Yet another subject change post from Y1, the deflector. I provided more than two dozen flawed verses, have you been able to list even three additional ones?Do you buy into Evangelical Feminist agenda for the Niv revision?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yet another subject change post from Y1, the deflector. I provided more than two dozen flawed verses, have you been able to list even three additional ones?Do you buy into Evangelical Feminist agenda for the Niv revision?
yes or no?Yet another subject change post from Y1, the deflector. I provided more than two dozen flawed verses, have you been able to list even three additional ones?
On and On he posts deflections, but does not explain even three NIV verses where he sees flaws in addition to the ones I listed.yes or no?
Mercy Seat is still found in the 2020 revision.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.
The above is a bold-faced lie. Van knows it, but he has no guilt about attributing false things to me. The NIV is not above improvement, I have said several times over the years that I have sent in suggestions for improvements for the NIV. I look forward to a newly revised edition of the NIV in the mid 2020s.the NIV has many flaws, and those unwilling to suggest improvements are unhelpful for our edification.
Only a lying fool would buy into that. That's because an honest Christian would go to the actual text of the NIV instead of continuing to spread deliberate falsehoods. Christians need to be truthful. That is a basic, elemental principle. Alas, many proclaim to be believers, but their continuous lies belie that profession.Do you buy into Evangelical Feminist agenda for the Niv revision?
Now Mr. Rippon2 says the shoe does not fit, but claims I said the shoe fits. Twaddle.The above is a bold-faced lie. Van knows it, but he has no guilt about attributing false things to me. The NIV is not above improvement, I have said several times over the years that I have sent in suggestions for improvements for the NIV. I look forward to a newly revised edition of the NIV in the mid 2020s.
As I have said before, to whom do you think His love is directed -- animals or plants? This is your "duh" moment."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."
Too bad for you Vanny. Your posts have already been recorded. You may want to deny what you said, but your falsehood endures.Now Mr. Rippon2 says the shoe does not fit, but claims I said the shoe fits. Twaddle.
Please list three flaws not already on our list.
Calvinists claim is love is directed at the elect only and not to all mankind. Thus to delete love for mankind or humanity is an agenda driven flaw.As I have said before, to whom do you think His love is directed -- animals or plants? This is your "duh" moment.
On and on, disparagement without evidence, addressing the poster, and not the position.Too bad for you Vanny. Your posts have already been recorded. You may want to deny what you said, but your falsehood endures.
Whew, and over the low-hanging head of the Van man it goes.Calvinists claim is love is directed at the elect only and not to all mankind. Thus to delete love for mankind or humanity is an agenda driven flaw.
Once again deflection and disparagement. Calvinists claim God's love is directed at the elect only and not to all mankind. Thus to delete love for mankind or humanity is an agenda driven flaw. See the NIV flaws at Titus 3:4 and Acts 28:2Whew, and over the low-hanging head of the Van man it goes.
Couldn't have said it better than myself.This is in response to Van's post #36 which he keeps regurgitating year after year, as if it has any value.
He tries to demean the NIV with largely inane observations. You can look up the verse citations yourself.
1) The NIV is very much like the CSB, ISV, LEB, ESV and NLT here.
2)Van isn't aware that indignation is a synonym for anger.
3) Invalid. Pointless.
4) Most translations have Van's desired word "children" instead of the NIV, CSB and others "friends."
So Van gets a point here.
5) Pointless. Italics are silly.
6) I am not going to cater to Van's idiosyncrasies.No BibleGateway Bible version has what Van wants. Pointless.
7) Pointless.
8) Pointless. It doesn't change the meaning.
9) Pointless.
10) Niv has "to be saved." But that means "for salvation." Pointless.
11) The NIV has "idle and disruptive." That is a clarification of what Van wants :"undisciplined life."
12) The NIV has "appeared." It means the same thing as revealed or manifested.
13) The NIV has "love of God." Van wants "love of mankind." Several translations have that. But the wording
"love of God" is quite clear. God has love for humanity. It's obviously not referring to animals or plants!
14) The NIV has "offering." Van prefers "sacrifice." But they are one and the same. It's pointless.
15) Van has his own unique preference here. It's not found anywhere else. It is pointless.
16) No practical difference. It is pointless.
17) "The NIV has "atoning sacrifice" as does the CSB, ISV, NET, NRSV and WEB, among others. It's perfectly adequate.
18) See # 17.
19) Pointless.
20) Van gets a point here.
21) The NIV has "Obey the Lord." as does the CSB, ISV, NET and NLT. What's the big deal?
22) See #21.
23) See # 21.
24) Van's rendering is a knock-off of the NIV, yet he tries to put down the NIV's wording anyway. Sheer lunacy.
25) The NIV, MOUNCE and ISV have "weigh carefully." The CSB, CEB, LEB, NET and NLT have "evaluate."
The ESV and NRSV have simply "weigh." Talk about nitpickers!
26) The NIV has "who is in you" as does the WEB, NET, Mounce, LEB, ISV, CSB, etc. Van's translation is non-existent.
27) Van's preference is for "some of you." That is an example of wresting Scripture. That's serious, and of course --pointless.
28) Van's preference is found nowhere except in his head. Need I say it? I will indeed. His point is pointless.
So the grand tally is 16 pointless points for Van. Ten others are just plain silly. And two positive ones for Van. Sorry Van. You have failed.
That is a low bar. PointlessCouldn't have said it better than myself.
From Van's own words the NIV regarding this verse is no worse than any other translation. SoHere is point 3 in the list of NIV flaws:
3) John 1:16 does not seem any more flawed than many other translations,
Van, you are strange. Apparently you have no problem with the NIV wording because "this rendering does present the intended message of the inspired text." So why does this show up on your listing of the supposed flaws in the NIV?Lets take a look at Acts 28:2, (NIV)
Act 28:2
The islanders showed us unusual kindness. They built a fire and welcomed us all because it was raining and cold.
Unusual translates the phase not usual or common or ordinary. I think this rendering does present the intended message of the inspired text.