (probably from Troas) who came to believe in Jesus. Only his account tells this story, and I tend to stick to God's idea of there needing to be two or more witnesses. It's possible that Luke didn't understand (or agree with) the Jewish view of Sheol. Or, it may be that the idea of the wicked suffering in a place of torment was developed between the two testaments. The OT ideology certainly supports the view that all die and go to the same place, the grave. After all, what's the point of a resurrection of judgment if folks are judged and sent to their reward or punishment immediately after they die?
TORTOROS is used once in II Peter 2:4 in reference to those angels bound up in chains awaiting judgment from the time of Noah. What this means exactly is the topic of another debate, but it seems right out of the pages of Greek mythology. This is not a realm for anything human.
And so there we have it. A total of 4 different words translated as "hell" in the KJV, and none of them reliably suggest the spiritual place of torment for those souls who (according to Baptist doctrine) never prayed a "sinners' prayer" where they ask Jesus into their hearts. Can you see how some very wrong ideas can come about from such a poor version of the Bible?
Shall I get into the additions that add credit to the church dogma of Jesus being Almighty God in the flesh? In the second round, I talked about the addition to I John 5:7 in the KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Uh-huh. And by the way, "ghost" is an incorrect translation for the Greek PNEUMA, which refers to breath, wind, and (by extension) spirit. A ghost is the active soul of a dead person, which is normally fiction.
For the book of Acts, the Western manuscripts add about 10% to the Alexandrian text, as well as containing a bunch of changes. The KJV relies mainly on the Byzantine tradition, but there are still differences between the Byzantine, Textus Receptus, and Alexandrian traditions. For example, 8:37 and 9:5b-6a are not in the oldest manuscripts. There are actually too many differences for me to point them out her, but some of these additions appear to be explanatory in nature, such as "which were sent unto him from Cornelius" (10:21), although 2 additions to that chapter (the last clauses in verses 6 and 32) seem to skew the same prophecy. In 13:42, the KJV text for some reason refers to "the Jews" leaving the synagogue, while the oldest manuscripts use "they", as in those who were just spoken of in the previous verses. Is this an attempt to separate Paul and those with him from the Jews, even though Paul still called himself a Jew?
And here's something: in 20:28, the KJV tells us that God purchased the church through his own blood. The earliest text literally read, "through the own blood", a strange way to put it if the author meant to say "His own blood".
In 23:30, the Textus Receptus once again points out that "the Jews" made a plot against Paul. The earliest manuscripts simply say that there was a plot against Paul. And verses 6b-7 of the next chapter don't belong either. And 28:29, which points out "the Jews" also doesn't belong.
Romans 16:24, a "fake ending", as someone falsely put it, is not in the oldest MSS.
In I Timothy 3:16, the KJV says that God was manifested in the flesh. Modern bibles, based upon the more ancient readings, simply say "he" or "who" (or "he who"). One could see how a Catholic scribe (or those above him) would jump to violate this verse to fit in with their dogma. Regardless of who this verse is speaking of, it's wrong to change the text and then teach others to point it out when they're trying to prove that Jesus is God in the flesh. Deceitful, even.
Well, this is what I get for procrastinating. It's now five in the morning. Stayed up so I could post before I went to sleep. I'm going to end it here and leave it to con, if he's still interested. I would love to hear what he has to say.
HotSauce forfeited this round.
Well, I’m not sure what happened to Con, but it seems like this debate’s something of a dud. I guess I’ll continue without him, then.
I understand that no translation is perfect, and even the ones I like best are marred with serious issues. The NIV, for example, borders on being a paraphrase translation in some places, which tends to blur what the writers were actually saying. The NRSV is so focused on being progressive that it makes little tweaks to the text in order to sound modern, such as using “brothers and sisters” when Paul addresses the church, instead of “brothers”, which the word actually means. (The NRSV footnotes are really good, however.)
I once read through an issue of Sword of the Lord, a fundamentalist newspaper, that dealt with the superiority of the KJV. In it, they showed selected verses of the KJV side-by-side with those of other versions to point out what was wrong in them. One nasty trick I saw was that they would appeal to the Greek text only where these other translations were wrong, but where the KJV was a poor translation, they instead argued against the English of the other versions. Here is an example:
KJV: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.—John 1:3
The writer of this article goes on to say:
“The ESV diminishes the causative effect with the use of ‘through him’.”
