Featured The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation

Hi Y!, yes the NIV is useless as a study bible. It does not provide a translation that reflects what the inspired message is in verse after verse, as I have shown. Stick with the NASB95, NKJV, WEB, and LEB for your primary study bible and use the NIV, NET, HCSB, KJV, and others for comparison. Agenda driven translations (like the NWT, and the Purified Translation) flood the body of Christ with false theology.

 

The subject is the NIV omission, and that is a proven fact. No matter how hard you try to hide the truth, it just keeps shining through.
[Edit]

The NIV omits words and phrases, adds words and phrases, and alters the meaning of words and phrases. This is a proven fact. Verse after verse in the NIV has been shown to garble the inspired message.

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."

Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, and 16 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.

 

The subject is Van's [Edit] regarding the NIV.

Van's mission is to constantly demean worthy translations of God's Word. [Edit]

Though Van is entirely unqualified to issue edits to his non-existing "folks" he continues on his snip path.

Post after post demonstrates his snip agenda. [Edit]

 

Mr Rippon again posted insult after insult directed at me personally. I have shown that the NIV is a flawed, and at times agenda driven, translation. Everyone should realize commentaries are useful, but they are not the inspired word of God. Use the LEB or NASB and then for comparison, look at the NET or HCSB or NIV and other translations. If you like the Byzantine text, use the NKJV and WEB, and compare with the KJV and other translations.

 

looks likes the difference between looking/beholding, and

He seems to be just suggesting that for serious studies, use a more formal translation, correct?

 

Are you saying that the Niv is not a valid translatiojn, or that it should not be used to serious study the Bible, as that should be for a more formal version?

 

Hi Y1, I am saying what I said, why not quote me then comment I have shown that the NIV is a flawed, and at times an agenda driven, translation. Everyone should realize commentaries are useful, but they are not the inspired word of God. Use the LEB or NASB and then for comparison, look at the NET or HCSB or NIV and other translations. If you like the Byzantine text, use the NKJV and WEB, and compare with the KJV and other translations.

 

It seems that you are saying that the Niv and those others are not the word of God though!

 

And it seems you are saying it is ok to misrepresent others. Just quote me and comment.

 

[Edit]

[Edit] [Edit] translations such as the NIV misrepresent the Word of God in verse after verse, as I have documented. It omits words, parts of words, and phrases, ditto for adds, and it alters the message by using other than the best translation choices.

Does Ephesians 2:3 really say deserving of wrath. Are deserving and children synonyms? This verse then is yet another example from the list where agenda driven translation is on display. Stick to the LEB or NASB and compare with the NET, HCSB, and NIV.

 

Stop right there [Edit]. It is nothing of the sort [Edit].

When you repeat [Edit]it does not help your [Edit] cause --it just compounds [Edit].

Who follows your "advice" Van? Your "folks" are a figment of your imagination.

If I recall correctly, you said some rather nasty things about the LEB. [Edit].

In addition, I have proven over and over again the close connection the NIV has with the HCSB --moreso with the CSB.
The NET and NIV are as close as two translations can get without being in the same family.

 

[Edit] Then the false narrative, claiming something happened in the unreferenced past. Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes other people and other events is naive.

But the subject will not change.

Does Ephesians 2:3 really say deserving of wrath. Are deserving and children synonyms? This NIV translation then is yet another example from the list where agenda driven translations on display. Stick to the LEB or NASB and compare with the NET, HCSB, and NIV.

 

Does the NET match the NIV in all the listed verses? Nope. See John 21:5 or Acts 13:50 or Ephesians 2:3 or Colossians 1:28 and on and on. Yes both deviate from the actual text some of the time, but the clear winner of maximum deviation based on this list is the NIV. That is why they shou8ld not be used as your primary study bible but only for comparison purposes.

 

It is very difficult to characterize less than the best translations [Edit].

The NIV translation has been shown to omit words, parts of words, and phrases. The NIV has been shown to add words and phrases. The NIV has been shown to translate some words with less than the best choices.

Stick to the LEB or NASB and compare with the NET, HCSB, and NIV.

 

The reason why they omit them though is NOT due to the "liberal bias" of the translators, as all of them agree with the Bible as infallible and inspired, but due to mainly their Greek text sources and their philisophy of translation....

 

He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. (Not Identified Version) Colossians 1:28

We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. (NASB)

As unqualified as you may be, can you identify the omission? Everyone appears two times in the first version and every man appears three times in the NASB. Guess how many times the Greek words for "every" and "human" appear in the verse?

 

Is there any change in meaning between the two translations? Of course not.

everyone, everyone :NIV, ISV, HCSB, CSB, GW
All people, every person : NET
Every person, each one : CEB

 

I haven't seen a mention of the Purified version in any posts in several pages. It seems folks have a difficult time staying on topic here.