In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[Rippon]

More of the same "you this, you that, you you you." Changing the subject will not alter the evidence.

Bobbin' and weavin' is not honorable Van. You avoid specifics like the plague.

I can't very well address your falsehoods without using the pronoun you.

Folks,

You have no folks Van. You're an orphan as far as group support goes.

The majority of well accepted translations differ with the NIV on these verses.

A handful does not = a majority.

you are the final arbitrators, just read the evidence in light of 2 Corinthians 2:17.

I have asked you before? What in the world are you driving at? You are prefectly oblique.

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."

Where is this supported by the majority of translations as you falsely claim?

2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."

"Should" is not the operative word.

3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."

In your opinion --not should.

4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."

The majority has not so rendered it such.

5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."

Not one version has your rendering.

6) Rev. 13:8 before should read "from"

Just to please you?

7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."

No, it should not. The majority is not with you.

 

[Rippon]

8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."
​

I have already acknowledged that revealed or manifested in the flesh may be better.

9) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations,

Well then. You don't have anything against the NIV here.

what the text actually says is "And out of His abundance we all also obtained grace against grace."

Most translations don't have that wording.

10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"

Most translations do not have therefore or so here.

11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"
Most translations don't have that wording.

12) Colossians 1:28 the omission of "every man" (or every person) reduces the force of the teaching that the gospel is understandable to every person.

The NIV, in common with several other versions does not have everyone three times --just twice. It takes nothing away from the meaning of the verse.

Your rationale is supported by absolutely nobody.

13) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read "propitiatory shelter."

That is not in any translation.

14) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."

No, it should not. Even some of your favs agree with the NIV here.

15) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."

No, it should not. As I said before, even some of your favs agree with the NIV here.

16) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read "offering."

The word offering can just as easily be translated as sacrifice with absolutely no change in the meaning of the passage.

You fail Van. Your thesis that the "majority" of translations disagree with the NIV is false. And on the occasions when the majority of versions differ with the NIV it does not need to be automatically concluded that the NIV has 'mistranslated' anything. The Bible scholars on the NIV are quite accomplished and need not accept your decisions. You have no room to talk at all.

 

[Van]

Good grief, more denial of the obvious. More violation of the rule to not address the poster. More absurdity.

Folks, the evidence is in, many places actual words or parts of words have been omitted, many places words have been translated as if they were other words, and in many places words have been added but not italicized, so the reader is unaware that the text has been altered. The majority of well accepted translations differ with the NIV on these verses. No amount of obfuscation, slander, and subject change will alter the evidence. Folks, you are the final arbitrators, just read the evidence in light of 2 Corinthians 2:17.

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."
2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."
3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."
4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."
5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."
6) Rev. 13:8 before should read "from"
7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."
8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."
9) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations, what the text actually says is "And out of His abundance we all also obtained grace against grace."
10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"
11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"
12) Colossians 1:28 the omission of "every man" (or every person) reduces the force of the teaching that the gospel is understandable to every person.
13) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read "propitiatory shelter."
14) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
15) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
16) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read "offering."​

 

[Rippon]

You have failed to support your thesis 10 out of 16 times. No matter how much you repeat your mantra --it still remains a big falsehood.

 

[Van]

More rule violation posts, starting with you this and you that. Folks, as you compare the NIV rendering with others, count how many disagree. How many other versions say Jesus was indignant? How many say deserving of wrath? How many say to be saved? The renderings found at these verses in the NIV are not just out in left field, they are in the cheap seats.

 

[robustheologian]

I finally get it. When one cannot support his position he just covers his ears and yell "rule violations" and then continues with the logical fallacy of repeated assertion. I see now.

 

[Rippon]

I finally get it. When one cannot support his position he just covers his ears and yell "rule violations" and then continues with the logical fallacy of repeated assertion. I see now.

He's like a petulant little child insisting he's right despite all evidence to the contrary. Ten of his preferences do not occur in the majority of translations. Three are in no versions --he just made them up and stubbornly says that his rendering "should" be the standard.

He makes "conclusions" that no one else supports. His rationale for particular renderings is off the rails.

If he would submit his "findings" to an anti-NIV committee he'd be thrown out by his ear.

In short, his spam amounts to a pout.

 

[Van]

Hi RBT, too bad I did not see any on topic comments. Just disparagement. But no matter how often I am slandered the evidence remains. A majority of well accepted translations differ from the mistranslations found in the 16 verses. Folks, notice little effort has been made to defend the NIV mistakes.