The verse in question is talking about Jesus. So did Jesus make all things, or were all things made through him? The Greek word used here is DIA, a preposition that refers to the channel of an act; in other words, “through” or “because” are the correct renderings of this word. If the Greek was meant to reflect the idea of all things being made by Jesus, it might have used the word HUPO, such as is used when the Bible refers to God creating all things. (By the way, the KJV render DIA as “through” 92 times, while incorrectly rendering EN—mostly “in” or “at”—as “through” 37 times.) What does the Bible mean by all things being made through Jesus? That’s within a future debate. I will here say that the Greek of the New Testament never says that Jesus created us or anything in this universe (as applies to Creation).
Why is it that people are so willing to ignore the last few centuries of Biblical scholarship to instead stick to such a poor translation of an even more pitiful compilation of manuscripts? Ignorance. Ignorance drives decent folks to sometimes violently arguments in which they attempt to fight for something they believe in. Unfortunately, when it comes the King James Bible, their beliefs are not based on what they know, but on what they are convinced is true. And they are convinced by their pastors, men (or women) who went to college, so—gosh, darn—they must know more than the rest of us! But these pastors are not taught to objectively study the Bible; the colleges they go to (in most cases) urge them to look at the Bible through the filters of whatever doctrines agree with the college. Paul urged the people of God to be of one mind, one purpose, and one spirit, yet Christianity is plagued by division, an estimated 41,000 denominations around the world! How is this possible? Yes, ignorance, but also pride, and the two combined form arrogance. There’s also a third factor: the sad truth that many people choose to believe what they want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, simply because their beliefs give them comfort.
It’s not homosexuals, or terrorists, or pro-choicers, or CNN, or a political party, or even some spiritual devil that is destroying the church; it’s the church’s own people destroying themselves! It is comfort that we should be avoiding, as children of God. You yourself read what Jesus said about how to live. He did not by any means speak of a comfortable earthly life. I look at the church today, and it is morbidly obese with the riches and comforts of this world. Sickening, really.
The King James Bible is a symbol to me, a symbol of how easily corrupted the church can get. The powers that we trust tell us something, and oh how many of us willingly go along without question! The Jews learn their Torah in Hebrew, and the Muslims learn their Koran in Arabic, yet many “Christian” pastors discourage their congregations from learning anything more than what they teach, which usually does not include the Greek of the Christian New Testament. When someone in my Baptist church went to the preacher with a different view, he would encourage them to leave.
The KJV is a product of the Church of England. There in England, even to this day, the king’s printing press owns the rights to this version. It is a book that was made under strict guidelines laid out by James I to help ensure that his word was law. He was not holy, as a casual reading of his biography will show you, and he was not a man of God.
My argument is not that the KJV shouldn’t be read. It isn’t about one version being better over another. It is that one should learn to study for one’s self instead of relying on another man to dictate what is true or not true. A very basic knowledge of the Greek behind the Bible is an excellent start toward learning the truth of what the Bible really says. Otherwise, your faith is based on what church you happen to either grow up in or chance upon. This particular argument is aimed toward those who believe in the KJV as the best and ONLY Bible, those who say that the other translations are of the devil. My response to such a claim is to ask if they know the history of the KJV and if they have ever studied the Greek manuscripts behind it. Most would have to admit their answer of “no” to both, if they aren’t too stubborn and arrogant to do so.
I have had people get enraged with me over this topic, and mainly I feel it’s because they know I know more than them. I wish it weren’t so, because I feel that my knowledge is a burden to me, for it is a knowledge that isn’t easily spread to others who are already comfortable with their baseless religion.
My own mother, in speaking with her on all of this, asked me why I just can’t let people believe what they want to believe if it makes them happy. My answer is that the devil wants us to be happy, as long as we’re happy in our blindness to the truth. I cannot settle for that. The famous line from the Spider-Man comics is that with great power, there must also come great responsibility. Am I being responsible if I know the truth and yet keep it from people just so that they are not offended?
There are a lot of things I still do not know, but in the things I do know, I am proficient. How serious one is about studying the Bible is an indicator as to how strong their trust in God actually is. If their trust is shown to be weak, they have little respect from me when they try to speak of the things of God. As such, I don’t go to church, nor do I have plans to do so.
I wish this could have been more of a debate, but I still am grateful that I have been allowed a place to share my view. I thank everyone who has been keeping up with this page, and I hope at least someone here has learned something from me. When the debate is over and voting opens up, I’ll be in the comments section for anyone who wants to discuss this further with me.
My next debate will be a redo of my previous one, a discussion on the deity of Jesus. If you believe Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh, study up and prepare for when I start that debate in a couple of weeks.
May YHWH bless you and protect you; may YHWH make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; may YHWH lift up His face upon you and grant you peace. –Numbers 6:24-26
HotSauce forfeited this round.