Featured In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

No matter how much dancing is posted, the absurdity of the assertion remains. Mistranslations are always less than literal. Mr. Rippon made the point that five translations did not translate the examples literally, and that was just fine. Five wrongs do not make a right any more than two.

 

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 before the creation should read, "from the foundation."
20) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all." ​

Examples 1, 9, and 13 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.

These examples constitute a mountain of evidence that the NIV has a systemic problem with literalness.

 

Van has a systemic problem with truth. He prefers to go his own way. Facts don't matter to him. He will not accept correction. I have given several complete itemizations for all 20 issues on his list. He has not dealt with my specifics whatsoever. He prefers to evade any particularization like the plague. An honest person would address each of my specifics head-on. But Van studiously avoids that at all costs. Well, you know what the Bible says about stiff-necked people.

 

Yet another personal attack, a violation of rule 6 and inaction by everyone who believes in following the rules.

Mr. Rippon has provided assertions of absurdity which are without merit.

The NIV has been demonstrated with 20 examples to have translated inaccurately, in effect as functional non-equivalence.

Contrary to the misleading assertions of Mr. Rippon, the majority of translations disagree with the NIV on these verses. Just compare your non-NIV translation with these examples. Count how many times the NIV wording in found in other translations.

 

Dancing is your speciality Van. You have avoidance issues. You shy away from specifics like crazy.

Beware of usages of absolutes here. Being too literal is a hindrance as anyone can plainly see.

I could produce hundreds of other examples. So could you. Your favorite translations :NASU,HCSB,NET & Co. all go against the VPR maxim.

 

No, you just make assertions.

No, only in a minority of cases.

In these verses the majority of translations go against VPR (Van's Preferred Reading): Isaiah 12:3; Mark 1:41; Col. 1:28; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Jn. 2:2; 1 Jn. 4:10; Rev. 22:21 and 1 Cor. 16:13. Absolutely no version has VPR in Ro. 3:25 and James 2:5.

In the following passages I will cite how many other prominent versions (won't count the NIrV) aside from the NIV, do not have VPV.
2 Thess. 2:13 ...9 translations
Titus 3:4 ...........7 translations
1 Pe. 4:6 ..........7 translations
Eph. 2:3 ...........8 translations

Van mysteriously cites a "mistranslation" in the NIV reading of Rev. 13:8 despite the fact that it is VPR.
Van also, lists John 1:16 as a "mistranslation" in the NIV despite saying no "more flawed than many other versions." Van is completely irrational here.

I gave sound reasons for objecting to VPR in Acts 13:50 and Heb. 10:14, which he refuses to deal with.

I have repeatedly stated that I disagree with the NIV readings in Jn. 21:5 and 1 Tim. 3:16.

Therefore, one tenth of Van's list of 20 complaints I agree with. The remaining 18 share good company with many other translations --including a high degree of commonality with the NET, HCSB and WEB, among other Van favorites. But he's not about to swallow his ego and make threads with themes of how messed up the NET,HCSB, and WEB are. And that shows his jaded agenda and double standards in play.

 

Some more examples culled from my other thread, wherein the "Lit." would prove to be untenable; thereby dashing Van's principle to the ground. These samples are from Psalms.

17:10 : Instead of : fat heart
NIV,WEB : callous hearts
NET : calloused
NASU : unfeeling heart
HCSb : hardened

18:26 : Instead of : show Yourself twisted
NIV, HCSB and WEB : shrewd
NET : perverse
NASU : astute

18:45 : Instead of fastnesses
NIV,NET :strongholds
NASU : fortresses
HCSB : fortifications
WEB : close places

20:7 : Instead of make mention
NIV, WEB : trust
NASU : boast
HCSB : take pride
NET : depend
_________________________________________________________________________
Notice the agreement the NIV has with your favs Van.
It is just not practical or wise to put the "literal reading" into the text most of the time.
My other thread (and examples like this post)demonstrates how futile it is for you to maintain your "principle" when all logic is against you.

