In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[robustheologian]

Hey Rippon, I believe Van is using argumentum ad nauseam.

 

[Van]

Folks, the evidence is in, many places actual words or parts of words have been omitted, many places words have been translated as if they were other words, and in many places words have been added but not italicized, so the reader is unaware that the text has been altered. The majority of well accepted translations differ with the NIV on these verses. No amount of obfuscation, slander, and subject change will alter the evidence. Folks, you are the final arbitrators, just read the evidence in light of 2 Corinthians 2:17.

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." ​

#176 Van, Yesterday at 10:07 PM[/INDENT]

 

[Van]

Among the liberties taken by the NIV translators is to engage in theological fudging to "help" the reader come to the "right" conclusion. Lets consider 1 Peter 4:6, which reads in the NIV, "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."

One of the mistaken beliefs of some is that when you die, you get a second bite at the apple, the gospel is offered again and so after you physically die you get a second chance at salvation. This view is of course baloney, but the ever helpful translators thought scripture needed their help. They interpreted "who are dead" to mean "who are physically dead" and if that is the meaning, then after physical death you would get that second chance. So they added the word "now." Thus their understanding is the gospel had been preached to folks who had subsequently died physically.

However, a whole different understanding of the text is possible, with the gospel being preached to those who are spiritually dead. Thus no need to "fix" the text. But if you are a "regeneration before faith" kind of guy that view (spiritually dead people benefiting from the gospel) is anathema.

Bottom line, folks with a certain theological bias stick "now" into the text.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Con

One of my basic positions is that "word for word" translation philosophy versions (NASB95) are better for bible study then more liberal versions (ESV, NIV, NLT). Consider Revelation 13:8 where a Greek word (apo) which means out of or from or since is translated as "before." No lexicon includes that meaning as far as I know.
Next, consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which reads "chosen for salvation" in most versions, but some have chosen to be saved. Thus a word which is a noun in the Greek (Salvation) is turned into a verb (Saved). This allows the following "through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth" to be modifying "saved" rather than chosen (the verb in the Greek). Next consider James 2:5 where we are chosen as "poor to the world" and "rich in faith." Here, the compliment "rich in faith" further describes the condition of the chosen. However, by adding "to be" the text no longer says they were rich in faith when chosen.

Congratulation with your keen and faithful observations!

God bless

There is another category or subject at least two dozen corruptions have been introduced into almost every translation in English ---and worldwide into other languages--- since the mid twentieth century.

Guess the category . . .

. . . first to deny the existence and reality of, are the . . . guess the denomination . . .

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Folks, the evidence is in, many places actual words or parts of words have been omitted, many places words have been translated as if they were other words, and in many places words have been added but not italicized, so the reader is unaware that the text has been altered. The majority of well accepted translations differ with the NIV on these verses. No amount of obfuscation, slander, and subject change will alter the evidence. Folks, you are the final arbitrators, just read the evidence in light of 2 Corinthians 2:17.

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." ​

#176 Van, Yesterday at 10:07 PM[/INDENT]

Now you have lost controls.

 

[Van]

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."

These examples demonstrate a systemic problem with literalness.
​

 

[Rippon]

Lets consider 1 Peter 4:6, which reads in the NIV, "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."

AMEN.

And some versions that agree with the now dead terminology are: NLT, BSB, GW, EXB,NCV --plus your favorites :the HCSB and NET.

Bottom line, folks with a certain theological bias stick "now" into the text.

So you want to condemn your favs --the HCSB and NET on this point? You need to be consistent Van. Or admit that you are not consistent and that you don't care.

 

[Rippon]

According to Van's posting history he really likes the NASB the most. On the second tier is the WEB, HCSB,NET along with the LEB.

I will list some of the items in which at least one of his favorite versions does not support his particular rendering and may even be in harmony with the NIV. Of course in the examples a number of other versions runs counter to Van's claims. However, it should merit Van's consideration when his favs go against his preferred reading.

Romans 3:25 : No version has Van's unique spin on the passage.
1 Corinthians 16:13 --the WEB,NET and LEB
2 Thess. 3:6 : The NASB,HCSB, WEB and LEB go against Van.
Isaiah 12:3 : the HCSB and WEB go against Van.
Rev.. 22:21 : the HCSB and WEB go against Van.
1 John 2:2 : the WEB and NET dare to differ with Van's interpretation.
1 John 4:10 : the NET and WEB are not in agreement with Van.
Acts 13:50 : the HCSB goes gainst the Van-man.

 

[Van]

Mr. Rippon is mistaken the WEB version did not insert "now" into the text at 1 Peter 4:6, but candor requires the observation the NET did insert "now" and mistranslate the verse.

Adding words and not putting them in italics voids any claim of striving for transparency in translation.

Bottom line, translations should reflect an actual meaning of the words translated, rather than a theological interpretation, such as translating a word that means from or since as "before."

