Is the King James Version the best English translation? -- notapadawan vs. Bible John

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between notapadawan and Bible John who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: the KJV is the superior English translation and should be the Bible translation used by English speaking Christians everywhere."

notapadawan will affirm and Bible John will oppose. The debate will have 4 rounds and notapadawan will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4414583&postcount=51).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4417092#post4417092) is set up in the Biblical Criticism & History forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator

Addendum (June 8): Bible John and notapadawan have agreed to change the word limit to 5000 words.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

notapadawan, please note that your opening statement is overdue. You will have a grace period, however, extending your deadline to May 20.

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[notapadawan]

First I'd like to thank KnightWhoSaysNi for moderating this debate. Second I'd like to thank Bible John for accepting this debate. Last, but certainly not least, I'd like to thank you the dear reader for taking your time and reading this debate.

I would like to apologize for the tardiness of this opening statement. I have had a rough week at work and haven't had much time to be on the computer.

First my main points are from Dr. Don Waite's book "Defending the King James Bible". While I don't have his book, he systemized the defense of the KJV into four main points. His first point is the superiority of the Textual Tradition used by the KJV Translators. His second point is the superiority of the Translators themselves. His third point is the superiority of the Translation Techniques. His fourth point is the superiority of the Doctrinal clarity it brings.

Starting with his first point, the Superiority of the KJV stems from the Manuscript Tradition. I am not familiar with Old Testament Criticism, though I am starting to read a book on it. I am very familiar with New Testament Textual Criticism. I find many of the concepts used by it to demean the very Scriptures they purport to help defend. Concepts such as "Oldest reading is best", "Harder reading to be preferred", etc. show a disregard for the Byzantine Tradition. Simple Geography would show people dryer climates would preserve fragile papyri manuscripts much better than the more humid northern Mediterranean area. Proof can be found in that the Vaticanus manuscript is in an environmentally controlled area of the Vatican to keep it from deteriorating. Even in Egypt p66 shows Byzantine readings showing the earliness of the Byzantine Tradition.

The second point is the Superiority of the Translators. The KJV Translators were men that could not only read Greek and Hebrew, but several could read it from the tender ages of 5 and 6. A good read on it is The Translators Revived by Alexander McClure. Many people today that are translators didn't know Greek and Hebrew until they attended College and/or Seminary.

The third point is the Superiority of the Translation Techniques. Formal Equivalence is the driving principle of the KJV Translators. They were men who considered their work to be translating the very Word of God into a more understandable way. In the New Testament we can see over and over Formal Equivalence being used in the translation of what Jesus would say and what it would mean to the reader. Phrases like "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabach thani"{#1} were translated into their equivalent words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". Often the modern versions use the Dynamic Equivalence technique. This is where they interpret the passage and try to translate the meaning. Men like John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/54/1534_Good_English_With_Minimal_Translation_Why_Bethlehem_Uses_the_ESV/)have taken a stand against the NIV. Of course he stands against the NIV in favor of the ESV. I know of others who have stood against the NIV due to its paraphrasing. I have more respect for John Piper's position than I do for the guy who declares the NIV to be an accurate translation. How can the NIV be accurate if it doesn't translate, but rather is more of a commentary on what the original Greek and Hebrew texts read?

The fourth and final point is the Superiority of the Theological foundation it provides. This point is very important. Theological terms such as Atonement, Propitiation, Flesh vs. Spirit, etc. are lost or at best ambiguous at best. Even Joe Morecraft III (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonstopic&sermonID=1505205538)who uses the NASB stated he preferred the KJV rendering of "know" over the NASB's rendering.

As can be seen this is a rough outline and I hope that it provides enough initiative to study this issure out more. THank you for reading. Bible John the floor is yours

[Bible John]

Hello everyone and welcome to this debate. First I want to thank NightShade for moderating this debate, my opponent for debating with me, and the Peanut Gallery participants for the constructive criticism that I’d expect to receive from them throughout this debate. Before I start my opening post, I’d like to introduce myself. The names John Wolf and I am the founder and director of an Internet ministry called Church Education Resource Ministries (http://www.cerm.info). In my last debate I explained through the scriptures and through Catholic Theology and Doctrine why true Roman Catholics are not Christians. In this debate I will be explaining through the Bible, logic, and constructive criticism why the King James Version is not the only translation that should be used for the English speaking world, nor is it the best translation for the English speaking world.

Before we start the debate I want to explain my reasons for debating this topic on a skeptic debate forum. Many Christians and even skeptics wonder why I have chosen www.iidb.org to host this debate.

Reasons for debating this topic on a skeptics debate website over a Christian debate website


Non harassing debate environment
Debate standards are higher
Scholarship is appreciated and expected


Before we dive into the debate I want to go into a small amount of detail on the different types of King James Version Only inerranists.


Different types of King James Version Only advocates


The King James Version Only Controversy by James R. White, pp. 1-4.

Group #1 I Like the KJV Best

This group of individuals would believe that the King James Version is the best single English translation available today…. These individuals are only marginally KJVO as they would not be militant in their perspective, and would probably not insist that everyone else agree with them.

Group #2 The Textual argument

A large spectrum of people come together in this second group, joined by their common belief that the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used by the King James translators are, for various reasons, superior to all other original language texts.

Group #3 Received Text Only

The next group of individuals would insist that the above mentioned Textus Receptus, or Received Text, has either been supernaturally preserved over time or even inspired, and hence maintained in an inerrant condition.

Group #4 The Inspired KJV Group

Most King James only advocates would fall into this group. They believe that the KJV itself, as an English language translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. Many of these folks believe that the TR is inspired and inerrant as well (it would seem logical that the text from which the KJV was translated would have to be inerrant), but in practice the importance of the TR begins to fade with the direct claim of inspiration of the KJV is put forward.
The key affirmation of this group that gives form and substance to the entire KJV Only controversy is to be found in the following equation:

The King James Bible Alone= the word of God Alone

KJV Only books are filled to the brim with comparisons between the AV and other translations. Any difference between the KJV and these translations is considered a “change,” an “omission,” or deletion.” The standard that is used in these is always the KJV.

Group #5 The KJV as New Revelation

This group, while mentioning at times the Greek and Hebrew texts, the academic credentials of the King James translators, and the doctrinal superiority of the KJV, in reality do not rely on such things. Basically God “re-inspired” the Bible is 1611, rendering it in the English language… These individuals are often quite militant and vocal in their position to the “perverted Bibles” used by many Christians today. They are quick to identify anyone who would oppose their position as a “Bible hater,” and most will suspect some kind of demonic activity in the heart of a person who would take an opposing position. White goes on to say that it is next to impossible to reason with such a person, for facts are not the issue. Their belief in, and one might well say worship of, the King James Version of the Bible becomes the central aspect of their religious faith. One will, it is sad to say, often hear more about the KJV than about the Lord Jesus from these people.

I agree with 100% of what White said above about the KJV as New Revelation group. I once attended such a church, and the pastor sometimes would go on tangents about modern translations and call them perverting the word of God. To this pastor the Today’s New International Version, the Message and the English Standard Version were all the same. They all are perverted and from Satan. Sadly many thousands of people follow this pastor’s ignorance and did not test what he had to say from the scriptures.

One of the mistakes I have made is that I have tried to reason with people from this KJVO group. Attempts have always failed and always left me in anger and hurt. These KJVO types cannot be reasoned with for they cannot be convinced of their ignorance. I am trusting that my opponent is not from this KJVO group. For if he was this debate would be a waste of time

Arguments against King James Version Onlyism

Before I launch my main arguments I’d like my opponent to answer the following 10 questions in the next round.

10 Questions for King James Only Christians
From http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/king_james_onlyism.htm

1. Were the KJV translators inspired by God when they admitted themselves that other preceding translations were still to be considered "the word of God", they were just working on an English translation of those other versions and translations?

2. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" in 1611, or any of the KJV major revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850 (ten in all)?

3. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?

4. The translators of the KJV disagreed with the Greek in several places and so changed the wording, allegedly correcting the Greek inspired originals. Did the Hebrew and Greek copies originally "breathed out by God" have errors that the KJV translators would need to correct or improve?

5. How can anyone explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? Was this error inspired by God?

6. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?

7. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV would be 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers who made and have made many errors in printing the text?

8. If God gave us the KJV as the ONLY inspired translation, why could God not repeat the process again in modern English language or in other languages of the world?

9. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

10. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV believers say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!

While I have mailed my KJVO article to random churches, and schools throughout the country, not a single pastor has replied nor offered to answer my questions at the end of my article. Perhaps this is because they cannot answer my questions, and are only KJVO because of tradition or they were just raised that way. Being raised one way or living in an area where the KJVO has become the replacement for Jesus Christ himself is no excuse. I hope that my opponent will be able to answer the questions above.

Throughout this debate I will be using and referring to different websites, books and such. I’ll start my arguments against King James Version Onlyism from my own website.

MISTRANSLATED VERSES
From http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/king_james_onlyism.htm

Can my opponent explain why the KJV translates the passages below?

Exodus 32:14 (KJV) 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Amos 7:6 (KJV) 6The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

Jonah 3:10 (KJV) 10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 (KJV) 7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Can you tell me why the King James Version seems to indicate that God has the ability to do things that make Him repent of it? Why does God need to REPENT of His evil? You see the atheists, agnostics and other such types will use passages like this and conclude that God has the ability to sin, and God is not God, and God is not fully divine. The atheists and agnostics will use whatever they can to argue against Christianity. While you and I both know that the KJV is not saying that God can sin, and God can do evil, you have to admit that these passages muddy up the interpretation. This is why all modern translations (including the New King James and English Standard Versions) use the word relent instead of repent in these passages.

Also from http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/king_james_onlyism.htm

Can you explain why the King James Version forbids killing an insect or an animal?

Exodus 20:13 (KJV) Thou shalt not kill

Why is it that the New King James Version, the English Standard Version and other reliable modern versions replace the word “kill” with “murder”?

Looking at the Hebrew in this verse the word used is Ratsach.

Ratsach- To murder, slay-killed(1), kills the manslayer, manslayer(18), murderd(2), murderer(12), murderer shall be put(1), murderers(1), murders(1), put to death(1), slew(1).

If you look at the CONTEXT of Ex 20:13 you will see that the better phrasing of the Hebrew would be “murder” and not “kill.” For it is a sin to MURDER another man, but it is not a sin to kill an animal or insect.

ARCHAIC LANGUAGE
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/king_james_onlyism.htm

Unicorn

Numbers 23:22 (KJV) 22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8 (KJV) 8God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Job 39:9 (KJV) 9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Satyrs

Isaiah 13:21 (KJV) 21But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Can my opponent tell me what a Satyr is? I want to know. I personally thought that they were mythological creatures. I have to wonder if KJVO advocates and literalists have seen Satyrs.

