Featured Does Scripture Need "Fixing?"

Maybe I missed something..... What does being a "5 pointer" have to do with your criticism of the NIV? Is there a question I'm not seeing that specifically applies to "5 pointers"?

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Huh?

To be more precise: You have been warned not to denigrate these any other versions in ways that are shameful for a professing Christian.

 

"Does Scripture need fixing?" No, but it does need to be translated. I have very little experience with the NET. However, the NIV, NLT, and ESV driven by different translation methods(Formal vs dynamic equivalency)....not by doctrine. Is that the accusation? That these 4 translations are doctrinally driven??? I currently use 4 translations regularly. NASB, ESV, NIV(84) and the NKJV. I do not see doctrine driving any of these. I have also used the NLT some. While I find some of the reads of NLT "watered down", losing their depth of meaning or perhaps even the meaning being altered. I do NOT believe the translation readings are due to doctrine controlling the translation. It is the translation philosophy. In general, the more dynamic a translation, the less I like it.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

In other post you speak of applying the same principals across all translations. The NASB does not agree with you on #6. I don't have a single translation that has the word "shelter in it".

The HCSB does not agree with you on #4. It uses Men, not children.

#9 the NIV uses " everyone". You call this an omission because it doesn't use "every man" or "every person". The things you point out in the NIV seem nothing more than the use of dynamic equivalency. I wouldn't call them anything else.

I haven't went through your full list. These just stood out to me. I don't think we could call this conjectural emendation. It's not like the restructured the Greek or Hebrew. They were translating from the original language text. I don't see anything more than that. If we allow the charge of conjectural emendation against the NIV.....then it would apply to all English translations. They have all have at least restructured the Greek and Hebrew text so it would make sense in translation in ttranslation

Ezekiel 6:10. Almost every translation avoids "Ra"'s true meaning in order to have the verse make sense. NASB included. Translating so things make sense is nothing more than translating. I think you are looking for something that is not there.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

#4: Then why is your thread focused only on the NIV and not the HCSB that does the same thing?

#9: Not much of a difference between "everyone" and "every person". I don't see your point here.

#6: Are you OK with the NASB reading?

You say we need to apply the same standards that we do to the KJV to the NIV. Why not the HCSB or NASB? They both have changed words so a verse is easier to understand.

It just seems like the goal here is to attack the NIV. It seems the only translation to have any verses questioned is the NIV. I think it is hard to see conjectural emendations in a translation. When it is done in the TR, it was easier to spot (ex. Beza). How does one say this is a dynamic translation and this is conjecture???

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

You don't understand. Van changes up quite frequently. His "principles" change on a dime. In his "list" there are a number of his self-penned renderings that "should be translated" this or that way. Never mind that he has no qualifications to do so. He is right and all other translations are wrong.

At other times Van maintains that "the vast majority of translations" render a given passage a particular way --therefore those versions that do not hoe to the line are substandard.

Van uses the variable principle (the VVP). His reasoning is based on his personal convenience. The bottom line for him is that the NIV must be denigrated at all cost --even the truth.

So do other translations. I have addressed every single item on his "lists" time and time again in detail. Van is unteachable. One can point out his mistakes and transparent hypocrisy, but it doesn't matter. He just plows ahead despite his foolishness.

I fully agree.

Isn't THAT the truth!

 

Here the hypocrisy of the VVP is on display. Van is using varying weights according to his good pleasure. Inconsistency is his hallmark. On the one hand he insists that the renderings of the NIV on his list are mistaken because the majority of translations do not have the wording of the NIV.

On the other hand, just about all versions qualify as substandard because their readings differ from Van's self-penned renderings. Go figure!

First of all, the NIV shares good company with many translations when it comes to how it renders passages. Even Van's favorites use the NIV wording about half the time.

Secondly, Van is his own authority. He cites himself a lot. Notice the regularity that he uses the words "should read" when no translation has come up with his novel interpretation.

Your oft-repeated mantra is absurd.

 

Do the scriptures need 'fixing'? The ones Van butchers do.

 

Van, you exhibit a lot of hypocrisy. In your self-penned renderings you freely alter the message according to your whims and castigate ALL Bible versions which do not have your particular wordings. You do this with complete gall while have absolutely no qualifications for doing so.

When you refer to omissions and deletions you display your ignorance. It is especially ironic that your favorite translations often agree with the NIV renderings --thus nullifying your charge that the NIV is singular in your distain.

Others aside from myself have corrected you in your various threads and you have not heeded their advice. You are unteachable and as dense as a brick.

Many here would say that you need fixing Van. Your attitude needs adjusting.

LOL! You have given yourself a negative evaluation.

 

I think of James 1:8 when I think of Van in the manner at which he handles scripture.

 

You are delusional.

All translations rewrite the text! Why? Because the originals aren't in English! Man, think.

When you toss around the word "corruption" you have left the reservation.

 

Who is "they" referencing?

In Ephesians 2:3 the term "children of wrath" is a Setitic idiom. It means everyone deserves the wrath of God. The wrath of God hangs over the heads of everyone. But God, out of His mercy has elected particular ones to be ransomed out of the human race (verse 4 and following).

Don't you believe that everyone deserves the wrath of God --i.e. eternal condemnation?