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

RSR made those remarks way back in post 8 regarding James 2:5 --and it applies to your attitude on this thread altogether.

 

This is the third time I have asked Van to fess up. He claimed in post 325 :"at least one translation uses 'propitiatory shelter' at Romans 3:25." He refuses to simply answer the easy question. Therefore, with his refusal one has to conclude he has made things up. Typical.

 

Whew! And yet you so desperately claim to be able to translate much better than real translators. You can't even manage English. LOL!

Let's be clear. The following verses have been suggested as poor renderings by those other than you in this thread :1 Sam. 15:19,20,22; Isaiah 12:3; Mark 1:41;Romans 3:25; Col. 1:28; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 3:4; 1 John 1:16 and 1 John 2:2.

Of those dozen, you have offered absolutely nothing beyond "should read" for seven of them. (1 Sam.15:19,20,22; Is. 12:3; Ro.3:25; 2 Thess. 3:6; Titus 3:4). Thus it is complete garbage that you have given "detailed discussions."

 

Whew! Mr. Rippon has reposted again and again, providing a stream of absurdity. Did Mr. Rippon identify the "seven?" Nope! He makes charges but provides nothing except the charge. Good luck and good night.

 

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.

 

The cowardly Van has avoidance issues. He will simply not step up to the plate. He refuses to man-up.
He can't possibly back up his perpetual "should read" mantra with any substance.

I have issued the challenge for him to identify the supposed translation of Ro. 3:25 which has 'propitiatory shelter' in the text. This is my 4th time in telling him he has zero credibility if he does not support his fiction.

He runs away when I have stated that he needs to cite authorities for his wild claims. He's convinced that he is the authority.

His ever-expanding and super-repetitive "list" is mindnumbingly lame as it is false.

 

Note the lack of content in post # 346. Lots of charges, insults and the like but no defense for the 24 examples of mistranslations provided from the NIV. I asked (post # 344) for Mr. Rippon to supply the references for the "seven" verses that have not been discussion. His charge, from post #343 said:

Lets see if Mr. Rippon can substantiate his charge. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

 

Bud, you have leveled charges. It's your responsibility to give reasons why you claim they are indeed 'mistranslations.' I have emphasized the fact that a reasonable person doesn't just go around issuing edicts as if an authority. You clearly are not. It is your task to document actual N.T. and O.T. scholars who dovetail with your renderings. You accuse and then run for the hills when asked for support.

Open your ole' eyes Van. They are in my post 343.

Now please address the question I have been asking for a long time in posts 324,326,333,342 and 346. Are you going to pretend you can't hear? Why hide? Give your source.

 

It's your translation! LOL!

 

Again Mr "charge o matic" Rippon has not explained the meaning of the NIV version of Philiemon 1:6.
Is the idea partnership with Jesus or Paul?

1) Is "I pray" part of the text or an addition which means it should be italicized.
2) Is Philemon in partnership with Paul and his team, or with Jesus?
3) Is "with us" part of the text or an addition which means it should be italicized.
4) Does partnership with us refer to being "in Christ?"
Now lets consider a more literal translation based on the actual text:

 

Mr Rippon says there was no discussion of 1 Sam. 15:19 where the problem is identified as the omission of the phrase "the voice."

Thus the charge that the problem had not been discussed is false.

 

As is your nature --you are acting like an infant and refuse to comply.

 

You claimed that you gave "detailed discussion." That is utterly untrue.

 

This is from post 315 regarding Philemon 6. You attribute things to both that verse and verse 5 that are not in the text at all.

 

In the above Van has given absolutely no further information in this entire thread beyond his "should read" mantra. Those are 13 verses in which he gives no more information than his not-so-humble preferences. Despite his claims of having had "detailed discussions" --he has chickened-out.

Serious people cite sources to buttress their claims. But Van is not the serious type. He hasn't even given his own reasons for those 13 cases.

A prosecuting attorney gives evidence for his claims. I have asked for proof since Day One. Van avoids proof like the plague. He has become accustomed to empty assertions --it's the very air that he breathes. He doesn't want to complicate his life by furnishing sources of authority. Why what if there are no sources of authority?! Whew! Van wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And that is his present situation. He is legless and mute.

 

In the above Van has given a wee bit of info. It is meagre;quite paltry --but I will, as a generous judge, give him very slight credit despite the mighty thin gruel that he passes off as "detailed discussion" LOL!

Much of his reasoning is deeply flawed and strange. The worst of the lot concerns his explanations of 1 John 2:2,1 Peter 4:6 and Philemon 6.

There are only two occasions in which he cites sources --for John 1:16 and John 21:5 though his reasoning is suspect.

 

Now the above is a complete falsehood. He stated the above on Nov.23rd,2015. It was post 266. At that point his list contained 23 items --just one less than currently.

As I have pointed out --eleven of his renderings have been, at best, poorly explained. The remaining thirteen are orphans bereft of any additional data. Van needs to get his act together.

 

Good Grief, talk about changing the rules like a sand lot bully. Lord, give me strength. The verse he cited as not being explained was explained. Therefore his charge is demonstrated false. Did he say oops, sorry my mistake? Nope He just continues to make charges. And no one holds him accountable.
Note the switch from "not explained" to "not explained to my (Rippon) satisfaction.

Next he says I claimed that I gave the detailed discussion. No reference or quote. Mr. charge-o-matic Rippon continues to spew falsehoods. He listed seven verses, but I have already shown three of the 7 were explained.

Returning to topic, the NIV has been shown to omit words, add words, and change the meaning of words to alter the message, thus providing functional non-equivalence.

 

While you are grieving, you will notice I have remained consistent in this thread. You are the one all over the place as inconsistent as can be;unwilling to be be honest.

"...you will find detailed discussions of all 24 mistranslations presented from the NIV" (#328)
"Bottom line we have provided 24 examples of mistranslation, and explained them all in detail" (#335)
That, of course, is utterly untrue; but is the way you conduct your affairs here.

 

Face it Van, I know this thread much better than you. I know you better than you know yourself.
You are in your 70s now. It is long past the time in which you should have matured in the faith.