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

Yes. Participation is involvement --sort of a generalized term. But partnership has more of a unity --- working shoulder-to-shoulder with someone.

Why is it such a mystery to you since you stole a bunch of its phraselogy from it anyway?

Again, you have not proven anything Van. What you need to do is put up or shut up as I have often challenged you do do.

 

I'm coming back to this post by Van because he makes no sense here (as eleswhere). Verse 5 has nothing to do with what he claimed.

Van said :"we all share..." which clues one in that he lost grip with the context. Paul is specifically addressing Philemon.

 

The elephant in the room is the claim these mistranslations are somehow needed for functional equivalence, but that is obviously not true. The NIV uses omitted words, added words, and different word meanings to alter the message which of course results in functional non-equivalence.

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."
24) Philemon 1:6 the verse should read as follows: "I pray that your participation in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every blessing that belongs to you in Christ."

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.
Example 24 documents a translation devoid of meaning, just an array of disconnected phrases.

 

Van is up to no good once more.

He claims that there are 14 cases wherein the NIV has made a "replacement of the inspired word with a different word/words."

First of all, he is not qualified to make that determination. Secondly, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the orginal and English much of the time. There is no such thing as a certain "inspired word" that must be used. The point is to be faithful to present what the orginal means.Thirdly, with Van's self-penned "translations" he is out in no-man's land a good deal of the time. He has authored renderings that no other Bible version has. Yet he is bold to say a certain passage "should read" thus and such. Absurd.

 

Van has once more come up with his nonsense chart. He's like a Chatty Cathy Doll. He keeps spouting off despite his ridiculous stance.

1 Samuel 15:19 : Some versions that agreed with the NIV rendering : CEB,GW, HCSB,ISV,NCV,NLT,NAB and NET. (8)
1 Samuel 15:20 : Some versions that agreed with the NIV :CEB,GW,HCSB,ISV,NAB,NCV,NET and NLT.(8)
1 Samuel 15:22 : Some versions that agree with the NIV : CEB,GW,HCSB,ISV,LEB,NAB,NCV and NET.(8)
1 John 4:10 : Some versions that agree with the NIV:MEV,NET,NRSV,WEB,Goodspeed,Weymouth and 20th Century N.T. (7)
1 John 2:2 : Some versions that agree with the NIV : ISV,MEV,NET, NLT,NRSV,WEB, Goodspeed, Weymouth and 20th Century N.T. (9)
Revelation 13:8 : Van insists that it must be translated as "from the foundation of the world." And most translations word it that particular way. Weymouth has "since the creation of the world." But Van fails to understand that from (or since) the creation of the world means the same thing as his preference. His effort to disparage the NIV here is strange.
Revelation 22:21 : Van maintains that it should read "be with all." The NIV renders it as "with God's people." The following have "with all the saints: HCSB,ISV,Phillips, NRSV,WEB and Darby. Goodspeed and Weymouth have "with his people." the NLT :"with God's holy people." (9)
1 Peter 4:6 : The following agree with the NIV : NET,NLT,NCV,HCSB and GW. (5)
Romans 3:25 : Absolutely no version has Van's preferred rendering. How he justifies slamming the NIV in particular for not going along with his reading is crazy.
James 2:5 :Absolutely no version has Van's preferred reading. How he has the gall to proclaim the NIV rendering is substandard here is beyond belief.

Well, the above ten examples are proof that Van knows not whereof he speaks. -

 

Indeed. No one could possibly do a commentary on this verse without using the word "sacrifice" --it is that fundamental.

 

A needed reminder for Van.

 

Isn't that the truth!

 

This is regarding Col. 1:28. The NIV renders it:
"He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ."

The three versions are perfectly clear.

 

Regarding Isaiah 12:3 : Van thinks that verse must have a "therefore" or "so" to communicate the message clearly. Well, the following do not meet with Van's approval : YLT, NRSV, ESV, NLT, NET, NAB, Darby, GW, ISV, LEB and HCSB.

You can hate on them now along with the NIV. But, Mr. Hypocrite --some of your favorite translations agree with the NIV here.

I know, since you are inconsistent, you won't be making any threads condemning your favorite versions DESPITE the fact that in a number of your listed passages they intersected with the NIV.

 

Eph. 2:3 : Van wants the wording "children of wrath" used here. Most translations have that rendering.
But some have other ways of wording it.
NLT : we were by nature subject to God's anger
Goodspeed : by nature we were doomed to God's wrath like other men
Twentieth Century N.T. : our very nature exposed us to the Divine wrath, like the rest of mankind

Titus 3:4 : Van wants the words "mankind" or "humanity" used in this verse. Although without it the very same message is communicated.

The NLT, TCNT, Mounce,YLT,NCV,CEB, ESV, NRSV, and Goodspeed all differ with the Van-man here.


