Proof that the NIV is unsound doctine

[Hammster]

Well, this is a dud. When the OP refuses to engage in any sort of discussion, it’s obvious that they just have an agenda that cannot be defended.

 

[Hammster]

Turkeys CAN fly. I have a video of several (we get a flock of 20 or so in our yard periodically) flying. I also have a video of a couple taking a "bath" in a dusty area. It went on for 15 min or so.

There’s a context for it.

 

[Monksailor]

I DO believe that Baptism is prescribed for all believers as it is a sacrament which helps to indoctrinate one into the group, such as an initiation, for the purposes of accountability, conviction/motivation, to help induce the feeling of family, in proselytizing the faith, and such. Mark 16:16 says, "16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Baptism here is clearly shown NOT to be a condition of salvation for if it were we would read AFTER the semi-colon baptism included. It is not. Only "believeth not" is given relative to one's being saved or not.

That having been said, if one wants to believe that baptism is a condition of salvation, it is not my place to judge as there are other verses which do seem to give basis for this understanding like Acts 2:38. If one thinks that being baptized is a condition of salvation it doesn't invalidate their salvation at all and that is not what I was thinking. I just hope that one's performance of an exterior sacrament is also accompanied with internal conviction, a penitent heart, and faith in Jesus's redeeming blood. My concern is that there ARE saved individuals who have not yet practiced baptism/been obedient to the call to do so and this position of the preacher would imply that he (his denomination) are invalidating/judging another's lack of obedience as invalidating their salvation. That is a very serious judgement call and not allowed here on CF, if I am not mistaken.

One man's fables could be another man's VALID doctrine of relationship with our Lord and Savior. READ the whole of Romans 14 and the first paragraph of ch 15 if you think I am wrong.

And I apologize for countering the label of fables. That preacher and his denomination are entitled to their belief in their way to God as long as they can clearly find scripture to give it basis and I concede that such exists. I make similar concessions across the board for all believers in and followers of Christ. None of of us are perfect, we all fail to even satisfy our own correct understanding of God's Word. Who are we to judge another man's servant. As far as any judgments they may be making relative to another's validity of salvation, I hope that they will come to removing the log from their eye as I have in years past and learn to practice the Spirit of Romans 14 in relating to their brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Monksailor]

There’s a context for it.

Oh..... I see, turkey, like "jive turkey."

 

[SPF]

09/08/2019 sunday worship and the preachers sermon is Are you ready.

After scripture reading from the niv the preacher went up on stage holding an niv bible while i was holding fast my 1769 kjv bible.
I had already pointed out the unsound verses of the niv to the eldership and deacons many times and had seen more than a few preachers that used niv bibles that were turned unto speaking fables.
2 tim 4:3-4
2 Timothy 4:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Posting a link to the video were an preacher is turned to the fable whinnie the poo at 11:15 in the video.
I pray that all churches use the recieved text bibles to edify the body of Christ

This cut and past video is from service 09-08-2019 and at 11:15 edifing the body of Christ with winnie the poo...

Are you Ready is the name of the sermon.

Humbly, can you clarify your position for me? Are you of the opinion that the English, KJV translation is just as inspired by God as the original manuscripts? Are you of the opinion that the only English translation that English readers should read is the KJV?

If so, can you clarify which KJV? Because the KJV you're quoting isn't even the original KJV. Can I trust all new editions of the KJV as they come out as equally inspired by the Holy Spirit as the original manuscripts in their original language?

Are you aware of the terms "Dynamic Equivalence" and "Formal Equivalence" ? If not, I will find it hard to take you seriously when discussing the differences between translations.

Finally, can you clarify why it is you believe the KJV to be superior to other word for word, literal translations? Are you aware of the original texts that the KJV is based upon compared to say the NASB or ESV?

 

[Hammster]

Oh..... I see, turkey, like "jive turkey."

