In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[Van]

Hi Banana, I have provided four verses where some versions present questionable translation choices. What was the point of your opening post?

Still waiting for a response.

 

[Van]

Berean Study Bible
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
Berean Literal Bible
But when the kindness and the love of mankind of God our Savior appeared,
New American Standard Bible
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
King James Bible
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Holman Christian Standard Bible
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
International Standard Version
In grace our Savior God appeared, to make his love for mankind clear.
NET Bible
But "when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared,

Not to mention Titus 3:4 also in the NKJV, WEB, LEB, Darby, and YLT

 

[InTheLight]

If we check other translations, we find almost all render the word love of men. Commentaries indicate this word expresses God's "all embracing love" for mankind. So yet again the translators choice denies the inclusive nature of God's love and grace toward men.

You're kidding right? You're nit-picking. Look at the context. Who/what else is God's love directed at?

TItus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, [NIV]

 

[Van]

You're kidding right? You're nit-picking. Look at the context. Who/what else is God's love directed at?

TItus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, [NIV]

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the word does not mean love of mankind? The lexicons, and many many translations agree with me. Are they all nit-picking? God's love toward mankind is abundantly clear. But His love does not require that He save all mankind, that would be a bogus view. The idea is that everybody believing into Him shall not perish.

 

[InTheLight]

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the word does not mean love of mankind?

No, I'm saying the verse is rendered just fine in the NIV, everybody knows that:

when God's love appeared
and
when God's love appeared to mankind

means the same thing in the context of these verses. Look at the title of the thread--"In Which Verses Does the NIV Mess up the Meaning". Well, this isn't one. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Van]

No, I'm saying the verse is rendered just fine in the NIV, everybody knows that:

when God's love appeared
and
when God's love appeared to mankind

means the same thing in the context of these verses. Look at the title of the thread--"In Which Verses Does the NIV Mess up the Meaning". Well, this isn't one. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Thanks for clarifying. I disagree. "God's love appeared" means something different from "God's love for mankind appeared."

 

[Van]

You were forgiven.
They even named a forum after you... Missions / Witnessing / eVangelism

Rob

In trying to provide an answer to the OP, I have been flying through quite a bit of flak, fired by the usual suspects. Thanks for your "humane" treatment, sad that it was unexpected.

 

[Rippon]

I want translation versions to say what the actual message of God intended.

"Translation versions" is oxymoronic. Translations are versions.

When an addition alters the message rather than clarifies the message, the addition is a corruption.

Well, just add another bit of Vanism to the mix. It's you against legit Bible translators. You have a superiority complex.

 

[Rippon]

In trying to provide an answer to the OP, I have been flying through quite a bit of flak, fired by the usual suspects.

"Flying through quite a bit of flack" is simply those who disagree with your opinions.

 

[Van]

Still waiting for a response from Banana. I have provided five examples where certain versions miss the mark, and alter the message. All translations contain flaws, some more than others. By starting with a "word for word" translation philosophy version as your primary study bible, and then comparing with well accepted alternate versions, you give yourself a better shot for arriving at an accurate understanding of the text.

 

[Rippon]

I have provided five examples where certain versions miss the mark,

In your estimation --but the very versions you extoll differ from your opinions much of the time.

and alter the message.

That's your ego speaking.

 

[Van]

Lets consider Ephesians 2:3. The NIV says believers had been by nature "deserving of wrath" but nearly all the other versions say "children of wrath."

 

[Rippon]

Lets consider Ephesians 2:3. The NIV says believers had been by nature "deserving of wrath" but nearly all the other versions say "children of wrath."

Other versions (translations) which do not use the idiom of 'children' are NLT,ISV,GWT, and Weymouth.

The NET note says it's a Semitic idiom "which may mean either 'people characterized by wrath' or 'people destined for wrath.'

So, again, as ITL said before, you specialize in making mountains out of molehills.

 

[Van]

Ok, I will bite. Is the idea they were deserving of wrath per the translation, or characterized by wrath or destined for wrath per the commentary. The NASB, NKJV, NET, HCSB all stick with what the Greek says, children of wrath. The Greek word translated "children" appears in the New Testament about 99 times. Guess how many times it is translated "deserving?"

 

[banana]

Still waiting for a response from Banana. I have provided five examples where certain versions miss the mark, and alter the message. All translations contain flaws, some more than others. By starting with a "word for word" translation philosophy version as your primary study bible, and then comparing with well accepted alternate versions, you give yourself a better shot for arriving at an accurate understanding of the text.

I was just curious if they messed up the meaning of some verses.

 

[Van]

I was just curious if they messed up the meaning of some verses.

Thanks for responding. Yes all translations miss the mark on some verses, even my beloved NASB. But if you want to study God's word, rather than often times an interpretation, stick with word for word philosophy versions such as the NASB and then compare with more liberal translations such as LEB, HCSB, NET, and WEB.

 

[Rippon]

if you want to study God's word, rather than often times an interpretation,

You're only fooling yourself. All translation involves interpretation.

then compare with more liberal translations such as LEB, HCSB, NET, and WEB.

You are attaching a unique meaning to "liberal translations" there Van. In no way can those four be considered "liberal" by 99.99% of Christians. You're Vanizing again.

 

[John Public]

Are there any?

