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

The King James Bible is more reliable than the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJV

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: 4/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 53637
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




My argument is that the King James Version is more reliable (trustworthy) than the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJV based on the manuscripts used to translate these versions.

Please only accept this debate if you are a Bible-believing Christian.

Burdon of proof will be on both participants to prove or disprove the position.

Round 1 - Acceptance/Statement of Position
Round 2 - Opening Arguments
Round 3 - Rebuttals
Round 4 - Rebuttals/Closing Statements


Believe and will show that the NIV in particular, as well as modern translations like the NASB and ESV are more accurate than the KJV, based on a proper understanding of textual transmission and the manuscripts.
Debate Round No. 1


The King James Bible used superior Greek/Hebrew manuscripts, namely the Byzantine Texts (Greek New Testament) and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Old Testament). The Masoretic Text stems from direct transmission of the Tenakh being traced back to the Sopherim of Ezra's day. The Great Rabbinic Bible (ben Chayyim) is the Hebrew Tenakh used and unquestioned for nearly 400 years (1500-1880). It was not until the English Revised Version of 1881 that other sources were considered. Modern versions follow suit in going to other sources for the Old Testament. The Old Testament was given in Hebrew, was preserved in Hebrew and is with us today IN HEBREW. Deviations from the Hebrew Masoretic Text warrants corruption and reflects infidelity to God's preserved words. The Septuagint, Biblia Hebraica, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate, etc. are not sources any translation committee should consult in translating the words of the Old Testament because at best these are all translations of the Hebrew or represent corrupt forms of the Masoretic Text (i.e. BHS, ben Asher). As for the New Testament, there should be no contention. The Traditional Text (Byzantine) has been used and trusted by the Church for more than 1,000 years. ~99% of all Greek manuscripts are in agreement with the Byzantine-type text. Only 1% represents the corrupted few, namely Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Alexandrinus (C), and less than 50 papyri (i.e. P-66). The theory developed in the late 1800s was that the Byzantine Text (since most of its representatives were "late" manuscripts) had become corrupted by scribal changes. They viewed the oldest Greek texts as best (just as any other piece of literature is represented by its oldest copy) and based all subsequent work, such as the work of Westcott and Hort, on these few Alexandrian codices. This theory does not trump evidence and tradition. Unbelieving theories are meaningless in the endeavors of translation. If you look at bibles in other languages, over 25,000 agree with the Byzantine Text and consequently agree with the King James Bible. Out of the many verses in question in modern versions, many early Christian writers support the reading's authenticity, such as 1 John 5:7. Majority, historicity and witness do not constitute ultimate proofs of accuracy, but they do count for reliability, which is what this debate is concerned with. ( ( (

I will expand on some of my points in round 3 and provide references if necessary.


The New Testament authors used the Greek Septuagint (3rd - 2nd century B.C.E.) over the Hebrew documents from which the Mesoretic Text (10th century C.E.) got its readings:

Heb 10:5 (KJV)
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me...

Ps 40:6 (Brenton"s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me...

Ps 40:6 (KJV)
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened...

Heb 10:5 quotes this prophecy of the incarnation, but the Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing "but a body hast thou prepared for me" with "mine ears hast thou opened." The KJV New Testament and the Greek Septuagint agree with each other against the reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The Jews clearly edited this passage in their Hebrew text in order to deny the incarnation was prophesied in the Old Testament. The fact that New Testament authors trusted the Septuagint enough to take most of their quotations from it testifies to how accurate it is. Being much older than the Masoretic Text, it was based on a much older and better Hebrew Text.

Heb 1:6 ( KJV)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Deut 32:43 (Brenton"s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him...

Deut 32:43 (KJV)
Phrase omitted.

The Masoretic Text completely omits the phrase "and let all the angels of God worship him" from Deuteronomy 32.43, but Paul"s quotation of it in Hebrews 1:6 shows that it was there and that the Septuagint is more correct than the Mesoretic Text. So the NIV, NASB and ESV are more accurate than the KJV because they use the Septuagint as a base.

