Is it time for another update/revision of the New International Version (NIV)?

[Van]

6) Romans 3:25 sacrifice of atonement should read, "propitiatory shelter."*

Let us take another look at Romans 3:25 (NASB)
NIV = sacrifice of atonement
NLT = sacrifice for sin
ESV = a propitiation
NASB = a propitiation
NKJV = a propitiation
CSB = an atoning sacrifice
ISV = place where atonement...would occur
NET = the mercy seat
NHEB = a mercy seat
GWT = throne of mercy where God's approval is given

This pretty much covers the various ways the Greek word "hilasterion" is translated at Romans 3:25. Most translate it as an action, a sacrifice, a propitiation, or an atonement. However the form of the word refers to the place where the action occurs, thus propitiatory shelter improves the accuracy of all the translation, except that "mercy seat" is a place and the two most accurate efforts, the ISV and GWT.

 

[Rippon2]

What did you think of the Bible researcher take?

That's not the subject, which I have dealt with a number of times before. The issue is your continual lies about the NIV and your cowardice in not dealing with the ten passages that I listed which blow your reckless falsehoods out of the water.

 

[Rippon2]

Let us take another look at Romans 3:25 (NASB)
NIV = sacrifice of atonement

Other translations that have the same thing as the NIV here are : Mounce, NRSV and WEB.

 

[Van]

Other translations that have the same thing as the NIV here are : Mounce, NRSV and WEB.

So what, please address the issue, the form of the word refers to the place where the action occurs, not the action. It is an obvious flaw, and it is silly for you to suggest it is not. Ask yourself why "mercy seat" or "place where atonement occurs" if the NIV and NASB and others did not hit wide of the mark.

Sacrifice of atonement and atoning sacrifice do mean the same thing, and the CSB has it too. But to repeat, the inspired word refers to the place where mercy is obtained, not to the provision of that mercy.
To not see Christ, covered in His own blood, as our propitiatory shelter misses quite a lot. And that shelter is accessible through faith.

 

[Rippon2]

As for the source, the flaws are presented, and are self evident.

As a matter of fact, no, they are not.

It's your responsibility to give reasons, to give an account for. You gave none, zero, nada. You should
try using the art of reasoning. It starts with the word '"Because."

To laughingly state over and over "Should read" is infantile. I hope that your response from someone
who asks you for the hope that lies within you is more substantive than "You should." The person you are interacting with would be left hanging "I should what?"

 

[Van]

As a matter of fact, no, they are not.

It's your responsibility to give reasons, to give an account for. You gave none, zero, nada. You should
try using the art of reasoning. It starts with the word '"Because."

To laughingly state over and over "Should read" is infantile. I hope that your response from someone
who asks you for the hope that lies within you is more substantive than "You should." The person you are interacting with would be left hanging "I should what?"

They are self evident, even though that truth can be denied.
I have provided the basis of every one of them, and for you to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Now on your side we have Pointless, Silly, Infantile and Taint so. How can people grow in their understanding if that is all you add?

 

[Yeshua1]

That's not the subject, which I have dealt with a number of times before. The issue is your continual lies about the NIV and your cowardice in not dealing with the ten passages that I listed which blow your reckless falsehoods out of the water.

So you did agree with his point then concerning motivation behind revising thr Niv?

 

[Rippon2]

Sacrifice of atonement and atoning sacrifice do mean the same thing, and the CSB has it too.

No, the CSB has 'mercy seat.'

 

[Rippon2]

I have provided the basis of every one of them, and for you to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

You are denying reality. In other words you are delusional Van.

You did not provide any basis. All you said repeatedly "Should read." You offered no reason. I explained my self quite clearly in post #85. Saying "should read" is not giving a reason or basis whatsoever.

 

[Rippon2]

So you did agree with his point then concerning motivation behind revising thr Niv?

You are as dense as a wall. I provided ten passages from the NIV dealing with the role of men, women, families, and elders. You will not be able to find anything within those passages to prove your absolutely false accusations. IF IT'S NOT IN THE TEXT YOUR CHARGES HAVE BEEN LIES ALL ALONG.

 

[Van]

You are denying reality. In other words you are delusional Van.

You did not provide any basis. All you said repeatedly "Should read." You offered no reason. I explained my self quite clearly in post #85. Saying should be is not giving a reason or basis whatsoever.

Now we can add "delusional" to your analysis of the NIV faults. Just read post# 81 folks and compare with what Rippon2 posts, i.e. pointless, silly, infantile, delusional, and of course taint so.

