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

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Spam Alert.

 

COOL!

 

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.

 

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.

 

As Jerome would put it :Well said!

LOL!!.

 

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.

 

For the benefit of Van who apparently has amnesia.

 

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.).

 

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.

 

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

 

Mod Note: Duplicate Post. Deleted.

 

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.