What falsehood does the NIV teach?

[PappaBear]

Yes, and before you begin, read carefully Stephen Avery's reply #16 on page #2, and then Ransom's reply.  This is a charade. 

For instance, you could submit the instances in Luke 2:33 where the NIV sates that Joseph was Jesus' father and 2:43 & 48 where Joseph & Mary are called "his parents,"  while the King James will say, "Joseph and his mother" or simply, "they" (2:48).  Obviously that slices at the heart of the Virgin Birth.  But instead of acknowledging that, they will run to other places where it will be claimed that yes, indeedy, the NIV certainly does teach the virgin birth.  Looky here!  They miss the point. 

What is needed is someone who actually denies the Virgin Birth to challenge them to a debate on that subject limited only to the NIV.  Someone who will use the above citations to demonstrate the Bible does consider Joseph as "physically" the father of Christ, and take their counter verses as only allegorical references to purity or holiness. 

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

 

[Ransom]

Yes, and before you begin, read carefully Stephen Avery's reply #16 on page #2, and then Ransom's reply.  This is a charade. 

In fact, Avery's participation is quite illustrative. He didn't actually try to engage the OP. Instead he did nothing but whine.

For instance, you could submit the instances in Luke 2:33 where the NIV sates that Joseph was Jesus' father and 2:43 & 48 where Joseph & Mary are called "his parents,"  while the King James will say, "Joseph and his mother" or simply, "they" (2:48).  Obviously that slices at the heart of the Virgin Birth. But instead of acknowledging that, they will run to other places where it will be claimed that yes, indeedy, the NIV certainly does teach the virgin birth.  Looky here!  They miss the point.

Well, the NIV does teach the virgin birth. Maybe when the NIV calls Mary and Joseph Jesus' "parents" (which the KJV also does) and states that Joseph was Jesus "father" (which Mary also does in the KJV), it means something different than what the KJV nuts so desperately want it to mean for the sake of their demagoguery.

Someone who will use the above citations to demonstrate the Bible does consider Joseph as "physically" the father of Christ,

The NIV doesn't say Joseph was "physically" the father of Christ. He says it was supposed that he was the father of Christ, but of course the KJV also says the same thing (Luke 3:23), and there is no question that Joseph was at the very least a father to Jesus: as the husband of his mother, he raised Jesus from infancy as his own son, and taught him the family trade.

Even the KJV calls Joseph one of Jesus' "parents." If Joseph wasn't, in some meaningful sense, Jesus' father, then please tell us what parent he was.

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.

Funny you should mention this in the same post that you favourably mention Steven Avery. He is a modalist, yet he spends more time defending the Johannine Comma than anything else. Apparently it isn't as crucial to the doctrine as you would like to believe.

However, I am more than happy to defend the orthodox view of the Trinity from the NIV alone, upon your request. All I require is that you start a new thread for the topic, and in the OP, provide your orthodox definition of the Trinity. Thanks in advance.

Meanwhile, feel entirely free to point out somewhere that the NIV teaches something that is not true. I notice that your post didn't manage to accomplish that.

 

[Ransom]

KJVOism is not nearly as concerned with orthodoxy as they claim.

If at all. It's its own orthodoxy, and the more ardently KJV-only these people become, the more all other tenets play second fiddle.

 

[PappaBear]

Here is the entire quote for you, Mr. Wilkinson.

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

Any challenge to me personally was doomed from my post.  The problem is that I believe in the homoousia, so would not be fit to argue against it, lacking the proper motivation or technique to attempt to defeat what I plainly believe.

 

[rsc2a]

Here is the entire quote for you, Mr. Wilkinson.

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

Any challenge to me personally was doomed from my post.  The problem is that I believe in the homoousia, so would not be fit to argue against it, lacking the proper motivation or technique to attempt to defeat what I plainly believe.

How about this: the KJV is the preferred translation of the Mormon church so we shouldn't use it because of the doctrinal teachings the Latter Day Saints derive from this translation.

(This argument makes about as much sense for why to avoid the KJV as some of the arguments the KJVo-ers use to argue for it.)

 

[PappaBear]

How about this: the KJV is the preferred translation of the Mormon church so we shouldn't use it because of the doctrinal teachings the Latter Day Saints derive from this translation.

(This argument makes about as much sense for why to avoid the KJV as some of the arguments the KJVo-ers use to argue for it.)

How about this:  Based upon your posts in the When was the last time you articulated the gospel to somebody? thread, it really doesn't matter what version you do not use.  You do not use any of them.  Based on your multiple posts regarding your various ideas of authority, it is evident that any Bible version is not authoritative enough for such as you to hold to or use in debate or witness.  <shrug>

 

[rsc2a]

How about this: the KJV is the preferred translation of the Mormon church so we shouldn't use it because of the doctrinal teachings the Latter Day Saints derive from this translation.