 

[Rippon]

Titus 3:4 --Van makes absolutely no sense here.
Rev. 13:8 : the NIV has Van's precious from. So since he likes the word from in this verse as rendered by the NIV I have no idea why he has it listed as a mistranslation.
Mark 1:41 :Here Van goes against his own thesis. He is against the majority reading of 'compassion' in this verse preferring instead angry. The NIV has indignant which is much closer to angry than it is to compassion. Again, Van makes no sense.
Col. 1:28 : Van's argument has no rationality whatsoever and even TC and MM agreed that they had no problem with 'fully mature' as the NIV reads.
James 2:5 : Absolutely no translation has opted for Van's concoction.
John 1:16. I don't know why he put this reference on his hit-list as the NIV reading doesn't bother him.
Hebrews 10:14 : Van's argument, if one wants to call it that, is hollow as I explained in posts 141 and 144.
Eph. 2:3 : at least six other versions differ with his take.

 

[Van]

Will any moderator inform Mr. Rippon that this thread's topic is to identify messed up translations in the NIV. Folks, note the effort to change the subject, disparage others, and offer absurdity to obfuscate the evidence presented in this thread.

The majority of major translations disagree with the mistaken renderings in the NIV in these 19 verses.

 

[Rippon]

The majority of major translations disagree with the mistaken renderings in the NIV in these 19 verses.

What you need to do is to address the specifics of my last two posts --188 and 190. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke from whatever pipe you're using.

 

[Rippon]

this thread's topic is to identify messed up translations in the NIV.

My job is to identify your messed-up logic, double-standards, evasive tactics, lack of honor and general know-it-all-isms.

 

[Van]

Lets consider John 21:5. Here is how the NIV renders the verse:

He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”“No,” they answered.​

The word the NIV rendered as "friends" actually refers to children. At Matthew 18:3 Jesus uses the same word and there the NIV renders it children. So why did the NIV choose to change words, a different Greek word means "friends." And note that most other translations have "children." So yet again, the systemic problem with presenting what God's word actually says appears. Twenty examples should suffice, in many cases instead of functional equivalence, the NIV provides 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." ​

 

[InTheLight]

Lets consider John 21:5. Here is how the NIV renders the verse:

He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”“No,” they answered.​

The word the NIV rendered as "friends" actually refers to children. At Matthew 18:3 Jesus uses the same word and there the NIV renders it children. So why did the NIV choose to change words, a different Greek word means "friends."

Because in John 21:5 Jesus is talking to adults (his disciples) and not children. In Matthew 18:3 he is talking to children. It's not difficult.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Van]

Hi ITL, the word means children not friends. If that is too difficult, note that the NIV elsewhere translates the word as children, even when referring to adults. See 1 John 2:18. No need to try to defend the alteration of the inspired word.

These twenty examples display a systemic problem with literalness.

 

[InTheLight]

Hi ITL, the word means children not friends. If that is too difficult, note that the NIV elsewhere translates the word as children, even when referring to adults. See 1 John 2:18. No need to try to defend the alteration of the inspired word.

These twenty examples display a systemic problem with literalness.

If you insist on the literal translation at all times you will not get the meaning of some verses. That's where the skill and knowledge of translators comes into play. Is Jesus talking to children in John 21:5? No.

In 1 John the writer uses the word "children" as an affectation. It's not difficult.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Van]

But the word means children not friends. We should stick with the inspired word. If the word is an "affectation" at 1 John 2:18, why not see it as an "affectation" at John 21:5. Note that almost all translations read "children" at John 21:5, so many many scholars did not see any compelling reason to replace the inspired word with a word supplied by uninspired men. If Jesus had wanted to say "friends" he would have used the Greek word for "friends." He did not.

Here is Robertson's take: "Children (Paidia). Diminutive of pai and used here alone by Jesus in addressing his disciples. It is a colloquial expression like "my boys." The aged Apostle John uses it in 1 John 2:13 and 1 John 2:18."

 

[TCassidy]

If you insist on the literal translation at all times you will not get the meaning of some verses. That's where the skill and knowledge of translators comes into play. Is Jesus talking to children in John 21:5? No.

In this case I will have to agree with Van. The issue is not "what Jesus meant." The issue is "What did Jesus say." And He said παιδια which is a plural (all of them) neuter (regardless of gender) noun in the vocative (direct address) case. The word means "children." He often referred to his disciples as "my dear children." There is absolutely no grammatical or syntaxical warrant to translate it "friends."

In fact the Greek word παιδια is where we get our English word "pediatrician" or in a very negative use, "paedophile." Nobody would suggest a pediatrician is a doctor who only treats his friends, or that a paedophile is a pervert who is only attracted to his friends.

 

[InTheLight]

It is a colloquial expression like "my boys." The aged Apostle John uses it in 1 John 2:13 and 1 John 2:18."

So it's an idiom.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.