Admitting to conjectural emendation does not validate the corruption. BTW, two (or more) wrongs do not make a right. If the text reads Jews and not Jewish leaders, to change the text to fix a problem is wrong. Why not apply the same metric to the NIV that was used to disparage the KJV? If we judge those we like with one set of scales, and weigh others with a different scales, we lack integrity.
-
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
No, nothing overly doctrinal. Just consider the names of the opposition, all lean to the left. Forum leadership has ruled that any suggestion that the NIV, NET, NLT, or ESV have been "fixed" according to a doctrinal agenda constitutes "hate speech."
Perhaps you, McGree79 would answer my question?
Perhaps you, McGree79 would answer my question?
"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
Last edited:
I think your answer is that none of the 27 examples are "conjectural emendations."
Secondly, you point out other translations do not match the "should read" correction.
Lets deal with #6, where propitiatory shelter is given as the should read. The meaning of the Greek word is the place of propitiation. Thus when we are placed "in Christ" we are placed in the place of propitiation or propitiatory shelter. OTOH the Greek word for reconciliation is no where to be found and the Greek word for sacrifice is no where to be found. Thus Paul was saying Christ is the place of propitiation, and not the sacrifice of reconciliation. To change what Paul was saying is clearly a conjectural emendation.
As far as number #4, the Greek word means children, not friends, a different Greek word means friends. So yet another change of the text, another conjectural emendation. And to repeat, just because one or even a few do not translate it as children, the vast majority do. Two or more wrongs do not make a right.
As I said, #9, the issue is not only everyone, but the omission of every person where it appears in the text. This change provides non-equivalence, rather than equivalence.
Bottom line, if we applied the same metric used to identify "conjectural emendations" in the KJV, we would find the same or more in the NIV.
Secondly, you point out other translations do not match the "should read" correction.
Lets deal with #6, where propitiatory shelter is given as the should read. The meaning of the Greek word is the place of propitiation. Thus when we are placed "in Christ" we are placed in the place of propitiation or propitiatory shelter. OTOH the Greek word for reconciliation is no where to be found and the Greek word for sacrifice is no where to be found. Thus Paul was saying Christ is the place of propitiation, and not the sacrifice of reconciliation. To change what Paul was saying is clearly a conjectural emendation.
As far as number #4, the Greek word means children, not friends, a different Greek word means friends. So yet another change of the text, another conjectural emendation. And to repeat, just because one or even a few do not translate it as children, the vast majority do. Two or more wrongs do not make a right.
As I said, #9, the issue is not only everyone, but the omission of every person where it appears in the text. This change provides non-equivalence, rather than equivalence.
Bottom line, if we applied the same metric used to identify "conjectural emendations" in the KJV, we would find the same or more in the NIV.
#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!
Just because the metric of fault finding in the KJV should be applied to all translations, does not mean the observations concerning the NIV are diminished.
The text has every person repeated three times, whereas the NIV simply removed one of the repeats, weakening the message of salvation being available to every person.
Propitiation or propitiatory sacrifice comes closer to the actual meaning (place of propitiation or propitiatory shelter) than the NIV.
The idea is to use the same metric for all translations, but why do you seem to avoid using the metric when evaluating the NIV?
These 27 examples do not provide functional equivalence, they provide functional non-equivalence.
Bottom line, the problems pointed out in the KJV were efforts for the most part to "fix" the text. Ditto for the NIV. Both efforts were mistakes.
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.
Was it Van or the NIV that omitted words, added words, and changed the meaning of words in the 27 examples? The NIV needs fixing, not scripture.
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.
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.
More personal attacks, more deflection, more effort to change the subject. Scripture does not need "fixing" and when scribes and translators rewrite the text or the translation to fix a perceived problem, the alteration amounts to corruption of the text. Many examples have been given, both from the NIV and other translations. To translate a word meaning children as "friends" and also as "deserving" demonstrates intentional corruption to alter the text.
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?