 

Based on a review of the NIV mess-ups, using Biblehub as an example of the majority of translations, here are the results. Contrary to the mistaken and absurd claim of Mr. Rippon,

Isaiah 12:3 12 out of 21 versions did not omit the conjunction
Mark 1:41 22 out of 23 differed from the NIV
John 1:16 23 out of 24 differed from the NIV
John 21:5 17 out of 21 differed from the NIV
Acts 13:50 22 out of 24 differed from the NIV
Romans 3:25 16 out of 24 differed from the NIV
1 Cor. 16:13 16 out of 24 differed from the NIV
Ephesians 2:3 21 out of 24 differed from the NIV
Colossians 1:28 15 out of 24 differed from the NIV
2 Thess. 2:13 16 out of 24 differed from the NIV
2 Thess. 3:6 19 out of 24 differed from the NIV
1 Timothy 3:16 19 out of 24 differed from the NIV
Titus 3:4 18 out of 24 differed from the NIV
Hebrews 10:14 22 out of 24 differed from the NIV
James 2:5 12 out of 24 differed from the NIV
1 Peter 4:6 18 out of 24 did not insert "now" into the text.
1 John 2:2 15 out of 24 differed from the NIV
1 John 4:10 15 out of 24 differed from the NIV
Revelation 13:8 19 out of 24 differed from the NIV.
Revelation 22:21 12 out of 24 differed from the NIV.

Bottom line, the vast majority of translations do not include these examples of mess-ups.

Footnote, the NIV (2011) did correct the error partially at Revelation 13:8, it no longer reads before the creation, but now reads from the creation. Creation is still a mess-up, should read foundation, but nevertheless, an important correction of an egregious error.

 

Van, you don't get to suddenly change your own ground rules. That is dishonest.

You have been saying repeatedly that:

Mark 1:41 should read "moved with anger" but only two versions approximate that. The vast majority of translations do not have that rendering. So for you to slam the NIV on that account is simply crazy. You lose.

John 1:16 you have continually said is not flawed in the NIV. So why in the world do you have it n your hit list. You make no sense. You lose.

James 2:5 you have said should read "yet rich in faith" but absolutely no version has that rendering. You lose.

 

The following are the translations I have cited for my stats: CEB, CEV, Darby, NASB, ESV, GW, HCSB, NKJV, ISV, LEB, NAB, NET, NCV, NLT, NRSV, WEB, YLT. I also have consulted with Weymouth and Mounce. But since the last two don't cover the Old Testament I made a modification for the Isaiah passage.

Isaiah 12:3 : Contrary to Van's assertions the overwhelming number of translations favor leaving out therefore. Therefore, 13 out of 17 versions go against Van's view.

1 Cor. 16:13 : Van will note that 12 out of 19 versions do not favor his wording.

Eph. 2:3 : There were 7 out of 19 versions that didn't favor his wording.

Col. 1:28 : There were 6 out of 19 versions that didn't favor his wording.

2 Thess. 2:13 : There were 8 out of 19 versions that go against Van's wording.

2 Thess. 3:6 : There were 16 out of 19 versions that go against Van's wording.

Titus 3:4 : There were 8 out of 19 versions that go against Van's wording.

Heb. 10:14 : There were three versions that go against Van't wording.

1 Peter 4:6 : There were 12 out of 19 that go against Van's view.

1 John 2:2 : There were 11 out of 19 versions that went against Van.

1 John 4:10 : There were 11 out of 19 versions that go against Van's view.

Rev. 22:21 : There were 7 out of 19 versions that went against Van's view.

So the score is tied here. In six cases Van's preferred wording was not used a majority of the time. In six cases it went the other way.

 

You don't know the meaning of some of the words you use. There was no "egregious error" before. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill!

Using the word "creation" instead of "foundation" is not in error. How would you define the word "foundation" in this verse without using the word "creation" Van?

 

I think I will get a kick out of this. Van is fond of using the term "mess-ups" when it comes to occasions where he disagrees with renderings in the NIV.

Well, he has to swallow hard, because if he labels the NIV with his type of typical language --then he has to apply it to his favorite versions too.

Did the NASU and NET mess up in Is. 12:3?
Are the NET and WEB guilty of messing up in 1 Cor. 16:13?
Are the HCSB and NET under the wrath of Van for their mess-ups in Col. 1:28?
I suppose the HCSB and NASU are mess-ups in 2 Thess. 3:6.
The WEB apparently messed-up according to Van, in 1 Peter 4:6.
The NET and WEB messed-up royally in 1Jn.2:2 and 4:10 per Van.
And can Van forgive the HCSB and WEB for messing-up in Rev. 22:1?

Or perhaps Van will have some excuses to offer for his favorites messing-up. But the bottom line Van --you have to be consistent --that's a core element in telling the truth.