Matthew agrees with the Septuagint that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, where the Mesoretic text has born of a maiden. (Matt 1:23; Isa 7:14) The New Testament agrees with the Septuagint is 93% of the time but only aggress with the Mesoretic Text 68% of the time. Strong evidence that the Septuagint is a more accurate text on which to base the Old Testament.

Pro argues that the Great Rabbinic Bible (ben Chayyim) went unquestioned for nearly 400 years, so does the fact that the reading "mine ears hast thou opened" (Ps 40:6) went unquestioned for 400 years prove that it was correct? And if so, then is the KJV New Testament wrong for reading differently at Hebrews 10:5? How long did that reading go unquestioned? Both were unchallenged for a long time, does that make both of them right? I look forward to the answer to that!

While "other sources" like the Septuagint may not have been considered by modern scholars till 1881, manuscripts containing these same readings were clearly being used by the NT authors, and that validates them as more authoritative then those on which the KJV were based. The argument that the Old Testament was given in Hebrew doesn't show that a late Hebrew copy must be more accurate than a much older Greek copy that was made from an even older Hebrew manuscript. The Hebrew from which the Septuagint was made would have been closer to the original Hebrew than the Mesoretic Text. And in fact, the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuagint more than with the Mesoretic Text, so we also have confirmation of the Septuagint readings in Hebrew copies.

Pro argues that translation committees should not get their Old Testament from the Septuagint or any other Greek manuscript because such translations are corruptions. If that is so, then why did the NT authors use it for 890 quotes and references from the Old Testament instead of quoting the Hebrew? The translators of the KJV had this to say:

"It pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translation of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way of our Savior among the Gentiles by written preaching... Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore was not only placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries." (Preface of the 1611 KJV, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER) So Pro's argument in favor of the Byzantine text because it was used longer than the older manuscripts which were discovered more recently holds no water, because the translators of his favorite version themselves argue that the Septuagint which he rejects was in use by the early church, and that has continued for 2000 years! That's much longer than the Mesoretic Text, which only dates to the 10th century C.E., and we do have New Testament quotes showing the correct readings in the 1st century church were different from what the Masoretic Text says today.

Pro then makes and argument from the majority of manuscripts, as if truth were decided by majority vote. But this ignores the fact that the Majority Text was once in the minority. The further back in time you go, the closer to the originals you get, the more the Majority Text (Byzantine) reading disappears. For example, the Johannaine Comma Pro mentions in 1 John 5:7 first appears (not in a Bible manuscript, but) in a 4th century treatise called Liber Apologeticus, and it was absent from all New Testament manuscripts in all languages of that time and prior. If it was an original reading, then it's inexplicable why it wasn't found in the Old Latin versions of 200 C.E., or the Bodmer papyri 200 C.E., or the Chester Betty papyri 200 C.E., or the 4th century Vaticanus. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993), says:

"That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations" (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. [I will add to this, that the four oldest manuscripts don"t include it as part of the Bible text, but only as a footnote in the margin, and from there it later entered the text of God"s word in the later manuscripts. Why didn't the oldest Greek manuscripts used for the Textus Receptus include the passage if it was original?]

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. [Again I add the question: why is it missing from all Greek manuscripts before that? Was the true reading lost for centuries only to now be discovered again in 1215?]

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century])."

So was there a conspiracy among all the translators of all these versions from all over Rome, Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and many other places, plus among the church fathers themselves, to take out evidence of the Trinity in 1 John 5:7-8? A trinitarian church wouldn't do that, so more likely the original didn't contain it.
Debate Round No. 2


Much of cons counter argument involves the Septuagint. I will state a few things about the Septuagint and then move on to your other arguments.

