Featured LEB

Thanks Deacon, I am sure if I could read the link, it would provide info. But the pages come out sideways on my computer and I have no idea how to change them so they read left to right.

 

No, you did not. You just asserted your novel renderings as the way it "should read."

You are the one to supply corroborative information. You are the one that needs to support your unique translations.
It's up to you to give evidence that your special renderings have the backing of expository works.

 

Here is what I said about the NIV:Mistranslation in the NIV

Note that I presented faults with the NIV, not the LEB. Then note every single verse listed in Mr. Rippon's post addressing what I supposedly said about the LEB, is actually found in posts addressing the NIV.

Isaiah 12:3 - the LEB does not omit the conjunction
Mark 1:41 - the LEB uses angry, but without a footnote.
Romans 3:25 the LEB does not use sacrifice of atonement
1 Cor. 14:29 the LEB translation is excellent.
1 Cor. 16:13 the LEB does not use "act like men."
2 Thess. 3:6 the LEB uses irresponsibly not idle. Better still would be unruly.
Philemon 1:6 the LEB differs from the NIV
James 2:5 the LEB does put [to be] in brackets.
1 Peter 4:6 the LEB translation does not insert [now].

In summary I did not list these verses from the LEB and I do not find any flaws in several of the ones listed.

 

I was mistaken regarding that particular verse. As your quote demonstrates --you did indeed try to explain the verse.
So I am sorry about that. It was a mistake on my part and not deliberate. So please don't go on a dishonest kick.

There is no discernable difference in meaning between the way the NIV renders this verse and the manner in which the LEB reads.

 

I am not the one posting disinformation, misrepresenting the views of others.

 

Grab a clue. I was demonstrating that your favorite versions --including the LEB, did not render your collection of verses your way. But, in fact there was a lot of agreement between your favs and the NIV.

You were insistent on the word "therefore." The LEB did not use "therefore."

You specifically said it "should read moved with anger." The LEB does not use that form of words.

Neither does it use your desired "propitiatory shelter."

It's just as good as the NIV's rendering with nary a smidgen of difference in meaning.

Yeah, just as the NIV does not use it along with a dozen more. It reads about the same as the NIV.

You're on the losing end of the stick Van. The LEB rendering corresponds more with the NIV reading than you are willing to admit. No version whatsoever matches your required reading.

Every version of many verses in the N.T. differs from other translations. Is that news to you? That's why they are called versions. I did notice that the LEB may have borrowed "of every good thing" from the NIV.

So what? It has "to be" like the NIV and scads of other versions --none of which have your rendering.

Again, so what? You are into minutiae. At least five other versions have "who are now dead." It has no effect at all on the meaning from the translations which have "who are dead." And that includes one of your favs --the NET Bible.

Now what did you prove by citing the above? Answer: That I was right, in each case.

 

Van, in your post # 47 you reposted your list of 24 verses. It's a mystery why you included John 1:16 since you said that the NIV rendering was no more flawed than many other versions." Then you gave your particular "should read" Van-version.

On two attempts, and two only you took a stab, however ineffectually, with :
Acts 13:50 and Col. 1:28. I don't agree with your thinking --but you made a go for it.

Yet for the remaining 21 verses you simply repeated the vain phrase of "It should read" with nothing further said by you. You gave no explanation at all, despite my constant urging for you to do so.

 

LOL Mr. Rippon, you post disinformation, and one fine day the moderators will hold you accountable.

You were demonstrating material false postings are allowed.

The NIV omitted the conjunction, demonstrating they take away (delete) scripture.
As you said, there is no discernible difference between becoming angry and moved to anger.
Mercy seat is not as good as propitiatory shelter, but better than sacrifice of atonement.
The LEB did not add words or alter the meaning.
The LEB should have translated it "acted like men."
The LEB rendering is fine, the NIV's is a mistranslation.
The LEB version is not very good, the NIV version is worse
The LEB shows words added in brackets, whereas the NIV hides the additions.
I explained why adding "now" is agenda driven, look it up.

First you say you were "mistaken" (post #48) then you say you were right (post # 50).

 

An advantage provided by the LEB putting translator additions in [brackets] is you can scrub them when studying the passage, and also consider whether the addition actually alters the message.

 

Please disregard, Deacon, my wife showed me how to flip it.

 

Mark 11:31 - the LEB adds without brackets "What should we say."
1 Corinthians 14:37 - the LEB omits "command" but footnotes the accepted view.
Hebrews 1:3 - the LEB adds "through Him" without brackets.
Hebrews 2:9 - the LEB has "apart from God" rather than "by the grace of God." But footnotes the accepted view.

 

That is your constant refrain for everything I post. But you are a sounding gong.

Nonsense. You have been cornered, and you squeal in response.

Is. 12:3 : Your charge is laughable. I could name at least ten other versions which do not start the verse with a conjunction --including your favs --the HCSB and the NET Bible.

Mark 1:41 : As I have told you repeatedly: indignant is a synonym for angry. The NIrV uses the NIV as its base text. It uses the easier word --angry. It means the same thing. Besides, why do you single out the NIV for using the word "indignant" when the vast majority of translations have something to the effect of :"filled with compassion." You don't make any sense. You rarely do.