 

More slander, more personal attacks, more violation of rule 6 with the moderators taking no action.

This thread is not about other translations or my favored renderings, it is about the 20 messed-up verses in the NIV. Pay no attention to those who seek to change the subject.

The majority of translations disagree with the NIV in these twenty cases, contrary to the flawed analysis by others.

At least four posters have indicated agreement with some of these examples. Even the NIV agreed and updated Revelation 13:8.

 

Oh, you have changed your mind then. That's because you have often said things like:
"nearly all the versions say" (#23)
"About two thirds of the versions on Bible Hub have the conjunction therefore." (#64 --and actually 50% have it;not two thirds)
"The majority of translations." (#101)
"A majority of translations." (#137)
"Many other versions agree."(#154)
"The majority of well-accepted translations differ with the NIV on these verses." (#163)

And why, Mr.Van, would you constantly use the word "should" if it was not your opinion? The word should means proper or necessary in one's opinion.

Agedman and MM disagreed with you regarding your opinion on Ro.3:25.

RSR told you "You want to make the text say what you believe, and hardly any translators agree with you."

IntheLight told you in post 23 "You're nit picking." In post 25 he said "You're making a mountain out of a mole hill."

No, you are wrong Van. the key phraseology that you have been concerned with is "from the creation of the world." That wording has been left unchanged ever since the 84 edition.

 

I added a few more translations and a few more verses from the Van-approved Versions List.

From Van's perspective all these favorite versions of his really messed-up in these passages.Hmm...nine passages from his list of 20. WOW!

 

Posts # 234, 235, and 236 address me or my view of alternate "should read" renderings, none on the topic of the twenty messed up verses in the NIV.

At least 4 posters rather than just me have agreed that some of these verses are messed up. Many published translations present the "should read" alternative on many of these verses.

Last off topic post, about two-thirds of the translations on bible hub for Isaiah 12:3 have the conjunction (either therefore or and.) Mr Rippon made this assertion, "(#64 --and actually 50% have it;not two thirds). But if you take a look you will find 13 or 21 versions of Isaiah 12:3 have either therefore or and. That is nearly 62% or "about two thirds.

Anyone who pays any attention to the analysis offered by others and does not verify by checking the source is naive.

Bottom line, the NIV has been shown to miss the mark of accuracy in twenty verses. The systemic problem of literalness has been validated. And many of the twenty demonstrate functional non-equivalence.

 

You operate on different planes. Your have tampered with your own scales. All those posts of yours with "should read" are now to be dismissed? They mean nothing and are irrelevant? In all those posts you were supposedly trying to undermine the legitimacy of the NIV.

Bible Hub is a good resource. I use it a lot. But it has a number of obscure translations. A number are KJV knock-offs such as : Jubilee Bible 2000, American KJV, Webster's and ERV.Then there is the unusual Aramaic Bible and even the Douay-Rheims. The oldest one I have used in citing translations has been the Darby --from the 19th century.

You have insisted in no less than 21 posts! that "Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read therefore. You have repeated that in posts:64,74,81,97,101, 108,122, 134, 145, 154, 160, 163, 176, 182, 186, 194, 203, 209, 211, 214 and 222. Now, you want to cancel all of that out and claim "and" counts too. Van you have trouble with consistency and honesty.

I have cited 19 versions other than the NIV, using a wide range of translations mainly from the 20th and 21st centuries. My approach has been fairer than yours at the very least. You can verify everything by going to Bible Gateway. Everything in post 236 is true.

No, that has not been demonstrated. You primarily have wanted to show that majority rules. Well, in eight out of 14 cases you have been over-ruled.

There is indeed a systemic problem of literalness. Your pet versions don't use "literalness" contrary to your insistence.

As I have said before; there is no such animal --it's an oxymoron.

 

It's always a good practice to compare versions when studying the bible.

I've been using the NIV in the study I'm leading in 1 Samuel.

This weeks lesson in on chapter 15 - Saul's rejection by the Lord for Israel's king.

Sad, tragic, heavy stuff with a bit of humor and irony.

The point is written in 1 Samuel 15:23b (NIV)

"Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”​

Yet the NIV misses translating the "voice of the Lord" in verse 19, 20, and 22, choosing simply to read, "the Lord".

IMO, the NIV misses the mark in this chapter!

Rob

 

Thanks Rob for your on topic post.