Featured Does Scripture Need "Fixing?"

No, post #36 sidesteps the fact that a different Greek word is used for indignation. That is why the NIV translates it as indignation or indignant!

 

Mat 20:24

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.

Mat 21:15

But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant.

Mat 26:8

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked.

Mar 10:14

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Mar 10:41

When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John.

Mar 14:4

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume?

Luk 13:14

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

 

Lets see if I can unpack this. Mr. Rippon thinks the NIV should have translated 6 verses where they use indignant, as displeased. This somehow supports translating another Greek word as indignant, when it means angry. OK Fine, gotcha.

Folks, the NIV messed up the translation of the anger variant at Mark 1:41, they said "was indignant" and should have translated it without speculation as moved with anger. This should not be this hard.

 

LOL, the NIV translates consistently one Greek word as indignant, but that is not the word in the anger variant. The Greek word in the anger variant means anger or angry. Then Mr. Rippon seems to suggest there is no difference in meaning between indignant and angry. As I said, LOL

 

Again, according to Mr. Rippon, the NIV should have translated the word meaning indignant as displeased or angry but they didn't. Then he claims a word they translate as angry should be translated as indignant, but they didn't. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Just as the color red should not be translated as blue just because they are both colors, being angry should not be translated as indignant because they both reflect states of mind.

 

No, Logos, it is what is called a rhetorical question. The idea is translators should not alter the message to fix perceived problems. Their actions make the claim, not their pious words. Changing evening had already come to evening was approaching cannot be justified. In that verse, and some of the other 26 examples, the text was changed in an effort to "fix" scripture.

Mistranslation in the NIV
1) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read, "therefore" *
2) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read, "moved with anger." *
3) 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." *
4) John 21:5 friends should read, "children."
5) Acts 13:50 "leaders" should be italicized to indicate an addition to the text.
6) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read, "propitiatory shelter."*
7) 1 Corinthians 16:13 "be courageous" should read, "act like men."
8) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read, "children of wrath."
9) 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.*
10) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read, "for salvation."
11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read, "who leads an undisciplined life" *
12) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read, "revealed in the flesh."*
13) Titus 3:4 love should read, "love for mankind." *
14) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read, "offering."
15) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read, "yet rich in faith."
16) 1 Peter 4:6 those who are now dead should read, "those who are dead."
17) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read, "propitiation." *
18) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read, "propitiation."
19) Rev. 13:8 from the creation should read, "from the foundation."
20) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all."
21) 1 Samuel 15:19 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord." *
22) 1 Samuel 15:20 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord." *
23) 1 Samuel 15:22 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord." *
24) Philemon 1:6 the verse should read as follows: "I pray that your participation in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every blessing that belongs to you in Christ."
25) 1 Corinthians 14:29 should read "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." The NIV added "carefully" and "what is said."
26) Mark 15:42 "evening approached" should read "evening had already come."
27) Matthew 27:57 "evening approached" should read "evening had come."

Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, 16 and 25 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 27 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.
Example 24 documents a translation devoid of meaning, just an array of disconnected phrases.

 

How many of the 27 examples from post #53 would qualify as "conjectural emendations?

 

Why is it folks, that when I ask a question, none of the 5 pointers chooses to answer?

 

Folks, more evasion, more insults, and no answers. Lets consider just one, Acts 13:50 where leaders was inserted to "correct" the possible interpretation that each and every Jew opposed the Paul and Barnabas.
If we apply this metric to the KJV in Revelation, where text was added to fix a perceived problem, why not apply the same metric to the NIV.