Featured Bibles that are deliberately bad?

You mentioned Niv/Nlt/esv, and all 3 are good bible transaltion, but prefer myself Nasb, but others are the word of God to us in English form!

 

Good? Good in what way? Mistranslated to foster Calvinism?

Why not stick with the NASB95, the NET, the NKJV, the HCSB, the WEB and YLT? All have issues but they do not systematically mistranslate verse after verse to pour Calvinism into the text. They are deceptive and are the tools of stealth transformation of local bodies to Calvinism.

 

you do realise that not ALL of the translators were reformed, right?

that they were and are reputable scholars who were NOT seeking to advocate calvinis, arminianis, any other ism, but just trying to transalte as they nbest saw fit based upon their philosophy and theory greek/Hebrew into English?

 

What Bible translations do that?

 

Hi Yeshua1, I provided evidence for the premise those three translations are Calvinism tools. You do realize that? Or perhaps not. Can you find where any of the three mistranslations are considered sound. If you can, then you are reading the view of a so-called Calvinist scholar.

 

Think those who Rippon cites as experts for the NIV 2011 are not all calvinists though!

 

The deceivers use manipulation to achieve their goals, such as having all sides represented, but slipping in Calvinism again and again.

Lets look at the NIV Romans 8:23 where we eagerly await our adoption "to sonship" the redemption of our bodies. But how does your beloved NASB read? "...wait eagerly for adoption as sons? So in the NIV it seems we are becoming sons, but in the NASB we, who are sons already, are being adopted. A subtle change but it reverses the message. Deception is deception.

Now the NKJV simply says we are waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. Neither "to sonship" nor as sons appears.

You can deny these three (NIV, ESV, NLT) are bad because they have corrupted verses to facilitate Calvinism if you like, but the evidence is plain to any objective reader.

 

again, you are saying that the translators all had this hidden agenda to corrupt the teaching of the bible, in order to make it read more clavinistic theology, yet not all of the translators were either reformed, or calvinists, so does this mean that some of the team somehow got those who were against that to just 'go along"

ALl of those scholars hold to plenary verbal inspiration of the originals, so do you really think they would try to pervert and change what the Bible actually state dto what they wanted it to say?

And the point is that we are already right now been adopted as sons, but still waiting to get ALL that adoption proviodes for us, and that is the glorification of this physical body!

 

Can you name a non-Calvinist Bible scholar who thinks as you do on this?

How do you account for these "Calvinistic readings" when some of the translators of these versions are not Calvinists?

 

Over the years Van, you have made some classic claims. I will add this to the ever-growing list of absurdly humorous remarks.

 

Hi Rippon, your ad homenims continue to pile up, but your on topic posts are minimal.

Translations that miss the mark on some verses cannot be charged with being deliberately bad. Translations that miss the mark on more than 1/2 dozen verses, all in favor of Calvinistic interpretation can indeed be charged with being deliberately bad. That would be the NIV, ESV and NLT. Never met a Calvinist who thought these were poor translations.

 

Hmm...from your Van-approved list of non-Calvinistic English Bible translations the HCSB,NET,WEB,NKJV and NASB all have "to be rich in faith." Horrors.

 

Well,well. The Van standard is that if so-called Calvinistic readings occur more than six times within a given translation --then they are deemed "bad" --gottcha. Some verses are okay by you. But more than six --no way by the Van-standard.

You haven't been paying attention. I think the ESV is doctrinally sound;but uses poor English. I have a number of threads illustrating that.

 

Hi Rippon, no need to hid under your bed. The NASB puts "to be" in italics, which indicates a translator addition. Ditto for NKJV. Now the others, the HCSB, the NET, and the WEB all add "to be" without footnote or italics. Not their finest hour.

However, the three (NIV, ESV and NLT) also add "to be" without italics or footnote. So all three of the deliberately bad translations chose to corrupt the text with a Calvinistic interpretation. But the actual text teaches God chose those rich in faith, a conditional election.

Now lets look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Here the corruption of the text changes "for salvation" into "to be saved" so that the through faith in the truth can be said to apply to saved, rather than chosen. This violates the underlying grammar of the text. Again the NLT, NIV and ESV add "to be saved" or otherwise append through belief to salvation (NLT). But the NASB, NKJV, NET, WEB, and HCSB read for salvation, thus the through faith in the truth appends to chose.

If you are keeping score, NIV, ESV and NLT have two strikes, but none of the others have more than one. See a pattern?

Well lets look at one more. How about Revelation 13:8, with names not written (and presumably other names written) from or since the foundation of the world. But the Calvinist doctrine asserts we were individually chosen before the foundation of the world. Therefore, a deliberately bad translation would obscure when the names were presumably written or flat out rewrite the text to say they were written before creation.

Lets see, yes again we have the NIV, ESV and NLT all corrupting the text, but the others read that the names were not written from the foundation of the world. See a pattern now?

 

According to Bible Gateway there are italics in either translation for James 2:5.

In Ephesians 1:4 all of your favorite non-Calvinistic English Bible translations have "before the foundation of the world."

Likewise, in 1 Peter 1:20 all of your favorite non-Reformed English Bible translations have "before the foundation of the world."

In 2 Timothy 1:9:
NASB :from all eternity
HCSB : before time began
NET : before time began
WEB : before times eternal
YLT : before the times of the ages
NKJV : before time began

I certainly do. Your "non-Calvinistic" versions have been getting a lot of strikes against them. Maybe they'll be considered "bad translations" before long if the differ with your interpretation more than a total of six times. We're rapidly approaching that line of demarcation you set.

 

Oh my! I did some investigation and your favorite translations have that distinctively Calvinistic flavor to them in various places. The taint of Calvinism is present in John 6,10,17;Acts (esp.13:48);Romans 8 and 9; Ephesians 1 and a lot more. I think these evil Calvinistic slants have infiltrated even your favorite versions Van. It's way beyond merely six verses which is your legal limit before you deem them "Bad."

Upon further reflection these Calvinistically worded passages are pervasive in the Old Testament too. Check out the whole of Genesis,Ruth,Job,Psalms and Isaiah. I hesitate to say this Van --I think Calvinism is present in way more than six passages --it's in all 66 books of the Canon! How stealthy of those Calvinistically-inclined,evil translators.

Now how will you ever find a translation that recasts things more suitable to your point of view? Will you do your own translation? If so,will it be like Thomas Jefferson's Bible?

 

In the NKJV and NASB,that is.

 

Hi Rippon, to be is in italics in both verses.

Click on this link:
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:5&version=NIV;ESV;NASB;HCSB;NKJV

Now when I tried to copy and paste the verse into this post, the copy did not have the italics. So to be double sure, I opened my desk copy of the NASB95, and sure enough "to be" was in italics.

 

As far as post 96, it was long on assertions, a Calvinist trait, and short on examples.

As for post 95, we have the infamous bait and switch ploy of Calvinism. Rippon actually cited accurate translations of "Pro" being before as if they were translating "apo" which of course is not in those verses.

And note the effort to paint those verses as Calvinistic? None of them support Calvinist doctrine.

Who mentioned comical arguments?

 

Lets talk about one more of Rippon's claimed Calvinist verses, Acts 13:48. Here, according to Calvinist dogma, God appointed the Gentiles to eternal life. But that view is twaddle. The word translated appointed, refers to an appointment by mutual consent, thus the Gentiles who accepted the requirements as presented by Paul were appointed to eternal life. What is the requirement? Let me put on my thinking cap. A verse is coming to mind, oh I remember, John 3:16, whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life.