Featured In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

The word is sometimes used affectionately to refer Christians in training, thus Jesus to His disciples who had gone fishing, and by John to those he was training. But this insight is obliterated if it is not translated accurately, i.e. children or little children.

 

So it's an affectionate idiom.

 

Hi ITL, you asked a question and I answered it. I did not say or suggest the word meaning is idiomatic, its literal, i.e. an affectionate reference to a disciple or student.

We have listed 20 messed up verses, demonstrating a systemic problem with literalness, and an almost theological commitment to functional non-equivalence.

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."
2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."
3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."
4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."
5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."
6) Rev. 13:8 before the creation should read "from the foundation."
7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."
8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."
9) 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."
10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"
11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"
12) 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.
13) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read "propitiatory shelter."
14) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
15) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
16) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read "offering."
17) Acts 13:50 "leaders" should be italicized to indicate an addition to the text.
18) 1 Corinthians 16:13 "be courageous" should read "act like men."
19) 1 Peter 4:6 those who are now dead should read "those who are dead."
20) John 21:5 friends should read "children." ​

 

You said it was a colloquial expression. That's pretty much the same thing as an idiom.

 

I was quoting Robertson, and colloquialisms are not necessarily idiomatic. For example, you make me sick is a phrase often used informally, it is a colloquialism, but not an idiom because the meaning can be discerned. Similarly, when Mark Twain did not want to meet someone, his maid would say "He just stepped out." Again the meaning is discernible.

But enough of the bunny trail....

 

Van has proven that he is functionally illiterate when it comes to reading comprehension.
I will use the designation of VPR meaning Van's Preferred Rendering.

Mark 1:41 : VPR is distinctly NOT in the majority of translations.
James 2:5 : VPR is not found in ANY translation.
Revelation 13:8 : Since VPR is in the NIV --there is no rational reason to submit this reference as proof mistranslation. It makes no sense.
John 1:16 Since Van has no problem with the NIV reading. There is no rational explanation for it to be included in a hit-list.
2 Thess. 3:6 : VPR is not in the majority of translations.
Ro. 3:25 : Absolutely no translation has VPR peculiar reading.
Isaiah 12:3 : Most translations do not have VPR here.
1 John 2:2 : Nearly one dozen versions aside from the NIV do not have VPR. (Including the NET and WEB).
1 Peter 4:6 : Seven versions in addition to the NIV do not have VPR. (Among them HCSB and NET).
2 Thess. 2:13 : Nine versions aside from the NIV do not have 'for salvation.' --VPR.
1 John 2:2 : VPR is not in the majority here --it is 50/50.
1 Cor. 16:13 : Ten versions aside from the NIV do not have VPR 'act like men.'
Titus 3:4 : Seven versions aside from the NIV do not have VPR.
Col. 1:28 : A dozen versions do not have VPR. And his 'argument' has no rational basis --having no supporters.
Eph. 2:3 : Eight versions, aside from the NIV, do not have VPV.
Rev. 22:21 : Eleven versions aside from the NIV do not have VPR.
Heb. 10:14 : The NIV reading of 'sacrifice' is in the minority here. But see my posts 141 and 144 for information.
Acts 13:50 : Though Jewish leaders is found in only three English translations --D.A. Carson's explanation and the ESV footnote will satisfy most critics.
1 Timothy 3:16 : I have already acknowledged (several times) that i prefer 'revealed' and 'manifested' rather than the NIV's 'appeared.'
John 21:5 : The word 'children' may be a better translation than the NIV's 'friends.'

 

The topic remains the messed up verses in the NIV, all these posts trying to disparage me are simply efforts to change the subject, using dis-information.

God inspired the very words of scripture, and to (1) omit them, (2) change them, and (3) add to them amounts to functional non-equivalence. And this conclusion is supported by the mountain of evidence provided by three posters.

 

Van arrives at the scene with his Facts be-gone solvent.

Van, didn't your mama ever tell you if you have nothing good to say about the Bible, you shouldn't say anything at all?

You have got to take some honesty pills pronto!

You cannot factually deny what I presented in my prior post --so you go into typical Van-overdrive.
The only mountain in this thread is the fictional one you created. And that was invented in order to lambast the NIV upon the flimsiest of "reasons."

Your favorite translations intersected with the NIV reading numerous times --but you ignore that to demean the NIV anyway. You specialize in double-speak. You are untrustworthy with your "oracles."

You need a new hobby --one that is honorable.

 

Yet another personal attack, more slander and another clear rule 6 violation. You this and you that you, you and you.

The NIV has been shown to omit words, alter words and add words. This mountain of evidence reveals a systemic problem with literalness.

We have listed 20 messed up verses, demonstrating an almost theological commitment to functional non-equivalence.

1) Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read "moved with anger."
2) Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read "children of wrath."
3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."
4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."
5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."
6) Rev. 13:8 before should read "from"
7) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read "be with all."
8) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read "revealed in the flesh."
9) 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."
10) Isaiah 12:3 the omission of the conjunction should read "therefore"
11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"
12) 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.
13) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read "propitiatory shelter."
14) 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
15) 1 John 4:10 atoning sacrifice should read "propitiation."
16) Hebrews 10:14 sacrifice should read "offering."
17) Acts 13:50 "leaders" should be italicized to indicate an addition to the text.
18) 1 Corinthians 16:13 "be courageous" should read "act like men."
19) 1 Peter 4:6 those who are now dead should read "those who are dead."
20) John 21:5 friends should read "children." ​

 

You have a systemic aversion to the truth.

Although MM has contributed a little --including agreement with the NIV once, "we" is not the proper pronoun. You have been the main agent of instigation.

You're a mess Van. For once in your life --try telling the truth. It will set you free. Go to my post #206 and address it --point-by-point. It will be impossible to deny what I have said there if you ever can stomach truthfulness.

​

 

More slander, more Rule 6 violations, more inaction by moderators.

MM indicated he agreed with many of the examples of poor translation.

Anyone who pays attention to what Mr. Rippon says about others is naive.

These twenty verses demonstrate the NIV provides plenty of 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 before the creation should read, "from the foundation."

20) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all."


Examples 1, 9, and 13 document omission of words or parts of words.

Examples 5, 15, and 16 document addition of words.

Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.


These examples constitute a mountain of evidence that the NIV has a systemic problem with literalness.

 

Grab a clue --that's an oxymoron.

But most translations do not have therefore. So, the NIV is not singular in that regard.

A grand total of two have some form of your desired reading. Therefore, you condemn the bulk of all translations --the NIV is in no sense "guilty" of anything in this regard.

If the reading in the NIV is not any more flawed than many other translations --then why in the world are you listing it as a mistranslation?

I already agreed that it should be the case.

Why --to please you? A Bible translation should have a reasonable number of footnotes. A translation is not a commentary as well. Besides, it's a clarification of the text.

Absolutely no translation has your unique take.

Ten versions, aside from the NIV do not have your "must-read."

At least eight versions, in addition to the NIV do not have your desired reading.

A dozen versions aside from the NIV do not have the extra "every person." Your rationale is nonsensical.

At least nine versions, aside from the NIV itself do not have your desired reading.

 

Twenty mistranslations provide a mountain of evidence the NIV provides 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 before the creation should read, "from the foundation."
20) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all." ​

Examples 1, 9, and 13 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, and 16 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.

These examples constitute a mountain of evidence that the NIV has a systemic problem with literalness.

 

Since Van is being obtuse, I will jar his memory. Only the Lord can move his conscience.

 

Recently in another thread Mr. Rippon has supplied what he considers the failure of the NASB95 to put the literal translation in the main text and instead provides the literal rendering with a footnote.

Using this assessment, if we compare the literal to the NIV rendering we find 5 more examples of less than literal translation in Galatians:

1:14 people should read race
2:6 does not show favoritism should read does not receive a face
3:25 guardian should read child conductor
4:13 illness should read weakness of the flesh
4:14 illness should read flesh
5:17 desires should read lusts against.​

 

I have often remarked that your reading comprehension is very poor. If you actually bother to read my OP in the other thread, you will note that far from regarding the NASU's practice being a failure --I commended the translators for putting the idiomatic rendering in the text and putting the "Lit." in the marginal notes.

You extoll "the literal" as if it is somehow far superior than the idiomatic. I differ with you, and so do the translators of the NASU,HCSB,NIV and the bulk of Bible translations.

 

The point of this thread is to discuss the mistranslations of the NIV. That does not mean "less than literal."

HCSB : people
NET : nation

HCSB : does not show favoritism
NET : shows no favoritism

HCSB : guardian
NET : guardian

HCSB : illness
NET : illness

HCSB : physical condition
NET : physical condition

5:17
NIV : whatever you want
HCSB : what you want
NET : what you want
Lit. : wish
________________________________________________________________________
The HCSB and NET are among your favorite translations.

In these five cases the NIV, HCSB and NET read about the same.

All three versions are faithful to the original. There is no mistranslation. There is no defect. You are barking up the wrong tree Van.
​

 

Liberals love to argue that two or more wrongs make a right. A mistranslation is one version justifies mistranslations in other versions. Good Grief.

In the case of the NASB, fault was found in not translating in the main text with the literal rendering. But when applied to the NIV, why that is ok because others do not present literal renderings either.

Absurdity anyone?

 

There were no mistranslations of those texts in the NIV,HCSB,NET or NASU.

I find no fault with the NASU putting idiomatic readings in the text and leaving the so-called literal renderings in the margins.

You are the only one complaining that your principle has not been adopted by translators of nearly all Bible versions in English.