First of all, other than claiming that NT authors quoted from the LXX, what evidence do you have that a B.C. LXX existed? The LXX that is used and translated today is not a B.C. LXX but a 300 A.D. text derived from Origen's Hexepla. Unless you can provide substantial evidence that a B.C. LXX existed, your claims of NT quotations of the LXX are moot. You can just as easily argue, and with more certainty, that the LXX quoted from the NT as it was produced at least 200 years later. Your claim of NT quotation of the LXX is on the same level as the claim that Peter and Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch. Not only are you claiming that the LXX is more accurate than the Hebrew Tenakh, but you are claiming that the Masoretes took away from the word of God in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2. Again your claims are moot.

You say "The fact that New Testament authors trusted the Septuagint enough to take most of their quotations from it testifies to how accurate it is. Being much older than the Masoretic Text, it was based on a much older and better Hebrew Text." One of the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament (possibly 300 B.C.) is the Isaiah Scroll which testifies of the reliability of the Masoretic Text, whereas extant LXX mss are only as old as 300 A.D. ( Also, what "older and better Hebrew text" was the LXX based on? The LXX is an untrustworthy document riddled with scribal errors. Your claims concerning the LXX are falsified (

Your quote from the King James translation committee is meaningless as they simply conveyed the common myth of the "seventy interpreters." This myth is based on one questionable letter, the Letter of Aristeas. This letter serves as poor evidence since it doesn't fit the time period in which it claims to have been written ( Some of the men on the King James translation committee believed in baptizing babies (per Martin Luther) but does that make it true?

You say, "Pro then makes and argument from the majority of manuscripts, as if truth were decided by majority vote. But this ignores the fact that the Majority Text was once in the minority. The further back in time you go, the closer to the originals you get, the more the Majority Text (Byzantine) reading disappears." Majority does not decide truth but it does play into the reliability of the Bible since we would expect most of God's church to be using the preserved word of God, not a corrupt text. In my view, majority trumps antiquity, especially when that antiquity is compounded by scribal errors, additions and omissions. Where is your proof that "the further back in time you go" "the more the Majority Text reading disappears?" This claim is false (

Your claims about 1 John 5:7 are erroneous. The earliest attestation extant of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 is not Liber Apologeticus but is from Cyprian 258 A.D. ". . .again it is written of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Treatise 1, paragraph 6)

You say, "If it was an original reading, then it's inexplicable why it wasn't found in the Old Latin versions of 200 C.E., or the Bodmer papyri 200 C.E., or the Chester Betty papyri 200 C.E., or the 4th century Vaticanus." Because those texts omitted the verse. The fact that we have Cyprian quoting 1 John 5:7 as early as 258 A.D. shows that the text is authentic. Again you are arguing from antiquity, but the codices you mention such as Vaticanus are corrupt. Consider that in the Gospels alone, the Aleph and B codices disagree over 3,000 times ( These codices are demonstrably unreliable ( Even the BBC ran a story on the unreliability of the Codex Sinaiticus, the "oldest and most reliable" manuscript most of the footnotes in modern versions are referring to, and concluded with ". . .more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God" (

John GILL commenting on 1 John 5:7 says, "it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerome, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible). Your claim that is not found "in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome" is false.

Your argument based on on lack of attestation to 1 John 5:7 is moot as modern versions such as the NIV, NASB and ESV replace "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 with "He" or "He who" which is only to be found in a single manuscript of the more than 5,000 extant manuscripts, namely the Aleph Codex, Sinaiticus. Where is the evidence that it should be "He" or "He who" and not "God." 1 John 5:7 is just as authentic as 1 Timothy 3:16 (

I think one is left with only two coherent options in relation to which texts they perceive to be the preserved word of God: either the traditional texts, which have been used for the vast majority of Church history, or the eclectic texts which have been hidden for many years in such places as a Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt and the bowels of the Vatican library. I guess a healthy distrust of the Catholic Church and a biblical knowledge of Egypt help me to make that decision very easily, but primarily, I believe accepting these obscure texts, simply because of their perceived antiquity and in-spite of the attestation to the texts God has blessed, is quite frankly a denigration of the character of my Father. He does not work in secrecy, allowing His Church to be tossed to-and-fro without His words to hold on to. To the Christian who bothers to study this issue, he will find that such texts as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are untrustworthy ( including the LXX.

