In which verses does the NIV mess up the meaning?

[Rippon]

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

All of which show points of affinity with the NIV as I have pointed out time and again in this thread.

 

[Van]

Not to put too fine a point on it but one would hope translations of the same text into the same language might read somewhat the same. Of course the blunders would differ.

 

[Rippon]

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 has to put up or shut up. No documentation = no proof = vacuous claims = irrationality --which boils down to double standards and dishonesty.

 

[Van]

More personal incredulity, more fallacy, but no assertion that the twenty three verses do not mistranslate the underlying text.

The elephant in the room is the claim these mistranslations are somehow needed for functional equivalence, but that is obviously not true. The NIV uses omitted words, added words, and different word meanings to alter the message which of course results in functional non-equivalence.

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]

Put up, or shut up Bud. Don't merely repeat your "should read" crud. Back up your hollow claims with actual substance. You're running on empty.

 

[Van]

Again, it seems the idea that personal incredulity is fallacy has not been grasped. The added words have been identified, the omitted words have been identified, and the altered words, such as translating children as "deserving" have been identified. Every verse on the list has been explained in this thread.

Simply reposting taint so, reposting threats, insults and slander does not alter the truth.

 

[Rippon]

Every verse on the list has been explained in this thread.

Every verse has been tainted by the dreaded Van-tran.

You STILL haven't backed up a scintilla of evidence to buttress your vain Van claims.

Your stupid mantra of "should read" belongs in tha garbage.

A number of the renderings you insist "should read" thus and such exist in no translation whatsoever.
So how is that an argument against the NIV?

A few renderings you have mysteriously listed agree with the NIV reading. It makes no sense to put them on your anti-NIV diatribe.

The majority of translational renderings agree with the NIV reading --including your favorites: NASU,WEB,NET, NKJV,LEB and HCSB.

Your common common theme of "the majority of translations differ with the NIV in these verses" is not the case at all. Ten or more translations out of 19 constitute a majority where I come from.

A number of other cases have been toss-ups.

I have made the reasonable request for you to cite exegetical commentaries to back up your notions. But you have rejected that out-of-hand. Documentation for your irresponsible assertions is necessary for you to have any credibility. Your credibility rating is zero. Specifics? Naw, you don't want to go there. That would pin you down into admitting your colossal failure in proving the NIV is "deeply flawed." Your whole scheme is in deep do-do.

 

[Van]

More regurgitated mantra from Mr. Rippon. Nothing to support that the NIV did not omit words, and add words, and alter the meaning of works, such as changing "children" to "deserving."

 

[Rippon]

I received an infraction for engaging in hate speech when I posted on the flaws of certain versions.

Yes, indeed you did. And you still violate the rules about that on the BB. Van, the flouter of rules.

 

[Rippon]

Van has a systemic problem with truth. He prefers to go his own way. Facts don't matter to him. He will not accept correction. I have given several complete itemizations for all 20 issues on his list. He has not dealt with my specifics whatsoever. He prefers to evade any particularization like the plague. An honest person would address each of my specifics head-on. But Van studiously avoids that at all costs. Well, you know what the Bible says about stiff-necked people.

Van has tunnel-vision. Facts are inconvenient obstacles for the Van-man --mere hindrances that need not be addressed.

 

[Rippon]

You have a faulty sense of accuracy.

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.

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.

Show and tell time Van. Put em' up or shut up.

 

[Van]

Posts #269, 270 and 271 all address my character and alleged behavior, thus clearly violating forum rules.

But will the pathetic effort to change the subject from the twenty three flawed verses identified in the NIV work? Nope. We have demonstrated twenty three cases of functional non-equivalence. Words have been omitted, added, and altered to change the message.

Anyone who looks at the underlying text, i.e. uses an interlinear, can find where the NIV translation has not be as faithful as some other translations, like the NASB, LEB and WEB. Thus the 23 represent the tip of the iceberg....

 

[Rippon]

Thus the 23 represent the tip of the iceberg....

You are a titanic waste.

I have challenged you over and over to supply speciifics. Give documentation for your reckless
charges. So what do you do? You run like a coward. If you are right about what you think with your "should read" theme --then it should not be difficult to come up with some proof. But since you insist on stonewalling, you have shown everyone that you are filled with hot air.

 

[Rippon]

It is instructive how many times Van's favorite versions go against his preferred reading.

Mark 1:41 a host of versions, with the lone exceptions of two, oppose him --including his six favorites.

Romans 3: 25 :NKJV,NASU,HCSB,LEB,WEB and NET along with all other English Bible translations do not go along with VPV (Van's Preferred Reading).

2 Thess. 3:6 : HCSB,LEB,NASU,WEB and NKJV oppose VPR.

Isaiah 12:3 : HCSB, LEB and NET do not agree with VPR.

