-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NIV 2011 Revision…Thoughts?
- Thread starter StephenUSAFVet
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Let us consider Matthew 5:47. The NIV translates the Greek words "ho adelphos" (G80) as "your own people." Literally the Greek words mean "the brothers" and refers to our siblings in Christ, and does not indicate whether both male and female are actually involved. Therefore I believe when a group of fellow believers is the apparent reference, "siblings" should be used to translate adelphos. The word allows the interpretation that females are included and in vague situations, does not require inclusion.
Now let us turn to Matthew 23:8 where Jesus is speaking both to crowds and His disciples. Here the NIV sticks with "brothers" and did not add "and sisters." But females are certainly in the crowds listening to Jesus, and they need to heed the instruction addressed to the crowd not to call anyone "father." So once again the NIV's translation choice is flawed, but in the other direction. However, rather than brothers, if "siblings" is used the inclusion of females is suggested but not required.
Lastly lets look at Luke 21:16. Here the NIV does add (without italics) "and sisters." Here, once again, siblings allows but does not require inclusion of females.
I believe these three examples pretty much cover the multitude of NIV errors in translating "adelphos" There are more than 50 other examples!
Now let us turn to Matthew 23:8 where Jesus is speaking both to crowds and His disciples. Here the NIV sticks with "brothers" and did not add "and sisters." But females are certainly in the crowds listening to Jesus, and they need to heed the instruction addressed to the crowd not to call anyone "father." So once again the NIV's translation choice is flawed, but in the other direction. However, rather than brothers, if "siblings" is used the inclusion of females is suggested but not required.
Lastly lets look at Luke 21:16. Here the NIV does add (without italics) "and sisters." Here, once again, siblings allows but does not require inclusion of females.
I believe these three examples pretty much cover the multitude of NIV errors in translating "adelphos" There are more than 50 other examples!
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Squire, in post #95 of mine I itemized exactly what posts he has been repeating ad nauseam. You say you don't read many threads. Try to read what I have clearly spelled out for you. It's staring right in your face.I don't read all the threads. Please point out the location of these other threads. Van isn't the only member with a bete noir on a given topic. I see them all the time in the C/A forum and dealing with the KJVO debate.
Other threads in which he beats the dead horse : "Flaws Found In NIV" two years ago. "Improvement of the NIV" starting in December of 2020. and on and on.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
So Van thinks the phrase "before humanity's subjugation" is now his new standard after his previous dictum lost his favor. Van's favorite translation is the 1995 NASB. I will cite the last part of the verses in which Van thinks his new wording is ideal.
John 17:24 "... for you loved Me before the foundation of the world."
Eph. 1:4 "... He chose us before the foundation of the world."
1 Peter 1:20 "...He was foreknown before the foundation of the world."
Matthew 25:34 "...inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."
Luke 11:50 "...since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation."
Heb. 4:3 "...His works were finished from the foundation of the world."
Rev. 13:8 "...written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."
Rev. 17:8 "...whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come."
Van's strange construction of "before humanity's subjugation" needless to say does not fit in any manner within those passages. And no translation has Van's odd wording. It's as if he conjured up that wording of his.
John 17:24 "... for you loved Me before the foundation of the world."
Eph. 1:4 "... He chose us before the foundation of the world."
1 Peter 1:20 "...He was foreknown before the foundation of the world."
Matthew 25:34 "...inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."
Luke 11:50 "...since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation."
Heb. 4:3 "...His works were finished from the foundation of the world."
Rev. 13:8 "...written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."
Rev. 17:8 "...whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come."
Van's strange construction of "before humanity's subjugation" needless to say does not fit in any manner within those passages. And no translation has Van's odd wording. It's as if he conjured up that wording of his.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Van, in Matthew 23:8 you think the NIV is wrong for using the word 'brothers' without also including 'sisters.' But the NIV is not alone in that regard. The ISV, LEB, Mounce, Net and Web, along with many others agrees with the NIV.
Regarding Luke 21:16, why should the word "siblings' be used? And if it is to be used should it be in italics?
Regarding Luke 21:16, why should the word "siblings' be used? And if it is to be used should it be in italics?
On and on, RR posts the two wrongs make a right falsehood. And not one poster of any stripe has the character to say to him, a fault in another translation does not mean the NIV is without fault.
My last post #102 addressed NIV mistranslations in more than 50 cases.
My last post #102 addressed NIV mistranslations in more than 50 cases.