This debate is concerning the reliability (trustworthiness) of the KJV vs the NIV, NASB, ESV, AND NKJV based on the manuscripts used to translate these versions. So far all that is agreed that: The vast majority of mss attest to the Byzantine Text-type. The prospective voter should consider what exactly constitutes reliability. Majority and witness surely counts in the case for the Bible, in both manuscript evidence and early Christian quotation, as does historicity, or the fact that this was the text used by the Church for most of church history. Again this debate is concerning reliability not accuracy. The Byzantine Texts include more than 5,000 mss which, although copied by different scribes at different times and locations, reveal remarkable cohesiveness ( The less than 50 mss representing the Alexandrian text-type used for modern version's NT ad the various sources such as the LXX used for the OT do not show any cohesiveness whatsoever.

The Protestant Reformation revealed many things to the world, the most important of which is the identity of the true word of God as revealed in the Textus Receptus (Byzantine Text) compiled by Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. Modern versions not only undermine the Reformation saints but also attempt to convey that the Church of Jesus Christ has been without the "accurate" word of God for more than 1,000 years.


What evidence do I have that a B.C.E. LXX existed? The Fouad Papyri collection (Inventory No. 266) was found in Egypt and dated to the 1st century B.C.E. Fragments of this Septuagint (LXX) papyri were published in 1944 by W. G. Waddell in the Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. About 117 fragments of LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 were published in "tudes de Papyrologie, Vol. 9, Cairo, 1971, pp. 81-150, 227, 228. The manuscript 4Q LXX Levb was found in Qumran Cave 4, and dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157. Other LXX fragments date to the 1st century C.E. It well documented that the Septuagint was made in the 3rd century B.C.E., and was THE translation upon which the New Testament (NT) authors relied. "As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is quoted in the New Testament,[1] particularly in the Pauline epistles,[2] and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.";

"The date of the 3rd century BCE, given in the legend, is confirmed (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century. After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries...The translation began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE, initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well. The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament." (Wikipedia: Septuagint) This predates Origen"s Hexepla contrary to Pro's unfounded assertions.

When Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6, when Hebrews 1:6 quotes Deut 32:43, and when Matt 1:23 quotes Isa 7:14, these quotations read exactly like the B.C.E. fragments of the Septuagint and the 4th century copies. These quotes do not read like the Mesoretic Text (MT), and thus Pro has to tell us why in cases like these the NT agrees with the LXX against the MT. I asked if he thinks the NT readings were wrong and he didn't answer. I'm asking again. Was this a hard question? He argues the MT is correct because it was used by the church a long time, but that's equally true of those NT passages that contradict the MT readings! So clearly the length of time a reading was used doesn't prove its reliability.

Pro claims the LXX is riddled with errors, but he has not been able to answer the contradictions I showed him between his NT and the MT. Riddled with errors? How ironic. I challenge him to give us one example of this for the Critical Text. If the LXX is a later, corrupted manuscript as Pro claims, then why do most NT quotes of the OT agree with the LXX against the MT? Instead of telling us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, as the New Testament quotes it in Acts 15:17, Amos 9.12 in the KJV/MT would have us believe that the Jews will "POSSESS the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen..." These two verses disagree sharply in content between the NT documents and the MT, but no such discord exists between the NT and the LXX.

Pro says the Aleph and B codices disagree over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone, yet the Byzantine Text differs from the Textus Receptus (TR) in over 1,838 places (Daniel B. Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text;" available from, does that make TR unrealiable? More on this next round if space permits.

