In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[Van]

One of the difficulties in discussing mistakes in many modern versions, is that the discussion gets clogged with differences between the TR and the CT. Lots of people think claiming a difference from the TR to be bogus is nonsense. However, if we narrow our focus to differences in translation among CT based versions, then we are comparing translation choices rather than source texts.

Turning to Mark 1:41, the majority of source texts have compassion, but a few have anger. Thus the NIV concluded that the variant reading was valid. Note also, the NIV and LEB footnote the alternate reading, i.e. compassion.

 

[rsr]

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 Bible agnostic will crucify you.

You have learned from Will, I see. Call someone a "Bible agnostic" and you've got him on the run. Sorry. I don't play that game. I am a Bible believer. You aren't, because you want the Bible to say what you want, not what it says.

The Bishop's was indeed the first in the sense of its being a blueprint.

Ah, yes, we're redefining terms. Because the Bishops' Bible was to be altered as little as possible, it becomes the "blueprint." But it wasn't the first authorized version.

By the way, got a source on that about Cramner's Bible?

That's what David Norton says. He calls it the "the direct ancestor of the Bishops' Bible." Cranmer wrote the preface from the second edition onward. You can look it up.

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?

You have yet to prove that it is a "totally incorrect reading." You have proved that many translators disagree with it. I'll ignore the repeated "Bible agnostic" charge sandwiched in there.

Yea, or nay? While your at it, why do not you explain to these dear souls what your drivel has to do with this post, rsr? I do assume you understand the OP is asking for things wrong with the NIV, no?

Yep. I understand it. But you brought up the tired old KJVO propaganda. I thought it should be addressed.

Slanders, no! Only a dodger of my post's content could say that!

I'm not dodging anything except the drivel of your post. There is a list of things not allowed in this forum posted at the top and you have violated it. Now, I'm sure in your zeal to convert us Bible agnostics and heretics you neglected to read the rule of the road, but there it is.

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.

The Vatican is all over the place on this issue. The Vulgate is still a valid version, according to the Vatican, as is the Challoner translation, and they disagree with the CT on many, many points. Nice try.

So let's get this straight, you label me by a made up term from James White,

Huh? What does James White have to do with this? I've called you what fundamentalist Baptists call you. Live with it.

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

You're becoming unintelligible.The "information" may be accurate; the assumptions that underlie your conclusions are not. And you have made an assumption that I am on the "Alexandrian text side" without any proof other than I do not believe that the KJV version of the TR is the absolute standard upon which a text should be based.

To quote is to copy or retell another's words. It is not to source or cite something.

I have no idea what that means, except perhaps that you've borrowed from a banned member and don't want to admit it.

 

[Rippon]

Turning to Mark 1:41, the majority of source texts have compassion, but a few have anger. Thus the NIV concluded that the variant reading was valid. My problem here is the lack of a footnote indicating the majority view.

You are wrong. It says in the footnote:"Many manuscripts :Jesus was filled with compassion."

 

[John Public]

One of the difficulties in discussing mistakes in many modern versions, is that the discussion gets clogged with differences between the TR and the CT. Lots of people think claiming a difference from the TR to be bogus is nonsense. However, if we narrow our focus to differences in translation among CT based versions, then we are comparing translation choices rather than source texts.

Turning to Mark 1:41, the majority of source texts have compassion, but a few have anger. Thus the NIV concluded that the variant reading was valid. Note also, the NIV and LEB footnote the alternate reading, i.e. compassion.

Hi, Van. I really do not think this rsr fellow on this matter is very reasonable so I'll let the moderators decide about the content of my posts. It seems rse is not very teachable if a scholar must teach him; it has been a blessing to be rebuked by the Kenyans in Makonge & to edify them what a blessed bunch!
You raise a good point, though.
I wonder if ol' Dr. Hinton at Harvard would have anything to say…

You are correct a small number of scripts read "angry", but there was not a one I could find supporting the 2010/2011 reading of "indignant". This is an entirely new reading just made up by the ever-changing scholars so called. I could not find any manuscript reading that way. Not much a keen fan of Strong's, or going to dead tounges like koine Greek, however when writing my book Of Baptism,
it was handy as a silent witness. The word "baptizo" never means anything but to dip, to immerge, to sink, to bury, to plunge. Likewise, aganakteó is the Greek term for to incense or to become indignant; it means literally "I am angry". It has not the meaning of mercy. We do not see that word on Mk. 1.41, but the word for compassion,
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-41.htm

I checked on thebiblecorner.com, biblegateway, studylight.org over ten different languages of Syrian and Alexandrian text base Bibles, the first of those having 200 Bibles, including obscure ones, only to find in research not a single Bible outside the 2010/2011 NIV reading "indignant".
Compassion is a hallmark of the Christian faith; in other places where Jesus healed, and later the apostles he empowered through special anointing (he chose them personally to be the stewards of his gospel, Jn. 15) & Holy Ghost to heal. In Acts we read of Peter healing the man saying he had no money, "…but what I have I give unto thee. Rise up & walk." They never were angry or indignant about healing impotents.

