What falsehood does the NIV teach?

[Ransom]

I was amusing myself last evening reading through some of the old threads on the flea-infested forum, and I thought this one was actually worthy of reviving after 6 years.

Here is my challenge to KJV-onlyists: Can you show me a passage in the NIV where it claims something is true, that really isn't? What falsehoods does it teach that I shouldn't believe?

A few ground rules, based on my experiences with the previous thread, just so we're clear on what I am not asking:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Don't just point out that the NIV "omits" or "leaves out" this or that. I think we can all agree that something unsaid is not the same as something denied. The fact that I do not repeatedly, publicly disavow membership in the Communist Party, does not imply that I am a member. Something true that is not said, is not the same as something said that is not true.
[*]Don't just point out that the NIV says something different than the KJV. Being different is not necessarily the same as being wrong. We all recognize that there are multiple ways of saying the same thing. You need to show us that what is being asserted in the NIV is, in fact, objectively wrong.
[*]Corollary to #1 and 2: No circular reasoning, please. If you are arguing one of the above, and your best argument is that the KJV says one thing while the NIV says another (or says nothing), then you have argued nothing except competing authorities. If you are going to appeal to the KJV alone to prove the NIV is objectively wrong, you automatically assume the burden of first proving that the KJV is objectively right, which is followed by the added burden of showing that the KJV and NIV are in contradiction.
[*]Violate one of these ground rules, and at my discretion I will respond merely with the corresponding number. It is your responsibility to know what kinds of bad arguments to avoid.
[/list]

There you have it. Let the accusations fly. What does the NIV say that I shouldn't believe?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Habakkuk 2:4

KJV:

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

NIV:

“See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright—but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness.

ESV:

“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

ESV also has a footnote that indicates that "faith" also means "faithfulness". Although I can't find the source, I believe I read at one point that the original KJV had the very same footnote.

So in this essence, the NIV does change the doctrine of the KJV but it looks like the NIV actually translated it correctly whereas the KJV translators didn't want to for some reason.

 

[rsc2a]

Habakkuk 2:4

KJV:

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

NIV:

“See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright—but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness.

ESV:

“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

ESV also has a footnote that indicates that "faith" also means "faithfulness". Although I can't find the source, I believe I read at one point that the original KJV had the very same footnote.

So in this essence, the NIV does change the doctrine of the KJV but it looks like the NIV actually translated it correctly whereas the KJV translators didn't want to for some reason.

How are these different? Especially when you just stated that the words mean the same thing?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Habakkuk 2:4

KJV:

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

NIV:

“See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright—but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness.

ESV:

“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

ESV also has a footnote that indicates that "faith" also means "faithfulness". Although I can't find the source, I believe I read at one point that the original KJV had the very same footnote.

So in this essence, the NIV does change the doctrine of the KJV but it looks like the NIV actually translated it correctly whereas the KJV translators didn't want to for some reason.

How are these different? Especially when you just stated that the words mean the same thing?

faith = belief
faithfulness = perseverance in obedience

Example:

Ezekiel 18:5, 9:

“But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right.... [and] hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept mine ordinances, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord Jehovah.”

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]faith = belief[/quote]

In part...but definitely not an all-encompassing definition. Part of it would also include...

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]faithfulness = perseverance in obedience[/quote]

The Bible doesn't let us define "faith" as solely "intellectual assent". There is also the idea of obedience, trust, perseverance, repentance...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]faith = belief

In part...but definitely not an all-encompassing definition. Part of it would also include...

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]faithfulness = perseverance in obedience[/quote]

The Bible doesn't let us define "faith" as solely "intellectual assent". There is also the idea of obedience, trust, perseverance, repentance...
[/quote]

Agreed. Works are involve which is the premise of the book of James.

 

[Ransom]

It appears that no KJVOs have any issues.

After a day and a half of silence, that would certainly seem to be the case.

But that's the usual modus operandi of the KJVers. Uninvited, they won't shut up about how evil other Bibles supposedly are.  Invite them to provide specifics, and they are suddenly busy, they're on vacation, the Internet is down, they had a hard drive crash, rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.

 

[SAWBONES]

But that's the usual modus operandi of the KJVers. Uninvited, they won't shut up about how evil other Bibles supposedly are.  Invite them to provide specifics, and they are suddenly busy, they're on vacation, the Internet is down, they had a hard drive crash, rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.

Ain't it the truth? 

When confronted over specific erroneous claims, KJVO types typically ignore the invitation to dialog, but when uninvited (not to mention unwelcome), certain of them simply seem unable to keep themselves from repeatedly and long-windedly wasting bandwidth.

 

[rsc2a]

It would be interesting to see a sister thread "What falsehood does the KJV teach?" I can think of several things right off, but I acknowledge it's just the result of bad translation, not sinister motives on the part of the translators.

 

[Ransom]

I can think of several things right off, but I acknowledge it's just the result of bad translation, not sinister motives on the part of the translators.

Right. There's no converse to KJV-onlyism; no one is claiming that if there are translation errors in the KJV, that makes it the work of Satan.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I find the NIV most helpful for younger people to encourage the reading of God's Word.
In general the text is much clearer for today's average reader, it's much less obtuse then the centuries old translations using Elizabethan English. I personally enjoy Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translations, but they are not for everybody. For today the NASB, HCSB or ESV are what I recommend for most people for accuracy if you don't want to read Hebrew or Greek.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Here is my challenge to KJV-onlyists: Can you show me a passage in the NIV where it claims something is true, that really isn't? What falsehoods does it teach that I shouldn't believe?