The TR was the major base for translating the NT in the KJV. This TR is a series of reprints of Erasmus' first edition in 1516. But the inaccuracy of his translation is seen in the fact that there are some places in the TR where Erasmus' rendition of the Greek was not found in any of his manuscripts, and which have not been found in any Greek manuscript. One example is Acts 9:6 where it is said of Paul, "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what will thou have me to do?" This reading was an interpolated from the Latin Vulgate into Erasmus' text, despite having no textual evidence for its inclusion. From there it made its way into the KJV. (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed., 1992, p.100) Pro argued in round two that since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, we should translate it from Hebrew and not from versions in other languages, so what does he say to the KJV getting Acts 9:6 from the Latin when the book of Acts was originally written in Greek? He complains that the single word "He" in 1 Tim 3:16 is only found in one Greek manuscript, but he accepts an entire sentence in Acts 9:6 that isn't found in any Greek manuscript at all! More irony? In fact, because of heavy dependence on the Latin Vulgate, there are now numerous words and passages in the KJV that do not appear in the over 5000 Greek manuscripts available today. Pot meets kettle. Such a charge cannot be made of the NIV and I challenge Pro to prove me wrong with even a single example.

Pro assumes the Critical Text is incorrect simply because it is in the minority count of all existing manuscripts. But if truth is determined by majority vote, we must also conclude that the doctrines of purgatory, intercession of the saints, and infant baptism are true, because Catholics outnumber all other denominations claiming to be Christian, and these doctrines have been the prevailing teachings for the longest period of Christian history. Just as true doctrine isn't decided by majority vote, determining the correct reading of the text does not come by counting manuscripts, but by evaluating the different readings to determine how they originated. History does not show that God prevented errors from creeping into the text the church had over the years, any more than he prevented bad practices from creeping into the church, such as slavery, which was practiced by most of the Christian world for a long time.

The Critical Text-type dominated the early centuries of the church, while the readings of the Byzantine Text-type were virtually unknown. (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy,1995, 152)The earliest manuscript reflecting the Byzantine Text-type readings comes from the late fourth century. In the thousands of Scripture quotations from the church fathers before the fourth-century, not one quote is distinctly of the Byzantine Text-type. (Daniel B. Wallace, "The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations;" available from The early translations also bear the same evidence. There are nearly 8,000 manuscript translations of the Scripture in the early Latin Vulgate, all of which more clearly reflect the Critical Text rather than the Byzantine. (Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text.") Their omission of the 1 John 5:7 text is just one example.

The Byzantine Text type did not actually become the majority until the tenth-century when these readings finally began to multiply in copies. What is actually the minority and the majority depends upon which century one is viewing the evidence from. A fourth-century believer would have concluded that the Byzantine Text was indeed the minority reading, which by Pro's standards would disqualify it as the correct reading. I'll answer his other objections next round as I'm out of space.
Debate Round No. 3


The mss you cite are not the LXX you have been referring to. There are multiple texts and portions of texts which contain Greek translations of the OT, but there is nothing linking them to the LXX. The quotes you have cited showing a supposed NT quotation of the LXX are not found in the mss you cite.

"What is generally referred to as the LXX today are basically compilations of different Greek translations taken from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, which do not perfectly coincide. . . It must be noted that not all LXX versions read the same. It would be impossible to reconstruct what a pre-Christian LXX version may have looked like, even if such a thing had existed" (

"The great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to reconstruct the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means undoing Origen's labor so as to rediscover the form of the Septuagint in the second century. Without Greek manuscripts predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily achieved. . . There really is no such thing as the Septuagint. If the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible had been translated at one point in history by one group of translators in one location and for one purpose, then it would be much easier to use the Septuagint as a snapshot of the history of interpretation and theological thought. However, apart from the translation of the Pentateuch (for which we have very limited information), the when, where, and who, and why of the Greek translation of other books is basically unknown" (Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint).