These factors considered shows why the Southern Baptist Convention, in spite of their manifold flaws, rejected the 2010/2011 NIV.

If one wants to read an NIV despite its Vatican approval, and its many flaws, may he so do until his eyes grow dim. I just do not suggest that after my researching the matter on both sides.
My, it is late! Good night, fellows, and peace be with you in Immanuel's name. How blessed is it not to have our sins imputed by reason of His bloody cross (Psalm 34, Col. 1.20, 21).

 

[John Public]

Rsr, are you the moderator of this section?
Actually, no. I came to this conclusion independently of Will, but his articles were helpful in my research.
He was very gracious to translate my tracts for nothing into Spanish. A translator of Bible texts or scholarly he is not but it should not matter who says what for your learning.

I'll remind you that YOU started the shell game of this (which does not have much of anything to do with this post).
I'm not playing it.
Now, where in the rules does it say I cannot say "Critical text")

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Rsr, are you the moderator of this section?
Actually, no. I came to this conclusion independently of Will, but his articles were helpful in my research.
He was very gracious to translate my tracts for nothing into Spanish. A translator of Bible texts or scholarly he is not but it should not matter who says what for your learning.

I'll remind you that YOU started the shell game of this (which does not have much of anything to do with this post).
I'm not playing it.
Now, where in the rules does it say I cannot say "Critical text")

You may of course, use those words. You may not use 'Non-Inspired Version' or imply that other poster are atheist or agnostic when it comes to translation.

And I do moderate this forum.

 

[John Public]

You may of course, use those words. You may not use 'Non-Inspired Version' or imply that other poster are atheist or agnostic when it comes to translation.

And I do moderate this forum.

Hello, C4K. Allow me to indicate I said "NOT Inspired Version" but if this is considered unacceptable then I'll simply abstain.
Perhaps it can be called the 66606 version after Chicago, IL's zip code, where it was translated, but methinks this may step on someone's toes. If it appease I'll just call it "NIV".

I did not such imply anyone was an agnostic in regards to faith or translation but as to what be, where is, as well as how the Bible came about (seeing as the intent of the critical text scholars is to reconstruct the dead originals this seems correct, specially since their opinions as this Mark 1.41 issue demonstrates vary wildly. The word means to be in want of a body of knowledge, brother; I hazard you are by that avatar.
Ironically all the atheists; Greek origin was "a-" "theos", & agnostics this servant has guided to Salvation shared in with most Christians a lack of knowledge, though not about where are the scriptures, what is the Writ, and is it the word or words God inspired, but as to wether or not there is a God (blest be God reigns). It's an accurate descriptor, but like the word "retarded" is sometimes offensive. As a cripple one cannot tell why, but oh well.

However, if this by an Administrator, the moderator of this sub-forum, objects, I shall use other terms albeit less handy ones. The question to rsr the unreasonable fellow was not to undermine authority but to determine whom one answers; as per the stickied moderator posts, that certain admin did set a precedent a mod is just another user outside of his jurisprudential area, but nonetheless.…

May the Lord of Sabboath bless you for the clarification. After battling an errant dryer it is time to try to hazard some sleep. Now if only those clothes may fold themselves...

(Hopefully these posts are answering the OP's question.)

 

[Rippon]

JP, straight out of the gate (just 12 posts) you are in an attack mode. Most new members are more gentle and mindful of decorum when they are in a new setting. Have you been here before under another handle?

 

[John Public]

JP, straight out of the gate (just 12 posts) you are in an attack mode. Most new members are more gentle and mindful of decorum when they are in a new setting. Have you been here before under another handle?

1. I'm not attacking. Your judgement is errant, brother. John 7.24. Pointing out hypocrisies and asking questions is not an attack. Stopping your emotions before a judgement is not optional in the faith.

2. Rippon, I'm direct. If you dislike the fact I'm much like John Baptist, hit that little "Ignore" button. All John said was
It is not lawful for thee to have her. Herod beheaded him and let his daughter serve it up on a platter. Wicked guy.
I was cast into isolation like Paul in the desert. The brethren were not there. Perhaps it is fair to disclose I read 21 chapters per day of the Bible. That is 6.447 times/year; the old testament the soon-to-be Mrs. Public & I read at this rate 8.6 times, and the new 26.44 times each year.
We have little toleration for a book so destroying God's words.

If this is not gentle enough for you, seeing as I have not called names, just described, man up. If some terms must be changed, oh well. You cannot take away my sword by restricting its width.
Very little time remains so soliders in warfare as Christians are need not be concerned with worldly cares or affairs.
Who cares what the World Council of Churches is up to when our brothers in Makonge, Kenya are starving?
What's it to a solider about feelings when his fellow soldiers are asleep at the duty post, despite the Ezekiel 3 & 33 watchman blowing the horn as a madman?

If you dislike me as you have already shown with that thumbs down, either get over it or block me as we have a war to fight. Frankly, with all the dead souls going to hell, why does my demeanour bother you at all?!

3. Clearly, you have not been charged at by a man you lead to Christ as he manned his 400 horsepower Mustang you ironically lead him to Christ in, or been thrown by your grandfather eight miles into a Louisiana gale all because he is an insufferable heretical bigot. What were you trying to do? Be a nephew and a bother in the Lord to your mentally retarded uncle whose mother has abandoned him; you have time. Clearly, you have not zeal from persecution.
My Father has magnified his word above all his name, Psalm 138.2, and given us a light & lamp, about Psalm 105, but many devils and sadly brethren burn it with unqualified, ignorant, opinions from men like James White; he cannot correctly articulate "ado," A-DUE, but wants to talk about Greek.

Anderson is an arrogant, pedantic child but he is correct to point out the absurdity of a supposed doctorate unable to pronounce
or define single-syllable words.
I'm a college drop out but need not a degree to comprehend the word "ceil" from "ceiling" meaning to cover or conceal (French origin, "céler), like a ceiling does!

How is it then the doormat gets better treatment than the Bible?!


Grace be unto you, Rippon, in Jesus' name.

 

[Rippon]

I did a little digging. (Can't locate old threads on the subject --the search engine is not as good as it once was).

Daniel Wallace, in an article :The Gospel According To Bart said that ojrgisqeivV "reading is seriously entertained in the NET. At this stage I am inclined to think it is original."

Bill Mounce in A Little Text Criticism --Mark 1:41 says "He wasn't indignant; he was mad."

I personally think that other translations will go along with "indignant" or, better, "angry" here in the future.

Have you seriously taken a look at Mark 3:5a :"He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts..."

Look at Mark 10:13-14a :"People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant."

 

[Rippon]

We have little toleration for a book so destroying God's words.

What are you talking about? The sentence above has no context.

You cannot take away my sword
by restricting its width.

You sound mystical. I have no idea what you are referencing.

Who cares what the World Council of Churches is up to when our brothers in Makonge, Kenya are starving?

Who ever mentioned the World Council of Churches? You are all over the place.

I asked you before if you have been a member on the BB in the past with another handle. Have you?

 

[John Public]

Rippon, I have answered you. No. Now, I shan't answer again in this line.

It is a tragedy most think inside the proverbial box.
Dan Wallace has lost his marbles; he should have heeded the saying, "Don't mess with the Good Book or God will mess with your head!" His NET adopts readings never before seen. How can a minority reading which means the opposite of compassion be in the same originals, which old Wallace has neve read, nor anyone else, in millennia,
as the term meaning mercy? The words here in Greek, or English are vastly different. James the Lord Jesus' brother wrote, A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.

http://brandplucked.m.webs.com/site/webs_43085333/home?url=http://brandplucked.webs.com/danwallacenut.htm&dm_package=1

When the Septiagints read better than your self-professed Bible, then you know someone has no clue what they discuss. Need I quote the Greek words again, even though the opinion here on the Critical text side is that they reject Greek unless it fits?

By the way, Rippon, I'm not being esoteric if you bother to
understand the metaphors in my speech in context.

 

[rsr]

Hi, Van. I really do not think this rsr fellow on this matter is very reasonable so I'll let the moderators decide about the content of my posts. It seems rse is not very teachable if a scholar must teach him.

Thank you so much. It is sometimes better not to be taught than to be taught folly.

 

[rsr]

If one wants to read an NIV despite its Vatican approval, and its many flaws, may he so do until his eyes grow dim. I just do not suggest that after my researching the matter on both sides..

Just to set the record straight, the NIV (or the NASB or ESV) has not been sanctioned as proper reading for American Catholics. I do admit the American Catholics have a bit of a mess; the New American Bible is approved, but not for the liturgy, which has been revised completely away from the NAB.

 

[rsr]

Perhaps it can be called the 66606 version after Chicago, IL's zip code, where it was translated, but methinks this may step on someone's toes. If it appease I'll just call it "NIV".

Great. You agree to follow the rules but manage to get in another uncalled-for dig just the same.

I did not such imply anyone was an agnostic in regards to faith or translation but as to what be, where is, as well as how the Bible came about (seeing as the intent of the critical text scholars is to reconstruct the dead originals this seems correct, specially since their opinions as this Mark 1.41 issue demonstrates vary wildly.

As someone who has said that words have meaning, surely you know that coupling Bible and agnostic will undoubtedly carry a connotation of heretical disparagement. You make a calculated attack and then are shocked -- shocked! -- that someone sees through it. And you follow it up with references to retarded and cripple.

The word means to be in want of a body of knowledge, brother; I hazard you are by that avatar.

What do you have against prairie dogs? Perhaps Cheetos are of the devil? So now the debate devolves into criticism of avatars. And you wonder why your arguments are not embraced gladly.

 

[John Public]

I'm afraid with a move in the works and my hands o 'er many things, I'll have to "Unwatch" this post until such a time as able to continue.

I also won't be responding to ole rsr as it is pretty clear he is an Originals-only type, and is not particularly reasonable.
What this means in his case is, if a sinner or saint demanded he produce the originals, he couldn't; if asked for a in-your-hands Bible, he hasn't got one. He could not for the
sake of all things decent render one.
In fact, he does not really believe the originals are inspired because he really does not know what is or is not scripture.

However, the OP asked about the "mess ups" in the NIV.
I hope that was useful to this sister or brother.
For consideration, perhaps to the consternation of some, have a look at the NIV or most any critical Vatican text in Genesis 1.1. There is a minor change that affects a big doctrinal problem: http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/1.htm

There's not multi-heavens, a new age occultic doctrine, but one with different layers.

The AV and all its predecessors read alike, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The 1587 Geneva reads identically. http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/thegenevabible/genesis/1.html

The Bishops' reads essentially the same, http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/thebishopsbible/genesis/1.html

The Matthew's, http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/thebishopsbible/genesis/1.html

The "Great" Bible by Cramner, http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/coverdalebible/genesis/1.html

Tyndale's 1534 update, http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/tyndalebible/genesis/1.html

The Wycliff got it right also, despite being based upon Latin texts, http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/wycliffebible/genesis/1.html

However, if you check on biblehub, you run into a huge problem with the Alexandrian versions like the NIV, including the NLT, NASV, NKJV (part of the about 100 thousand variations from it and the KJB), et alia ad nauseum. Some like the obscure GOD's WORD do not.

Regarding the earlier critical texts like the Revised Version, the first real modern version, it reads correctly, http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/wycliffebible/genesis/1.html, as does the 1901 ASV (an RV revision and grandfather of the NASV).

This is interesting for the majority of modern versions to do this as it lines up with Mme. Blavasky's disgusting theosophy.

Well, saints, God bless our persecutors, then we.

 

[Rippon]

For consideration, perhaps to the consternation of some, have a look at the NIV or most any critical Vatican text in Genesis 1.1. There is a minor change that affects a big doctrinal problem:

In Gen. 1:1 it isn't referring to Heaven.

However, if you check on biblehub, you run into a huge problem with the Alexandrian versions like the NIV, including the NLT, NASV, NKJV

The NKJV is not based on Alexandrian texts. What exactly is the "huge problem" that you find so disturbing? You have to be specific.

(part of the about 100 thousand variations from it and the KJB),

The KJV (in whatever edition you prefer) differs from other translations because all translations are versions. That's what the V in KJV stands for. Your figure of 100,000 is based on the numbers of what study? The variations that exist between the TR and CT for the NT are slight compared with their large agreement. No doctrine is at stake. I suppose you are talking about textual variants.

Some like the obscure GOD's WORD do not.

That's an incomplete sentence. What are you trying to say?

This is interesting for the majority of modern versions to do this as it lines up with Mme. Blavasky's disgusting theosophy.

Your charge is nonsensical.

Well, saints, God bless our persecutors, then we.

You claim to be an author, yet you say intelligible things like the above.

 

[rsr]

I also won't be responding to ole rsr

You say you're not responding, but there you are responding. As usual, you want it both ways; you want to attack and make snide personal comments at the same time you say you aren't and feign ignorance when challenged.

as it is pretty clear he is an Originals-only type, and is not particularly reasonable.
What this means in his case is, if a sinner or saint demanded he produce the originals, he couldn't; if asked for a in-your-hands Bible, he hasn't got one. He could not for the
sake of all things decent render one.
In fact, he does not really believe the originals are inspired because he really does not know what is or is not scripture.

I fail to see why wanting Scriptures based on the originals is wrong. What a silly charge.

Our difference on this point is that you believe the KJV totally and completely reflects the originals. Of course, neither of us has seen the originals, so neither can be proven.

I have no idea what the last part means. I would guess that your view of inspiration is in fact weaker because you want to apply it not only to copies and emendations but also to your own writings.

 

[Van]

Summary of thread:

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."​

 

[Rippon]

Summary of thread:

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."​

Correction Van : the seven points you itemized summarizes your opinion.