In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[Rippon]

1 Samuel 15:23
"the Lord" : NIV, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NET, NRSV, NKJV, ISV, NASU
"the Lord's word" : GW
v.19
"the voice of the Lord" : NASB, NKJV, NRSV
"the Lord" : NIV,ISV, HCSB, NET, NLT
v.20
"the voice of the Lord" : ESV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV
"the Lord" : CEB, CEV, GW, HCSB, NIV, ISV, NAB, NCV, NET,NLT
v.22
"the voice of the Lord" : ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NASB
"his voice" : NCV, NLT
"the Lord" : NIV, ISV, HCSB, CEB, NET

 

[Van]

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 from the creation should read, "from the foundation."
20) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all."
21) 1 Samuel 15:19 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."
22) 1 Samuel 15:20 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."
23) 1 Samuel 15:22 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."​

Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 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.

 

[Rippon]

Mistranslation in the NIV

1 Samuel 15:23 the Lord should read the word of the Lord."​

As I have demonstrated over and over again: your reading comprehension is very low.

This is how the NIV reads in that part of the verse:"Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king."

Rob had even quoted it. Practically all versions render it about the same way:ESV, ISV, NAB, NRSV, NASU, HCSB, NET, and NKJV.

Go back to the drawing board Van.

 

[Van]

Oops, my bad. See edited entry (post # 242) for 3 actual omissions.
The number of identified NIV mess-ups continues to grow and the number of contributors to truth continues to grow.

 

[Rippon]

Oops, my bad.

You're bad alright.

1 Samuel 15:19 :The HCSB and NET agree with the NIV and other translations.
1 Samueil 15:20 : The HCSB and NET agree with the NIV and other translations.
1 Samuel 15:22 : The HCSB and NET agree with the NIV and other translations.

In your ever-expanding list of alleged mistranslations in the NIV your favs continue to agree with it numerous times --13 times as a matter of fact.

the number of contributors to truth continues to grow.

What in the world does that mean?

 

[Van]

Liberals love to argue two or more wrongs make a right. Total fallacy.

If you say the same thing using different words, that is functional equivalence, but if you say something different using different words, that is functional non-equivalence
.

 

[Rippon]

Liberal [sic] love to argue two or more wrongs make a right. Total fallacy.

You make no sense.

If you say the same thing using different words, that is functional equivalence,

You're making things up.

In the wonderful book How To Choose A Translation For All Its worth Fee and Strauss have a real definition.
"A translation philosophy, also known as idiomatic or meaning-based translation (and formerly known as dynamic equivalence), that seeks to reproduce the meaning of the text in good idiomatic (natural) English, regardless of the form." (p.159)

but if you say something different using different words, that is functional non-equivalence
.

Again you are just making something up. There is no such thing. It's your neologism.

 

[Van]

More you, you and you violation of Rule 6 with no action from moderators.

Two or more wrongs do not make a right. Citing other translations that omit the inspired words of God does not suggest the validity of omission. Liberals would make that fallacious argument.

Anyone can Google "functional non-equivalence. Any time a fallible translation team thinks the message is "A" and translates it that way, when the actual message was "B" is presenting functional non-equivalence.

 

[Rippon]

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 of 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, including NASU,HCSB,LEB and WEB.
Ro. 3:25 : Absolutely no translation has VPR peculiar reading.
Isaiah 12:3 : Most translations do not have VPR here;including NET and HCSB.
1 John 2:2 : Nearly one dozen versions aside from the NIV do not have VPR. (Including the NET and WEB)
1 John 4:10 : .Ten versions do not have VPR;NET and WEB among them.
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.' Those versions include WEB,NET and LEB.
Titus 3:4 : Seven versions aside from the NIV do not have VPR.
Col. 1:28 : A dozen versions (including HCSB)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;including HCSB and WEB.
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 above is entirely true. I dealt with 19 translations from the gamut of versions. I didn't cite the NIrV, though it agrees with the NIV most of the time. But Van quotes from several versions that are basically the KJV in wording. That's not exactly a wide spectrum.

