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

[Rippon2]

Here we have an example of an agenda driven translation choice. Many translations render the word (philanthrōpia) as
"love for mankind."

The passage is Titus 3:4.
CEB : But when God our Savior's kindness and love appeared
NABRE : But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared
NLT : But --When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love
MOUNCE, ESV, NRSV : But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared
___________________________________________________________________________
These are not gender driven translation choices. On the contrary, Van's driving force in his immature
flaws presentation is an extreme and pointless venture.

 

[Van]

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.

Here is the part of my post edited out:
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.

Once again disparagement and deflection is all the NIV advocates can offer, certainly no observation of flaws in the NIV.

 

[Van]

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?

Do you see, folks, the deliberate misrepresentation of my view by Mr. Rippon2? He is now simply trying to avoid discussion of NIV flaws. What a waste.

 

[Van]

The passage is Titus 3:4.
CEB : But when God our Savior's kindness and love appeared
NABRE : But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared
NLT : But --When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love
MOUNCE, ESV, NRSV : But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared
___________________________________________________________________________
These are not gender driven translation choices. On the contrary, Van's driving force in his immature
flaws presentation is an extreme and pointless venture.

Once again Mr. Rippon says if other translations are flawed, it is ok for the NIV flaws to be ignored. Nonsense.

 

[Rippon2]

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

Just about all the translations featured on Bible Hub have at the start of the verse "Out [or from] his fullness."
As I said, most translation use the word 'fullness' here. What are your qualification to determine what should or should not be in the verse? The answer is none.

No translation has the word 'love' in it. So you hold to less than a minority view.

The idea is that the grace under Christ was given to replace the grace under the law. That's why the NIV has "grace in place of grace already given.

 

[Rippon2]

Do you see, folks, the deliberate misrepresentation of my view by Mr. Rippon2? He is now simply trying to avoid discussion of NIV flaws. What a waste.

You had said that "this rendering [of the NIV] does present the intended message of the inspired text."
Those are your words, not mine. How in the world can that be considered a misrepresentation?

Did you mean the opposite "This rendering [of the NIV] doesn't present the intended message of the inspired text."?

You can't have it both ways Van. It's one or the other. I guess it depends on which Van I am dealing on a particular day of the week.

 

[Van]

Just about all the translations featured on Bible Hub have at the start of the verse "Out [or from] his fullness."
As I said, most translation use the word 'fullness' here. What are your qualification to determine what should or should not be in the verse? The answer is none.

No translation has the word 'love' in it. So you hold to less than a minority view.

The idea is that the grace under Christ was given to replace the grace under the law. That's why the NIV has "grace in place of grace already given.

Fullness is ambiguous. And for those without the Law, the grace did not "replace" the grace under the Law.
But to go so far as to interpret the fullness as "love" might well be too far down speculation street. So more broadly, what is Christ filled with? He is uniquely divine, so "divine essence" might hit closer to the intended message.

The NIV and other translations that go with "fullness" do not convey the message. Other verses do point to (1) love (Ephesians 3:19) or (2) deity (Colossians 2:9). Paul say when he comes, he will come with the fullness of Christ's blessings. (Romans 15:29)

 

[Van]

You had said that "this rendering [of the NIV] does present the intended message of the inspired text."
Those are your words, not mine. How in the world can that be considered a misrepresentation?

Did you mean the opposite "This rendering [of the NIV] doesn't present the intended message of the inspired text."?

You can't have it both ways Van. It's one or the other. I guess it depends on which Van I am dealing on a particular day of the week.

Here again we have my post edited to misrepresent what I said. Obviously Mr Rippon2 is engaged in hindering edification.

 

[Rippon2]

You had said that "this rendering [of the NIV] does present the intended message of the inspired text."
Those are your words, not mine. How in the world can that be considered a misrepresentation?

Did you mean the opposite "This rendering [of the NIV] doesn't present the intended message of the inspired text."?

You can't have it both ways Van. It's one or the other. I guess it depends on which Van I am dealing on a particular day of the week.

Your post # 112 has been recorded. You can't change what you already posted regarding Acts 28:2 : "This rendering does present the intended message of the text."

What am I dealing with here, multiple Van-types? Multiple Van personalities? You said it, but you really didn't mean it on that particular day? Fickle, thy name is Van.

 

[Rippon2]

Fullness is ambiguous.

Well, 36 other translations, aside from the NIV used the word 'fullness' in that passage. But in your vaulted view of yourself that is inferior to the way you would have it.

But to go so far as to interpret the fullness as "love" might well be too far down speculation street.

So, you admit that you were wrong to use the word 'love' in this verse. That's good. A little humility on your part.

The NIV and other translations that go with "fullness" do not convey the message.

So the translators of nearly 40 Bible versions are wrong in the view of your highness. You know better than those trained in the art of Bible translation because ....?

 

[Van]

Well, 36 other translations, aside from the NIV used the word 'fullness' in that passage. But in your vaulted view of yourself that is inferior to the way you would have it.

So, you admit that you were wrong to use the word 'love' in this verse. That's good. A little humility on your part.

So the translators of nearly 40 Bible versions are wrong in the view of your highness. You know better than those trained in the art of Bible translation because ....?

On and on the liberals stick with "two or more wrongs make a right." Twaddle
Then disparagement is cast my way, indicating the use of logical fallacies to bolster bogus views.
Apparently you did not read where "fullness" refers to "love"? Ephesians 3:19 ring a bell.

 

[Rippon2]

On and on the liberals stick with "two or more wrongs make a right."

I'm not a liberal hoss. You are the one who has deviated from the Faith in crucial areas. For instance sarcastically calling those on the orthodox side of the ledger "The eternal torment crowd." You are the heterodox one Van. Time and time again.

Apparently you did not read where "fullness" refers to "love"? Ephesians 3:19 ring a bell.

As you already admitted, the word 'love' as you once used in your translation of John 1:16 "might be too far down speculation street." You have nullified yourself Van. You go back and forth. The Van on Tuesday rebuts the Van on Thursday and so forth.
When two score translations use the word 'fullness' in John 1:16, we are standing on solid ground. Whereas your grandiose claims of having the superior rendering is placing one's foot on sinking sand. Hmm. reminds me of a hymn.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner that 1 am EDT Tue, 23 Jun / 10 pm PDT, 22 Jun

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner that 1 am EDT Tue, 23 Jun / 10 pm PDT, 22 Jun

This thread is closed

Feel free to start a new one