Featured Bibles that are deliberately bad?

Recently, in other thread, the meaning of "adoption" was discussed, with some of us saying that adoption refers to the future redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:23) and others saying "adoption also refers to becoming a member of God's family" thus all born anew believers have already been adopted. This second view is Calvinistic because it supports the mistaken premise that Ephesians 1:5 refers to our initial salvation as adoption, rather than our future redemption of our bodies.

The ESV did not corrupt Romans 8:15, but both the NIV and NLT did slip in more Calvinistic corruption.

Here is how the NIV mangled the text: "the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship." Note the adoption has taken place in the past, and the adoption made the person into a son. Pure twaddle
But wait folks, there is more.

The NLT is even more blatant: "you received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children."

And the beat goes on... the ESV, NIV and NLT are deliberately bad translations, tools of Calvinism.

 

Yes,the Lord had appointed,ordained,destined,marked out the Gentiles for eternal life and because of that decree they believed. I know some folks like to turn this around,nevertheless people believe because of election. Belief is a fruit of the decree.

God gave them the grace to believe. Everyone enrolled for eternal life believed. They came to faith in Christ because of their pre-ordination. Everyone who comes to Christ comes as a result of the Father's drawing. And the Holy Spirit makes the Gospel call effective.

Acts 13:48 is a very Calvinistic verse and it shows in the majority of English Bible translations. (The old Living Bible is an exception.)

 

So Van...we are back to square one. Just about every English version would be viewed as having a "Calvinistic bias" based on your reasoning. Please tell me why the NET Bible,HCSB and NKJV escape your condemnation in the plethora of passages which go hand-in-hand with "Calvinistic dogma."

 

And your ceditials to be even able to rightfully judged what theychose to translate verses as was biased and wrong are?

 

what Van has to deal with is that in MOST passages, the 1984 Niv and the 1977 nasb seem to agree more often than to disagree!

 

Folks, note it is the Calvinists who object to pointing out the bias in the NIV, NLT and ESV. But, rather than addess the corrupted verses, they question my qualifications. Ask yourselves why they use logical fallacies to counter truth?

Note the clever wording, God gave them the "grace" to believe, not God gave them the "Irresistible Grace" to believe. It is a statement that leaves the truth in shadow. In Acts 13:48, the Greek word translated correctly as "appointed" means to make an arrangement by mutual consent. Thus they agreed with the gospel requirements, as presented by Paul, and therefore were appointed to eternal life.

Next, Rippon posts that the taint of Calvinism can be found in various verses. Complete nonsense. Calvinism cannot be found in scripture, it must be poured in via mistranslation and mistaken understanding.

So we are indeed back to square one, the NIV, NLT and ESV have been shown to have several corrupted verses, with the corruptions in favor of Calvinist interpretation.

 

On the contrary,I want to know what verses have what you might call a 'Calvinistic spin' in the above translations while the NET Bible,NKJV,NASB, HCSB and others remain Reformed-free in their renderings.

Show us these alleged "corrupted verses" please.

Well,what are your qualifications anyway?

Why do you consider it clever wording? Why do you think I have to use the term "irrisistable grace" when that was an early 20th term which has caused a great deal of confusion,as has the term "limited atonement."

The decree i.e. the appointment was made prior to their belief. Where do you get your theory of "arrangement by mutual consent" from Van? Did you make it up --or did you derive it from some scholarly tome?

Pardon me Van. As I said John 6,10 and 17 have that dreaded Calvinism even in your favorite translations. Let's start with those.

You have somehow convinced yourself that you have found corruption. Yet your evidence is found wanting.

So if I would show you that there are way more than 6 (your maginot-line)instances of Calvinism in the HCSB would you be willing to call it a bad translation?

 

Denial is the stock and trade of those pushing the mistaken views of Calvinism. Rippon says show us the verses after I have posted and discussed in detail the biased and corrupted translations of 4 verses in the NLT, NIV, and ESV.

And again they question my qualifications, rather than address the biblical translations of the four verses. Evasion

Next, we get a Calvinist who does not use "irresistible grace?"

As for Acts 13:48, the Calvinist asks me to quote the Lexicon, so he can say the lexiconal meaning does not apply. Been there, done that.

To repeat, there are no Calvinist verses in Scripture. Saying they are, but not listing one or two, beyond the already discussed Acts 13:48, simply demonstrates an argument from assertion rather than from evidence.

 

You have not given ANY proof that the translators meant to have a calvinist bent on their versions, as the NIV was translated by a broad team of reformed/baptists/nazarenes etc, and not all of those on Nlt/esv were all carding carrying 5 pointers either!

And do remember Archangel took you to task for how you totally missed the concept of individual election in Ephesians also!

And all versions have some cal/arm renderings, as there are passages in bible where can transllate in a legitimate fashion at times more than just 1 way!

Think that your anti cal glasses need to be taken off, then come to the scriptures again!

 

Yeshua1 simply posts slanderous falsehoods about past unreferenced threads.

I have provided 3 or 4 verses of corrupted text in each of Calvinist translations, the NIV, the NLT and the ESV.

Ask yourself folks, how many translations render "apo" as before?

How many translations render "for salvation" as "to be saved?"

How many translations refer to "adoption" as something that has occurred.

Anyone can say the NASB, the NET, the HCSB and the NKJV have Calvinist corruptions, but note folks, they provide no verse where the text has been corrupted.

 

I say again, do you have th credials to take to task those translators for their renderings?

Did they chose to ignore what is=t should be for what they wanted it to state?

are they then bad versions, all corrupted, leading christians astray if you used any of them?

 

Repeating the logical fallacy of questioning a persons qualifications, rather than addressing the argument is simply twaddle.

I provided three or four corrupted verses, why not try to show they are not corrupted.

And again, they run from posting verses from any of these - NASB, NKJV, HCSB and NET - where the scripture has been corrupted.

 

Van, your whole premise is flawed. (And kind of silly too -confidentially).

I doubt that many non-Calvinists other than yourself is complaining that the NIV, ESV and NLT are suffering from "Calvinistic corruptions."

 

Please answer his questions Van.

 

Van, please respond to the above (and without using twaddle or some such word as your full reply).

 

do yuo know WHY they chose to render into English that way, instead of just reverting to "calvinist bias?"

And are they corrupt throughout entire bible, or just those you deem "wrong?"

 

I have posted the verses of Calvinist corruption, and the Calvinists ask me to post them. See a pattern of personal incredulity. These folks seem to know how to insult, and disparage, but to study scripture and show themselves approved, it sure doesn't seem so.

The NIV, ESV and NLT are deliberately bad, slipping in corruptions to support the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism.

 

You continually make the same absurd assertion,seemingly thinking that if you repeat the silly claim it will therefore be true.

What other folks (scholars in particular) have the same idea as you? Or did you arrive at your destination all by yourself? ;-)

 

Hi Rippon, me thinks you are a Calvinist, and therefore like the Calvinist translations, i.e. NIV, ESV and NLT.

Now what keeps you from demonstrating the verses I demonstrated were Calvinist corruptions are not corruptions. Apo means out of or from or since or after. Do you claim Apo means before, every one of the lexicons got it wrong? Now that would indeed be a silly claim.

So to name a few scholars, lets see, the translators of the NASB, NET, HCSB, NKJV, and the WEB.

 

ALL of them can be shown to somewhere have some vergs translated "bogus' by your anti cal standards though!

I have my 1977 nasb/1984 niv, seem to agree pretty much on most areas, so both of them corrupted cal versions?

And what are your creditials to determine what is a valid or bad rendering in a translation then?