Improvement of the NIV

#13 See #6
#14 See #2
#15 Van favors "who needs no repentance." The ESV is close. The LEB,NASB, NABRE, NRSV and WEB are in the ballpark. It depends on Van whether these translations are acceptable to him. If not he is being very picayune.
#16 : Van wants "be propitious." No translation (again, of my 14) has that. Most have "Be merciful to me a/the sinner."
#17 Van likes "grace after grace" The LEB aligns with that. Most have "grace upon grace."
#18 Van likes "the work God requires of you." The CEB comes closest and Mounce is in the same area. It all depends on how picky the Van Man is.
#19: Van prefers "children" and all of the following agree with him : CEB, ESV, ISV, LEB, NABRE, NET, NRSV and WEB. The rest have "friends" "fellows" etc.
#20 Van prefers "foreign languages" instead of "other tongues." The ISV uses the same term. Some say "other languages" or "different languages." I agree that tongues may be a bit dated.
#21 Van's choice is utter heresy when it comes to his particular slant on Acts 13:48
#22 Van think the word 'leaders' should be italicized in the NIV translation of Acts 13:50. The following have "leading men" NRSV, EHV, MOUNCE, NABRE and CSB.
The NET and some others have "prominent."
The NCV has "leaders of the city."
The WEB has "chief men."
There are no italicizations in all of the above.
#23 In Acts 28:2 Van prefers "love for humankind." Aside from the fact that the word "humankind" is ugly and ungainly, none of the 14 translations has it.
#24 : Van likes "positionally sanctified" for Romans 1:6. Zero translations have his strange choice.
________________________________________________________________________________
Numbers 13 and 14 are cast out. They don't count.
Numbers 16, 21, 22, 23 and 24 get zero points.
Van gets credit for numbers 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20. But it really depends on him. If he is ultra picky he would get less points. But I am ultra beneficent, so I'll give him the benefit (pun intended) of the doubt.
Van scores 50% in this round.

 

#25 No translation has Van's rendering
#26 Van likes "through the faithfulness of Jesus." The footnote in the NIV has this wording. The CEB, ISV and NET have it in the text.
#27 No translation
#28 No translation
#29 No translation
#30 Van' preference is "in view of God's compassions." In the hymn "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" it has the phrase "thy compassions, they fail not." But actually there is no plural form for the word compassion. Many translations have "by the mercies" of God." The word 'mercies' can be found in the dictionary. The NIV has "in view of God's mercy" for Romans 12:1. Suffice it to say, no translation has Van's wording. But his thought is commendable.
#31 Van likes "sibling love" whereas I loathe the expression. No translation has it.
#32 No translation has it.
#33 No translation.
#34 No translation.
#35 No translation.
#36 No translation.
#37 Van likes "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." The LEB has that wording. The CSB has it basically the same with the dreaded addition (per Van) of the word "should' twice. The EHV, ISV and Mounce have the NIV wording.
___________________________________________________________________________-
Van got two credit points out of 13. So his score is 15.38%. He bombed out here.

 

#38 No translation
#39 Van prefers "act like men." The ESV, Mounce and NASB agree with him. However, the CSB,CEB, NCV, NET, ISV, LEB,NABRE, NLT, NRSV and WEB agree with the way the NIV rendered it.
#40 I'll skip this one for now.
#42 Van likes three refrains of 'everyone' or 'every man.' The translations that agree with his take are : LEB, MOUNCE, NABRE, NCV, NRSV and WEB.
The versions that take the approach are : CSB, CEB, EHV, ISV and NET.
#43 No translation
#44 Van prefers 'for salvation.' Nine translations agree with him. the NIV has 'to be saved.' What, I ask, is the practical difference?
#45 Van prefers "who leads an undisciplined life.' The CEB and NET come closest to that way of words.
The NLT, NRSV, ISV, ESV, EHV and CSB agree with the NIV wording of "idle and disruptive."
The NET Note has "The particular violation Paul has in mind is idleness, so this could be translated to reflect this."
#46 Van prefers 'revealed in the flesh." Seven versions agree with him. Three other versions have "manifested in the flesh." The Weymouth has "appeared in the flesh" like the NIV.
#47 Van likes provides salvation. Most translations have "brings salvation." The Norlie has "offering salvation" as the NIV renders it.
#48 Van likes "love for mankind." Seven translations agree with him.
___________________________________________________________________
Van gets credit for six items out of nine. So his score is 66.67%. He's doing better.

 

That's a totally flawed assessment from a deeply flawed wannabe.

That's correct.

 