2 Thess. 2:13 : Van opts for "for salvation" here.
But Goodspeed, ESV, GW, CEV and NCV have "to be saved."
Phillips :"to save you."
MEV,Darby : "to salvation"
NLT is another that doesn't have Van's pet wording

Mark 1:41 ; Van wants the wording "moved with anger." I also prefer that rendering. The NIV has "indignant." Of course indignation means anger. So Van is quibbling. Most versions have "compassion" so why is Van "angry" (pun intended) with the NIV's reading here? He just likes to complain,I guess.

John 1:16 : Van is irrational here. He says the NIV rendering is no worse than any other version. So why in the world include the passage in an NIV hit list? Van is strange.

 

Van is shooting blanks.

NIV : idle and disruptive
MEV : walks in idleness
ESV : walking in idleness
NLT : who live idle lives
ISV : living in idleness

NET Note : "The particular violation Paul has in mind is idleness (as described in vv.8-11), so this could be translated to reflect that."

The LEB, Mounce, NAB, NASU, NKJV, HCSB, Darby and WEB don't use a form of the word idle --but they certainly don't read as Van thinks the passage "should read."

 

Van is living in an alternate reality.

"I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ." (NIV)

Contrary to Van's inane protestations, the NIV's rendering is quite plain to any native English speaker above the 4th grade level.

His derisive remarks about it are all the more galling when he lifted a swath of it in his "translation."

 

LOL, me thinks he doth protest too much.

First the participation in view is with Christ, not Paul. The NIV rendering presents functional non-equivalence. Things like being washed with His blood, indwelt with His Spirit,gifted to buildup the body of Christ. Mr. Rippon loves to attack others, but in reality the NIV misses the message in its entirety.

 

Van, Paul is writing to Philemon and speaking of the common faith they share. Of course the faith is founded upon Christ. But in this verse it speaks of the union they have with one another in the commonality of their faith.

How so? You talk a lot --but you don't say much Van. ;-)

You found all of that in Philemon 6? Wow! You are a master of eisegesis.

You have yet to prove that. You accuse --but you don't follow through. It's a case of put up or shut up Van. You make a lot of bold assertions but you don't back them up with anything.

 

In summary : Van's fanciful lists are ego-trips for him. He has a very impressive view of himself. He thinks of himself as some kind of potentate --decreeing this and decreeing that. The trouble lies in the fact that he has no such authority. It's all in his mind. He has no "folks" -- no subjects. His rulings have no weight.

I have very good reasons for believing that 19 of the 21 verses of the NIV listed by Van are quite good. I have conceded the two others long ago. He has yet to make a case why the other 19 are inadequate.

Just on the basis of the majority of English Bible translations :Van has eight verses that qualify on that score. I have thirteen. So 62% of the verses as rendered by the NIV and other translations do not agree with Van's understanding.

Three other verses are out-of-bounds. They are in the category of N/A.

Van has been quite insistent that his favorite versions are :NASU,HCSB,WEB,LEB,NKLJ and NET.

Two verses have absolutely no versions which support his renderings. There are ten examples that have readings very much like the NIV.

The 10 verses break down like this:

The NET agrees with the NIV rendering in 8 of these passages.
The HCSB agrees with the NIV 6 times.
The WEB agrees with the NIV 5 times.
The LEB agrees with the NIV 4 times.
The NASU agrees with the NIV 2 times.
The NKJV agrees with the NIV once.

I have other threads that evidence the close affinity the NIV and NET Bible have with one another.

So Van is barking up the wrong tree. That's all he's doing --barking. He has yet to articulate anything of substance.

 

More you you you forum rule violations, more inane arguments, more of the same empty logical fallacies.
Do you like clothing fallacy in numbers? Well 100% of the 24 mistranslations identified from the NIV are functional non-equivalents. 100% of Mr. Rippon's posts demonstrate an inability to deal with truth.

The NIV adds words, omits words, and changes the meanings of words. Deal with facts.

Only liberals defend mistakes by saying others make mistakes, two wrongs to not make a right. The 24 examples are the tip of the iceberg,

 

Van is vainly holding on for dear life to his self-generated myths. I have thoroughly demonstrated that you haven't demonstrated anything but stupidity.

That is exhibit A.

According to the Van standard --not reality.You live in Bizarro world --your alternate universe.

I'm dealing with your nonsense by stating facts.

You don't even know what Philemon 6 is dealing with --don't try to tell others that you know what you're talking about.

Many times --not a mere two --your favorite versions side with the NIV rendering. Deal with the facts.

You are out alone in the frigid north Atlantic in your canoe. You won't even need an iceberg to flip into the icy waters.

 

The above bears repeating.

 

This was from post 167 of mine.

Ain't that the truth?