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

King James Version or NCV, RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
reddogs has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 99187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




There are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable to say the least and purposely corrupted at some key text. The problem is that it is not a 'different translation', it basically is editing by these unknown person(s) to take out whatever they disagree with or doesn't fit with their doctrine or traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters or missing whole books, or worse. So its not just a 'different translation'....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The Textus Receptus has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the changed Alexandrian manuscripts or Alexandrian codices.

From what I have come across it seems that the Textus Receptus, also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by many were faithful to its text such as Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason. The Minority Text of the Alexandrian manuscripts were clearly and thoroughly useless because of the outright changes and what can only be called a corruption of the original text

Here is a good description of how the corruptions were looked at in the book LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton which gives a easy to understand explanation...

"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

-Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

-Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text."

The Minority Texts were corrupted by Egyptian Gnosticism mostly in
Alexandria with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The Gnostics were a group that did not believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins.

There are many alterations in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures and contradict themselves throughout. Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin...."

Now for centuries the Textus Receptus was the standard and the KJV along with many others used it as the basis of their version:
"Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530.
"Coverdale Bible 1535.
"Matthew Bible 1537.
"Great Bible 1539.
"Geneva Bible 1560-1644.
"Bishops' Bible 1568.

Then late in the 1800's two Anglican churchmen, Westcott & Hort picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts and created a version based on them. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Alexandrian texts as they supported views prevalent in their time from Darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. Most of the new modern translations have picked this corrupted version and so are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT).

These corrupted Alexandrian texts were used by Westcott & Hort's as they knowingly made a translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Alexandrian translation of a Greek original.


My opponent's argument breaks down from the very beginning.

"There are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text)"


Like most KJV-onlyists, my opponent is stuck back hundreds of years in Biblical scholarship. We don't exclusively use the "Alexandrian manuscripts." While we use these manuscripts, there are literally thousands of other sources in Unicles, fragments, and quotes from church fathers that are used in deciphering what the original language said. These oldest writings often match up with the "Minority text" over the Textus Receptus. The issue of textual criticism is looking at what was most likely the original text. The Textus Receptus contradicts earliest manuscripts and contains inaccuracies. This is why verses were "removed;" they weren't part of the original written text!

Unless thousands of early manuscripts are in some kind of conspiracy over hundreds of years, there was no "corruption" at all! If anything, the corruption was addition to the text!

Further, textual critical scholars like Bart Ehrman in "Orthodox Corruptions of Scripture," clearly show it is orthodox scribes who added orthodox ideas to the text to "clarify." They added to the original text, not the Gnostics!

I have a copy of the second printing of Westcott & Hort's sitting on my desk. It is miles and miles away from the critical addition of the New Testament I use that is also sitting next to it. My opponent is simply stuck on old and misused scholarship to try to beat a dead horse. It doesn't work anymore for any relatively educated layman.

(Sources will be provided in the final round with more specifics as my opponent addresses them.)

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
This is not a debate. The mature believer uses many versions, some use at least two, in addition to Strongs concordance, with, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek dictionaries.

I use King James, Niv, English standard, mostly as comparison text. I allow scripture to determine scripture and depend solely upon God to reveal the interpretations of text, as commanded in 2 Peter 1

In conclusion, King James I feel is a must, but comparison text for those who are want of the language may use additional text, IF would be good to have whenever possible a maturer believer, a phone call away, should general questions come up. Not for interpretations, just for guidance references, helps etc.

God has promised to teach us Himself, and faithfully does.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.