How To scripturally Determine the Mind of God on the Modern Practice of Paraphrasing His Words

[Van]

1) I am not aware of any translations that use the wording of "one of a kind" or unique when translating monogenes. If so, cite them.
2) That's your preference, not found in any translation.
3) That's your preference, not found in any translation.
4) Most translations have "for salvation." however, the ESV, NCB, NCV, RSV NJB and Goodspeed (among others), have "to be saved."
5) That's your corrupt preference, and most certainly not found in any Bible translation. Don't make things up.

Personal incredulity if a fallacious argument.
If the most accurate translation choice is not found in any existing translation, does not make it not the most accurate?
The Greek has a noun, salvation, not a verb, saved. Thus the NIV and all others using "to be saved" are not only loose, they are wrong.
The things does not mean all the things from the Spirit, thus once again the NIV has shown to be a loose translation with several agenda driven corrupt translation choices.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The Greek has a noun, salvation, not a verb, saved. Thus the NIV and all others using "to be saved" are not only loose, they are wrong.

So says you, the expert. Grammatical forms are changed on occasion in translation. Nouns are changed to verbs and vice versa.

 

[Van]

Mod Note: Van, you've already cited this post verbatim in post #96. I've deleted this one.

 

[Van]

John 3:16 (interpetive translation)
For God loved fallen humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The things does not mean all the things from the Spirit, thus once again the NIV has shown to be a loose translation with several agenda driven corrupt translation choices.

No other translation on the planet has your heretical spin for 1 Cor. 2:14. The NIV renders that phrase as "the things that come from the Spirit of God." Similar renderings are found in the ESV, NASB, Mounce, LEB and ISV. All the other translations convey the same message. Absolutely none of them have "some of the things that come from the Spirit of God." None of them. You have no credibility Van. You are not allowed, forbidden even. to twist Scripture anyway you like. It's not a wax nose that you can fashion any way you wish.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Just because errors are made in translations, does not make them non-errors.

Some of the NIV's looseness could be removed by:
1) It should translate the same word or phrase meaning consistently.
2) It should minimize translating different source language words or phrases into the same English word or phrase.
3) It should not alter the meaning of the text by deletion or addition or revision of word or phrase meaning.

Specifics:
1) Translate monogenes as unique or one of a kind, not one and only. See John 3:16 for example.
2) Change "world" to "humanity or fallen humanity or humanity's dwelling place" in John's writings. See John 3:16 for an example of "fallen humanity" being the most accurate choice.
3) Change James 2:5 to read "...poor to the world, yet rich in faith...
4) Change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from "to be saved" to "for salvation."
5) Change 1 Corinthians 2:14 from "...the things that come from the Spirit of God..." to "some of things of the Spirit of God."

Spam Alert.

 

[John of Japan]

Me? I know English real good.

COOL!

 

[Van]

No other translation on the planet has your heretical spin for 1 Cor. 2:14. The NIV renders that phrase as "the things that come from the Spirit of God." Similar renderings are found in the ESV, NASB, Mounce, LEB and ISV. All the other translations convey the same message. Absolutely none of them have "some of the things that come from the Spirit of God." None of them. You have no credibility Van. You are not allowed, forbidden even. to twist Scripture anyway you like. It's not a wax nose that you can fashion any way you wish.

Once again the naysayer says taint so, taint so. Ask yourselves, does the text say all things? Nope.

1) Yet another taint so claim, seeking to justify poor due to ambiguity translation, as if the truth is not obvious.
2) When Paul refers to all of something, he uses "pas" so to say Paul meant to say "pas" but didn't is nonsense. Look at 1 Cor. 2:10 where Paul refers to all of a group.
3) I am not twisting scripture, I am pointing to obvious truth.

 

[Van]

Just because errors are made in translations, does not make them non-errors.

Some of the NIV's looseness could be removed by:
1) It should translate the same word or phrase meaning consistently.
2) It should minimize translating different source language words or phrases into the same English word or phrase.
3) It should not alter the meaning of the text by deletion or addition or revision of word or phrase meaning.

Specifics:
1) Translate monogenes as unique or one of a kind, not one and only. See John 3:16 for example.
2) Change "world" to "humanity or fallen humanity or humanity's dwelling place" in John's writings. See John 3:16 for an example of "fallen humanity" being the most accurate choice.
3) Change James 2:5 to read "...poor to the world, yet rich in faith...
4) Change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from "to be saved" to "for salvation."
5) Change 1 Corinthians 2:14 from "...the things that come from the Spirit of God..." to "some of things of the Spirit of God."

John 3:16 (interpretive translation)
For God loved fallen humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

This translation presents just one of the spiritual things revealed to Paul, which he explained in his writings such as Romans 4.
And these mysteries of God, were unknown to the spirit of fallen humanity, and that is why they crucified Christ.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

seeking to justify poor due to ambiguity translation,

As Jerome would put it :Well said!

LOL!!.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Some of the NIV's looseness could be removed by:
1) It should translate the same word or phrase meaning consistently.
2) It should minimize translating different source language words or phrases into the same English word or phrase.
3) It should not alter the meaning of the text by deletion or addition or revision of word or phrase meaning.

