Search results

Well, at least both words have a single letter in common.

Your sub-standard English is difficult to understand. What do you mean by "was inspired"? You put it in the past tense, as if it is no longer inspired. I suppose you meant to say "is inspired." But "to us"? It is inspired, or as the NIV long has it "All Scripture is God-breathed." It's not a...

I will reword your non-standard English :"Perhaps, but that is due more to its commercial push and being in the market-place for so long." And I disagree. I believe it's still the best seller after 42 years because it is the best all-round English Bible translation internationally. It's English...

"Our many"?

The NIV will still be the #1 best seller internationally.

The former; biased.

You are certainly not the kind of individual to read anything correctly. "If a am reading this right..."

Your regurgitated chart that you recycle year after year exemplifies why you have no common sense, no training as a translator, and in fact, follow heterodox beliefs. You are not the kind of person that is an example of rectitude when it comes to anything biblical. Your translation choices fail...

The 'analysis' was biased toward the CSB. This Mr. Wu was hired by the CSB team. And in my original post I gave my other reservations.

What have I told you repeatedly? Do not quote a long post and then give a brief line of reply.

For your unenlightened information, isolated words is what this analysis was based upon. But a sense-based approach would be a better way of addressing the various translations. There is no indication that the NIV would "fall further in the ratings." Your emotional hatred of the translation has...

The whole literalness issue is flawed. It's a fallacy. As was admitted by Wu, "The scores may be different when a sense-based evaluation system is used...We are not able to base our results on word senses rather than words." Further "Exact lexical equivalence between languages is rare." So some...

I'm not a liberal hoss. You are the one who has deviated from the Faith in crucial areas. For instance sarcastically calling those on the orthodox side of the ledger "The eternal torment crowd." You are the heterodox one Van. Time and time again. As you already admitted, the word 'love' as you...

Well, 36 other translations, aside from the NIV used the word 'fullness' in that passage. But in your vaulted view of yourself that is inferior to the way you would have it. So, you admit that you were wrong to use the word 'love' in this verse. That's good. A little humility on your part. So...

Your post # 112 has been recorded. You can't change what you already posted regarding Acts 28:2 : "This rendering does present the intended message of the text." What am I dealing with here, multiple Van-types? Multiple Van personalities? You said it, but you really didn't mean it on that...

You had said that "this rendering [of the NIV] does present the intended message of the inspired text." Those are your words, not mine. How in the world can that be considered a misrepresentation? Did you mean the opposite "This rendering [of the NIV] doesn't present the intended message of...

Just about all the translations featured on Bible Hub have at the start of the verse "Out [or from] his fullness." As I said, most translation use the word 'fullness' here. What are your qualification to determine what should or should not be in the verse? The answer is none. No translation has...

The passage is Titus 3:4. CEB : But when God our Savior's kindness and love appeared NABRE : But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared NLT : But --When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love MOUNCE, ESV, NRSV : But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our...

Van, you are strange. Apparently you have no problem with the NIV wording because "this rendering does present the intended message of the inspired text." So why does this show up on your listing of the supposed flaws in the NIV?

From Van's own words the NIV regarding this verse is no worse than any other translation. So what is the point? Why would Van even bother to list it as flawed when he admits it is no big deal. Therefore his 'point' is pointless and invalid. It is no more flawed than many other translations in...