Romans 3:25 : The point is --you said "it should read propitiatory shelter" which no translation in existence has. That includes the LEB.

1 Cor. 14:29 : Neither did the NIV ad words or alter the meaning at all. You have a acres of molehills.

1 Cor. 16:13 : So you say. But a sizeable number of translations do not use those words. So why pick on the NIV when many translations are more in line with the NIV/LEB rendering? You make no sense.

2 Thess. 3:6 : LEB : who lives irresponsibly. NIV : who is idle and disruptive.
Who in the world are you to say that the NIV here is a mistranslation?

Philemon 6 : LEB : I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective in the knowledge of every good thing that is in us for Christ.
NIV : I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ.
I dare to say that the NIV rendering is plain with "partnership in the faith" compared with the LEB's weak and unclear "fellowship of your faith."

James 2:5 : Your particular rendering is not found in any translation --period. All English translations have either "to be rich in faith" or "become rich in faith." Your "should read" nonsense has got to go.

1 Peter 4:6 : No, in fact you did not explain why "who are now dead" as opposed to "who are dead" is agenda driven.

In summation, the supposed flaws in the NIV in those nine verses don't add up to a hill of beans.

 

I was mistaken in that I had said that you didn't offer an explanation for your preferred rendering of 1 Cor. 14:29.
I had acknowledged my error in post #48.

In post 50 and 56 I explained why your understanding is defective.

 

And may I add, that the NIV transgressed none of Van's canons with regard to the above four verses.

 

Lets review Mr. Rippon's post # 56.

1) It disparages me personally and contains little if any on topic (referring the LEB) content.
2) In referencing Isaiah 12:3, it defends the NIV omission by saying other versions also omit.
3) In referencing Mark 1:41 it defends the NIV not the absence of a footnote in the LEB.
4) In Romans 3:25 Mr. Rippon makes yet another material false statement as "propitiatory shelter" is found in the CLV.
5) Mr. Rippon said I found fault with the LEB translation of 1 Cor. 14:29 when I said it was excellent.
6) Mr. Rippon defends the PC mistranslation of 1 Cor. 16:13 where "act like men" is replaced. At least this issue is also found in the LEB.
7) Mr. Rippon again defends the NIV's mistranslation of 2 Thess. 3:6, off topic once again.
8) Philemon 1:6 should read, "I pray that your participation in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every blessing that belongs to you in Christ." The LEB falls short of clearly presenting Paul's message.
9) The KJV does not insert [to be] in James 2:5 and neither do several others. So yet another material false statement. But the LEB does identify the addition so it can be scrubbed.
10. Adding now alters the message and is agenda driven, as I explained.

 

Yes, let us. And in so doing I will point out your irrationality.

You call it an omission. You are not the high commissioner in charge of a tribunal,
when at least ten other versions also do not have "therefore" So, it is not a high crime of the NIV in particular to also not have that word in its rendering.

In referencing Mark 1:41 I have demonstrated that the vast majority of translations to not have your preferred wording.
I find it inconsistent on your part to single out the NIV's rendering for using the synonym of "indignant" as if that is somehow defective when most translation have Jesus being "full of compassion."

Your libel is noted. Who ever heard of the CLV before? It's not on Biblegateway for instance. How in the world can you make such an absurd statement charging me with making a "material false statement" when just about everyone here hasn't heard of the CLV before? Oh, that's right, you're Van.

I didn't say that you found fault with the LEB here. You are making things up...again. Quote me where I supposedly said anything critical of the LEB's rendering of that verse.

It's not PC, it's accurate translation. Along with the LEB, your other favs such as the WEB and NET do not have your magic phrase. Then, also, the CEB, CEV, GW, ISV, NAB,NCV and NLT don't opt for "act like men." When a dozen or so translations don't use your preferred choice --maybe you are mistaken.

Van, you say the silliest things. I was not off-topic in the least. I dealt with your absurdity.
LEB : who lives irresponsibly
NIV : who is idle and disruptive
NET Note : "The particular violation Paul has in mind is idleness."
Van, you are wrong...AGAIN.

You merely borrowed in an eclectic fashion from the NIV, HCSB and NET.

"to be" : ASV,CEB, ESV, HCSB,LEB, Mounce, NAB, NET, NKJV,NLT and WEB, among others.
"to become" : GW and ISV.

You have come up dry once more Van.

You are speaking of 1 Peter 4:6. You have not dealt with your accusation whatsoever, that the NIV translation is agenda-driven. Prove it. One of your favorite version is the NET Bible. It has "now dead" --so is the NET also agenda-driven?

Be consistent Van. But if you were consistent you would not be posting 90% of the stuff you have on the BB.

 

Please step in moderators, as this thread is being derailed by off topic personal attacks based on blatant material false statements.

 

You are completely wrong[snipped]. You just can't handle facts.

The LEB is a fine translation --almost as good as the NIV. But, again, when you accuse the NIV of deliberately distorting the Word of God and various other themes of demeaning it --you have gone off the reservation.

Your favorite translations such as the NET, WEB, HCSB and LEB are right there with the NIV in many of your lists of supposed corruptions in the NIV.

You are totally inconsistent in your method of operation.

 

To be specific, you originally stated that it "should read 'yet rich in the faith.' "

Absolutely no translation, including the LEB has your novel twist.