 

[Monksailor]

OK, I never followed WKRP too closely. Les was a good character to entertain and so was another and surely, Loni, the gold-digger, was certainly a beautiful rose to partake of for a moment, even though I favor brunettes, but the plots were just, well...., they couldn't hold my attention.

 

[Humbly]

I DO believe that Baptism is prescribed for all believers as it is a sacrament which helps to indoctrinate one into the group, such as an initiation, for the purposes of accountability, conviction/motivation, to help induce the feeling of family, in proselytizing the faith, and such. Mark 16:16 says, "16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Baptism here is clearly shown NOT to be a condition of salvation for if it were we would read AFTER the semi-colon baptism included. It is not. Only "believeth not" is given relative to one's being saved or not.

That having been said, if one wants to believe that baptism is a condition of salvation, it is not my place to judge as there are other verses which do seem to give basis for this understanding like Acts 2:38. If one thinks that being baptized is a condition of salvation it doesn't invalidate their salvation at all and that is not what I was thinking. I just hope that one's performance of an exterior sacrament is also accompanied with internal conviction, a penitent heart, and faith in Jesus's redeeming blood. My concern is that there ARE saved individuals who have not yet practiced baptism/been obedient to the call to do so and this position of the preacher would imply that he (his denomination) are invalidating/judging another's lack of obedience as invalidating their salvation. That is a very serious judgement call and not allowed here on CF, if I am not mistaken.

One man's fables could be another man's VALID doctrine of relationship with our Lord and Savior. READ the whole of Romans 14 and the first paragraph of ch 15 if you think I am wrong.

And I apologize for countering the label of fables. That preacher and his denomination are entitled to their belief in their way to God as long as they can clearly find scripture to give it basis and I concede that such exists. I make similar concessions across the board for all believers in and followers of Christ. None of of us are perfect, we all fail to even satisfy our own correct understanding of God's Word. Who are we to judge another man's servant. As far as any judgments they may be making relative to another's validity of salvation, I hope that they will come to removing the log from their eye as I have in years past and learn to practice the Spirit of Romans 14 in relating to their brothers and sisters in Christ.[/QUOTE

When the spirit turns you to fables because of unsound doctrine i cant make this any clearer.
Acts 2:38 belive repent and be babtised for the remission of your sins and receive the gift of the holy ghost.
Do doers of the word not hearers only decieving yourselves.
Debateing what verses you choose to obey and not obey is your own penknife religion rather than living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
We will all give an account for every idle word on the day of judgment.

 

[renniks]

I like Winnie the Pooh. I don't see what using a quote from Winnie has to do with anything. God has taught me stuff from all kinds of sources, movies, books etc. As long as it doesn't contradict his word...I did not watch the whole thing, but the man seems to know the word.

 

[Hammster]

I like Winnie the Pooh. I don't see what using a quote from Winnie has to do with anything. God has taught me stuff from all kinds of sources, movies, books etc. As long as it doesn't contradict his word...I did not watch the whole thing, but the man seems to know the word.

Though the OP doesn’t explain why, Pooh somehow shows that the NIV is unsound doctrine.

 

[Monksailor]

Humbly, You were not clear in what you said but rather cryptic. It appears that you are unwilling to say what you mean. Is that because of a guilty conscience or that the Holy Spirit is convicting you? Do you realize how illogical and even irrational you make your position to appear by citing my post to support your position??? You CLEARLY have not read Romans 14 and first paragraph of Romans 15 which I cited as my position. You really should. It exposes the fallacy of using that post to support your position. ALL of my quotes from God's Word to you which contradict your PERSONAL position are from the KJV. Which one(s) are you saying are fables???

 

[renniks]

Though the OP doesn’t explain why, Pooh somehow shows that the NIV is unsound doctrine.

Yes, well you never can trust little bears to be KJV only. Pooh probably has a Message Bible under his honey pots.

 

[Monksailor]

Yes, well you never can trust little bears to be KJV only. Pooh probably has a Message Bible under his honey pots.