(This argument makes about as much sense for why to avoid the KJV as some of the arguments the KJVo-ers use to argue for it.)

How about this:  Based upon your posts in the When was the last time you articulated the gospel to somebody? thread, it really doesn't matter what version you do not use.  You do not use any of them.  Based on your multiple posts regarding your various ideas of authority, it is evident that any Bible version is not authoritative enough for such as you to hold to or use in debate or witness.  <shrug>

Surely you can link to a particular post if you had some point in mind?

 

[bgwilkinson]

How about this: the KJV is the preferred translation of the Mormon church so we shouldn't use it because of the doctrinal teachings the Latter Day Saints derive from this translation.

(This argument makes about as much sense for why to avoid the KJV as some of the arguments the KJVo-ers use to argue for it.)

How about this:  Based upon your posts in the When was the last time you articulated the gospel to somebody? thread, it really doesn't matter what version you do not use.  You do not use any of them.  Based on your multiple posts regarding your various ideas of authority, it is evident that any Bible version is not authoritative enough for such as you to hold to or use in debate or witness.  <shrug>

Typical.

When a KJVO can not defend his opinion with verifiable facts he turns to pure ad hominem.

Just the facts no personal attacks.

You are the  one that said you were a proud KJVO.

I'm very sorry for you.

 

[PappaBear]

Typical.

When a KJVO can not defend his opinion with verifiable facts he turns to pure ad hominem.

Just the facts no personal attacks.

You are the  one that said you were a proud KJVO.

I'm very sorry for you.

It is rather typical of one so antagonistic to the scriptures that he has never taken the time to learn reading comprehension.  That, or is disposed to use the common Calvy anti-Bible tactic of misrepresenting what a proud KJVO actually said.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Typical.

When a KJVO can not defend his opinion with verifiable facts he turns to pure ad hominem.

Just the facts no personal attacks.

You are the  one that said you were a proud KJVO.

I'm very sorry for you.

It is rather typical of one so antagonistic to the scriptures that he has never taken the time to learn reading comprehension.  That, or is disposed to use the common Calvy anti-Bible tactic of misrepresenting what a proud KJVO actually said.

Typical.

More ad hominem.

KJVOs aught to have a rule that says no ad hominem.

Without ad hominem KJOs would have nothing to post.

I am praying for you PappaBear. Maybe the LORD will open your eyes.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is the entire quote for you, Mr. Wilkinson.

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them. 

But it would be pretty impossible for one of us who believes the orthodox doctrines to actually allow an absolute denial of doctrine in these other versions, so when you show their failure in one passage to support right doctrine, they merely run elsewhere to say, "see here, there's your doctrine, so this mv does not teach falsehood."  But it certainly weakens the major doctrines and increases support for cultic heresy.  So don't fall easily for the bait.

Any challenge to me personally was doomed from my post.  The problem is that I believe in the homoousia, so would not be fit to argue against it, lacking the proper motivation or technique to attempt to defeat what I plainly believe.

Your statement  is illogical. Who is asking you to argue that which you do not believe?

PappaBear I'm praying that you will see that light. Many KJVOs do recover. It is not shameful to admit that you have believed the lies of the KJVOs. Repent PappaBear.

 

[Timothy]

Found this on YouTube about Genesis 1:1

(NIV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the NIV we are told there was more than one heaven in the beginning. But, the KJV teaches that only one heaven was in the beginning. The multiple heavens were not created until later ....

 

[rsc2a]

Found this on YouTube about Genesis 1:1

(NIV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the NIV we are told there was more than one heaven in the beginning. But, the KJV teaches that only one heaven was in the beginning. The multiple heavens were not created until later ....

No. "The heaven(s) and the earth" is just a Hebrew parallelism which pretty much means "everything".

 

[PappaBear]

Your statement  is illogical. Who is asking you to argue that which you do not believe?

How is it illogical?  Do you even know what that word means?  I am being asked to deny that certain scriptures teach the Trinity.  That would be impossible.  I would be way too easy, because I believe the truth of the Triune Godhead.  It is much more logical that someone who does NOT believe it would do a better job of showing how a weaker case can be twisted out of all proportion, much like what you do frequently with the passages that teach inspiration, preservation, and authority.

PappaBear I'm praying that you will see that light. Many KJVOs do recover. It is not shameful to admit that you have believed the lies of the KJVOs. Repent PappaBear.

I am glad to hear that you have started to pray, I recommend the practice.  Pray daily for the soul of Ransom.