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

Very wrong again Van. A listing of some which do not have any form of the word "propitiation" at all in this verse: 20th C.N.T., Goodspeed, NLT, ISV, Mounce, LEB, GW, Darby, Weymouth, WEB, NRSV, YLT, NET and NAB. That's 14, in case you are still mathematically challenged. Three of your favs are on the list :LEB, WEB and NET.

 

Okay, Van has claimed at least 16 times the following:"We have provided 16 verses where, according to the majority of translations, the NIV missed the mark."

Of course it was never we, he is the one who has posted 21 times in bold-faced type lists of his absurd claims. Early on a few people agreed with him on a few verses and others disagreed (even apart from myself). And just because translations differ from one another does not prove anything about missing any mark. That's why translations are called versions. They are not in lockstep with one another in phraseology.

Despite my urging Van has refused to back up any claims against the NIV. He just makes denigrating assertions. He avoids specifics like the plague. So just on the basis of various translations agreeing on some readings I will provide my information.

I have used :HCSB, LEB, NLT, NKJV, NET, WEB, NASU, ESV, Darby, CEB, NAB, NCV, GW, ISV, NRSV,YLT. The following have also been consulted, but they cover only the New Testament :Weymouth, Twentieth Century New Testament (TCNT), Mounce and Goodspeed. That's 20. When an Old Testament passage is considered it will be compared with 16 versions.

First of all, some passages will be considered out-of-bounds.

I Tim. 3:16 said in post 64 : "Revealed seems a tad better than appeared but lets [sic] not make mountains out of molehills." He has no problem with it --so it shouldn't be on a hit list against the NIV. It doesn't make any sense.

Mark 1:41 Since he goes against what he has said countless times :"It should read" --why he's picking solely on the NIV here remains a mystery. He refuses to explain. The overwhelming majority of translations have something like "moved with compassion." The NIV has ""was indignant." Van's preferred reading (VPR)is "moved with anger." Again, why he is targeting the NIV alone out of the majority of translations is puzzling. Van is being irrational.

Revelation 13:8 VPR is "from." The NIV has "from." But he's against it anyway. SMH at his illogical ways.

John 1:16 Van says the NIV reading is "no more flawed than many other translations." So why in the world does he put it on his hit list? He is extremely unreasonable.

Philemon 6 : He claims he has problems with the NIV rendering. Yet his self-penned rendering (with all his lack of expertise showing) is very much like the NIV reading. He "borrowed" a swath of it. Tis another Van moment --a real head-scratcher.

James 2:5 He boldly asserts how this verse should read but absolutely no versions have his rendering. So why pick on the NIV alone for not kowtowing to Van's wishes? Your guess is as good as mine.

Romans 3:25 There is no Bible version that has his particular rendering despite his proclamation that it should read his way.How dare the NIV differ with Van's view. But the NIV alone bears the brunt of his dissatisfaction. Van is a very speacial person. ;-)

__________________________________________________________________________

John 21:5 : I have long ago repeatedly said that the NIV should have gone with "children" here instead of "friends."
______________________________________________________________________

Van gets credit for 7 verses by virtue that the NIV reading isn't shared by the majority of translations. Again, I'm just going by percentages here. I still think the NIV renderings are better than the majority --but I will stick to Van's original claims that the majority of translations disagree with the NIV. And by that he means the NIV renderings are shockingly bad. ;-)

The verses he gets credit for are (drums rolling) :
2 Thess. 2:13
Titus 3:4 (although 9 versions agreed with the NIV)
Col. 1:28
Acts 13:50
Heb. 10:14
1 Peter 4:6
Rev.22:21 (although 9 versions agreed with the NIV)

I, on the other hand get credit for :
1 John 2:2 : Ten other translations don't agree with VPR. Not a majority --but close enough.
1 John 4:10 :15
1 Cor. 16:13 : 12
2 Thess. 3:6 : 17
Eph. 2:3 : 11
Isaiah :12:3 : 11
1 Sam. 15:19 : 9
1 Sam. 15:20 : 9
1 Sam. 15:22 : 9
[Remember, for the O.T.passages it's out of 16 translations.]
______________________________________________________________________
Tally here:
Rippon : 9
Van : 7

In the case of 56.25% (9)of the 16 verses --the NIV shared disagreement with VPR with other translations --sometimes having the same wording.
With respect to VPR 43.75% (7)of the verses in the 20 versions agreed with his choice.

