Translations of the Bible are not unBiblical, and are, in fact, commanded.

I am guessing that my opponent is not going to show, but either way, I will post my closing arguments and recap what I perceive is my opponent's stance. Napoleon seems to believe that all well-researched and dutifully translated are inspired, despite the weaknesses and flaws. He finds this on the Catholic "teaching principles," and a few verses. He also denies the Roman church's involvement in the KJV translation based on the history of the British, specifically the king's stance toward Catholicism. This is wrong for the following reasons: A. In response to blanket inspiration of translations. The farthest the Holy Spirit goes in aiding translations is to bless those involved. Whenever God has done something, it has had earmarks of His handiwork. The cells in our body have parts that cannot be used anywhere except that place, with the specific parts they work with, and nowhere else. That is God's signature on the humans, animals, and plants. In physics, if you change any known constant by less than even a percent, this universe would not be capable of sustaining life. That is His signature on the laws of physics. In the scriptures, His signature is found in 2 Timothy 3:16: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, There is no signature of God's work on any translation, and, in fact, most translation committees, including the original KJV translators, went out of their way to state that their translations were blessed, but not inspired. God has a pattern. He does not change, and the lack of a signature on any translation is evidence that there is no inspiration, because He has a habit of signing off on things He does. B. In response to inspiration of flawed works and sinful people. God is perfect, just, and excellent in ALL He does. If God had inspired a translation, it would be absolutely perfect, down to the conceptual translation of every word. There would be no words that would fail to translate into English, and there would be no words there that were not there to begin with. There would be no need for the translators to gather documents for cross-referencing, nor a need of knowledge of Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. Secondly, God is holy, set apart and will not come close to sin. Evidence is found in the distinct lack of Psalms written by David from the time he committed adultery with Bathsheba to the time he wrote the confession out. There were no inspired words from David during his time trying to hide sin from God. Why would inspired words flow from the pen of a person guilty of bribery, lying, and stealing, as the college history books and archaeologists say they were guilty of? C. In response to the claim of Catholic non-involvement in the KJV translation. Traditions and Encounters, a secular history text book from Mcgraw-Hill publishers, a widely accepted textbook publishing agency, and Dr Steve Carrol, a Christian Archaeologist, as well as numerous online sources, all agree that there was bribery involved from Bishops who had previously had churches in Britain, as well as those from outside the British Isles. These bribes included the adding of phrases from the Latin Vulgate, from which 1 John 5:7b-8a was taken and added to the translation. Translators saw that discrepancy in modern translations and removed the passage to the margins of their translation, stating clearly that only a marginal number of late manuscripts have that phrase there. As Grissom off of CSI, I go where the evidence leads me. The evidence all points toward Catholic involvement. They had motive (They didn't want to lose control of Britain), they had a track record (the massive execution of protestants starting with Martin Luther and not ending till after the KJV was released), and they left fingerprints and DNA (figuratively, the historical and archaeological data (fingerprints) and the source of the Latin Vulgate (DNA)) with which to place them at the scene. My argument was that no single or number of translations is inspired. They all have flaws, but the KJV is not the best, but only one of many high-quality translations out there. Matter of fact, I would choose to have a multi-version cross-reference Bible versus any single translation, to lessen the chances of flaws in the translation.