As for the passages in 1 Samuel:
15:19 --Nine others agree with the NIV including HCSB and NET.
15:20 --Nine others agree with the NIV including HCSB and NET.
15:22 --Eight others agree with the NIV including HCSB and NET.

So for the last three references, it's 50/50 among translations when the NIV's rendering is considered.

Out of 24 passages, 5 are completely off-the-wall nonsensical stuff Van came up with (Mk.1:41,James 2:5, REV.13:8, Jn.1:16 and Ro. 3:25)

So, of the remaining 19 passages:

In 8, the NIV reading is in the majority and some of Van's favorite versions appear in each of the eight.

In 4, the NIV-like translations and non-NIV type readings are 50/50.

In seven passages the NIV readings are in the minority;however, I have good reasons to believe that five of them are superior to the majority. Two of the seven I have long ago acknowledged were weak readings in the NIV.

 

[Van]

We have identified 23 verses where the NIV did not translate the verses accurately, or in a functionally equivalent manner.

In response, rule 6 violations are being posted one after the other with no action from the moderators.

The NIV has been demonstrated to omit words or parts of words that result in an altered message.
The NIV has been demonstrated to add words that result in an altered message.
And the NIV has been demonstrated to translate words as if they were different words that resulted in an altered message.

These examples demonstrate a systemic problem with literalness.

 

[Rippon]

Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 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.

All of the above, which you have repeated ad nauseam, is juvanile in the extreme.

You haven't documented anything but your vanity.

 

[Rippon]

We have identified 23 verses where the NIV did not translate the verses accurately,

Translation : You have a faulty sense of accuracy.

or in a functionally equivalent manner.

Please demonstrate where any of the NIV renderings (and consequently many renderings of the HCSB,NET,WEB,LEB etc.) have not even been functionally equivalent. Your favorite version --the NASU, often translates in a functionally-equivalent manner.

The NIV has been demonstrated to omit words or parts of words that result in an altered message.

No such demonstration has been demonstrated. ;-) You will have to demonstrate that Van. You have, instead, constantly asserted, but never demonstrated anything. Cite an exegetical commentary or something that has some weight --not your petty denunciations.

The NIV has been demonstrated to add words that result in an altered message.

Please refer to the above.

And the NIV has been demonstrated to translate words as if they were different words that resulted in an altered message.

You will have to translate that. ;-)

These examples demonstrate a systemic problem with literalness.

You have a systemic aversion to the truth.

The NIV and other versions which translate in the same sort of way are not "literal" versions. There isn't really any such animal. Some versions are more form-oriented --but not "literal" as such.

 

[Van]

Please demonstrate where any of the NIV renderings (and consequently many renderings of the HCSB,NET,WEB,LEB etc.) have not even been functionally equivalent.

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 from the creation should read, "from the foundation."
20) Rev. 22:21 be with God's people should read, "be with all."
21) 1 Samuel 15:19 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."
22) 1 Samuel 15:20 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."
23) 1 Samuel 15:22 the Lord should read "the voice of the Lord."​

Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 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.

 

[Rippon]

Still waiting for you to demonstrate your hollow claims. Simply repeating your tired ole' "should read" just doesn't cut it. Either put up or shut up.

 

[Rippon]

Any time a fallible translation team thinks the message is "A" and translates it that way, when the actual message was "B" is presenting functional non-equivalence.

Spoken by the infallible Van --translator extraordinaire. Though having absolutely no qualifications seeks to school actual translators. ;-)

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to those who misrepresent the views of others, i.e. Van sees himself as a translator.

Mr. Rippon violates forum rules with nearly every post.

At least 5 posters have presented verses where the NIV misses the mark, because it omits words, adds words, and changes the meaning of words, and in each case the message was altered. Therefore we have 23 examples of functional non-equivalence.

 

[Rippon]

Still waiting for you to demonstrate your hollow claims. Simply repeating your tired ole' "should read" just doesn't cut it. Either put up or shut up.

Van keeps posting his phony-baloney list proving he is a stranger to truth.