Here is a good example of the given to change NIVs. Mind you, like many if not most other Critical text versions, is a Vatican translation by way of UBS. Will Kinney is a dear friend; he has an excellent article on this verifying it indubitably, found on brandplucked.webs.com

In the gospel of Mark 1.41 in the KJB we read, as do most other historical Bibles in the English language,
And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

Reading likewise are the ancient Anglo Saxon Gospels dated circa AD 1000 in addition to AD 1200,

Soðlice se hælend him ge-miltsode. & his hand aþenode & hine æt-hrinende & þus cwæð; Ic wylle. beo ðu geclænsod.

Soðlice se hælend hine ge-miltsede & his hand á-þenode & hine æt-hrinede & þus cwæð. Ic wille. byo þu ge-clænsed.

The Wycliff, AD 1395, even though it was based in Latin mss,
And Jhesus hadde mercy on hym, and streiyte out his hoond, and towchyde hym, and seide to hym, I wole, be thou maad cleene.

Tyndale's 1534, the first English text out of ancient Chaldee, Greek, & Hebrew long dead,
And Iesus had copassion on him and put forth his honde touched him and sayde to him: I will be thou clene.

Coverdale's 1535 read pitied, but this is a synonym to com
-passion,
And it pitied Iesus, and he stretched forth his honde, and touched him, and sayde: I wyll, be thou cleane.

The 1540 "Great" or Cramner Bible,
And Iesus had compassion on hym, & puth forth his hande, touched hym, & sayeth vnto him: I wyll, be thou cleane.

1549 Matthew's,
And Iesus had compassyon on hym, and put forth hys hande, touched hym, & sayd to hym: I wyl, be thou cleane.

1568 Bishop's, the first authorized version,
And Iesus had compassion on hym, and put foorth his hande, touched hym, and sayth vnto hym: I wyll, be thou cleane.

1587 Genevan,
And Iesus had compassion on hym, and put foorth his hande, touched hym, and sayth vnto hym: I wyll, be thou cleane.

1611 AV,
And Iesus mooued with compassion, put foorth his hand, and touched him, and saith vnto him, I will, be thou cleane.

I'm just a fool but it seems the correct reading here is "com-
passion". The older NIVs agreed, but for some reason in 2010/2011, they changed the text to a totally foreign reading. Not even the full blooded Romanist translations make this reading, but here is what the NIV translators in all their [clipped] wisdom literally invented:
Jesus was indignant.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

The footnote reveals the truth,
Footnotes:

1. 
   
   
   • Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion

The 2014 NIRV changes yet again; what a horrible shock!
'Jesus became angry. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing to do it,” Jesus said. “Be ‘clean’!”'

Yes, the [clipped] Version changes doctrines. Frankly, I do declare a woman would make less changes of mind on a shopping trip, platinum MasterCard in hand!

Also reading with the AV are the Statenvertaling (Dutch AV), 1649 Diodati Italian, Portugese Alemida, Russian Synodal, Thai and the French KJB, 1602 Valera Purified, 1568 Sagradas Escutras, Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Luther Bible, the Ostervald, the Modern Greek Bible, 1610 Douai, a Latin-text CATHOLIC version, and a slew of others, INCLUDING the NASV, NLT, AMP, ESV, NKJV, ad nauseum.

Soli Deo Gloria (Psalm 115.1)

 

[rsr]

You have managed to pack a whole lot of KJVO nonsense into one post. You quote Will Kinney, of course, as an expert on translation. He is not. He is an expert on the KJV and its perfection.

You say the Bishops' Bible was the first authorized version in English; no, it was was the Great, or Cromwell's, Bible. And it's Cranmer, not Cramner (whose contribution to Coverdale's translation was simply an introduction for a later printing).

You insist on calling Critical Text versions as "Romanist" and "Vatican" and the NIV the Non Inspired Version, both of which are slanders and out of bounds on this forum.

Whether all the older versions rendered it as "compassion" doesn't deal with what the correct translation may be.

And throw in a dollop of misogyny with the reference to a woman with her credit card and you have almost reached perfection in what passes for debating in the KJVO world.

 

[John Public]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19871116_guidelines-bible_en.htm
l
Sigh.... Make one mistake and a [clipped]. The Bishop's was indeed the first in the sense of its being a blueprint. By the way, got a source on that about Cramner's Bible?
Either way, cannot one understand the NIV has adopted totally incorrect readings in this verse; and do you, rsr, believe any Bible in ANY language is the word of God? Can you do what none of the NIV translators can do, or RC Sproul, Jimmy Swaggart (am by no means his endorser), James White, etc. can do?
[off topic]

Slanders, no! Only a dodger of my post's content could say that! The NIV and the other Critical text line of versions derive from the agreement between the Vatican, who in turn recognizes these as Catholic Bibles, and certian evangelical groups. It is called an inter-confessional text, a la, the Nestle-Aland 29 et al.
So let's get this straight, you label me by a made up term from James White, then pull the slander card when you cannot
disprove this information? Here it is RIGHT from the Vatican website.
I see like most folks on the critical Alexandrian text side you do not understand the meanings of words; I referenced his article.
http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

To quote is to copy or retell another's words. It is not to source or cite something. You even threw out a sense of humour as surely my mother changed her mind when we went shopping as a child!

Perhaps you ought to get out more, rsr, and talk to people beyond the Alexandrian side of the fence because it seems to be sapping your humanity, and reasoning, away.
Attacks me, calls the slander card.
Wow.