This sounds like you are limiting the discussion to "hard errors".  Since doctrinal problems and corruptions and omissions, even if on a critical teaching, do not apply, unless it is a direct falsehood. 

So all you are saying is that you can come up with some far-fetched absurd apologetic for the ultra-minority hard errors from the textus corruptus, such as the swine marathon, or the synagogues of Judea.  That is the Daniel Wallace style argument of flexible inerrancy, an auxiliary attempt to ethereal inerrancy.

> because I don't believe in the inerrancy of a specific English Bible - specifically, theirs - I can't possibly really believe that God's Word is infallible.

First, do you think it is possible for both the AV and the NIV to be infallible?

And, in the Scott textual world, can you mention anything in any version that makes it less than infallible?  So we can see how you define and use these terms.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

This sounds like you are limiting the discussion to "hard errors".

I'm limiting the discussion to the things taught in the NIV that are false and shouldn't be believed.

If there are such, then you should have no difficulty finding them and pointing them out - without resorting to your usual word salad of name-dropping, out-of-context citations of articles you've never read, and obfuscatory jargon that only you use.

If you want to participate in my thread, answer the question I asked, and don't hijack it to grind away yet again at your own hobby horses.

 

[Torrent v.3]

Hi,

Here is my challenge to KJV-onlyists: Can you show me a passage in the NIV where it claims something is true, that really isn't? What falsehoods does it teach that I shouldn't believe?

This sounds like you are limiting the discussion to "hard errors".  Since doctrinal problems and corruptions and omissions, even if on a critical teaching, do not apply, unless it is a direct falsehood. 

So all you are saying is that you can come up with some far-fetched absurd apologetic for the ultra-minority hard errors from the textus corruptus, such as the swine marathon, or the synagogues of Judea.  That is the Daniel Wallace style argument of flexible inerrancy, an auxiliary attempt to ethereal inerrancy.

> because I don't believe in the inerrancy of a specific English Bible - specifically, theirs - I can't possibly really believe that God's Word is infallible.

First, do you think it is possible for both the AV and the NIV to be infallible?

And, in the Scott textual world, can you mention anything in any version that makes it less than infallible?  So we can see how you define and use these terms.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Ok, against my better judgment, I am going to say something.

Steven,
Please answer the original post.  Give one verse, one passage, one thing that the NIV clearly teaches that is wrong.  One.  No word twisting questions.  No beating around the bush. No exaggeration of claims for the KJV.  Just type one verse that you truly believe is error.

 

[FSSL]

Please answer the original post.  Give one verse, one passage, one thing that the NIV clearly teaches that is wrong.  One.  No word twisting questions.  No beating around the bush. No exaggeration of claims for the KJV.  Just type one verse that you truly believe is error.

Even I have one, in mind, that I could post. I use the NIV all of the time and have done so since 9th grade. There is no reason for Avery to avoid this.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I'm limiting the discussion

It is clear that you are limiting the discussion very carefully with a bunch of word-parsing, undefined terms and bundles of conditions and no desire to place your own views on a level playing field.

Simple example ..  If I point out that you should not accept the falsehood of the swine marathon city of Gerasa (Gerasenes) in the NIV, with Jesus delivering the demons 35 miles and more from the Sea of Galilee, you will simply say that maybe there is some other explanation .. next.

The absurdity of your position is even heightened more when we remember that the falsehood, the geographical blunder, that you are sort of defending is one that you acknowledge may not even be the actual original Bible text.  Even from your position, you might be defending a false corruption as unfalse, an example of the type of knot of confusion of the multi-modern-versionists.

You could play that type of game with dozens of errors in the NIV, giving milquetoast and vapid defenses of errors where you do not even know if the NIV has the actual right underlying text ... so I have no desire to participate in a scholastic charade.

=========

So, to show some unmush in your flux position, why not answer my much simpler question as to whether the AV and the NIV can both be the infallible word of God?

My answer is simple .. no.

=========

To me the NIV is virtually an irrelevancy, since it is just another textus corruptus version.  It actually was my version for many years (now I understand that people liked it because it tended to smooth out, even by tampering, errors in its source text and it would hide and mask various Hortian Vaticanus-primacy corruptions).

=========

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

It is clear that you are limiting the discussion very carefully with a bunch of word-parsing

It is clear that you have no straight answer to my question.

I'm going to add Ground Rule #5: No whining. If you can't answer the question, that's fine. In that case, there's no need for you to clutter up the thread with irrelevant filibustering.

The absurdity of your position

My position is not "absurd." Either there is falsehood in the NIV, or there is not.

If there is, either you can identify it, or you can't.

If you can't, why are you wasting our time? Go outside, or pursue a hobby, or find something better to do that doesn't annoy the grownups.

 

[Ransom]

Well, it's been a week, and apart from one sad attempt by Avery to change the subject, not a single KJV-onlyist has managed - or even tried - to list one error of fact in the NIV.

It's good to know that the KJVers have tacitly admitted that the NIV can be trusted to tell the truth, and all their raving over the last 20 years that I've been studying this issue have turned out to be nothing but empty cavils.

KJV-onlyists have, once again, proven themselves to be nothing but empty suits full of hot gas. You gotta laugh.

 

[Patebald]

This was my favorite challenge ever issued on the old forum. I've used this argument in multiple debates and have never lost.

Great job, Scott

 

[Ransom]

Bumped for Biblebeliever. Let's start here: if you want so badly to prove that the KJV exclusively is the divine truth, then why not demonstrate for us that the NIV teaches something that isn't true? Read the ground rules in the first post, then put your money where your mouth is, bucko.