-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Scripture Need "Fixing?"
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
I agree with you Van, I am trying to be fair to the other debators.
In one of my hermeneutics classes it was necessary to choose a doctrinal debate topic. Then I was told to choose my debate partner and debate the side that was in error. It was then that I decided the importance of being honest and fair in a debate.
BTW, I had to prove through debate that water baptism washes away original sin.
I thought that was cruel of the professor because I was a former Catholic and he knew it. However in my later years it has proved beneficial.
HankD
RE: precision:
Also Van, in many theological professions (e.g.original language translator) precision is required. For instance for NT translation not just the references I used but many others such as Attic Greek word usage, The Septuagint word usage, koine Greek usage, Early Church Fathers usage, ancient church lectern manuscripts, other ancient translations (Vulgate, Peshitta) and many other sources.
Thanks
HankD
The elephant in the room is the claim these NIV 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."
25) 1 Corinthians 14:29 should read "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." The NIV added "carefully" and "what is said."
26) Mark 15:42 "evening approached" should read "evening had already come."
27) Matthew 27:57 "evening approached" should read "evening had come."
Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, 16 and 25 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 27 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.
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."
25) 1 Corinthians 14:29 should read "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." The NIV added "carefully" and "what is said."
26) Mark 15:42 "evening approached" should read "evening had already come."
27) Matthew 27:57 "evening approached" should read "evening had come."
Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, 16 and 25 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 27 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.
Hi Van,
I'm a little confused, I'll only take one verse as an example : Mark 1:41 of your post.
Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read, "moved with anger.
Where are you getting your verses?
Here is the verse from the KJV and the NIV
KJV Mark 1:41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
NIV Mark 1:41 Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
I can't seem to correlate these two verses compared with your number 2 statement above.
Am I missing something?
Thanks
HankD
Indeed.
Hi HankD, yes, earlier versions of the NIV did say "filled with compassion" but the latest says "was indignant." In this verse we are dealing with two issues, (1) which variant to use, and (2) the correct translation of the "anger" variant. If you use the "anger" variant, "moved with anger" is a literal translation.
Thus, if using the anger variant, the verse should read "moved with anger."
Thus, if using the anger variant, the verse should read "moved with anger."
Oh, OK I see.
I follow the TR (Scrivener) Van so I would actually choose "compassion".
The underlying Greek word is used 12 times in the NT and has a wide scope of meaning
but "anger" or "indignant" just don't seem to fit the context.
Also there is no Greek variant between the TR and the W&H revision of the TR for this word.
HankD
Related to translation work:
The basic problem Van is often the fact that people who don't know another language don't understand that just because a word in English has only one meaning that there is therefore a corresponding one word meaning with all the English nuances and flavors in the receptor language . This is not true. I'm sure John of Japan is well aware of this linguistic phenomena. And there are far more difficulties than this as well in the field of translation work.
So, when different Bible translations are published with "unacceptable" English word variations we should be very tolerant unless of course it's a variation to deceive.
Personally it doesn't bother me when I know that any given English bible word variation compared to the corresponding word in another version that I prefer is different - as long as it is a legitimate choice within the scope of the receptor language even if it is being used to support an agenda.
Good discussion Van.
HankD
The NIV translates a different Greek word (G23) as "indignant" at least 6 times. And translates G3710 as anger or angry at least 2 times. Then we have "moved" being replaced with "was." I am no fan of the KJV but it sticks to translating the same word in the same way far better than the NIV. 
Last edited:
No, you are wrong. (what's new about that.) Both the NASU and NIV use the word indignant eight times in the Gospels. Both use the very same references.
No, wrong again. If you simply read the Preface of the KJV written by Miles Smith you would understand that the KJV translators did not use concordance all that much. They didn't want to be a slave to that artificial contruct. There is a semantic range that needs to be taken into consideration as well as the context itself.
Mark 1:41 should read moved with anger, if the anger variant is used. But the NIV arbitrarily translates G3710 as indignant. Yet, when the same Greek word appears in Matthew 18:34, the NIV translators translate it as anger. Meanwhile, the NIV translators translate another Greek word as indignant, (G23).
And the result of this lack of accuracy is that Mr. Rippon thinks the NIV translated the same Greek word as indignant 8 times.
And the result of this lack of accuracy is that Mr. Rippon thinks the NIV translated the same Greek word as indignant 8 times.
You have acknowledged that you are not proficient in English. If only you were familiar with the meaning of words. I will help you Van.
According to Merriam-Webster, indignant means ":feeling or showing anger because of something unjust or unworthy: filled with or marked by indignation."
M-W uses, as an example :"Melville was so struck by the dram of the Essex (deliberately battered by an indignant and maddened whale, which at last brained itself by sinking the ship) that he used it as the end of Moby-Dick." --Paul Theroux, New York Times Book Review, 11 June 2000.
In a synonym discussion:"Anger :the most general term, names the reaction but by itself does not convey cause or intensity." On the other hand, "Indignation stresses righteous anger at what one considers unfair, mean, or shameful."
In a snippet regarding Mark 1:41, Doug Moo, the head of the NIV translation team has said :"As we saw what the man with leprosy had suffered, Jesus responded initially with 'anger' or 'indignation' at the terrible plight of people in the sin-ravaged world."
Last edited:
Hark
Well-Known Member
The problem of relying on intellect in translation is the absence of relying on the wisdom from the Lord. It doesn't always happen, but the trapping is to rely solely on the intellect, and that is a normal thing to do.
Nobody would want to be healed by Jesus if He is seen as approaching His healing with anger or righteous indignation. Jesus is fully aware of the terrible plight of the people in a sin ravaged world, but that was hardly His motivation for any of His healing.
He forgave a lame man so He can get up and walk. His anger was towards those that refused to believe in Him, and He let it showed.
So no. He is not going to confuse people with His anger.
To do something good, Jesus was moved with compassion.
One can lose sight of the forest by all the trees. Words has to be translated by what is happening in the verse.
Like pneuma. There are so many different definitions for pneuma that they cannot all mean the same thing without blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So it does matter by what is happening in the verse as for the meaning of the text that is being used.
The Voice Bible version has translated the word Christ to mean "anointed", but all believers are anointed with the Holy Spirit, and since we are not the Christ or a Christ, It cannot be translated as the anointed.
So I am disagreeing with you on your explanation that anger is the right translation to be used in that verse.
The NIV translates a different Greek word as "indignant." The NIV translates the Greek word in the anger variant as anger (and angry).
The NIV translators admit they thought Jesus was indignant over the plight of the leper, but nothing in the context supports that needless speculation. We know He became angry, based on the word in the variant.
The NIV translators admit they thought Jesus was indignant over the plight of the leper, but nothing in the context supports that needless speculation. We know He became angry, based on the word in the variant.
Last edited:
Not "they" but "he" --Doug Moo. And it was stated that Moo believes that Jesus responded with anger initially "at the terrible plight of people in the sin-ravaged world."
Dr. Moo is an accomplished New Testament Bible scholar. He has commentaries on several books of the New Testament (Romans in particular is regarded by many as the best in the field). But you, in all your proven wisdom, as evidenced with your posts on the BB, know better. I see.
Well, I suppose you think he was personally angry with the leper then.
You don't want to exercise any reasoning about why? That's uncharacteristic of you Van. If a preacher would expound this text he should have to explain why. A bare reading is not expounding.
Translators should translate the text, not add to it with speculation. If the reason Jesus was moved with anger had been given, then and only then should the reason be translated. If Paul had wanted to say "indignant" he would have used a different Greek word. This should not be this hard.