Do we find moved with anger in major translations? Yes
Do we find children of wrath in major translations? Yes
Do we find for salvation in major translations? Yes
Do we find love for mankind in major translations? Yes
Do we find from the foundation in major translations? Yes
Do we find be with all in major translations? Yes
Do we find revealed in the flesh in major translations? Yes
Do we find therefore in major translations? Yes
Do we find a three-pete of every man (or every person) in major translations? Yes
Do we find propitiation in major translations? Yes
And do we find propitiation again in major translations? Yes
Do we find offering in major translations? Yes

Rather than 10 misses, we have 12 hits.

But wait, there is more.

Many translations do not include "to be" or put it in italics at James 2:5. "To be" in not in the actual text.
So 13 hits.

Many translations say something other than "idle" which is not in the text at 2 Thess. 3:6.
So 14 hits.

At Romans 3:25, most translation do not read sacrifice of atonement, those words are not in the text.
So 15 hits.

And at John 1:16 no translation I found has "grace in place of grace already given." Certainly not what the text says.
So 16 out of 16 hits.

 

[Rippon]

Many translations do not include "to be" or put it in italics at James 2:5.

On the contrary, just about every translation has to be in the text. The ISV and GW have to become.

Van's standard, that he has insisted should be in the text, is : "Yet rich in faith." Not a single version has that rendering.

Many translations say something other than "idle" which is not in the text at 2 Thess. 3:6.

Aside from the NIV, the NLT has idle. The ESV,NRSV,ISV and Goodspeed have idleness. The BLB has idly. The NET note is helpful here:"The particular violation Paul has in mind is idleness (as described in vv. 8-11), so this could be translated to reflect that."

At Romans 3:25, most translations do not read sacrifice of atonement, those words are not in the text.

The NIV,BSB,AMP, EXB and NRSV all have : sacrifice of atonement. Mounce and WEB have : atoning sacrifice.

And at John 1:16 no translation I found has "grace in place of grace already given."

No, you are mistaken. The NAB has grace in place of grace.

The NET reads : one gracious gift after another. So the same Van-claim can be made:" No translation has this reading." So what? There is no standard phraselogy for this verse among English translations. Don't try to push your nonsense to anyone with eyes that see.

 

[Rippon]

Do we find moved with anger in major translations? Yes

This deals with Mark 1:41. In only one :the NIrV: "Jesus became angry." I agree with that rendering. But you are simply wrong to say it is in major translations.

Do we find children of wrath in major translations? Yes

Indeed, many translations have "children of wrath" in Ephesians 2:3. But at least five others differ, along with the NIV.
NLT : we were by nature subject to God's anger.
GW : we deserved God's anger
Weymouth : deserving of anger
ISV : destined for wrath

Do we find for salvation in major translations? Yes

This deals with 2 Thess. 2:13. Most translations have "for salvation." but others...
EXB : you are saved
ESV,BSB, GW, CEV : to be saved

Do we find love for mankind in major translations? Yes

This refers to Titus 3:4. In the NLT, Mounce, CEB, and NRSV there is no mention of mankind or humanity. Way back in post 23 ITL pointed you to the context of 3:3-3:5. He said you were nit picking and making a mountain out of a mole hill. I agree with him concerning you.

Do we find from the foundation in major translations? Yes

This deals with Rev. 13:8. The NIV has "from" --so what? Using expressions such as :"before the foundation of the world" and "before the creation of the world" by the ESV and GW are also acceptable renderings.

 

[Van]

1) Does just about every translation have "to be"? What about the good old KJV and YLT. Or others using italics like the NKJV, NASB, and LEB? So the claim "just about every translation has "to be" is yet another misstatement.
2) Is the only translation with "moved to anger" the NirV? Nope A few others use the variant such as the LEB. Miss number 2.
3) The NIV's addition of "already given" is pure speculation with almost no support literally or idiomatically. The idiomatic construction grace against grace is similar to evil against evil. The idea is if you return evil for evil, what you get in return is a flow of evil. Thus some commentators think grace against grace might refer to a perpetual flow of grace from God's abundance of grace. In any event the idea that one grace is removed when another is added is hogwash, the "grace in place of grace already given" being yet another mistranslation.

 

[Rippon]

1) Does just about every translation have "to be"? What about the good old KJV and YLT. Or others using italics like the NKJV, NASB, and LEB? So the claim "just about every translation has "to be" is yet another misstatement.

Hey, on Bible Gateway about 60 versions are listed. At least 30 or so of the more prominent ones have to be, you just have to live with the fact.

2) Is the only translation with "moved to anger" the NirV? Nope A few others use the variant such as the LEB.

So a grand total of two versions. That's rather weak there Van. Under normal circumstances I am sure you wouldn't even regard the NIrV as a 'major translation.'

At any rate, though I favor the variant rather than the majority reading --you have not mustered enough support to make your oft-repeated claim that many major translations have your professed "should have' assertion.

3) The NIV's addition of "already given" is pure speculation with no support literally or idiomatically.