Van runs to the hills when called upon to supply specifics. Documentation?That word isn't in his dictionary. Exegetical commentaries? He hasn't heard of such things.

Van makes up entirely new renderings appearing in absolutely no translation and claims certain passages "should read" thus and such.

Van even has items on his hit list that are supposedly damaging to the NIV which are entirely supportive of the NIV. It's rather mysterious.

Van suffers from an illusion that he knows what he's talking about. He seeks to demean a fine translation of the Word of God. He desires "folks" to think the NIV translators have distorted the Word of God. Never mind the FACT that many of his favorite translations have worded things in just about the same way as the NIV has on numerous occasions. No, that is something that his lack of consistency will not allow him to admit.

Van harbors the nonsense that the originals were written in English because he constantly says the NIV has altered the inspired Word of God here and there.

Van has asked his "folks" to check their translations to see if their version differs in wording from the NIV. How silly of him. Of course versions differ from one another --that's why they are called versions. There is no set-in-stone perfect English translation in which any other version which differs must be condemned as "altering the Word of God." That is patent nonsense.

The NIV is not a perfect translation which should not bear any scrutiny. It has its share of weaknesses as all Bible translations have. I have cited two verses where I thought the wording could have been improved upon. But for Van to constantly hammer away at fine distinctions and give the impression that the NIV is very faulty is quite frankly super juvenile.

 

[Van]

Dozens of references to me, all in violation of forum rules and still no action from moderators.

More "taint so" assertions devoid of biblical support. More slander, more misrepresentation of my view, and still no action from the moderators.

To point out verses where the NIV is messed up does not mean it never does an adequate job.

The inability to accept that the NIV is deeply flawed, as pointed out by at least 5 contributors is provincial.

The Greek words mistranslated or omitted and English words added alter the message, and are therefore functionally non-equivalent.

 

[Rippon]

The inability to accept that the NIV is deeply flawed, as pointed out by at least 5 contributors is provincial.

Van, Van, Van.You have not demonstrated any such thing. RSR,InTheLight,RobustTheologian and TC have not agreed with you and your claims in toto. In fact they have challenged you to put up, or shut up as I have.

You do not comprehend easy English. I have repeatedly asked you to back up your claims --to document instead of merely make assertions. But, as I have said, you choose to be evasive. You flee from specifics. Your lack of honesty and consistency have been evident.

Now you have demonstrated that you are a bottom-feeder by calling the NIV "deeply flawed." That line of yours is clearly in violation of BB rules, but then again, you are Van --you flout such restrictions on your conduct.

Your constant refrain of "should read" is pathetic. A number of times you have made up your unique rendering. No translation exists which uses your phraseology. but no matter, you plod on with your vanity.

I have shown where the NASU,HCSB,WEB,NET,LEB and NKJV (all favorites of yours)have been in harmony with the wording of a number of passages in the NIV. But due to your lack of honesty and consistency you would never call them "deeply flawed" translations.

Your repetition of majority rules is wearing thin. That alone does not prove anything in and of itself. It doesn't mean that anything other than your "approved" rendering is acceptable. Yet with all of your "should read" claims (aside from the times when you just invent a reading out of whole cloth) the NIV has, in fact, been in the majority. This runs counter to your bold asserions such as:
#101 :"the position shared with the majority of translations."
#116 :"Since the majority of translations present the 'should read' version."
#163 : "The majority of well accepted translations differ with the NIV on those verses."
#167 : "A majority of well accepted translations differ from the mistranslations found in the 16 verses."
#191 : "The majority of major translations disagree with the mistaken renderings in the NIV in these 19 verses."

No Van, you ought not operate on your double-standard principle, it plainly shows your duplicity.

 

[Van]

Yet another you, you you post pathetically trying to change the subject. Mr. Rippon seems unable to understand personal incredulity is a fallacious argument.

Besides the 5 contributors, the majority of translations differ with the NIV renderings. The idea is not that might or numbers make right, but only to demonstrate the NIV has gone off the reservation at these 23 verses.

Use the NASB95 for study and compare with the NET, HCSB, WEB, LEB, and NKJV.