Be nice. I know Humbly and his type can be quite offensive but he is a new member, he is still growing as all of us (I hope,) he highly regards our Lord's Words, and he is here on a social network hopefully engaged in a TWO-way discussion of HUMBLE sef-reflection and examination in regards to God's Word.

 

[Monksailor]

Humbly, You have been given MANY good questions already regarding your position in YOUR original post: NIV-fables-pooh. If you want to have any credit attributed to your position you need to answer all of these questions otherwise you PROVE your position is just a personal one and not God's. Show us through God's Holy Word your point.

As others have very clearly shown the NIV has the potential and I believe IS more accurate than the KJV. The burden of proof for you is to show us in God's Word why the KJV is exclusively a NON-FABLE or the only credible one. Remember, the verse about fables is dated over 1,000 yrs BEFORE the KJV came into being. How do you determine that one version is a fable and another not when both were written so long after the original texts, esp considering that the one (NIV) you claim to be a fable had the advantage of the discovery and knowledge gained from the Dead Sea scrolls and many other original manuscripts and the ability and facilitation of world-wide collaboration of world renowned experts on the subject over the much, much limited KJV?

 

[Hank77]

And me. I thought he was going to quote some comparing verses to prove his point. Frankly I think that any differences in the NIV are just cosmetic, and only there for those who want to be contentious about trifles to behave like "rent-a-crowd" protesters who see their mission is to protest about anything just to protest for the sake of it.

KJV Only people. They condemn all other translations and "cling" to their KJV.

 

[A Realist]

KJV-only Cultists.....gotta love 'em!!

 

[Monksailor]

KJV Only people. They condemn all other translations and "cling" to their KJV.

But they Love the Lord and His Word, like us. Maybe they were raised in childhood memorizing and reading its quasi- poetic (Shakespearean-like) prose or have been convinced that since it is the most popular of older English texts it is closer in time and therefore accuracy to the original, however erroneous, or whatever; I think that they embrace the KJV out of love and honor to our identical Lord and Savior. If they judge us for embracing another version we should respectfully in love try to explain or question them to help them. NONE of us, or at least more than 9 out of 10, do not fluently read the language of the original texts of God's Word and must ALL trust the interpreters of whatever version we use to have diligently endeavored to interpret/transpose with accuracy as much as possible at the time of writing. Romans ch 14 informs us that Unity of Spirit does not equate to uniformity of understanding or behavior. God looks at our intent and motives. We need to respect and not judge another's way of worshiping our Lord, including what version they use of God's Word. Most versions, if not all, were derived from someone's best, diligent, and most likely Holy Spirit empowered attempts. If we want our version respected, should we not respect another's? Like I said, most if not all, were engaged upon in the power and enlightenment of the the Holy Spirit as to what the Holy Scriptures were saying at the time of the interpretation. The scriptures are "active" and "living." They need not say the identical thing; version to version. They do need to agree in context but not so much in detail in most cases.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am sorry but most of that was incomprehensible to me.

And me.
But I'm willing to bet that a summary would be, "the KJV is the best thing since before sliced bread; anything that differs from this translation is clearly wrong."

 

[paul1149]

Humbly, you cared enough about this topic to start a highly opinionated thread, but not to answer simple direct questions?

Here's something else for you to ponder. I doubt you'll respond, but for the record, observe what Paul does here:

For in Him we live and move and have our being - as also some of your own poets have said, 'for we are also His offspring.' -Acts 17:28​

Paul is quoting a heathen poet and using his words to advance the Gospel. In other words, he's employing fables. How does that square with your sensitivities?

 

[JackRT]

KJV-only Cultists.....gotta love 'em!!

Yep, good old King James. He was James VI of Scotland but in order to become King of England he was forced to convert from Roman Catholicism to Church of England. When he took the throne the joke on the streets and in the public houses was "First we had King Elizabeth and now we have Queen James."