You are wrong as usual Van. the NET note for this passage has :"love (grace) under the New Covenant in place of love (grace) under the Sinai Covenant, thus replacement." It is one of three options for translation in this verse.

 

[Rippon]

In the final analysis, one verse, and one verse only, is worthy of correction --and that is 1 Tim. 3:16 as it is rendered in the NIV. The rest of his 15 protestations collapse. For all of Van's noise and bluster, he has not proven anything but that he has a highly inflated opinion of himself.

 

[Van]

More personal disparagement, more assertion devoid of evidence, more bluster and obfuscation.

A majority Of the translations that have the "moved with anger" variant either in the main text or footnoted translate the variant as becoming angry or moved to anger.

When you include the versions that do not have "to be" and those that put the addition in italics the count exceeds 10. So the "just about every" assertion was misinformation.

And finally the NET translates John 1:16 as "one gracious gift after another." This is also not how the text reads (grace against grace) but is consistent with the perpetual flow of grace possible idiomatic meaning. The "replacement" theory is dismissed in the NET footnote as not the most commonly held view for obvious reasons, its hogwash.

 

[Rippon]

A majority Of the translations that have the "moved with anger" variant either in the main text or footnoted translate the variant as becoming angry or moved to anger.

Boy are you ever desperate. What counts is what is in the text. There are just two translations that have the variant in the text. Two Van --just two. You apply different scales --different criteria according to what suits you. You operate with a lack of honesty.

When you include the versions that do not have "to be" and those that put the addition in italics the count exceeds 10.

Again, what counts is what is in the text. When 30 or more versions do not have your opinion in the text --you lose according to the thesis you started out with.

And finally the NET translates John 1:16 as "one gracious gift after another." The "replacement" theory is dismissed in the NET footnote as not the most commonly held view

Yes, the NET note said it is not the most common view

for obvious reasons, its [sic]hogwash.

The NET note said no such thing --only your sick and twisted conclusion.

 

[Van]

More you this, and you that efforts to change the subject from the mistranslation verses.

Folks, the evidence is in, many places actual words or parts of words have been omitted, many places words have been translated as if they were other words, and in many places words have been added but not italicized, so the reader is unaware that the text has been altered. The majority of well accepted translations differ with the NIV on these verses. No amount of obfuscation, slander, and subject change will alter the evidence. Folks, you are the final arbitrators, just read the evidence in light of 2 Corinthians 2:17.

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."
2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."
3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."
4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."
5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."
6) Rev. 13:8 before should read "from"
7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."
8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."
9) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations, what the text actually says is "And out of His abundance we all also obtained grace against grace."
10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"
11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"
12) Colossians 1:28 the omission of "every man" (or every person) reduces the force of the teaching that the gospel is understandable to every person.
13) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read "propitiatory shelter."
14) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
15) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
16) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read "offering."​

 

[Van]

Lets consider Acts 13:50. Here the NIV reads "But the Jewish leaders incited...." Now the insertion of "leaders" into the text may provide the correct interpretation, but when words are added for clarification they should be italicized so the read knows the text has been altered. Many other translations, nearly all simply translate the text as inspired by God, i.e. but the Jews incited.... In several verses the NIV adds to the text to make clear that not all Jews were associated with whatever negative action is in view. So political correctness (not fueling antisemitism) is on display rather than accuracy or transparency.

 

[Van]

Lets consider another example of political correctness trumping accuracy. 1 Corinthians 16:13 reads in the NIV, "13 Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous be strong." The Greek word translated as be courageous" actually means "act like men" or "be manly." And there is plenty of evidence that the idea behind the phrase is to be brave or courageous. But translations that remove one word and insert another without so much as a footnote are questionable to be kind.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Acts 13:50 : the ISV and CEV both have "the Jewish leaders."

The ESV footnote says:"Greek Ioudaioi probably refers here to Jewish religious leaders, and others under their influence at the time."

D.A. Carson, in his The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translations has a lengthy footnote. I will give a snip:"I would argue robustly that precisely because I am committed to accurate translation, to render Ioudaioi invariably by 'Jews' is to translate poorly, both because there is a great deal of evidence that the referent is often more restricted than that..."

 

[Rippon]

Van's efforts are futile as he stumbles along grasping for straws.

Regarding 1 Cor. 16:13
The NLT,WEB and NAB join with the NIV in rendering it : be courageous;be strong [just different punctuation]
ISV and GW have : be courageous and strong
NET : show courage, be strong
CEB,NKJV : be brave, be strong
CEV : Stay brave and strong
LEB : act courageously, be strong
______________________________________________________________________________
There you have it. Even versions that Van extolls as his favorite translations agree with the NIV here. Van just can't win at the game he's playing.