Cite, name, identify any Bible translation that does what you think should be done based on those three criteria. If you can't then it's put up or shut up time Van.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

1) I am not aware of any translations that use the wording of "one of a kind" or unique when translating monogenes. If so, cite them.
2) That's your preference, not found in any translation.
3) That's your preference, not found in any translation.
4) Most translations have "for salvation." however, the ESV, NCB, NCV, RSV NJB and Goodspeed (among others), have "to be saved."
5) That's your corrupt preference, and most certainly not found in any Bible translation. Don't make things up.

For the benefit of Van who apparently has amnesia.

 

[JD731]

Your point #5 is silly. "Claims it is a Bible." Come on. The NIV is a translation of the Scriptures as much as the NLT and other mainstream Bible versions.

I am going to quote from the web site of the NIV in their translation philosophy section.
I suggest reading it but I have some comments about it here.

A Balanced Approach https://www.thenivbible.com/about-the-niv/niv-translation-philosophy/
Some Bible translations focus on the way Scripture was written—the form, grammar, even the word order of the original. The difficulty is that no two languages follow the same set of rules. That’s why translating Scripture is more than a matter of replacing Greek or Hebrew words with English equivalents.

Other Bible translations focus on the meaning of Scripture, helping you grasp the message of the Bible in your own words. The challenge with this approach is that if you stray too far from the form of the text, you might miss some of the subtle nuances—literary devices, wordplays, etc.—found in the original.

Even the best literal translation can’t follow the original form all the time. And even the best meaning-based translation can’t capture every detail of meaning found in the original.

In 1978, the NIV pioneered a different approach: balancing transparency to the original with clarity of meaning. Our view is that if the first people to receive the Bible could understand God’s Word the way it was written, you should be able to as well.

The highlighting in the last sentence above is mine. I have done it to show how out of touch Mr. RipponRedeaux actually is.

Now I admit I have an advantage over Mr RipponRedeaux because I know what the word "pioneering" means when it is used in a context like that above. I also understand the word "different." And get this, I know this is in the context of former translations, former being before 1978 AD. So what does the word pioneering mean? Does anyone know? What does the word different mean? When put together it means the NIV committee is claiming they have invented a new way of translating that is different from any previously held methods.

This is the underling problem with many on this Baptist board. Most Baptists can no longer process information through the words of scripture. because they don't have the scriptures. They have things like the NIV.

"They said" were your untrue words. There is a four page preface to the NIV. The words "dynamic equivalence" does not appear at all. Neither does the preface state that the translation "was a new way of presenting the scriptures."
You are dishonest. Try to do better.

The NIV is a mediating translation occupying the same turf as the CSB, NET, NABRE and NJB.

I have been accused of lying by Mr RipponRedeaux.

 

[Logos1560]

Most Baptists can no longer process information through the words of scripture. because they don't have the scriptures.

Your biased opinion is incorrect. You fail to prove that they do not have the scriptures. You choose to believe your human opinions that are not true and are not scriptural.

While I have read the KJV over 50 years, believers who read other English Bible translations such as the NKJV also have a translation of the Scriptures in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is an English Bible translation.

The KJV is not the scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV does not have a literal, word-for-word rendering for each and every original-language word of Scriptures in its underlying texts. The KJV gives no English rendering for some original-language words of Scriptures, and it adds many words in English for which its makers had no original-language words of Scripture.

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001), who was a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admitted his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version Controversy, p. 230). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.).

 

[JD731]

Your biased opinion is incorrect. You fail to prove that they do not have the scriptures. You choose to believe your human opinions that are not true and are not scriptural.

While I have read the KJV over 50 years, believers who read other English Bible translations such as the NKJV also have a translation of the Scriptures in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is an English Bible translation.

The KJV is not the scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV does not have a literal, word-for-word rendering for each and every original-language word of Scriptures in its underlying texts. The KJV gives no English rendering for some original-language words of Scriptures, and it adds many words in English for which its makers had no original-language words of Scripture.

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001), who was a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admitted his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version Controversy, p. 230). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.).

There are no switches on your train tracks!

 

[Logos1560]

Why should I get off the path of truth, following sound Bible doctrines of God instead of the opinions of men advocated in non-scriptural KJV-only teaching?

My aim is to make statements that are true and that are in agreement with the Scriptures.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Most Baptists can no longer process information through the words of scripture. because they don't have the scriptures. They have things like the NIV.
.

You traffic in willful deceit. And, you are breaking the rules of this forum by stating those two absurd sentences.

 

[Van]

Mod Note: Duplicate Post. Deleted.

 

[JD731]

Why should I get off the path of truth, following sound Bible doctrines of God instead of the opinions of men advocated in non-scriptural KJV-only teaching?

My aim is to make statements that are true and that are in agreement with the Scriptures.

If what you say is true,which it isn't, God has not called anyone to a lifetime of service to expose a single error. You do not need to state this is your only subject, everyone knows it because you have never talked about anything else. You are boring.

 

[Conan]

If what you say is true,which it isn't, God has not called anyone to a lifetime of service to expose a single error. You do not need to state this is your only subject, everyone knows it because you have never talked about anything else. You are boring.

You should listen and learn from these fact filled, Bible Translation posts. Everything that you need to know about the historic, still in use today Bible's! You of all people need to learn about the historic Bibles, how they came to be, how they were translated and they're worth today. Hint, the KJV is not a golden object to be worshipped.