Also James 2:3 in the KJV is mistranslated.

James 2:3 (KJV) 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Personally I have no idea what gay clothing is. This is an example of archaic language that has been corrected in the New King James Version. The Greek word used in James 2:3 is lampros.

Look at the Greek word and its definition, it makes sense why the NKJV translators decided not to continue the KJV tradition and translate lampros into Gay Clothing in the New King James, bur rather translated the word into Fine Clothes which is a much better wording of the text and accurate representation of the Textus Receptus intended meaning.

More arguments against King James Version Onlyism.

The King James Version Only Controversy by James R. White, pp. 230-233.

Acts, Chapter 12, Verse 4, King James Version

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Acts, Chapter 12, Verse 4, New American Standard Version

When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.

The word that the KJV translates as “easter” appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. In each of the other twenty-eight instances the KJV translates the phrase as “the Passover.” For example, in John 19:14, “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!” Luke’s reference to the days of “unleavened bread” makes it clear that he is referring to the Jewish holiday season, not to some pagan festival that did not become known by the specific term "Easter” for some time to come.


Acts, Chapter 19, Verse 2, King James Version

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts, Chapter 19, Verse 2, New American Standard Version

He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

The KJV has Paul asking the disciples in Ephesus if they received the Holy Ghost since they believed, that is, subsequent to the act of believing. All modern translations however translate the passage “when you believed.” The difference is not a slight one. Entire theologies of a second reception of the Holy Spirit have been based upon this one rendering by the KJV.

Conclusion

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of arguments against King James Version Onlyism from James White’s book. The book is filled with valuable substance that I am so grateful to have discovered. It’s a very rich book. Unfortunately I cannot use all of White’s arguments in this round, but will be using more of him in the future rounds. I also plan to be using 2 other books in the following rounds. My opponent will just have to wait and see what books I will be using. I have neglected to mention them, and all his guesses at finding them have failed. But I will say that some or perhaps all of the authors that I will be using are college/seminary level. One of the authors I definitely read in college. I could not keep all their Bible, Theology, and Ministry books from my college days, for I definitely read well over 60 books at Simpson (including general education courses). But my opponent will be surprised to learn that one of the books to aid me in this debate is from a well known scholar and his books are often used in colleges and seminaries across the land.

However my primary reference book to aid me in this debate will be James White’s King James Only controversy. I’ll use this, since it is in my opinion the best of the bunch on this topic. But my secondary authors will confuse my opponent, and possibly delivery some knockout blows to his argument in this debate.


John Wolf
Church Education Resource Ministries
www.cerm.info

[notapadawan]

Since Bible John never addressed my opening statement, I don’t see where he has the right to demand I answer any of his ten questions. Also I don’t know if I am debating Bible John or James White since Bible John is strictly using his material. I am not using just one source since that produces a stilted position.

Even though Bible John disregarded my opening statements, I’ll not return the favor and I will address his post. Starting off I’d like to address something that shows the inconsistency of Bible John.

One of the mistakes I have made is that I have tried to reason with people from this KJVO group. Attempts have always failed and always left me in anger and hurt. These KJVO types cannot be reasoned with for they cannot be convinced of their ignorance. I am trusting that my opponent is not from this KJVO group. For if he was this debate would be a waste of time

He in the preliminary stages desired to debate someone else who held what even I consider an unorthodox view of the KJV and stated the debate would be better if the other fellow was involved instead of myself. Now he says if I held a position like the one quoted above the debate would be a waste of time. Guess logic isn’t his strong suit.

Moving on now, I’ll answer the ten questions:

1. Were the KJV translators inspired by God when they admitted themselves that other preceding translations were still to be considered "the word of God"?


The previous translations are considered the Word of God. You create a false dichotomy in trying to make this argument. Much of the KJV is from Tyndale’s translation. After translating, the former translations were compared to it and blended together to make it a very readable translation.

2. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" in 1611, or any of the KJV major revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850 (ten in all)?

This question is self answering. If the KJV was given by inspiration in 1611 then it had to be in 1611. As for the ten major revisions as you call them the American Bible Society stated this in an official publication:

“The English Bible, as left by the translators, has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text; except in the changes of orthography which the whole English language has undergone, to which the version has naturally and properly been conformed; and excepting also the slight variations and discrepancies, which in so long an interval must necessarily arise, by reason of human imperfection, in the preparation and printing of so many millions of copies.” - Report on the History and Recent Collation of the English Version of the Bible pgs. 7,8 printed 1857 American Bible Society

The Bible in question is the Authorized Version. So when you talk about revision could you explain how men over 150 years ago would assert the text is virtually the same, yet according to you the text isn’t the same.

3. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?

What is “The Flaming Torch” and when did they affirm such a thing? Is this a theological journal, and if so could it have been the personal view of the contributor?

4. The translators of the KJV disagreed with the Greek in several places and so changed the wording, allegedly correcting the Greek inspired originals. Did the Hebrew and Greek copies originally "breathed out by God" have errors that the KJV translators would need to correct or improve?

Could you be so kind as to cite a few examples of where the KJV translators changed the wording. Your question hinges on them doing such. If you can’t prove they did, then why assert this?

5. How can anyone explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? Was this error inspired by God?

I am not the KJV translators. I don’t know the reason for this. Perhaps this isn’t a grammatical error, since it was never considered one until you asserted such. Also Grammar wasn’t a cut and dry thing when this was translated, and this passage went through the fires of “revision” ten times according to you, and no one asserted it was an error that needed to be fixed.

6. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?

Do you even read these questions first? Here is Romans 4:3 in Greek:

τι γαρ η γραφη λεγει επιστευσεν δε αβρααμ τω θεω και ελογισθη αυτω εις δικαιοσυνην

Here is Romans 4:9:

ο μακαρισμος ουν ουτος επι την περιτομην η και επι την ακροβυστιαν λεγομεν γαρ οτι ελογισθη τω αβρααμ η πιστις εις δικαιοσυνην

Here is Romans 4:22:

διο και ελογισθη αυτω εις δικαιοσυνην

Here is Galatians 3:6:

καθως αβρααμ επιστευσεν τω θεω και ελογισθη αυτω εις δικαιοσυνην

Here just for arguments’ sake is Genesis 15:6 in Greek as found in the LXX:

και επιστευσεν Αβραμ τω θεω και ελογισθη αυτω εις δικαιοσυνην

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that your question is a faulty question.

7. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV would be 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers who made and have made many errors in printing the text?

Your thought process (I know these aren’t your questions per se) is flawed here. Did God do this at all for the copies of copies? If he did then, it stands to reason he would do such to the KJV at the printers. If he didn’t then why assume he should? I say that God made sure the originals were “perfect” and without error, just as I would believe he would have done for the actual manuscript that went to the Royal Printer.

8. If God gave us the KJV as the ONLY inspired translation, why could God not repeat the process again in modern English language or in other languages of the world?

First you wrongly assume the KJV is the only inspired translation period. I don’t believe it is. Not everyone in the world speaks English. What do the believers in Germany read? How about the Chinese? How about the people of India? I suggest you figure out that most KJV people don’t contend it is anything more than an English Translation. Now why assume the KJV is so far from modern English that it can’t be understood? If it is so hard to understand why do many of the Bible publishing houses also publish the KJV? In fact one publishing house (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1029153&item_no=401920) includes an article on why read the KJV.

9. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

You [comment removed - kwsn] if you have to ask this question. Why does every denomination reject the apocrypha? I am sure the same reason can be found. It was not considered scripture according to any Protestant and Baptist documents anywhere. Even the KJV Translators mentioned it was translated in order to provide some 1st century background and nothing more.

10. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV believers say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!

This is the problem when you cut and paste questions without thinking about them. God didn’t use Koine Greek to reveal the New Covenant. He used Hebrew since the New Covenant was founded in the promise given in Jeremiah. Also who states God always gives his Word in one language. According to many people Greek and Hebrew were the original languages. If that is so then it destroy’s your notion that KJV believers hold such nonsense.

While I have mailed my KJVO article to random churches, and schools throughout the country, not a single pastor has replied nor offered to answer my questions at the end of my article. Perhaps this is because they cannot answer my questions, and are only KJVO because of tradition or they were just raised that way. Being raised one way or living in an area where the KJVO has become the replacement for Jesus Christ himself is no excuse. I hope that my opponent will be able to answer the questions above.

Perhaps no one has answered your questions because they are not easy to understand. I had to ask you to clarify the first one since it is a poorly worded question. I know if I was a pastor I would have thrown them away or written a reply that suggested you read a book or two on the subject before trying to proclaim your being an expert.

Can you tell me why the King James Version seems to indicate that God has the ability to do things that make Him repent of it?

You seem to use John MacArthur’s faulty definition of repent. Repent simply means a change of mind according to So Great Salvation by Ryrie, pg. 92. Try reading a dictionary.

Can you explain why the King James Version forbids killing an insect or an animal?

It doesn’t. Just because you don’t understand the hermeneutic of comparing Scripture with Scripture doesn’t mean the Bible should lower itself to your standard.

Can my opponent tell me what a Satyr is? I want to know. I personally thought that they were mythological creatures. I have to wonder if KJVO advocates and literalists have seen Satyrs.

Has it ever occurred to you that possibly creatures exist without being discovered yet? Imagine you just found a platypus. Do you think people would believe it was a new discovery or a fake? People thought it was a fake when it was first found. Now according to several commentators such as Albert Barnes (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/barnes/isaiah1/Page_260.html) and John Gill (http://www.freegrace.net/gill/), satyr is a perfectly logical translation and shows a lack of respect on your part. Instead of trying to find fault with the translation maybe you should study why it was translated such.

Also James 2:3 in the KJV is mistranslated.

James 2:3 (KJV) 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Personally I have no idea what gay clothing is. This is an example of archaic language that has been corrected in the New King James Version. The Greek word used in James 2:3 is lampros.

You are one funny guy. You live in the Bay Area and don’t know what Gay Clothing is... LOL...

All joking aside, it is [comment removed - kwsn] to list this as a mistranslation. It shows you lack common sense and can’t figure out that the passage isn’t referring to sexual orientation but rather the color of the clothes. People that were not rich had simple colors. People with $$$ had clothes that were purple, and/or bright (gay) colors.

The word that the KJV translates as “easter” appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. In each of the other twenty-eight instances the KJV translates the phrase as “the Passover.” For example, in John 19:14, “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!” Luke’s reference to the days of “unleavened bread” makes it clear that he is referring to the Jewish holiday season, not to some pagan festival that did not become known by the specific term "Easter” for some time to come.