#49 Van borrowed most of his wording from the NIV with the exception of a few items. Let's just deal with the words "good thing" from the NIV that he objects to. Ten of the 14 translations agree with the NIV in that respect.
#50 Van prefers the wording "since the foundation." Two of the 14 agree with him --the CSB and MOUNCE.
#51 Van thinks Heb. 4:3 should read "offering." Twelve of the 14 translations agree with him. Of course the word 'sacrifice' as the NIV has it, refers to the very same thing.
#52 Van prefers "without compassion." One translation agrees with him --the WEB only. The remainder use the wording "without mercy."
#53 Van thinks the wording of "he could not find the occasion for repentance" is best. One translation agrees with him --the LEB. Five others use the word 'opportunity' instead of 'occasion."
#54 None of the 14 have "yet rich in faith."
#55 No translation has Gehenna.
#56 Van prefers the reading "The Lord is tenderhearted and full of compassion." The NLT comes closest with "full of tenderness and mercy. Otherwise no other translation has Van's choice.
#57 Van likes "kindness of the Lord" as it occurs in 1 Peter 2:3. Only the NASB has that wording.
#58 Van prefers "those who are dead." Four versions agree with him.
#59 Van opts for "Tartarus." No translation has that.
#60 & 61 Van wants to keep the word 'propitiation. The two verses are 1 Jn. 2:2 and 1 Jn. 4:10.
A total of 8 translations retain the word "propitiation." Eleven use the term "atoning sacrifice."
#62 No translation has his preferred wording.
#63 I've already done this.
____________________________________________________________________
Well, well. Three of his references do not have any translation agreeing with him. For his #49 entry he could expect that any translation would not match his long sentence. So with the small phrase that the NIV has and the fact that ten translations have "good thing" I will have to not give him credit here.# 50 has only two translations favoring Van's wording. That's another one that I will not award him. For #52, just one version agrees with him. No point there. For #57, since only one translation agreed with his rendering --no point. For #58, only 4 versions agreed with Van. No point there.
Over all Van will get credit for four out of the twelve entries. So his score here is 33.33%.

 

So out of all the posts I have made here since my debut, Van has scored an average of 39.6775%. He has not said where he has gotten his particular slants when none of the 14 translations have it rendered the way he does. An admission of any source material would be helpful Van. You can cite Bible commentaries, sermons or any 'helps' you have used along the way.
Just making bare assertions of "should read" is rather dishonest and immature on your part. Making those kind of dictums amounts to self aggrandizement and immaturity.
You should humble yourself and say something along the lines of "According to a sermon transcript I read, a particular passage would be more accurately rendered as blah, blah blah." Or, "A commentary that I appreciate has this rendering which I think makes things clear."

 

Are you coming down with Bideism? I just made a post, #125 regarding this repetitious post of yours. Can't you pay attention?

What you need to deal with is my post #127. Don't be bashful.

 

You keep saying that mantra. However, saying false things repeatedly does not turn them into truths.

You could say "I disagree with some of its renderings. Here are my reasons."

The NIV is the Word of God as much as any other Bible version (aside from heretical ones).

you said " item #1 clarifies the meaning of Christ baptizing with the Holy Spirit and fire. This same viewpoint can be found in the Amplified Bible."
The NIV says in the last sentence of Matthew 3:11 :"He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." What is your issue with that?

Your particular rendering of Matthew 3:11 and that of the Amplified Bible are completely different. Why you would cite that as a confirming source is puzzling. You had made the point in your rendering of the words 'all' 'some' and 'others.' Why? On what basis?


Regarding #15, you wanted the wording "who needs no repentance." How exacting is your standard? I had offered the wording of some other translations that did not have your exact wording, but approximated it.

Regarding #7, (Mark 1:41) you steadfastly want "moved with anger." The NIV has "Jesus was indignant." Don't you realize that moved with anger and indignant are synonyms? Jesus took personal offence there.

Since most translations have "filled with compassion" it's a wonder why you would single out the NIV for being flawed here since it aligns more with your view.

I said at the start that I would use those 14 translations to base my evaluation of your items. You have said highly commendable things about the NET, LEB and WEB in the past. I used a variety of translations to make it fair. Even if I reduced the number of translations down to eight, you still would have faired just as poorly.

As it stands, in 26 places, none of the 14 translations agreed with your wording. None. Three times 10 versions went against you. Twice 11 versions went against you. Three times 12 went against you. On four occasions 13 versions went against you.

Aside from the sole mention of one quasi translation, The Amplified --which is actually a multiple choice catalog a not a true translation. You have not mentioned any other version to bolster your claims. I went out of my way, most of the time to specify. So I will ask again, what versions did you use to establish your "should read" mantra? I'm especially curious where you got your heretical spin on Acts 13:48.

Besides, the very point I'm making is that the overwhelming number of Bible translations go against your take on the vast majority of your items. I had noted the exceptions when the opposite happened.

You have to cite your sources to show some modicum of integrity. But those few places when an oddball translation may have your wording would be an anomaly. You can't can't find several versions to back up your claims on the 38 items I spoke of earlier. I challenge you to provide such. Having the support of a singular translation is pointless.

 

The Greek verb peirazo (πειρἀζω) can cause confusion. The glosses for it in my textbook are "I test, I tempt." Now in English we think of testing and tempting as two very different actions. Therefore we have to choose by context which of these two actions are meant when we translate. Jesus was very clearly tempted to sin by Satan (Matt. 4:1). On the other hand, it is best to translate the word as "tested" when Abraham was told to offer his son (Heb. 11:17). We know this by our theology: God never tempts anyone to sin. Again, 2 Cor. 13:5 is very clearly "test," since it is what we are commanded to do to ourselves.

Other verses are not so clear. For example, I can see translating either way in Hebrews 2:18. The translator has to make a choice. He or she can't have it both ways! Revelation 2:10 is also ambiguous.

 

Van, you gave a half-hearted response to my query regarding Matthew 3:11. And you still haven't told me why you have cited the Amplified Version to buttress your cause when your rendering bears no relationship to it.

You provided no reason for your emphasis of the words all, some and others.

You gave no reasoning regarding my questions regarding your take on Luke 15:7; Mark 1:41 and Acts 13:48.

You gave no information about your source material for all of your items except the Barnes note for Matthew 3:11.

Step up to the plate and deliver Van. If not, I'm going to report you to Tom Fitton and get him to submit a FOI Act on you.