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

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?

 

yes or no?

 

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.
These posters simply derail discussion of the NIV flaws, working against edification.

 

Mercy Seat is still found in the 2020 revision.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

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.

Two Greek words are translate in this rendering:
1) Unusual translates the phase not usual or common or ordinary. I think this rendering does present the intended message of the inspired text.
2) Kindness translates our word meaning love for mankind or humanity. Once again, the "for humanity" part of the message has been removed, thus yet another flawed translation choice. The islanders showed us "unusual love for humanity, kindling a fire..."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

As I have said before, to whom do you think His love is directed -- animals or plants? This is your "duh" moment.

 

Too bad for you Vanny. Your posts have already been recorded. You may want to deny what you said, but your falsehood endures.

 

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.

 

On and on, disparagement without evidence, addressing the poster, and not the position.

Here is what is being avoided by deflection and disparagement:
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.

Two Greek words are translated in this rendering:
1) Unusual translates the phase not usual or common or ordinary. I think this rendering does present the intended message of the inspired text.
2) Kindness translates our word meaning love for mankind or humanity. Once again, the "for humanity" part of the message has been removed, thus yet another flawed translation choice. The islanders showed us "unusual love for humanity, kindling a fire..."

 

Whew, and over the low-hanging head of the Van man it goes.

 

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 28:2

 

Flaws found 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 Thessalonians 2:13 to be saved should read, "for salvation."
11) 2 Thessalonians 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) Revelation 13:8; 17:8 from the creation should read, "since the foundation." And Matthew 25:34 and Hebrews 4:3 since the creation should read "since the foundation."
20) Revelation 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." *
24) Philemon 1:6 the verse should read as follows: "I pray that your participation in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every blessing that belongs to all of you in Christ Jesus."
25) 1 Corinthians 14:29 should read "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others evaluate." The NIV added "carefully" and "what is said."
26) 1 Corinthians 6:19 "your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you" should read "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in all of you.
27) Matthew 3:11 should read, ""As for me, I baptize all of you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize some of you with the Holy Spirit and others with fire.
28) Matthew 11:12 should read, ""Since the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of the heavens has been forcefully sought, and forceful people are laying hold of it."
29) Acts 28:2 "kindness" should read love for humanity. Same type of flaw as #13.

Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, 23 and 29 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, 16 and 25 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 26 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.
Example 24 and 28 documents a translation devoid of meaning, just an array of disconnected phrases.
Example 27 clarifies the confusion produced by the Greek plural "you."

When translators "add" words or phrases, "omit" words or phrases, or translate words or phrases outside of the historical-grammatical meaning unnecessarily, in order to make doctrine driven choices, they are presenting a flawed translation in my opinion. All translations have flaws, the product of fallible people, but the NIV flaws seem abundant to me.

 

Couldn't have said it better than myself.

 

That is a low bar. Pointless

 

Here is point 3 in the list of NIV flaws:
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."

And here is Mr. Rippon2's thoughtful and penetrating analysis:
Invalid, pointless.

Here is the NIV John 1:16
john 1:16
Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.

And the supposed flaw is that "fullness" is ambiguous, failing to convey the intended meaning. The suggested improvement above is "out of His abundance we all obtained grace against grace." Abundance is also ambiguous. So here we must decide what is "of His fullness." I believe the idea is Christ is filled with unconditional love from which grace after grace flows. So a "better" translation might be "From His love and grace we all received, and grace upon grace." At least a meaning is presented unambiguously.

 

From Van's own words the NIV regarding this verse is no worse than any other translation. So
what is the point? Why would Van even bother to list it as flawed when he admits it is no big
deal. Therefore his 'point' is pointless and invalid. It is no more flawed than many other translations
in his estimation. He can't even comprehend his own words. Van negates himself.

 

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?