1 John 2:2 : NET and WEB go against VPR.

1 John 4:10 : NET and WEB go against VPR.

1 Peter 4:6 : HCSB and NET go against VPR.

1 Cor. 16:13 : LEB, NET, NKJV and WEB all oppose VPR.

Rev.. 22:21 : HCSB and WEB go against VPR.

James 2:5 : HCSB, LEB, NASU, NET and WEB all go contrary to VPR, as well as each and every English Bible translation.

COL. 1:28 : HCSB and NET go against VPR.

1 Samuel 15:19 : HCSB and NET go against VPR.

1 Samuel 15:20 : HCSB and NET go against VPR.

1 Samuel 15:22 : HCSB and NET go against VPR.

In 13 of the above passages Van's favorites are joined with other translations, including the NIV in opposing his preferred reading.

The Mark 1:41 passage is a unique case. As I said, all other versions with the exception of two (NIrV and LEB) do not go along with his preferred reading. The NIV reading stands alone among all English Bible versions in its rendering. Yet its reading is closer to VPR than the majority of translations. Nevertheless, Van castigates it anyway. That's his illogic at work.

So, putting Mark 1:41 aside for the moment, here's how many times his favs agreed with the NIV:
NET: 11 times
HCSB : 10 times
WEB : 7 times
LEB : 5 times
NASU : 3 times
NKJV : 3 times

But will Van be consistent in his estimation of those versions which opposed his preferred reading and harmonized with the NIV rendering? Of course not. That's not how Van rolls. He would rather paint the NIV as a "deeply flawed" version and not mention the highly inconvenient fact that his beloved translations went over to the camp of the enemy numerous times.

Will he dare to call his favs, especially NET and HCSB "deeply flawed" as consistency requires? Not a chance. Van's dishonesty and faulty scales are are here for all to see.

Van goes about attacking the NIV as if it was the singular worst version on the market. Never mind that it shows harmony on numerous occasions with other translations --Van doesn't want that to be acknowledged.

 

[Van]

Yet another personal attack, another clear violation of forum rules, and another example of inaction from the moderators. Why have a rule against personal attacks (such as you run like a coward) if they are not enforced?

The 23 verses identified represent the tip of the iceberg as far as verses that miss the mark in the NIV.

Note that the subject of this thread is not some other translation's mistakes, but those in the NIV. How many times must we wade through change of subject non-germane posts?

 

[Rippon]

Note that the subject of this thread is not some other translation's mistakes, but those in the NIV. How many times must we wade through change of subject non-germane posts?

It is completely relevant. This particular forum compares and contrasts Bible versions. You set up the NIV as the worst translation in existence --yet it shares a great deal of common ground with versions you recommend.When I show the affinity it has with your favs you want no part of the discussion because it points out your glaring inconsistency.

You still have not produced an iota of proof that the NIV has a host of "mistranslations" --you just continue with your tired ole' "should read" mantra.

Document man. Produce quotes from exegetical commentaries. Don't just make assertions --put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

 

[Van]

You set up the NIV as the worst translation in existence....

The above is of course a material false statement, no quote will be forthcoming.

One rule violation after another, in post after post, with inaction from the moderators.

Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes others is naive.

But will the pathetic effort to change the subject from the twenty three flawed verses identified in the NIV work? Nope. We have demonstrated twenty three cases of functional non-equivalence. Words have been omitted, added, and altered to change the message.

Anyone who looks at the underlying text, i.e. uses an interlinear, can find where the NIV translation has not be as faithful as some other translations, like the NASB, LEB and WEB. Thus the 23 represent the tip of the iceberg....

 

[Rippon]

I have challenged you over and over to supply speciifics. Give documentation for your reckless
charges. So what do you do? You run like a coward. If you are right about what you think with your "should read" theme --then it should not be difficult to come up with some proof. But since you insist on stonewalling, you have shown everyone that you are filled with hot air.

Van, you need to prove things. You have not done so. Your favorites show agreement with the NIV in numerous places --but that fact is ignored by the Van-man.

Why can't you admit that your "examples" are distorted? Why can't you come to grips with the truth that the NIV readings you have itemized join the majority of other translations in their renderings?Why is it that you can't face up to facts? Why can't you admit when you are wrong? Why can't you supply documentation for your foolish charges? Why do you regard your opinion, i.e. "should read" as if it is somehow authoritative? Why is that? Why do you post Van-spam without thinking things through?

There is an expression that applies to you Van, -- Put up, or shut up.

 

[Van]

The only thing Mr. Rippon seems to put up are falsehoods, insults, threats and personal attacks.

We have put up 23 examples of messed up verses, and explained why each and every one of them is defective. Words have been omitted, words have been added, and words have been translated as if a different word had been inspired. This pattern of functional non-equivalence can be found throughout the NIV.

 

[Rippon]

We have put up 23 examples of messed up verses, and explained why each and every one of them is defective.

No we have not done anything of the kind. You, Van, are a lone wolf --a loose cannon. You alone have been your own source of authority --in other words -- no authority.

As I have emphasized unceasingly, you have to either: Put up, or shut up Van.