"The oldest extensive manuscripts of the Septuagint that are extant are dated in the fourth century, at least a century after Origen, so we cannot always be certain that our Septuagint text corresponds to that of his day (either in its pre-Origenic or post-Origenic form). . . We do not, and Origen did not, have extant for any book what anyone would consider the original form of that translation. All manuscripts display a considerable amount of textual development-certainly unintentional changes, such as the well-known panoply of errors, but also intentional changes, such as clarifications, revisions, doublets, and harmizations" (Eugine Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible).

"A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information as to Origen's Hexaplaric text and particular passages in the other columns, but these do not go far towards enabling us to recover the LXX text as it existed before Origen; and this remains the greatest problem which confronts the textual student of the Septuagint" (Sir Frederick Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible).

You say, "It well documented that the Septuagint was made in the 3rd century B.C.E., and was THE translation upon which the New Testament (NT) authors relied." There is no such documentation as revealed by the above quotes.

Your Wikipedia citation concerning the LXX is unfounded; the only evidence of a B.C. LXX is a questionable letter. The experts as quoted above claim that there is no demonstrable pre-Origen LXX.

You say, "When Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6, when Hebrews 1:6 quotes Deut 32:43, and when Matt 1:23 quotes Isa 7:14, these quotations read exactly like the B.C.E. fragments of the Septuagint and the 4th century copies. These quotes do not read like the Mesoretic Text (MT), and thus Pro has to tell us why in cases like these the NT agrees with the LXX against the MT." The post-Origen LXX (which is what you are referring to when citing these NT quotes) back translated from the NT. In other words, the LXX is quoting the NT not the other way around (

"No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint 'quotes' from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text" (Jack Moorman, Forever Settled).

"'Well they had to be quoting something - it must be the Septuagint.' This is the argument of advocates of the 'Christ used the Septuagint theory.' So what were the New Testament writers and Christ quoting? There are 268 references to 'as it is written' in the New Testament. Few match the exact wording of the Hebrew Old Testament passages they refer to. Eighty-eight match (or are matched by) Origen's Septuagint. Most of the other 180 don't match any ancient document word for word. Some have suggested that perhaps an Aramaic translation of the Old Testament or a Chaldean paraphrase are being quoted but this is unlikely. Actually the explanation is simple and has been known for a long time. The Greek phrase 'as it is written' is a common one in ancient Greek writings. It is never an indication of an exact quote - in the New Testament or anywhere else. Frederick Spitta wrote a century ago, 'According to the unvarying practice in the New Testament, the citation formula 'as it is written' is never the introductory clause but rather always follows a report of something seen as the fulfillment of a prophetic word.' The phrase implies not a quotation but a reference to a fulfillment of a prediction or a prophecy. For example, see the way the phrase, 'as it is written,' is used in the writings of Justin Martyr. These passages are simply not quotes at all - they are allusions to Old Testament prophecies. These are Holy Spirit inspired allusions - they are not quotations at all. This was clear to the Reformed theologians and many of the old Church of England writers. A little bit of research gives a clear explanation. The critics of the King James position would be well served to read more widely" (Dr. Phil Stringer,

You say, "I asked if he thinks the NT readings were wrong and he didn't answer. I'm asking again. Was this a hard question?" No, I do not think the NT readings are wrong, just the same as I do not think Jude 1:15 is wrong despite it being found in the Book of Enoch. It is clear that the LXX quoted the NT in an attempt to bolster its status. Consider the places where the NT matches the Masoretic Text and not the LXX; should I claim superiority on this merit alone? No.
There are over 100 quotations which don't match either the Masoretic Text or the LXX. I think the above quotation explains this succinctly.

You say, "He argues the MT is correct because it was used by the church a long time, but that's equally true of those NT passages that contradict the MT readings! So clearly the length of time a reading was used doesn't prove its reliability." You cannot prove that those quotes are derivatives of a B.C. Septuagint, therefore your argument is moot. By all evidential accounts, the NT never quoted a B.C. LXX and no LXX (matching the one you quote) was used for any length of time prior to Origen of Alexandria, 300 A.D. (

The Byzantine Text disagrees with the Majority Text that Daniel Wallace is referring to, represented by less than 500 mss. There are over 5,000, so this cannot constitute the whole of the Majority Text (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text).