So Van's persistent claims are false.

 

LOL, Mr. Rippon continues to make absurd arguments. First he claims it is only me, then references 1 Tim. 3:16 which is on the list at the behest of another.

Then he confuses properly translating a variant with choosing a variant. I kid you not.

Next he refers to "from" rather than "foundation" I kid you not.

Next, he says he does not understand why the NIV mistranslation is identified when other translations also missed the mark. I kid you not.

Next he continues to be unable to explain the meaning of Philemon 6 in the NIV, whereas the "should read" is clear on its face.

Next he claims words added by the NIV (and other translations) did not alter the message. Even the KJV disagrees with the NIV on this one

Romans 3:25 does not say or suggest "sacrifice of atonement." The Greek word for sacrifice is not in the text.

And finally the fact that Mr. Rippon agrees John 21:5 is a mistranslation does not mean it should be removed from the list. Good Grief.

And there you have it once again, Mr. Rippon offers a defense of the NIV that is absurd on its face.

 

No one asked you to put it on a list. And you make no sense when you insert it when you have no problem with the rendering. You are nuts.

You were complaining that the NIV did not have the word "from" in Rev.13:8. You made the same claim in 18 posts even though --IT IS IN THE TEXT! You are daft.

I explained it very clearly in post 315. You can't understand plain English or you are lying. One of the two.

You, on the other hand, have no idea what the passage is speaking of as is evident from your posts such as #314. You Vanize texts. You put your unique spin on God's Holy Word. Philemon 5 is another case where you are mucking up as well.

You mimicked the NIV --that's why.

Your "propitiatory shelter" sure isn't there.

 

If I said Mr. Rippon was nuts, I would get an infraction in a New York minute, but Mr. Rippon is free to insult others without penalty. Amazing folks, simply amazing.

First he denies Martin suggested the verse should be included.

Next Mr. Rippon claims I did not acknowledge "from" but continued to fault "creation" instead of "foundation.

Next Mr. Rippon sayings I am lying, again a blatant violation which moderators do not enforce.

Then once more Mr. Rippon posts a "taint so" complaint devoid of any substance.

Finally Mr Rippon claims the suggested translation is like the NIV. Good Grief.

Bottom line, at least one translation uses "propitiatory shelter" at Romans 3:25 to present "place of propitiation" which is the meaning of the Greek.

 

Which one? I haven't come across any that has that wording.

 

Instead of making pronouncements of "should read" this or that way --give reasons why you think so without recourse to Bible translations.
This is where I have to hammer home to you that you have not backed up anything in all your posts to buttress your strongly held opinions. The onus is on you. You have to offer proof for your opinions.This is put up or shut up time Van. No more grandstanding from you. No more evasive manoeuvres from you. Do not hide. Do not employ your double-standard routine. Do not use deception. Just explain.

I Cor. 16:13 :Why should it read "act like men"?
Eph. 2:3 : Why should it read children of wrath?
Col. 1:28 Why must it read every person three times?
2 Thess. 2:13 : Why does it have to be rendered for salvation?

 

And the absurdity flows like a stream, in a inept defense of NIV mistranslations. For example Mr. Rippon appears to question why translations need to reflect the inspired word. He asks why translate accurately as if the point was debatable. LOL

If you read the thread, skipping Mr. Rippon's posts you will find detailed discussions of all 24 mistranslations presented from the NIV.

 

I wasn't giving a defense. If you could read with comprehension(which I sincerely doubt) you could not miss my continual challenge for you to back things up with explanations --not mere assertions.