Easter was the common translation of Pascha. This started because pascha is a transliterated word from Hebrew into Greek and was changed by Tyndale when he coined the phrase “pass over”. Now whether this is a mistranslation shows the prejudice you hold against the KJV. The context clearly refers to passover and the interpretation of the passage isn’t changed whether it is Easter, or Passover. The only difference is your assertion it is a mistranslation.

The KJV has Paul asking the disciples in Ephesus if they received the Holy Ghost since they believed, that is, subsequent to the act of believing. All modern translations however translate the passage “when you believed.” The difference is not a slight one. Entire theologies of a second reception of the Holy Spirit have been based upon this one rendering by the KJV.

SO because certain groups take the passage out of context and make it mean something more than what it means we should drop the KJV and move on to a modern version? That is faulty logic. What if this group follow suit and adopts whatever modern version you then advocate, would you then move to another? I think if you get to the root of the problem you would fix it rather quickly using sound principles of Biblical Interpretation.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of arguments against King James Version Onlyism from James White’s book. The book is filled with valuable substance that I am so grateful to have discovered. It’s a very rich book. Unfortunately I cannot use all of White’s arguments in this round, but will be using more of him in the future rounds.

Let me know when I will be debating you and not James White.

I also plan to be using 2 other books in the following rounds.

Why don’t you list them? Why mention them at all. It is one thing to reference a work or even to quote it, it is another to let the other work do your debating. Why don’t you start trying to figure out a debate tactic.

My opponent will just have to wait and see what books I will be using. I have neglected to mention them, and all his guesses at finding them have failed.

:rolleyes: I only mentioned not using just James White’s book and never tried to guess them. Why don’t you go take English 101.

But I will say that some or perhaps all of the authors that I will be using are college/seminary level.

I didn’t think they made coloring books on this issue.

One of the authors I definitely read in college. I could not keep all their Bible, Theology, and Ministry books from my college days, for I definitely read well over 60 books at Simpson (including general education courses).

Wow... I am impressed. Well over 60 books... Did they give you a sticker for all that?

But my opponent will be surprised to learn that one of the books to aid me in this debate is from a well known scholar and his books are often used in colleges and seminaries across the land.

Lets see... D. A. Carson wrote a book on this issue and I recommended you get it. He is a well known author who has written several books used in seminaries and colleges.

James Price is another.

Kevin Bauder is another also.

However my primary reference book to aid me in this debate will be James White’s King James Only controversy.

You mean the book you’ll plagarize the most argumentation from will be James White’s book.

I’ll use this, since it is in my opinion the best of the bunch on this topic.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

But my secondary authors will confuse my opponent, and possibly delivery some knockout blows to his argument in this debate.

I expected nothing more than vain words like that. You haven’t even started proving anything, yet you think your secondary authors will confuse me...

[comment removed - kwsn]

Now I have answered several of the objections and questions you’ve asked, even though you disregarded my opening post. I have a couple of questions for you to answer if you can.

1. Would you define Inspiration?

2. Did God inspire Words or thoughts?

3. Who was entrusted with the inspired writings?

4. If God inspired something, would he then lose it?

5. If God inspired something, would he preserve it for future generations?

6. Why do you use a test based upon “forgotten and discarded” manuscripts?

7a. Are there such a thing as corrupt manuscripts?

7b. If so, how do you know them?

8. What is unreasonable about believing that the KJV is a superior translation?

9. Why assume the KJV is wrong in using an "archaic" word or two? All translations use archaic words.

Until you answer those questions, the debate can't continue.

[Bible John]

REBUTTAL TO NOTAPADWAN’S ROUND I ARGUMENTS

First my main points are from Dr. Don Waite's book "Defending the King James Bible". While I don't have his book, he systemized the defense of the KJV into four main points. His first point is the superiority of the Textual Tradition used by the KJV Translators. His second point is the superiority of the Translators themselves. His third point is the superiority of the Translation Techniques. His fourth point is the superiority of the doctrinal clarity it brings.


Is this author reasoning from conspiratorial arguments and straw men logic? Such reasoning dominates KJV Onlyism. I just wont buy the argument that if its older it’s always better. The KJV was not the 1st English translation. KJV Only think that the older manuscripts are superior, so then the translations before the KJV must be superior to it, since they were older and used older manuscripts. The same argument could have been made about the Latin vulgate, which used the original manuscripts. Yet 8 English Bibles were translated after the Latin, and before the King James Version.

Starting with his first point, the Superiority of the KJV stems from the Manuscript Tradition. I am not familiar with Old Testament Criticism, though I am starting to read a book on it.

If you are not familiar with Textual Criticism, then how can you say that the KJV is the best translation?

The second point is the Superiority of the Translators. The KJV Translators were men that could not only read Greek and Hebrew, but several could read it from the tender ages of 5 and 6. A good read on it is The Translators Revived by Alexander McClure. Many people today that are translators didn't know Greek and Hebrew until they attended College and/or Seminary.

Can you prove that the ESV translation team and the NIV translation team were not made up of scholars as intellectual in the original languages as the KJV translation team? Can you prove that their scholarship did not make use of more modern and more reliable discovered manuscripts?


The third point is the Superiority of the Translation Techniques. Formal Equivalence is the driving principle of the KJV Translators. They were men who considered their work to be translating the very Word of God into a more understandable way. In the New Testament we can see over and over Formal Equivalence being used in the translation of what Jesus would say and what it would mean to the reader. Phrases like "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabach thani"{#1} were translated into their equivalent words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". Often the modern versions use the Dynamic Equivalence technique.


The ESV and the NASB do not use the "Dynamic Equivalent" translation technique. The ESV is very new and is almost an identical translation from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. You should read it. You may like it, and you may change your views on King James Onlyism.

This is where they interpret the passage and try to translate the meaning. Men like John Piper have taken a stand against the NIV. Of course he stands against the NIV in favor of the ESV. I know of others who have stood against the NIV due to its paraphrasing. I have more respect for John Piper's position than I do for the guy who declares the NIV to be an accurate translation. How can the NIV be accurate if it doesn't translate, but rather is more of a commentary on what the original Greek and Hebrew texts read?

I will explain the Dynamic translation technique which contrary to your reasoning, is not a "commentary" on the Word of God.






How to Read the Bible for All Its worth by Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, pp. 35-36Dynamic equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language. Such a translation keeps historical distance on all historical and most factual matters but "updates" matters of language, grammar, and style.The problem with a literal translation is that it often makes the English ambiguous, where the Greek or Hebrew was quite clear to the original recipients. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:16 the Greek phrase kata sarka can be translated literally "to know according to the flesh." But this is not an ordinary way of speaking in english.I ask my opponent how to translate the French word maison blanc into english? Would you translate it literally?

You see the issues with the literal translations is that they do not sound clear and clean in the English language. They read woodenly because they are more accurate, but a direct translation from one language to the other is not always the best idea to make the Word of God readable. This is why the Dynamic translations like the New International Version are often better for the contemporary English speaking world. Obviously not for word study or exegesis; but for leisure and daily Bible reading.

The fourth and final point is the Superiority of the Theological foundation it provides. This point is very important. Theological terms such as Atonement, Propitiation, Flesh vs. Spirit, etc. are lost or at best ambiguous at best. Even Joe Morecraft III who uses the NASB stated he preferred the KJV rendering of "know" over the NASB's rendering.

On this point we can mutually agree. However the English Standard Version retains the theological framework found in the KJV. The NIV for reasons unknown removes many theological words very important to Christian theology. However the ESV retains these words.

REBUTTAL TO NOTAPADWAN’S ROUND II ARGUMENTS

I don’t know if I am debating Bible John or James White since Bble John is strictly using his material. I am not using just one source since that produces a stilted position.

I am not using one source. In my opening statement I referred to my own website a half dozen times and did mention in my conclusion that I would be using other books throughout the debate. But regarding the James White comments, does it really matter if I use his book or not? James wrote an excellent book that has silenced many KJVO, and I will continue to use his incredibly crafted arguments and logic against King James Version Onlylism throughout this debate. His arguments will pop up from time to time.

He in the preliminary stages desired to debate someone else who held what even I consider an unorthodox view of the KJV and stated the debate would be better if the other fellow was involved instead of myself. Now he says if I held a position like the one quoted above the debate would be a waste of time. Guess logic isn’t his strong suit.

On the contrary I think you misunderstood my statement. What I said was that this debate would be a waste of time if you are a member of the KJV as New Revelation Group. However from the best of my knowledge you are a member of the 1st KJV Group called the KJV Preferred group or the 2nd KJV group which believes that the Textual manuscripts used in the KJV are superior to the ones that are used in the New American Standard Version or the New International Version.
As for the ten major revisions as you call them the American Bible Society stated this in an official publication:

"The English Bible, as left by the translators, has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text; except in the changes of orthography which the whole English language has undergone, to which the version has naturally and properly been conformed; and excepting also the slight variations and discrepancies, which in so long an interval must necessarily arise, by reason of human imperfection, in the preparation and printing of so many millions of copies." - Report on the History and Recent Collation of the English Version of the Bible pgs. 7,8 printed 1857 American Bible Society
The Bible in question is the Authorized Version. So when you talk about revision could you explain how men over 150 years ago would assert the text is virtually the same, yet according to you the text isn’t the same.


How can you say that the New King James Version is not virtually the same as the King James Version? The NKJV has replaced the archaic language found in the KJV and updated the language to flow more with the modern contemporary reader. Besides this the NKJV is almost the same as the KJV. 1 John 5:7 is retained in the NKJV, and this verse in its entirety seems to be missing from all the modern versions (including the ESV and NASB).

Below is a quote from the following website. The KJV and the NKJV are nearly identical.





http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html)The New King James Version is a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes). Could you be so kind as to cite a few examples of where the KJV translators changed the wording. Your question hinges on them doing such. If you can’t prove they did, then why assert this?

Maybe not intentionally, but the KJV has errors that have been corrected in the modern versions. However the archaic language that I mentioned on my website are not errors, just words that have been updated in the modern versions.

First you wrongly assume the KJV is the only inspired translation period. I don’t believe it is.

Which proves my point. You are a member of the KJV #1 or #2 groups according to the different KJV groups that I mentioned in the 1st round.
Since you agree that the conservative modern versions have been correctly translated and inspired by the work of the Holy Spirit, then I can only argue with you about your view that the KJV is superior and should be the only translation used in the English speaking world.

Not everyone in the world speaks English. What do the believers in Germany read? How about the Chinese? How about the people of India? I suggest you figure out that most KJV people don’t contend it is anything more than an English Translation.

Yeah how can someone who does not speak english get saved if the KJV cannot be translated from english to another language?


Now why assume the KJV is so far from modern English that it can’t be understood? If it is so hard to understand why do many of the Bible publishing houses also publish the KJV? In fact one publishing house includes an article on why read the KJV.


The KJV can be understood, but the New International Version can be understood with far greater ease. Disagree with that all you want, but let me ask you a question. Do you speak 16th century English at work? Do you write 16th century english? The KJV is a great translation, but why not also read a translation that was written for contemporary English readers?

You [comment removed - kwsn] if you have to ask this question. Why does every denomination reject the apocrypha? I am sure the same reason can be found. It was not considered scripture according to any Protestant and Baptist documents anywhere. Even the KJV Translators mentioned it was translated in order to provide some 1st century background and nothing more.

Then why was it included in the 1611 KJV? I think that including it is enough evidence to agree that no translation is perfect and all have their bells and whistles. The KJV is a great translation, but its one of many.


This is the problem when you cut and paste questions without thinking about them. God didn’t use Koine Greek to reveal the New Covenant. He used Hebrew since the New Covenant was founded in the promise given in Jeremiah. Also who states God always gives his Word in one language. According to many people Greek and Hebrew were the original languages. If that is so then it destroys your notion that KJV believers hold such nonsense.


Actually if you studied geography you would see that the New testament was in Koine Greek,

Oh and regarding your comment about Jeremiah I ask that you read Jeremiah again.

Jeremiah, Chapter 31, Verses 31-34, English Standard Version

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

At this point in time the New Covenant was not actually written, but the time was coming (NIV) when it would be written. The New Covenant was written in the Greek and not the Hebrew as you say. The New Covenant came to us at the cross and after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. I can cite numerous passages in the NT that speak of the New covenant, but a good read is Hebrews chapter 8. Your claim that the New Covenant was not in Greek is absurd. It may have been revealed to Jeremiah in Hebrew, but it was written in Greek.

Perhaps no one has answered your questions because they are not easy to understand. I had to ask you to clarify the first one since it is a poorly worded question. I know if I was a pastor I would have thrown them away or written a reply that suggested you read a book or two on the subject before trying to proclaim your being an expert.

I never stated I was an expert on this topic or any topic.




http://www.cerm.info/cerm_faq.htm (http://www.cerm.info/cerm_faq.htm)http://www.cerm.info/cerm_faq.htm (http://www.cerm.info/cerm_faq.htm)John Wolf is the founder and director of CERM. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Church Education Ministries from an Evangelical University that I earned in 2005. My GPA within my major was well above a 3.30. I do most of the web design, maintenance, writing and research for CERM. I also answers emails, and advertises CERM on the Internet.Please remember that I do not have a Doctorate or a PHD and am not a expert on the topics I have included on CERM. Many people incorrectly assume that I am the world’s expert or whatever on these topics, when I am not. I am a student of the Word of God.I am not claiming to be an expert on KJV Onlyism. You seem to use John MacArthur’s faulty definition of repent. Repent simply means a change of mind according to So Great Salvation by Ryrie, pg. 92. Try reading a dictionary.

I have not used consulted any of John MacArthur’s works to aid me in this particular debate.


It doesn’t. Just because you don’t understand the hermeneutic of comparing Scripture with Scripture doesn’t mean the Bible should lower itself to your standard.


That was a trick question. I know the KJV does not forbid killing an insect or an animal. But the wording if taken out of context can mean that to someone. This is all the more important why the modern versions have corrected the KJV’s flaws in this particular verse. Thou Shall not Murder, sounds far more particular than Thou Shall not Kill which is quite an ambiguous rendering of the Hebrew.


Has it ever occurred to you that possibly creatures exist without being discovered yet?


You believe in Satyr’s? and Unicorns?


You are one funny guy. You live in the Bay Area and don’t know what Gay Clothing is... LOL...
All joking aside, it is [comment removed - kwsn] to list this as a mistranslation. It shows you lack common sense and can’t figure out that the passage isn’t referring to sexual orientation but rather the color of the clothes. People that were not rich had simple colors. People with $$$ had clothes that were purple, and/or bright (gay) colors.


I know that. But my point was that the wording is incorrect and why it has been UPDATED in the modern translations. The KJV’s translation of the Greek term in question is "archaic" and OUTDATED. The modern translations do a better job here. People today will rip passages out of context and come to their conclusions. You forget that not everyone understands Hermeneutics or the art and science of Biblical interpretation.


You mean the book you’ll plagiarize the most argumentation from will be James White’s book.


I have done nothing of the sort and if I did, I’m sure that Nightshade would have caught it.


I have a couple of questions for you to answer if you can.
1. Would you define Inspiration?


The Bible was written by God. CERM believes in the Verbal Plenary view of Inspiration in that all words and thoughts were inspired by God. 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21. I believe that the original autographs are without error, but the copies did contain scribal errors, as anything handwritten from one source to the other will have errors. If you disagree then I would challenge you to try and copy one version of the Bible by hand. The problem with KJV Onlyism is that it assumes that the most innocent of scribal errors are a grand conspiracy by the modern translations to take away from the authority of the scriptures. Conspiratorial type thinking seems to dominate KJV Onlyism. Personally I find it sad that so many KJVO think that so many are out to attack them. Try and reason with a KJVO and you will see what I am talking about. Many KJVO interpret a constructive critique of the KJV as "bashing" and de-constructive criticism.


9. Why assume the KJV is wrong in using an "archaic" word or two? All translations use archaic words.


Can you show me an "archaic" word in the NIV? Can you show me one in the ESV? I sure cant find them. I am aware that the NASB has "archaic" words, but you stated that "all translations" have archaic words, which is an uneducated assertion.
Also while the KJV may have been correct in its, day, do realize that people today do not speak 16th century English. Therefore by the English conventions and linguistics of our day, some of the KJV words are "archaic" and not modern for contemporary English.

The words below (just a sample) are archaic and outdated for contemporary English.

Tache
Coney
Wimple
Myrrh
AlamothArchaic words is just one reason of many why some of the more modern translations are more accurate than the KJV. The KJV is not the best English translation that we have today. God has blessed this generation with an abundance of Bible translations. Why not enjoy them?
I know that you and other KJVO disagree.

But do you remember John Wycliffe? Read about his translation goals below.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html (http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html)

Wycliffe’s Relation to the English Bible

The Bible ought to be the common possession of all Christians, and needed to be made available for common use in the language of the people. National honour seemed to require this, since members of the nobility possessed the Bible in French. Wycliffe set himself to the task. While it is not possible exactly to define his part in the translation--which was based on the Vulgate--there is no doubt that it was his initiative, and that the success of the project was due to his leadership. From him comes the translation of the New Testament, which was smoother, clearer, and more readable than the rendering of the Old Testament by his friend Nicholas of Hereford. The whole was revised by Wycliffe's younger contemporary John Purvey in 1388. Thus the mass of the people came into possession of the Bible; even as the misguided cry of Wycliffe’s opponents stated: "The jewel of the clergy has become the toy of the laity." Plenty of translations came before 1560 and the 1st English translation was the Wycliffe Bible which was released in 1382.


From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 111The real breakthrough for an English translation of the Bible though, came around 1382 with the efforts of the scholar-reformer John Wycliffe. The only version of the Bible in his day was still the Latin Vulgate, and most people couldn’t read it. Therefore, Wycliffe’s passion was to provide a readable translation of the Bible into english from the vulgate for even the simplest peasant. Since his version was coming from Latin, instead of the original Hebrew and Greek, Wycliffe’s Bible was a translation of a translation. His was the first complete translation of the Bible into the English language, produced between 1380 and 1384. It had to be laboriously copied by hand.If Wycliffe were alive today, he would boldly stand against King James Onlyism. Wycliffe wanted the Bible to be in the language of the commoner. Wycliffe wanted salvation to not only come to the educated and learned, but to the disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill, and others that cannot read nor understand 16th century English. Many KJVO argue that most people can understand 16th century English, but many KJVO fail to consider that many more cannot understand 16th century English.

Arguments against King James Version Onlyism


The KJV translators were not KJV OnlyBelow are some quotes from the preface to the 1611 King James Version

1611 KJV preface
http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html (http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html)


Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?
Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with;


Can my opponent explain this? Not even the KJV Translators were KJVO! Here the KJV translators encourage a translation into the tongue of the commoner. In other areas of the preface they encourage constant revision of the Bible to make it more readable. Hence a reason why we have the NKJV today.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James Williams, pp. 153.

The scriptures must be in the vulgar language of the people… God’s Word should be in the language of the people so they can understand its commands, savor its promises, relive the Bible stories, and carefully study its truth. This is extremely difficult when over four thousand words in the King James Bible are not found in even the best of our one volume English dictionaries today. In their day, the KJV translators were opposed by many for making a new translation of the Scriptures. The Geneva Bible was good enough! Yet, many obsolete expressions were already making that copy of the written word very difficult to understand.Its sad that many KJVO do not understand the history of their translation, nor realize that the originators never believed that their work would remain the only infallible translation that is to be used by Christians. Their originators encouraged new translations that would help the vulgar tongue understand God’s Holy Word.


Words change their meaning overtime, words drop out of usage, and the spelling of words can also change. If my opponent were to look up 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the Geneva Bible (1560 edition) he would see that the word "bouggerers" is used. I ask my opponent to look up this word in a dictionary. I doubt he will find it, because the word is not there!

2. God used the language of the commoner to reveal his New Covenant

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 186When He gave revelation to the New Testament believers, God saw to it that the writers used Greek. Not classical Greek, although it was the language of formal literature, but koine (common) Greek, the language of the common man… Albert Deissman, in his 1895 book Bible Studies, demonstrated that New testament Greek corresponds exactly to the Greek on papyrus fragments being discovered by archaeologists at that time… Dsissman’s work established beyond a doubt that when God revealed his Word, He used the common man’s language of the day-the language the people spoke and thought-not the loftier language of scholars. God’s word is not just for scholars, its for everyone.Why would God reveal his covenant using the common language? Why would he not reveal his covenant in 16th century English? Why not just use the language of the scholars? You know 16th century english is the language of the more intellectual types, who think that they need to raise their standards up to the reading level of the KJV. Its not unbiblical to read God’s Holy Word in the beauty of the New International Version, the ESV or other modern translation. The NIV is written in a way so that anyone can understand it. Oftentimes KJV Only types do not think about the language that God used to reveal his covenant. Instead all they can do is attack anyone that uses a modern Bible translation, as they refer to it as a perversion of the Word of God and an attack on God’s divine nature. But they need to take into consideration that God used koine Greek and not classical Greek to reveal the New Covenant.

CONCLUSION
KJV Onlyism is nothing new, but just something old that already happened before. The authorities in Wycliffe’s day thought it would be damming to translate the Bible from Latin into English, but regardless Wycliffe continued. He wanted all to be able to read and understand God’s Word. Likewise the NIV, ESV and other modern versions do the same. They seek to make the Bible readable to everyone and not just the intellectual types. King James Version Only types could care less about the Bible being readable to the uneducated. They just assume that everyone has a 12th grade reading level. But general research will show that not everyone can read and understand the KJV. Just like in John Wycliffe’s day not everyone could read or understand Latin. Likewise during the translation process of the KJV, the KJV translators also had problems with the authorities and the populace for translating the Bible into an easier and more accurate language.

Can my opponent read and write in Latin?

Plenty of translations came before 1560 and the 1st English translation was the Wycliffe Bible which was released in 1382.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 111

The Latin Vulgate had been the Bible for nearly one thousand years, and it had the benefit of longevity and tradition behind it. To tamper with it was to tamper with the Word of God. If the Vulgate had been used of God in the lives of people for such an extensive period of time, why was there any need to replace it? The clergy had been able to explain its meaning to the people for all those years, and they could continue to do so. The fact that laypeople could neither read it nor understand it was only a minor consideration. The same type of reasoning, logic and arguments are used in defense of King James Onlyism. They argue that it is superior, because it’s been around the longest and uses the oldest manuscripts, so surely it must be better. They argue that the NIV, ESV, and other modern translations attempt to correct the Word of God. They argue that the language of the commoner means nothing, and that people should educate themselves to understand 16th century english.

I again ask my opponent. Can you speak or write in Latin? What’s your reason for not learning this language? If you were alive during this period would it have been wrong for Wycliffe to translate the Word of God into English so that you could understand it? And why? The Latin Vulgate had been the Bible for nearly a thousand years and it surely used older and more reliable manuscripts. I also ask my opponent to tell me why the KJV is better and uses more reliable manuscripts than the Bibles printed before it?

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 126-127

English Translations before the King James Version


Wycliffe Bible-1382
Tyndale Bible-1526,1534
Coverdale Bible-1535
Matthew Bible-1537
Great Bible-1539
Geneva Bible-1560
Bishops Bible-1568
Catholic Rheims-Douay Bible-1582,1609
King James Bible-1611I look forward to your reply in the next round

John Wolf
Church Education Resource Ministries
www.cerm.info (http://www.cerm.info)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

notapadawn's statement is overdue, due to a declined statement. However, he will have a grace period of 48 hours from the time of this post to re-submit a statement.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[notapadawan]

Welcome to round three. I’d like to thank everyone who has been reading this debate. My only regret is that it will be over in a few short weeks. I’d like to again thank Bible John for agreeing to this debate. I wish him the best while he is at [deleted - kwsn] for some seminary training.

Is this author reasoning from conspiratorial arguments and straw men logic? Such reasoning dominates KJV Onlyism. I...King James Version.

C’mon Bible John, what KJVO believes the KJV was based upon older manuscripts? Why mention that the KJV wasn’t the 1st English Translation? Everyone knows that. Who advocates it was the first English Translation? What you’ve done here is created a strawman and also used an argumentum ad hominem.

If you are not familiar with Textual Criticism, then how can you say that the KJV is the best translation?

I didn’t say I was unfamiliar with Textual Criticism. I said I wasn’t familiar with OLD TESTAMENT Textual Criticism. I haven’t had the time to begin learning Hebrew. Please quote me correctly.

Can you prove that the ESV translation team and the NIV translation team were not made up of scholars as intellectual in the original languages as the KJV translation team?

Could they read and write Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. before entering College?

Can you prove that their scholarship did not make use of more modern and more reliable discovered manuscripts?

what are these more reliable manuscripts?

The ESV and the NASB do not use the "Dynamic Equivalent" translation technique. The ESV is very new and is almost an identical translation from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. You should read it. You may like it, and you may change your views on King James Onlyism.

I have the NET Bible, the ESV, and the NKJV. I haven’t been impressed with them. You may not realize this, but not every KJV advocate stands against something just because it is different. I could show where the ESV distorts a clear Messianic promise in Genesis due to its preference to the LXX over the inspired Hebrew. Maybe you should quit assuming I am standing against something without examining it.

I will explain the Dynamic translation technique which contrary to your reasoning, is not a "commentary" on the Word of God.

Do you normally take people’s comments out of context. I said it is more like a commentary since the Dynamic Equivalence technique isn’t a word for word (Formal) method but rather a thought for thought method. Therefore it seeks to show the meaning of the passage rather than let the reader figure out the sense. If that isn’t a commentary, could you explain then what it is?

I am gonna show an example that I glean from this website (http://members.aol.com/twarren11/niv.html):

“The second NASV reading is a literal reading (so much despised by "the majority" according to James White) and points us to the mighty and important "seed theology" that runs throughout the Scripture, from Genesis onward. In fact, the first mention of the seed theology refers to the WOMAN'S seed. Thus Hebrews 11:11 has a very important place in the seed theology of Scripture. Yet, the NIV mentions it NOT AT ALL, and the NASV mentions it only in the margin. How convenient for a translation that translates "concept by concept" simply to leave out one of the MOST IMPORTANT concepts in the entire Scripture from its translation here. But this is not paraphrastic -- RIGHT! Neither is it an issue of textual criticism -- the UBS text does not vary from the TR at this point in Hebrews 11:11 -- both read "kataboleen spermatos elaben." The problem is not with the eclectic text -- the problem is with the NIV (and the NASV text option). The NASV text option is *slightly* paraphrastic and does away somewhat with a proper understanding of the seed theology of Scripture in this place. But it is not as paraphrastic as the NIV!

The NIV is so paraphrastic that they made up things to place in God's mouth. Now that is arrogance! Furthermore, the things they made up aren't even true! The NIV at Hebrews 11:11 attempts to make every scholar true and God a liar. Let me expatiate:

First of all, of the two NIV readings, only the marginal reading even *approximates* the Greek. And in approximating the Greek, it guts the passage by ignoring the seed theology. The text option, however, is just downright awful.

With absolutely no textual support in any textual tradition -- i.e. no Greek mss -- the NIV throws Abraham into the verse. It claims that Abraham was past age to have children -- which is clearly untrue, as Abraham's six sons by his second wife Keturah could testify (Genesis 25). Further, Abraham's behavior with the handmaid Hagar is proof enough that it was not Abraham, but Sarah who was "past age." But the NIV leaves us with the distinct impression by INTRODUCING Abraham without any textual basis at all that Abraham as well as Sarah was past age for "bearing children" (much less laying down seed, which is the theological import that is missing from both the text option and the margin option). “






How ... speaking in english.

It isn’t even how it was translated in the KJV. Gordon Fee has been called on some of the ridiculous things he has said over the years. For instance in 1978 he declared this in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society:

“New Testament scholarship and the working pastor are generally agreed on one point: The task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed. What remains is basically a “mopping-up” operation on some disputed readings.” - JETS March 1978 pg. 19 (http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/21/21-1/21-1-pp019-033_JETS.pdf)

Zane Hodges wrote a rebuttal (http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/21/21-2/21-2-pp143-155_JETS.pdf) in which he took Gordon Fee to task for this and a few other statements. I find it funny that the NASB committee updated the NASB to bring it in line with the Nestle/Aland Greek Text 26, and then the United Bible Society went and updated themselves to a number 27. Gee it sure looks like Textual Criticism is basically a finished topic. Will we ever have a final text? Robert Dabney stated back in the mid 1800's that either we had to believe the text we had, or not believe in any text because the critics will never agree. Metzger and Ehrman follow the principle’s set forth that the Byzantine text was a late text, while Sturtz, Pierpont, Robinson, Zane Hodges, Arthur Farstad and others contend that the Byzantine text form is as old as the others, if not older. D. A. Carson in his book asks this question:

I ask my opponent how to translate the French word maison blanc into english?

white house? What does this have to do with anything?

Would you translate it literally?

Why not.

You see the issues with the literal translations is that they do not sound clear and clean in the English language.

Bwahahahahaha. Some scholar... It could be a reference to that place the president lives in, or it could be a description of what your or my house is. You have failed to make your point.

They read woodenly because they are more accurate, but a direct translation from one language to the other is not always the best idea to make the Word of God readable.

You are a glorified parrot. James said it, John parrots it. Why is the Dynamic Equivalency the best idea?

This is why the Dynamic translations like the New International Version are often better for the contemporary English speaking world. Obviously not for word study or exegesis; but for leisure and daily Bible reading.

So then how many Bibles do we need? Even John Piper states he’d rather see the N.I.V. sail on it history, with the E.S.V. as the standard English Translation.

On this point we can mutually agree. However the English Standard Version retains the theological framework found in the KJV. The NIV for reasons unknown removes many theological words very important to Christian theology. However the ESV retains these words.

Empty words don’t mean much.

But regarding the James White comments, does it really matter if I use his book or not? James wrote an excellent book that has silenced many KJVO, and I will continue to use his incredibly crafted arguments and logic against King James Version Onlylism throughout this debate. His arguments will pop up from time to time.

What KJVO has it silenced? Has it silenced Peter Ruckman? Gail Riplinger? Donald Waite?
Nope, all three have continued to write after that book was published. In fact several prominent KJVO’s have written rebuttals to it including David Cloud.

On the contrary I think you misunderstood my statement. What I said was that this debate would be a waste of time if you are a member of the KJV as New Revelation Group.

I am sure everyone here knows I did not misunderstand you. You were quite clear in this regards.

However from the best of my knowledge you are a member of the 1st KJV Group called the KJV Preferred group or the 2nd KJV group which believes that the Textual manuscripts used in the KJV are superior to the ones that are used in the New American Standard Version or the New International Version.

If I am in either of those groups then you haven’t addressed my viewpoint.

How can you say that the New King James Version is not virtually the same as the King James Version? ...of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes).

Yep, they are nearly identical. Yet it is the differences that make it (NKJV) an inferior translation.

Maybe not intentionally, but the KJV has errors that have been corrected in the modern versions. However the archaic language that I mentioned on my website are not errors, just words that have been updated in the modern versions.

What errors are these?

Which proves my point. ...only translation used in the English speaking world.

John... I never agreed to the above quoted section. Don’t be putting words into my mouth. I stated the KJB isn’t the only translation that should be used by Christians. You obviously have misunderstood my position. Should someone in Africa learn English in order to read the Bible? How about someone in China? I contend that they shouldn’t. They should have a translation made available to them that comes from the Received Texts.

Yeah how can someone who does not speak english get saved if the KJV cannot be translated from english to another language?

What are you babbling about? I never argued that a person can only get saved by reading the KJV. Quit trying to confuse me with someone else.
The KJV can be understood, ... The KJV is a great translation, but why not also read a translation that was written for contemporary English readers?

John... I realize abstract thought might be hard for some people, but think about this. Greek has different words for 1st person, 2nd and so forth. English used to have this. Now ye, thee, thy, thine, etc., have been replaced by the simple word you. However this vacuum so to speak has had an impact. Ever heard of “y’all” It is a southern phrase that has been coined to mean a small group. The KJV isn’t a hard translation to study, read, etc. In fact many bookstores have for sale James Earl Jones reading the KJV, along with Alexander Scourby’s. Why produce something like this if modern versions are so much easier?

Then why was it included in the 1611 KJV? I think that including it is enough evidence to agree that no translation is perfect and all have their bells and whistles. The KJV is a great translation, but its one of many.

It was included in every translation prior to the KJV. It has never been considered Scripture by any group other than the RCC.

Actually if you studied geography you would see that the New testament was in Koine Greek,

How would geography explain the New Testament being written in Koine Greek?

Oh and regarding your comment about Jeremiah I ask that you read Jeremiah again.
... but it was written in Greek.

And what passage does Hebrews 8 refer to... That’s right Jeremiah... Which was written in what language? Hebrew... Therefore what language gives us the New Covenant? Hebrew. Even John MacArthur agrees with this.

I never stated I was an expert on this topic or any topic.

...

I am not claiming to be an expert on KJV Onlyism

That’s obvious.

I have not used consulted any of John MacArthur’s works to aid me in this particular debate.

I never said you did.

That was a trick question. I know the KJV does not forbid killing an insect or an animal. But the wording if taken out of context can mean that to someone. This is all the more important why the modern versions have corrected the KJV’s flaws in this particular verse. Thou Shall not Murder, sounds far more particular than Thou Shall not Kill which is quite an ambiguous rendering of the Hebrew.

Notice the key words in your post...”out of context”.

You believe in Satyr’s? and Unicorns?

Yep. So do you. And if you don’t then what would you call an Orangutang and a Rhinoceros?

I know that. ...of Biblical interpretation.

Most everyone understands hermeneutics. They usually read something knowing that it should be read with the understanding of being taken at face value.

I have done nothing of the sort and if I did, I’m sure that Nightshade would have caught it.

ok whatever...

The Bible was written by God. CERM believes in the Verbal Plenary view of Inspiration in that all words and thoughts were inspired by God.

The above sentence contradicts itself.

2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21. I believe that the original autographs are without error, but the copies did contain scribal errors, as anything handwritten from one source to the other will have errors. If you disagree then I would challenge you to try and copy one version of the Bible by hand.

I have and I did it without committing any errors.

The problem with KJV Onlyism is that it assumes that the most innocent of scribal errors are a grand conspiracy by the modern translations to take away from the authority of the scriptures.

That is a blatant misrepresentation. In fact Robert Dabney asserted that many of the Alexandrian Manuscripts deviant readings could be traced back to the source scribe of Origen.

Conspiratorial type thinking seems to dominate KJV Onlyism. Personally I find it sad that so many KJVO think that so many are out to attack them. Try and reason with a KJVO and you will see what I am talking about. Many KJVO interpret a constructive critique of the KJV as "bashing" and de-constructive criticism.

More blanket assertions and broad brushing.

Can you show me an "archaic" word in the NIV? ...
The words below (just a sample) are archaic and outdated for contemporary English.

1. Tache
2. Coney
3. Wimple
4. Myrrh
5. Alamoth

Archaic words is just one reason of many why some of the more modern translations are more accurate than the KJV. ...
I know that you and other KJVO disagree.

Here Bible John:

I have done your homework.

Tache - Only found in the KJV, however consulting a Bible Dictionary it is similiar to a shower curtain hook.

Coney is found in the same places in the NIV. Try reading Lev. 11:5; Duet. 14:7; Psalm 104:18; Prov. 30:26. Guess that means Coney isn’t that “archaic” of a word.

Wimple is only found in one verse. Easton’s Bible Dictionary states it is a wrap or veil.

Myrrh - You must be joking. You haven’t read this word in a modern version? Do you even read the Bible then? It can be found in numerous places that even the KJV doesn’t have it.

Alamoth- It can be found in the NIV, NASB, and the KJV. In fact they all have it in the same spot. 1 Chronicles 15:20 and in the title of Psalm 46:1.

I suggest you research your “archaic” words a little more. In fact maybe you can tell me what a Praetorium is, or how about a rivulet?

But do you remember John Wycliffe? ...
Plenty of translations came before 1560 and the 1st English translation was the Wycliffe Bible which was released in 1382.

And tell me... What language is the KJV written in? Is it 16th century English, or since it was “revised” according to you ten times, with the last being in 1850, that maybe the language isn’t 16th century but maybe it is 19th century.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 111

... but many KJVO fail to consider that many more cannot understand 16th century English.

Amazing how Wycliffe would be against KJVOism because he stood against the Vulgate. The people in England spoke what language? English right? So then the KJV is written in what language again? English...

Arguments against King James Version Onlyism

1. The KJV translators were not KJV Only

Below are some quotes from the preface to the 1611 King James Version

... today.

Bible John.... The KJV is an English translation. It isn’t a French, Latin, Greek Translation, etc. It is in the “tongue” of the common man if you happen to speak English.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James Williams, pp. 153.

...God’s Holy Word.

James Williams is an idiot. The only reason why the Geneva Bible was rendered obsolete is because of politics. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritans and Seperatists. It was the Bible of Oliver Cromwell. Charles II ascended the throne and gave his recognition to the translation that bore his grandfathers name. It wasn’t difficult to understand, being that it was very similiar to the KJV. Mostly it was hated by the royalty because of its “Puritan” notes.

Words change their meaning overtime, words drop out of usage, and the spelling of words can also change. If my opponent were to look up 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the Geneva Bible (1560 edition) he would see that the word "bouggerers" is used. I ask my opponent to look up this word in a dictionary. I doubt he will find it, because the word is not there!

And how do you know this isn’t a spelling error? The word buggers is in the Dictionary.

2. God used the language of the commoner to reveal his New CovenantFrom the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 186

... the New Covenant.

James Williams shows his love for error. The “scholar” he uses isn’t someone named Albert, but rather Adolf. God revealed His New Covenant in Hebrew and not Greek. Sorry to burst your bubble on this. I explained this earlier. As for the reading grade level, have you ever heard of “advertising”. You got the KJV being 12th grade reading form where?

CONCLUSION
KJV Onlyism is nothing new, but just something old that already happened before....into an easier and more accurate language.

Bible John has now taken James White’s error and compounded it. Wycliffe was making an English translation where there was no English translation. He was opposed by the religious authorities for this. No one is against translating the Bible into other languages that don’t have a translation. In fact several “KJVO” schools and ministries encourage this.

What is opposed is the implied necessity of multiple translations, instead of one common translation.

Can my opponent read and write in Latin?

This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Plenty of translations came before 1560 and the 1st English translation was the Wycliffe Bible which was released in 1382.

Another pointless blurb.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 111

... to understand 16th century english.

Amazing how you can assert this. And not a single citation. How do you know KJVO’s do this?

I again ask my opponent. Can you speak or write in Latin? ...before it?

I speak English, not Latin, therefore an English translation is a tangible authority on matters relating to church. Now if I could read Hebrew and Greek, they would hold a higher position than English in church matters. James White used this same argument and it has many parrots. It is a silly argument when examined. Did the common folk understand Latin? No. Did the common folk read Latin? No. They spoke “English”. Therefore it is reasonable that they use a translation that is more beneficial to them. This has been dealt with earler also.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James B. Williams, pp. 126-127
... next round

Given. I noticed you ignored most of my questions. That’s ok. Not everyone demands questions be answered like you did to me.

[Bible John]

Welcome to round III of this interesting debate. I’ll start right away with a REBUTTAL of my opponent’s statements.

REBUTTAL OF NOTAPADWAN’S ROUND III ARGUMENTS

Given. I noticed you ignored most of my questions. That’s ok. Not everyone demands questions be answered like you did to me.

No I did exactly what you told me. Did you not forget what you said? I’ll refresh your memory.

Now I have answered several of the objectionks and questions you’ve asked, even though you disregarded my opening post. I have a couple of questions for you to answer if you can.

You said you only had 2 questions, but you listed 9, so I then assumed that you wanted me to answer 2 questions, which I did. Also note that you used the phrase "If you can." English Grammar 101 would have taught you that the word "If" is what we call a "conjunction" that joins other words together. In your case you implied that I had a choice to answer your questions, and so I chose to answer 2 of your questions. Perhaps if you wanted me to answer more questions, you should have used correct English and stated yourself clearer. I do not claim to be a Grammar expert, but these kids of mistakes on your part are nothing but a lack of common sense. I know that everyone makes mistakes and I don’t claim to be perfect. I’m positive that CERM has a number of grammatical errors within the content of the website, waiting to be corrected that have not yet been discovered.

I asked my opponent this question
Can you prove that the ESV translation team and the NIV translation team were not made up of scholars as intellectual in the original languages as the KJV translation team?

And he replies with this statement.

Could they read and write Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. before entering College?

What does that have to do with anything? If I knew algebra before I entered college, but stopped at Algebra II and did not go any farther what’s the point? But imagine another student knowing only basic mathematics on entering college, and discovers that he has a gift for math, and as a result goes all the way up to Linear Algebra and beyond.
Obviously the computer engineer type jobs that are all over the Bay Area in CA would not hire me for an engineering position, since my mathematical skills sucks, as I only went up to Algebra II. But the other student would have been hired, as his skills are far better. My point is that just because the KJV translators could read and or write in Greek and Hebrew before entering college, does not mean that they were more scholarly than the ESV and NIV translators. Perhaps they had a better start than modern Bible translators did, but this alone does not mean that their knowledge was as exhaustive on the original languages as that of the scholars today. You have made a very poor argument here from a hyper biased book.


I have the NET Bible, the ESV, and the NKJV. I haven’t been impressed with them. You may not realize this, but not every KJV advocate stands against something just because it is different. I could show where the ESV distorts a clear Messianic promise in Genesis due to its preference to the LXX over the inspired Hebrew. Maybe you should quit assuming I am standing against something without examining it.


I am not familiar with the NET Bible. Why have you not been impressed with the ESV? Not every KJVO advocate is the same and I do realize this. James White mentions 5 KJVO types in his book, and I don’t believe you are in the 5th KJV group.
The KJV groups once again

The King James Version Only Controversy by James R. White, pp. 1-4.

Group #1 I Like the KJV BestGroup #2 The Textual argumentGroup #3 Received Text OnlyGroup #4 The Inspired KJV GroupGroup #5 The KJV as New RevelationRegarding your comment on the ESV distorting a Messianic promise in Genesis I would be very interested in examining this passage and comparing it to my Interlinear Bible, and using my Strongs Concordance my Word study dictionary and commentaries to examine the passage in question.

I do think that there is a strong possibility that your interpretation of the passage can be the problem, but then again perhaps I am incorrect. No doubt I dislike the way the ESV, NIV, and NASB translate the Trinity passage in 1 John 5:7. That’s the strongest Trinity passage that I use against OneNess Pentecostals in debate. But unfortunately the modern versions have ridden that passage. The ESV is not using the Textus Receptus, but more reliable manuscripts, and I understand the Johanna comma problem. 1 John 5:7 may not be original, but nevertheless its what God allowed to make the KJV and NKJV print and I believe that 1 John 5:7 is inspired.

Do you normally take people’s comments out of context. I said it is more like a commentary since the Dynamic Equivalence technique isn’t a word for word (Formal) method but rather a thought for thought method. Therefore it seeks to show the meaning of the passage rather than let the reader figure out the sense. If that isn’t a commentary, could you explain then what it is?

This is what you said.


How can the NIV be accurate if it doesn't translate, but rather is more of a commentary on what the original Greek and Hebrew texts read?

You did not use a simile in your statement like what you thought. You implied that the NIV is a commentary on the originals, which is absurd and false. The NIV is no commentary on the Word of God, it’s a good accurate translation. Even James White agrees here.

On page 162 of the King James Only Controversy White states that he and his church use the NIV along with other translations, and he later states that the NIV presents the gospel with a clarity equal to or better than the KJV. Numerous times within the book does White defend the NIV, and numerous times does he state that the NIV translates better and more accurate than the KJV.
Below are just a few of many times where White claims the NIV translates better than the KJV.

NIV translates better than KJV according to James R. White
Col 1:14 page 162
1 Tim 6:10 page 140
Heb 4:12 page 141
Phil 2:5-6 page 197
2 Peter 1:1 page 197
Tit 2:13 page 197
Col 2:9 page 197
Rom 9:5 page 197
John 1:18 page 197


The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, pp 197In any case we can see that the NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ; the NASB just a bit less so, and the KJV the least of the three.

White previously said that the NIV is a better translation for evangelizing to the cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He maintains that position because the NIV translates the key Christology passages better than both the KJV and the NASB.

Regarding your comments on the NIV at Hebrews 11:11 I will comment that the NIV is not a flawless translation and also does have its problems (just like the KJV). But you throwing out the entire translation, just because of this verse is absurd and unfair.


It isn’t even how it was translated in the KJV. Gordon Fee has been called on some of the ridiculous things he has said over the years. For instance in 1978 he declared this in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society:

"New Testament scholarship and the working pastor are generally agreed on one point: The task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed. What remains is basically a "mopping-up" operation on some disputed readings." - JETS March 1978 pg. 19


I am familiar with the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, as I frequently had to read and reference articles in my exegetical and theological papers that I wrote while at Simpson University. JETS is not the only scholarly journal out there, but its certainly the most well known. While I think it may be plausible that Fee made a mistake in his article, I will ask my opponent if he has ever made a mistake. Have you? Are you perfect, are you divine? Fee said nothing heretical, and yes I disagree with his assertions. But his book How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth I do not believe has anything to do with this article. I do not agree with all that he says in that book, but I agree with enough of it, to keep my own copy and reference it on and off.

I went on to say

They read woodenly because they are more accurate, but a direct translation from one language to the other is not always the best idea to make the Word of God readable.

My opponent responds

You are a glorified parrot. James said it, John parrots it. Why is the Dynamic Equivalency the best idea?

Actually I had no idea that White said this. When I mentioned the woodenly reading style of the NASB, I actually remember reading that in Fee’s book, but I cant remember the page. But regardless what Fee and White says is truth.

To answer your question I will consult Gordon Fee’s book



How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, Gordon D. Fee, pp. 36The best translation theory is dynamic equivalence. A literal translation is often helpful as a second source; it will give you confidence as to what the Greek and Hebrew actually looked like…. But the basic translation for reading and studying should be something like the NIV…. The problem with a literal translation is that it keeps distance at the wrong places—in language and grammar. Thus the translator often renders the Greek and Hebrew into English that is otherwise never written or spoken that way. It is like translating maison blanc from French to English as "house white." For example, no native English-speaking person would ever have said "coals of fire" (KJV, Rom 12;20). That is a literal rendering of the Greek construction, but what it means in English is "burning coals" (NEB). A second problem with a literal translation is that it often makes the English ambiguous, where the Greek or Hebrew was quite clear to the original recipients. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:16 the Greek phrase kata sarka can be translated literally "to know" according to the flesh (as in the NASB). But this is not an ordinary way of speaking in English. While I do not agree that the NIV is exactly the best exegetical or study translation. I do not believe that the NIV can be replaced for daily devotional or reading purposes. But when in doubt I will consult a more literal rendering of the Word of God such as the NASB or the KJV.

So then how many Bibles do we need? Even John Piper states he’d rather see the N.I.V. sail on it history, with the E.S.V. as the Standard English Translation.

I have respect for John Piper and appreciate his scholarship in many areas.
However I doubt he’s the textual criticism scholar that James White is.
I said


On this point we can mutually agree. However the English Standard Version retains the theological framework found in the KJV. The NIV for reasons unknown removes many theological words very important to Christian theology. However the ESV retains these words.


My opponent followed


Empty words don’t mean much.


The English Standard Version retains the basic theological terms that are missing from the NIV.

Some of these words are.

Propitiation
Regeneration
Sanctification

None of the above words are mentioned in the NIV, while all are in the ESV. Looking at the above words how then can you state that the ESV does not contain the Theological framework of the KJV? Do I need to copy and paste all the passages above in the ESV to prove this to you, or can you take my words for it, that the ESV contains all these theological words and has the same foundation as the KJV?


What KJVO has it silenced? Has it silenced Peter Ruckman? Gail Riplinger? Donald Waite?
Nope, all three have continued to write after that book was published. In fact several prominent KJVO’s have written rebuttals to it including David Cloud.


I read one of the KJVO rebuttals to James White’s book by Ruckman and was not impressed.


I am sure everyone here knows I did not misunderstand you. You were quite clear in this regards.


News to me


What errors are these?

You have got to be joking. Didn’t you read what I wrote in the previous rounds?


John... I never agreed to the above quoted section. Don’t be putting words into my mouth. I stated the KJB isn’t the only translation that should be used by Christians. You obviously have misunderstood my position.

No you said the following.


KJV is superior and should be the Bible translation used in the English speaking world.


You stated the English Speaking world. I never once said that you stated that the KJV should be the only Bible used by Christians, because you never said that. You simply said the English speaking world.


In fact many bookstores have for sale James Earl Jones reading the KJV, along with Alexander Scourby’s. Why produce something like this if modern versions are so much easier?

James Earl Jones heh? Wasn’t he the guy that played in the Best of the Best film and the King Solomon’s Mines Part II film called Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold? NotaPadwan you bring back some good memories….


And what passage does Hebrews 8 refer to... That’s right Jeremiah... Which was written in what language? Hebrew... Therefore what language gives us the New Covenant? Hebrew. Even John MacArthur agrees with this.

Jeremiah was not the OFFICIAL New Covenant. God had promised Jeremiah the covenant in that passage, but the Covenant was OFICIALLY inaugurated at Christ’s death (Mt 26:27-28, Lk 22:20).

Luke, Chapter 22, Verse 20, New International Version

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Luke, Chapter 22, Verse 20, English Standard Version

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

It was officially at the death of Christ and the shedding of His blood on the cross when the covenant was OFICIALLY inaugurated. This was written in Greek and not in Hebrew.

I said

I have not used consulted any of John MacArthur’s works to aid me in this particular debate.

Then my opponent follows with this remark.

I never said you did.

But you did say this, which assumed that I was using John MacArthur’s ideas in this debate.


You seem to use John MacArthur’s faulty definition of repent.

You know exactly what that statement implied and it implied that I was using John MacArthur’s definition of repent.


Notice the key words in your post..."out of context".


People will naturally take passages out of context. Its in the human nature and cannot be avoided so easily. The KJV translates this verse to Thou Shall not Kill, while the modern versions use "murder" in place of Kill. Murder would imply taking another man’s life, while Killing would imply killing anything. Forbidding not to kill is wrong, and if God forbid this, He would be contradicting Himself, as in many other places in the Bible, does God not forbid killing. Therefore I believe that all translations are better off using "murder" in place of "kill" in this verse. I know that you disagree, but people like you think you are the world’s greatest textual critics and Hebrew scholars. But the simply fact is that you know very little.


Yep. So do you. And if you don’t then what would you call an Orangutan and a Rhinoceros?

Really… News to me.

I have done nothing of the sort and if I did, I’m sure that Nightshade would have caught it.


ok whatever...

It is true that NightShade is the moderator here. I noticed that he removed a great deal of your comments the last round. I did not mention it, and wont elaborate on it, as I can probably guess why your comments were removed. But regardless there are reasons why I prefer debating here, over debating on one of those nasty Christian web boards where fairness is only attributed as long as you agree with the moderation team. If you disagree with the team, then its perfectly okay for others to throw insults at you, and the moderation team will do next to nothing to help you. This is what Bible Apologist and many others Christians see as a MAJOR flaw in Christian web boards.

It’s not that I agree with the atheists and skeptics that post here, because I do not. But I appreciate the fairness and justice that is practiced here. Believe it or not but I was banned from one board because I was not KJVO, and another because I was not Reformed. How absurd!


The Bible was written by God. CERM believes in the Verbal Plenary view of Inspiration in that all words and thoughts were inspired by God.

The above sentence contradicts itself.


Oh do explain…

I realize that I have been wrong on issues before, and that I am growing in my knowledge of the scriptures and growing in my faith. I do not declare perfection, and CERM does not declare perfection. If I am wrong and this can be proven, I have been known to humbly admit this.


I have and I did it without committing any errors.

That’s a laughable statement. Please show me this version o the Bible that you copied by hand without errors.


That is a blatant misrepresentation. In fact Robert Dabney asserted that many of the Alexandrian Manuscripts deviant readings could be traced back to the source scribe of Origen.

More straw man argumentation. What else is new?

Conspiratorial type thinking seems to dominate KJV Onlyism. Personally I find it sad that so many KJVO think that so many are out to attack them. Try and reason with a KJVO and you will see what I am talking about. Many KJVO interpret a constructive critique of the KJV as "bashing" and de-constructive criticism.


More blanket assertions and broad brushing.

You know I recently contacted James White’s ministry, and spoke with a ministry representative. I was told that it is their opinion that hyper King James Onlyists are considered to be cultists. I don’t necessarily think that my opponent is a cultist, but I have reason to believe that his line of thinking can lead to a cultist like mentality. Regardless I am sure that my opponent is aware of the errors of the KJVO movement.


Here Bible John:
I have done your homework.
Tache - Only found in the KJV, however consulting a Bible Dictionary it is similar to a shower curtain hook.
Coney is found in the same places in the NIV. Try reading Lev. 11:5; Duet. 14:7; Psalm 104:18; Prov. 30:26. Guess that means Coney isn’t that "archaic" of a word.
Wimple is only found in one verse. Easton’s Bible Dictionary states it is a wrap or veil.
Myrrh - You must be joking. You haven’t read this word in a modern version? Do you even read the Bible then? It can be found in numerous places that even the KJV doesn’t have it.
Alamoth- It can be found in the NIV, NASB, and the KJV. In fact they all have it in the same spot. 1 Chronicles 15:20 and in the title of Psalm 46:1.
I suggest you research your "archaic" words a little more. In fact maybe you can tell me what a Praetorium is, or how about a rivulet?


My point is that these words outdated and mostly not in use in the English vernacular. The KJV has far more archaic words than the NIV.


Amazing how Wycliffe would be against KJVOism because he stood against the Vulgate. The people in England spoke what language? English right? So then the KJV is written in what language again? English...

Wycliffe wanted a Bible so readable that anyone could understand it. The KJV is not exactly in a version of English readable enough for most people. Most people can understand the NIV and most people can understand the ESV. Wycliffe wanted the Bible readable for everyone, including the uneducated and unlearned.


Bible John.... The KJV is an English translation. It isn’t a French, Latin, Greek Translation, etc. It is in the "tongue" of the common man if you happen to speak English.

But it is not in the tongue of the common English person alive today since not everyone alive today speaks ancient English. Language changes with time, and meaning of words change with time. Or do you use the word "gay" often? Would you tell someone you are feeling very gay today? If not, why not? Does not Gay mean very happy?
Words change their meaning overtime, words drop out of usage, and the spelling of words can also change. If my opponent were to look up 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the Geneva Bible (1560 edition) he would see that the word "bouggerers" is used. I ask my opponent to look up this word in a dictionary. I doubt he will find it, because the word is not there!
And how do you know this isn’t a spelling error? The word buggers is in the Dictionary.
Re-reread the above statement. I said the word bouggerers is not in the dictionary today. I never said anything about buggers.


James Williams shows his love for error. The "scholar" he uses isn’t someone named Albert, but rather Adolf. God revealed His New Covenant in Hebrew and not Greek. Sorry to burst your bubble on this. I explained this earlier. As for the reading grade level, have you ever heard of "advertising". You got the KJV being 12th grade reading form where?


There appears to be some hard evidence that what you say is correct.
http://www.logos.com/communitypricing/details/2507 (http://www.logos.com/communitypricing/details/2507)

But regardless of this small "spelling error" that means so much to you, why did you avoid my quote?


God revealed His New Covenant in Hebrew and not Greek. Sorry to burst your bubble on this. I explained this earlier. As for the reading grade level, have you ever heard of "advertising". You got the KJV being 12th grade reading form where?

The New Covenant was in Greek. The covenant was officially put in place at Christ's death and the language was Greek and not Hebrew.

Matthew, Chapter 26, Verses 27-28, New International Version
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


CONCLUSION
KJV Onlyism is nothing new, but just something old that already happened before....into an easier and more accurate language.

Bible John has now taken James White’s error and compounded it. Wycliffe was making an English translation where there was no English translation. He was opposed by the religious authorities for this. No one is against translating the Bible into other languages that don’t have a translation. In fact several "KJVO" schools and ministries encourage this.


Learn something-new everyday. I did not know that James White made a similar statement to the one above. Regardless Wycliffe would probably be all for the NIV, ESV, NKJV,etc..

Can my opponent read and write in Latin?


This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Actually it has much to do with the discussion. Because before the Geneva Bible the Latin Vulgate was the primary translation. Church authorities at that time did not want the Word of God translated from the vulgate for fear of perverting the Word of God,etc.. If you were alive at this time, then you would have needed to read and write in Latin in order to understand the Bible. If you could not, then you had a problem.
The same argument exists today. There are MILLIONS of Learning Disabled and DD people that CANNOT easily understand KJV English. My friend Mark is one example of many. The man has Developmental disabilities, does not drive, and has issues with basic life skills, hygene,etc.. Try asking Mark to read the KJV and you will have lots of problems. Mark has a low IQ, and so the NIV has become his PREFERRED translation. Mark can understand the words of Jesus easily in the NIV, and came to salvation on the translation I believe. God allowed the Latin Vulgate to be translated into English, God allowed the KJV version, and God allowed the NIV. All these were to make the Word readable to the common man, and to allow all mankind to know about the gift of salvation.

Plenty of translations came before 1560 and the 1st English translation was the Wycliffe Bible which was released in 1382.


Another pointless blurb.

That depends on your POV.


Amazing how you can assert this. And not a single citation. How do you know KJVO’s do this?

I am basing my assertions based on experience with KJVO. I once was a member of the WhichVersion Yahoo group and there some of the people made the argument that their children could understand the KJV. Besides that group I have heard KJVO on other web boards that I have participated in use the same style of argumentation, and I believe that James White also mentioned this KJVO argument in his book, but I am not sure where. I highlighted DOZENS AND DOZENS of words and sentences in his book, and it would take sometime to go back and find out the exact page where James uses this argument.


James White used this same argument and it has many parrots. It is a silly argument when examined. Did the common folk understand Latin? No. Did the common folk read Latin? No. They spoke "English". Therefore it is reasonable that they use a translation that is more beneficial to them. This has been dealt with earlier also.


I did not know this. I’m starting to think and write like White. I’ll take that as a compliment.

CONCLUSION

In the final round I plan to add to devote a large portion to more arguments against KJV Onlyism. The Lord has blessed me with 2 wonderful books that address the argument, and quite simply it is the Lord who led me to these books. God wants all to come to repentance and all to find Him. If this is God’s true intention, then KJV Onlyism makes no sense.

2 Peter, Chapter 3, Verse 9, King James Version

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God has blessed the English speaking world with the New International Version, the New King James Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and more recently the English Standard Version. It is the will of God for all to come to repentance, and salvation can be found and learned about in the modern translations. I hope that my opponent does not deny this.

Question for my opponent

Do you believe there is enough gospel in the modern translations to lead someone to a saving faith in Jesus?

If you deny this, then perhaps what James White’s ministry said about certain KJV Only advocates was true, and they are indeed a cult. However for me its hard to label KJV Onlyists as cultists, because unlike the cults (Mormonism, The Way, OneNess Pentecostalism,etc..) KJV Onlyism does not teach a different Jesus than the one of the Bible, and KJV Onlyism does not teach a different way to salvation, besides of the confessing of your sins, and calling upon the Lord for salvation, which is the Biblical message.

John
Church Education Resource Ministries
www.cerm.info (http://www.cerm.info)

[notapadawan]

Welcome all to the 4th round.

You ... discovered.

So instead of answering the questions or even attempting to, you are now gonna split hairs over secondary matters and change the course of the debate. Expected by someone who has no answer, and even the Peanut Gallery noted that.

What .... You have made a very poor argument here from a hyper biased book.

I never based my argument on a book here. Get your facts straight. Several of the translators were noted experts in their field with published lexicons and such. Since the only books you've read on this subject happen to be books that agree iwth your position how can you state you disagree with something?

I am not familiar with the NET Bible. Why have you not been impressed with the ESV?

Check out www.bible.com for more info on the NET Bible. I haven't been impressed with the ESV for a number of reasons.
1. being its history. It isn't a "new" translation but rather a conservative edited version of the notoriously liberal RSV. 2. Its noted exclusion of such verses as 1 John 5:7; Acts 8:37, and others. 3. The Alexandrian favoratism of the questioning Mark 16:9-20. 4. The Alexandrian Favoratism of "He" instead of "God" for 1 Timothy 3:16.


Hope this gives you something to chew on.

Regarding your comment on the ESV distorting a Messianic promise in Genesis I would be very interested in examining this passage and comparing it to my Interlinear Bible, and using my Strongs Concordance my Word study dictionary and commentaries to examine the passage in question.

Genesis 49:10

I do think that there is a strong possibility that your interpretation of the passage can be the problem, but then again perhaps I am incorrect.

:rolleyes:

No ... but more reliable manuscripts, and I understand the Johanna comma problem.

What makes these manuscripts more reliable? The manuscripts collated to make the "textus receptus" were the manuscripts used by the church for centuries. Many of these manuscripts when they were discovered were shown to have variant readings, and other features that show signs of corruption. In fact, regarding the last 12 verses of Mark, out of a possible 502 manuscripts that could go past verse 8, 500 do. THe two that don't are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and even then, Vaticanus shows the passage was intentionally skipped because it contains enough blank spacing to allow that passage to be there.

1 John 5:7 may not be original, but nevertheless its what God allowed to make the KJV and NKJV print and I believe that 1 John 5:7 is inspired.

If it is inspired, then it is "original". I recommend you read Frederick Nolan's treatment of 1 John 5:7.

You did not use a simile in your statement like what you thought. You implied that the NIV is a commentary on the originals, which is absurd and false. The NIV is no commentary on the Word of God, it’s a good accurate translation. Even James White agrees here.

So because James White agree's with you, that makes it so... :rolleyes:

I suggest you read what Robert Martin wrote concerning this. He wrote a book showing why the NIV was terrible. As I have shown, even among the Evangelical World certain leaders such as John Piper have shown why the NIV should be retired. It has too much inherent paraphrasing and translational bias.

On ... KJV.

NIV translates better than KJV according to James R. White
Col 1:14 page 162
1 Tim 6:10 page 140
Heb 4:12 page 141
Phil 2:5-6 page 197
2 Peter 1:1 page 197
Tit 2:13 page 197
Col 2:9 page 197
Rom 9:5 page 197
John 1:18 page 197


The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, pp 197In any case we can see that the NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ; the NASB just a bit less so, and the KJV the least of the three.

These are subjective statements. Besides just because a few passages are translated "more clearly" means it is a better translation? That is very faulty logic. Thats like what the grocery stores do when they show price comparisons. Doesn't mean what I shopping for is "cheaper" at the "lowest" price store, it just shows that the selected items were over-all lower.

White previously said that the NIV is a better translation for evangelizing to the cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He maintains that position because the NIV translates the key Christology passages better than both the KJV and the NASB.

Another subjective statement. I have worked at evangelizing the various cults with only the KJV and have had success. Much of it has to do with arguing skills, not the Bible tranlsation. White is an accomplished debater in many respects, yet his argumentation is lacking on this particular subject.

Regarding ... unfair.

Have you not been following this debate? I haven't "thrown" out the NIV because of one verse. I have set it aside in favor of the historic English translation of choice.

I ... off.

Quit being so emotional. Fee has said some off the wall comments, and even he has an