Your claims about the TR are unfounded. Your example of Acts 9:6 is a verse which has support from a number of sources, but your contention is that they are not in any extant Greek mss. It is found in uncial E and 431 which I believe are Greek texts (

You say, "The Critical Text-type dominated the early centuries of the church, while the readings of the Byzantine Text-type were virtually unknown." This is erroneous. There is no proof that the Critical Text was ever used in any dominating way, and there is a plethora of evidence which demonstrate the early usage of the Byzantine readings (


Pro argues the Critical Text is replete with errors, but his KJV is no exception: In the margin of the 1611 KJV, the note on Luke 17:36 says "This 36 verse is wanting in MOST of the Greek copies." Other examples are the insertions of "through his blood" at Col 1:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever" at Rev 5:14, and "filthiness" at Rev 17:4. None of these are found in the Majority Text, so why should we praise the KJV on the basis of being translated from better manuscripts when the translators themselves didn"t stay true to those manuscripts? The KJV has the word "Easter" at Acts 12:4 where every single Byzantine and Critical manuscript has pasca, the Greek word translated "Passover" every other time it occurs in the Bible. (ie Matt 26:2; John 2:13) - W.E. Vine"s Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words.

Pro doesn"t tell us that almost every single KJV in use today is the 1769 edition by Benjamin Blayney and not the original 1611 edition. He doesn"t tell us because a comparison between the two reveals even more contradiction between these two editions than the differences between codex A and B. While the modern KJV at Matt 26:36 has "Then cometh Jesus," the 1611 version reads "Then cometh Judas," a complete difference in meaning. For all his assertions about discrepancies between codex A and B, he has given us no actual examples. In 1 Cor 4:9 where the 1611 had "approved" the modern KJV has "appointed." The correct term is "condemned." (Gk. ejpiqantiou: condemned to death) There is no "Amen" at Eph 6:24 in the 1611 edition but the modern KJV adds one. Blayney"s edition inserts the phrase "than godly" into 1 Tim 1:4 where the 1611 edition omits it. The 1611 edition leaves out "of the Damascenes" in 2 Cor 11:32, "and the books" in 2 Tim 4:13, and "of God" in 1 John 5:12, where the present KJV includes them all. So if differences in the manuscripts mean as much to Pro as he claims, he should be consistent and either reject his current KJV or its 1611 predecessor.

In fact, the KJV contradicts the Textus Receptus, so again Pro has no right to claim superiority on the basis of the manuscripts because the translators didn"t faithfully copy them anyway. Where the KJV has "churches" the TR has "temples" (Acts 19:37), where KJV has "God save the king," the TR has "may the king live." (1 Sam 10:24)

Regarding 1 John 5:7, Hartwell documented many reasons why the prologue favoring this verse couldn"t have been written by Jerome, and the majority of scholars today reject it as a forgery: "On this supposed prologue of Jerome many advocates of the disputed clause founded, as they imagined, a powerful argument for its genuineness; while others have candidly admitted that the prologue is spurious. In fact, this preface is of no authority whatever; for, 1. Its style is so barbarous as to prove that it could not have been written by Jerome; 2. It is wanting in his catalogue of prefaces, as well as in the best and most ancient manuscripts of Jerome"s version; 3. It is often found in Latin copies without his name; it makes use of the term Epistolae Canonicae, "Canonical Epistles," whereas Jerome"s title for them was Epistolae Catholicae, "Catholic Epistles;" 4. Further, this preface is prefixed to some Latin copies of the Catholic Epistles, in which the disputed text is not inserted; whence it is evident that the ancient MSS. from which such copies were made had not the disputed text, though the transcribers had the folly to insert that preface; 5. And, finally, what proves that it is utterly destitute of authority, is the fact, that "it insinuates one falsehood, and asserts two other direct and notorious falsehoods. It insinuates that all the Greek copies of the New Testament had this verse; whereas none of them had it, nor" (as we have already seen) "has any of the genuine works of the Greek Fathers once mentioned it. And Jerome, above all men, who was so conversant in the Greek copies of the New Testament and in the Greek Fathers, must needs have known this to have been a direct falsehood. Again, the preface asserts that the Latin translators were unfaithful in leaving out the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, that he [Jerome] had restored it." (Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of The New Testament, 1856, p. 372) Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says that "St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text."

