The Instigator
justin.graves
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Devilsadvocate
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The King James Version is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible

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 2 votes the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,671 times Debate No: 32376
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

justin.graves

Con

Clarifying my position, I believe that other version of the Bible besides the Authorized King James Version of the Bible are valid. This does not mean that I support all other versions. I greatly support the ESV and sometimes use the NIV when talking with a less educated member of society. So, I am saying that the KJV is not the only authorized version and that other versions can be valid. This is not a contention, but a clarification of my opinion.

Rules:


Use Sources or Logic to support your arguments

Wikipedia is not a source

BoP is shared

Be Civil/ Don't cuss

Clarify your position

First Round is acceptance and clarification of position


1Devilsadvocate

Pro

I thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic.
I accept.
In this debate I will be pointing out errors in ESV & NIV, I will be drawing from both the original Hebrew bible aka old testament, as well as the new testament. Since I am more proficient in the former both in terms of content & it's language of origin, I will probably bring most of my examples from there.

To clarify my position, I don't think that any of the slandered Christian translations are acceptable (anyone interested in what I personally use use and recommend, can P.M. me).

My opponent stated "First Round is acceptance and clarification of position". So I guess I'll turn it over to him for opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
justin.graves

Con

justin.graves forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

In light of the fact that my opponent F.F.'d last round, I fear that he may have abandoned the debate, thus I will just mention a few examples in this round before committing more time and effort to this debate.

Isaiah 7:14:
New International Version ("2011)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

English Standard Version ("2001)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The Hebrew word used here is "הָעַלְמָ֗ה", which means young woman, not necessarily virgin. (1)
The Hebrew word for virgin is בתולה. http://translate.google.com...


(1)http://translate.google.com...
http://biblesuite.com...
http://www.morfix.co.il...
http://www.hebrewatmilah.org...
http://www.reverso.net...
http://translation.babylon.com...
http://he.wikipedia.org...

--------------------------------------------------------------
Psalms 23:4

New International Version ("2011):
Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

The Hebrew phrase here (1) is "בְּגֵיא צַלְמָוֶת", the wordבְּגֵיא means valley,"צַלְמָוֶת", is a compound word made up of the wordצַלְ which means shade or shadow, &מָוֶת which means death. putting it together we haveבְּגֵיא צַלְמָוֶת means valley of death, not "darkest".(2)

Now, admittedly NIV does a better job here with the translation, as it reads:
"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."
However, in my opinion, they got the order wrong. Shadows don't have valleys, values on the other hand do have shadows. Thus, the correct translation is "The shadow of the valley of death".



(1) http://biblos.com...
http://www.scripture4all.org...

(2)http://translate.google.com...
http://en.wiktionary.org...
Debate Round No. 2
justin.graves

Con

justin.graves forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

Oh well... I've waited 2.5 days, and my opponent still has not returned. Looks like this debate isn't happening.

If anyone wants to debate me on this or any similar topic, just let me know.
Debate Round No. 3
justin.graves

Con

justin.graves forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

Vote Pro!

Again, if anyone wants to debate me on this or any similar topic, just let me know.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
Thank you all for voting against me. I got... busy.I was hoping it wouldn't end in a tie. That would not have been just.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
That's fine.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Okay, now I get it. Sorry for that confusion.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah. I know some of them and have seen a few on this site.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Is there some group that insists only a certain translation is valid?
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
@campbellp10:

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to communicate to me. I am stating that their are other version besides the KJV that are correct. Yep, that is the same as my position I started at. Con for the KJV being the only correct version of the Bible.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
You must prove that all other versions of the Bible except the KJV are false. Specifically the ESV and NIV. I have changed the title of the debate to only include English translations.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Must pro support that KJV is valid, or just that the others invalid?
& is the original Hebrew version counted?
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Justin Graves: What the heck is the remaining question?

Enclave101: You should probably take the argument, to argue in favor of Christians sticking with a single book to be less confusing.
Posted by enclave101 4 years ago
enclave101
I would do this but there is no correct version of the bible, because it was written by a group of people who were on myrh
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
justin.graves1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF. Pro made efforts to use reliable information and convince. Therefore, Pro gets these points.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
justin.graves1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF