In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[Van]

Note a repeat of addressing the posters character and credentials, rather than the position shared with the majority of translations. Arguing personality indicates a person cannot argue the issue.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

Note a repeat of addressing the posters character and credentials, rather than the position shared with the majority of translations. Arguing personality indicates a person cannot argue the issue.

So you are admitting you know nothing at all about Greek or Hebrew grammar and syntax?

 

[Van]

So you are admitting you cannot argue the issue? Why not agree with these mistranslations?

Note the effort to change the subject.

Lets look at Romans 8:36 and Psalm 44:22 where most translations say we are being killed all day long, but the NIV has we face death all day long. Being in danger of death is quite different from being killed.

Again, the NIV's interpretation does have some foundation, but the lack of a footnote (the grammar supports a rhetorical hyperbole) leaves the reader with only the interpretation. Better to translate what was said (being killed all day long) and footnote that the phrase is hyperbole for facing death continually.

 

[Rippon]

Lets look at Romans 8:36 and Psalm 44:22 where most translations say we are being killed all day long, but the NIV has we face death all day long. Being in danger of death is quite different from being killed.

John Gill, in his commentary says it "may be understood of their being threatened with death, being in danger of it, and exposed to it continually."

Some translations for Romans 8:36 follow:
CEV: we face death all day long
NCV : we are in danger of death all the time
Mounce : we face death all day long
NET : we encounter death all day long
Berean Study Bible : we face death all day long
Berean Literal Bible : we face death all day

Better to translate what was said (being killed all day long) and footnote that the phrase is hyperbole for facing death continually.

It is obvious that it is better to put the meaning into the text. All Bible translations can't be like the NET Bible with tens of thousands of footnotes. Footnotes are helpful, but not in super-abundant quantities.

 

[TCassidy]

So you are admitting you cannot argue the issue?

Lets look at Romans 8:36

Okay, let's do that. Walk me through the verse and point out the grammar and syntax that supports your translation theory.

Rom 8:36 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι ἕνεκά σου θανατούμεθα ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν· ἐλογίσθημεν ὡς πρόβατα σφαγῆς.

and Psalm 44:22

Okay, and now walk me through the Hebrew grammar and syntax that supports your assertion.

Psa 44:21 (44:22) הלא אלהים יחקר זאת כי הוא ידע תעלמות לב׃
Psa 44:22 (44:23) כי עליך הרגנו כל היום נחשׁבנו כצאן טבחה׃

Now, if you're having a little trouble with the Hebrew I will take pity on you and let you exegete the Greek as found in the LXX.

Psalm 44:22 (43:23) ὅτι ἕνεκα σοῦ θανατούμεθα ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν, ἐλογίσθημεν

There you go. That should be very easy for an expert such as you to exegete those verses and use the grammar and syntax to support your assertions regarding "correct" translation.

 

[Van]

Yet another clear violation of forum rules, addressing the poster rather than the issue. Count the number of "you" and "your" words. Rather than discuss the topic, in this case translating the literal wording, and footnoting the interpretation (hyperbole) we get some who argue we should hide the biblical usage of hyperbole.

BTW, thanks Mr. Rippon for showing that the translation theory (hyperbole) is not mine, but a widely held view.

 

[TCassidy]

Rather than discuss the topic, in this case translating the literal wording,

But you still have failed to established your credentials for discussing the topic and knowing the literal wording.

It is obvious you know absolutely nothing about Hebrew, Greek, or the grammar and syntax of either language yet you set yourself up as some sort of expert at translating.

 

[Van]

Yet another clear cut violation of forum rule 6 (addressing the poster rather than the topic) and another effort to change the subject to my qualifications, when the majority of translation versions agree with me.

This is always the case, those in error resort to using the logical fallacy of an argument against the poster, change the subject, and post absurdity.

Twelve examples of verses where the translation misses the mark has been provided and that topic is the one being obfuscated.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

those in error

Please quote any error I posted regarding Hebrew or Greek grammar or syntax, or of the case, number, and gender of the word being translated.

Time to put up or shut up.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

I am not bothered as much with just how the newest Niv decided to render the passages based upon a morte freer tranlation principle, as for their mistakes in the gender dialog!

https://unlockingfemininity...

Valid comments, from a real Christian female perspective!

 

[Rippon]

3) 2 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read "for salvation."

Why?

4) Titus 3:4 love should read "love for mankind."

Some versions that do not have "love for mankind" or "humanity" are :
NIV,NLT, NAB, NRSV, ESV, RSV, WYC, NCV and Mounce.

5) James 2:5 to be rich in faith should read "yet rich in faith."

It's just your preference. No version has "yet rich in faith."

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

It looks to be a tie between "be with all" and "with the saints" (or "God's people").

11) 2 Thess. 3:6 who is idle should read "who leads an undisciplined life"

I gave some source material in an earlier post about this passage. The versions that support your wording are :CEB,GW and the NET.

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.

Again, those here that support three instances of everyone would not agree with your notion castigating the doctrine of pervasive corruption.

 

[Rippon]

I am not bothered as much with just how the newest Niv decided to render the passages based upon a freer tranlation principle,

You display continued ignorance on the subject.

as for their mistakes in the gender dialog!

Gender dialog? What in the world...?

 

[Van]

As you can see, those denying the obvious (the twelve errors identified by multiple posters) have resorted to name calling, subject changing and absurdity. The alternate views are found in well accepted translations offering differing translation choices such as the NASB, NKJV, NET, WEB, HCSB, and the LEB.

The following types of errors have been identified (1) the addition of non-italicized words or phrases that alter the meaning of the message, (2) the redefinition of words, i.e. before instead of from, that alter the message and (3) the omission of words or parts of words (love instead of love for mankind) that alter the message.

 

[robustheologian]

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

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.

Especially the LEB...that might be more literal than the NASB.

 

[TCassidy]

Why not agree with these mistranslations?

Show me the grammar and syntax that proves they are mistranslations.

 

[Van]

It certainly is debatable whether the LEB is more liberal than the NASB, not so much for the other three.

Since the majority of translations present the "should read" version, i.e. apo means from not before, those that say all those translations missed the mark need to present their case.

The following types of errors have been identified (1) the addition of non-italicized words or phrases that alter the meaning of the message, (2) the redefinition of words, i.e. before instead of from, that alter the message and (3) the omission of words or parts of words (love instead of love for mankind) that alter the message.

 

[Rippon]

It certainly is debatable whether the LEB is more liberal than the NASB, not so much for the other three.

You are putting a whole new twist on the word 'liberal' as it pertains to Bible translations. It's a twist that no one else holds.

Since the majority of translations present the "should read" version,

Van, has anyone told you lately that it's not nice to fib?

In 2 Thess. 2:13 most translations do not have the wording "for salvation."

In 2 Thess. 3:6 you need to look at my post 66. the wording of "an undisciplined life" was adopted by a grand total of just three translations. Idleness is the main thrust.

In James 2:5 no translation has yet rich in faith. Most have rich in faith, like the NIV, but without the conjunction yet.

In Titus 3:4 at least eight translations do not have love for mankind.

As far as Col. 1:28 goes, the NIV's rendering of fully mature was considered ok by MM. TC said he didn't "really see a problem with mature."
Your rationale for retaining 'everyone' is held by none here.

For Isaiah 12:3 I counted eleven translations that do not have 'therefore' or 'so.'

For Rev. 22:21 your preference for "all of you' met with acceptance by half of the translations. The others have 'with the saints' or 'with God's holy people.'

 

[Van]

Thanks Mr. Rippon for documenting the validly of the 12 errors.

Ever wonder when reading someone say "everybody knows" or "nobody know" how they know what everyone else knows.

Lets leave the invitation to change the subject.
Since the majority of translations present the "should read" version, i.e. apo means from not before, those that say all those translations missed the mark need to present their case.

The following types of errors have been identified (1) the addition of non-italicized words or phrases that alter the meaning of the message, (2) the redefinition of words, i.e. before instead of from, that alter the message and (3) the omission of words or parts of words (love instead of love for mankind) that alter the message.

These examples demonstrate a systemic problem with literalness.

 

[Rippon]

Thanks Mr. Rippon for documenting the validly of the 12 errors.

I did no such thing. I dealt with seven passages and demonstrated that you are untruthful and unfair.

These examples demonstrate a systemic problem with literalness.

You have a systemic problem with truthfulness.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

While I think of it, does the 2011 NIV still have 'atoning sacrifice' instead of 'propitiation' in Rom. 3:25 and 1 John 2:2? That IMHO is quite an egregious error.