"Further evidence that St Jerome is not the true author of the Prologue or the addition, lies in the fact that the addition has been inserted in the margin of several early manuscripts from which that text was absent. For it was not likely that St Jerome would have spoken favourably of his own new edition of the canonical Epistles because of the changes he had made, particularly in the first letter of St John, and that there was no trace of any such change in the text".People who included this addition in the margin of their manuscripts could hardly all keep to the same wording, so that it occurs with different wording in different manuscripts. These discrepancies obviously prove that St Jerome could not have been the author of this addition which is actually the work of individuals who sought to adjust the text of St John in accordance with the Prologue." (Richard Simon, Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, trans. Andrew Hunwick (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1689/2013), p. 178-9) You can check these discrepancies and find documented evidence that Cyprian DID NOT quote this passage at;

For Paul's letters we have no evidence of a Byzantine text before the ninth-century. (Daniel B. Wallace, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?"; available from If the Byzantine Text-type was the text used by the early church it should have been the basis of one of the ancient translations, but this isn"t what we find. The Old Latin of 200 C.E. evidence Western Text-type readings; the Coptic translations show Alexandrian Text-types; the earliest Syriac versions have Western and Alexandrian Text-type readings. If these versions were based on polluted manuscripts, one would expect them to have come from (and be used in) only one isolated region. This is not the case; the Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, and Syriac versions came from all over the Mediterranean region. In none of these locales was the Byzantine text apparently used - strong evidence that the Byzantine text simply did not exist in the first three centuries.

If the Byzantine was the uncorrupted text-type was used by Fathers, why do we find the non-Byzantine Texts in their writings for the first 300 years of Christian history? Why do Tertullian and Augustine quote 1 John 5:7-8 without the three-in-one passage? Were the Fathers not the same individuals who were opposing the heretical tampering with the Scriptures? Why did they use ever other verse except this one when debating the trinity with Arians? Because it wasn"t in their Bible.

He cites biased KJV Only cites who deny the reality of the LXX in the B.C.E. period, but modern scholarship agrees that the fragments I cited are indeed from the LXX composed in the 3rd century B.C.E. (Ernst W"rthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995) I simply suggest to all reading this debate to research the fragments I cited and you"ll see that scholars who have worked on this agree they are from the Septuagint.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
Guys, any comments on how this debate is going so far? We have one round left.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
I will prove that the NIV and possibly the other versions specifically listed in this debate are more accurate than the KJV, so I need not defend every other translation.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
King James was translated for POETRY! It is one of the least accurately translated Bibles out there!
Posted by AnsweringAtheism 2 years ago
Will be following this debate.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
For some reason I'm not able to edit the debate. Every time I click "Review" it just highlights the "Opponent" box which I'm leaving empty.

Anyway, burden of proof will be on me not Con.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
Well to defend it against EVERY other version would be unnecessary as I am arguing for the KJV's trustworthiness based on the manuscripts from which it was translated from. Most modern versions deviate from the KJV reading because they are using different manuscripts.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
What is the point if it is not more reliable than every other English translation?
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
@ArcTimes - Ya, I guess your right. But I did say more reliable than the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJV, so that's not EVERY other version.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
I;m not a Christian, I'm not going to accept this, but the Burden of proof is only on you. You are the one claiming things. It would be unfair for Con because he would have to prove that every other version of the bible is more reliable than KJB,
You are the only one making claims.
No votes have been placed for this debate.