Quite the contrary. You just parrot the same ole' same ole'. You assert that this "should read" thus and such with no explanation. You need to illustrate --flesh-out --give reasons for your edicts. You have no authority --no credentials. You mistakenly think that upon your say-so verses should be rendered your way --all other readings are wrong. That, my dear friend, is rather pompous of you. Man-up Van. Fulfill your responsibility;otherwise you will appear goofy.

 

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.

 

You have given no "detailed discussions" Van-man. That's what I keep pointing out --your great lack to provide information as to why you think verses should be worded your way.

Here are some more for you to respond to:

Titus 3:4 Why does it have to read love for mankind?
Acts 13:50 Why does the word "leaders" have to be italicized? Why should any words be italicized in any translation?
Heb. 10:14 Why must the specific word "offering" have to be used in this verse?
1 Peter 4:6 Why the big deal about using the specific words those who are dead?

 

And there you go again with your Van spam. One would search in vain for your "detailed discussions" --they do not exist. Who do you think you're fooling Van?

 

Well Bible Gateway and Bible Hub cite scores of versions. Your rendering is not found among any of them. What translation has "propitiatory shelter" in the text? You are blowing hot air.

 

I'm giving you lots of homework. But you really should have thought things out months ago when making hollow assertions devoid of a shred of substance.

2 Thess. 3:6 :Why must it read "who leads an undisciplined life" as if all other phraselogy has to be wrong?
James 2:5 : Why does it have to read "yet rich in the faith" when no one else agrees with you?
1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 : Why must the word "propitiation" be exclusively used?

Also, why have you set yourself up as an authority when you have absolutely no qualifications to do so? Why have you demeaned translators with vitriolic language? Why are you so haughty? Why issue your empty edicts repeatedly without giving any evidence for your reckless charges? What do you hope to accomplish with such a deceptive campaign that is built on double-standards?

Why not be honest and forthright? Why not answer specifics? Why not stop your bobbing and weaving? Why not cite some actual New Testament authorities that corroborate your views? The same applies to the view Old Testament passages on your three-score "lists."

The longer you put off giving reasons for your daft declarations --the worse you will appear.

 

On and On, Mr. Rippon deflects and showers the thread with misinformation. Just read the thread folks. His questions have been answered, yet he posts as if they had not. More disinformation.

Bottom line we have provided 24 examples of mistranslation, and explained them all in detail. The question in the OP, give examples of messed up NIV verses, has been answered.

 

What a hoot! You are the master of deflection Van. What exactly is the nature of my supposed deflections? You have alleged many "mistranslations" in the NIV. According to the dictionary meaning you have stated things without proof. You have made multiple unproven accusations. You specialize in hollow assertions and offer nothing beyond.

It is a bold-faced lie for you to claim to have made "detailed discussions" when your "discussions" consist of this or that "should read" thus and such. You have not offered anything in the way of explanation. You have given no reasons. You hide deceive using double standards all the way --that's the Van way.

You stonewall it all the time. My questions remain. That's why I keep asking them. You are as dense as a wall.

Not "we" --you have made empty accusations that have no substance. You insist that some verses should be translated your way with no explanation. You offer no sources. You offer no citations of N.T. scholars to buttress you sorry denunciations. You clam up and yet claim you have answered me fully.

You lie so effortlessly.

 

I wrote the above almost 50 days ago. Van has not changed. He doesn't learn. He doesn't accept correction. His growth is stunted.

 

More you you you with no action from moderation. More claims that I "lie" without action from moderation. The reason biblical discussions of biblical views are so rare on this forum is that some posters simple post against the man posts and the behavior is tolerated and condoned.

We have presented 24 verses where the NIV mistranslates the text. Words are omitted, words are added, and the meaning of words are altered. Mr. Rippon claims a person must be an "authority" to identify missing words. No, one only needs to know how to read. Ditto for added words. For changed meanings, one only needs to compare the lexiconal meanings with the NIV translation. For example a Greek word meaning children is mistranslated "friend" at John 21:5.

The case has been made, the NIV contains verses where they messed up the translation.

 

From post 166. I fully agree.

 

From post 181. I fully concur!