 

[Rippon2]

Now we can add "delusional" to your analysis of the NIV faults. Just read post# 81 folks and compare with what Rippon2 posts, i.e. pointless, silly, infantile, delusional, and of course taint so.

I have been dealing with your post #36, not #81. Your inanities continue.

 

[Van]

I have been dealing with your post #36, not #81. Your inanities continue.

Yet another deflection, another ad hominem. On and on folks, the NIV has many flaws, and those unwilling to suggest improvements are unhelpful for our edification.

 

[Yeshua1]

Other translations that have the same thing as the NIV here are : Mounce, NRSV and WEB.

Could that be due to none of them being a formal translation?

 

[Van]

Note the lack of discussion of this post. But the NIV flaw is revealed by study and comparison with other translations and commentary.
Let us take another look at Romans 3:25 (NASB)
NIV = sacrifice of atonement
NLT = sacrifice for sin
ESV = a propitiation
NASB = a propitiation
NKJV = a propitiation
CSB = an atoning sacrifice (also rendered as mercy seat on one site).
ISV = place where atonement...would occur
NET = the mercy seat
NHEB = a mercy seat
GWT = throne of mercy where God's approval is given

This pretty much covers the various ways the Greek word "hilasterion" is translated at Romans 3:25. Most translate it as an action, a sacrifice, a propitiation, or an atonement. However the form of the word refers to the place where the action occurs, thus propitiatory shelter improves the accuracy of all the translations, except that "mercy seat" is a place and the two most accurate efforts, the ISV and GWT. And the propitiatory shelter is accessible through faith, if credited by God as righteousness.

 

[Van]

No, the CSB has 'mercy seat.'

The "bible hub" rendering of the CSB has atoning sacrifice, but the Biblegateway, copyright 2017 version has mercy seat. I do not know which one is the latest version, but no matter, propitiatory shelter is better.
Also the Blueletterbible site has atoning sacrifice.

 

[Rippon2]

On and on folks, the NIV has many flaws,

Not nearly as many flaws as you have Van.

and those unwilling to suggest improvements are unhelpful for our edification.

I have never said the things you have said above. Do not speak falsely. It does not serve you well.

"...There is always a reason for why translators do what they do. No translation is random, without a reason, and we should be careful at proclaiming that a translation is 'wrong' until we fully know why they did what they did. Maybe we are the one who doesn't know something." (Taken from Bill Mounce blog May 4,2020)[/quote]

 

[Van]

Not nearly as many flaws as you have Van.

I have never said the things you have said above. Do not speak falsely. It does not serve you well.

"...There is always a reason for why translators do what they do. No translation is random, without a reason, and we should be careful at proclaiming that a translation is 'wrong' until we fully know why they did what they did. Maybe we are the one who doesn't know something." (Taken from Bill Mounce blog May 4,2020)

First we get the personal attack.
Next a charge that I said Rippon said something. Utterly bogus strawman.
What are the reasons, group think, following earlier versions? How about a translation being inaccurate due to being agenda driven.
The flaws in the NIV are self evident, but even this morning's sunrise would not be self evident to the willfully blind.

Let us consider "only begotten." Found in KJV and in the NKJV, and other KjV based versions. Could not the NIV follow the herd into error also. Recall early versions of the NIV translated "apo" as before, then later fixed it. Every "fix" reveals a previous error. So Mr. Mounce's idea that some errors are not self evident and cannot be justified is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

 

[Yeshua1]

First we get the personal attack.
Next a charge that I said Rippon said something. Utterly bogus strawman.
What are the reasons, group think, following earlier versions? How about a translation being inaccurate due to being agenda driven.
The flaws in the NIV are self evident, but even this morning's sunrise would not be self evident to the willfully blind.

Let us consider "only begotten." Found in KJV and in the NKJV, and other KjV based versions. Could not the NIV follow the herd into error also. Recall early versions of the NIV translated "apo" as before, then later fixed it. Every "fix" reveals a previous error. So Mr. Mounce's idea that some errors are not self evident and cannot be justified is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

Do you buy into Evangelical Feminist agenda for the Niv revision?

 

[Van]

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

Here we have an example of an agenda driven translation choice. Many translations render the word (philanthrōpia) as
"love for mankind." Many lexicons say the word means love for mankind (Thayers, Strongs). However, if you look on "bible hub" several translations just say love and leave out "for mankind." Among these are the NIV, NLT, ESV. not surprisingly all liked by Calvinists. The Calvinist doctrine is that God does not love all mankind, but only His elect. Thus world does not refer to all mankind in John 3:16 and so forth.

OTOH, many translations do render the word as love for mankind using various choices of verbiage. Among these are the NASB, CSB, NET, WEB, LEB and YLT.