Last edited:
Here are examples of where the NIV has added "and sisters" without italics. And in these cases the issue (implied exclusion of females) can be addressed simply by translating "adelphos (G80) as siblings.They’ve added “and sisters” in italics after the word “brothers” in MANY places. That’s probably the biggest example I can give you because it’s the one that stands out the most.
Luke 21:16
Acts of the Apostles 11:29
Acts of the Apostles 16:40
Acts of the Apostles 18:18
Acts of the Apostles 21:7
Acts of the Apostles 21:17
Acts of the Apostles 28:14
Acts of the Apostles 28:15
Romans 1:13
Romans 7:1
Romans 7:4
Romans 8:12
Romans 8:29
Romans 10:1
Romans 11:25
Romans 12:1
Romans 15:14
Romans 15:30
Romans 16:14
Romans 16:17
And many many more...
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
No, your post did not address any. All you said was that there were 50. That does not constitute 'addressing' them.My last post #102 addressed NIV mistranslations in more than 50 cases.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
I'll ask again, should your choice of "siblings' be in italics?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
"Most italics [sic] words are unnecessary, and should not be added for clarification" Van, 12/01/ 2011.
Does anyone believe this is a legitimate question? Nope, as siblings if a word meaning for word meaning translation of G80.I'll ask again, should your choice of "siblings' be in italics?
Thanks for agreeing with me. And what is worse than adding needless words in Italics, why adding them without italics which is the flawed practice of the NIV"Most italics [sic] words are unnecessary, and should not be added for clarification" Van, 12/01/ 2011.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You have a lack of comprehension even of your own words. You said that most italicized words are unnecessary in translations and should not be added to the text.Thanks for agreeing with me. And what is worse than adding needless words in Italics, why adding them without italics which is the flawed practice of the NIV
Twaddle,You have a lack of comprehension even of your own words. You said that most italicized words are unnecessary in translations and should not be added to the text.
Is this poster really so incapable of comprehension. Most added words are unnecessary, but when a word is needed to provide clarification, the added word or phrase should be identified such as using italics. Even a child should be able to understand. Thus the post seems to be for the purpose of harassment.
Returning to topic after a slew of non-germane off topic posts...
Here are examples of where the NIV has added "and sisters" without italics. And in these cases the issue (implied exclusion of females) can be addressed simply by translating "adelphos (G80) as siblings.
Luke 21:16
Acts of the Apostles 11:29
Acts of the Apostles 16:40
Acts of the Apostles 18:18
Acts of the Apostles 21:7
Acts of the Apostles 21:17
Acts of the Apostles 28:14
Acts of the Apostles 28:15
Romans 1:13
Romans 7:1
Romans 7:4
Romans 8:12
Romans 8:29
Romans 10:1
Romans 11:25
Romans 12:1
Romans 15:14
Romans 15:30
Romans 16:14
Romans 16:17
And many many more...
Here are examples of where the NIV has added "and sisters" without italics. And in these cases the issue (implied exclusion of females) can be addressed simply by translating "adelphos (G80) as siblings.
Luke 21:16
Acts of the Apostles 11:29
Acts of the Apostles 16:40
Acts of the Apostles 18:18
Acts of the Apostles 21:7
Acts of the Apostles 21:17
Acts of the Apostles 28:14
Acts of the Apostles 28:15
Romans 1:13
Romans 7:1
Romans 7:4
Romans 8:12
Romans 8:29
Romans 10:1
Romans 11:25
Romans 12:1
Romans 15:14
Romans 15:30
Romans 16:14
Romans 16:17
And many many more...
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You had said a decade ago that most italicized words should not be added for clarification. And that is the exact opposite of what you are now advocating. It's certainly your right to change your mind, but that is indeed what you said in 2011.Twaddle,
Is this poster really so incapable of comprehension. Most added words are unnecessary, but when a word is needed to provide clarification, the added word or phrase should be identified such as using italics. Even a child should be able to understand. Thus the post seems to be for the purpose of harassment.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Regarding your post 116, the CEB, Net and NLT, among other translations, do not, as a habit, put 'and sisters' in italics. I know you are in the molehill business, but this is so silly of you Van.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Van, you still have not come to grips with what I presented in my post # 104. Your new pet phrase is not used in your favorite translation --the 1995 NASB, in seven passages where you think it should. As a matter of fact, absolutely no translation has your odd spin of "before humanity's subjugation" in those seven verses or anywhere in the canon of the Bible.
Could you rehearse for us your thought process in order for you to come up with that rendering? Is your source from a Bible commentary, study aid, lexicon, or from your unique gray matter?
Could you rehearse for us your thought process in order for you to come up with that rendering? Is your source from a Bible commentary, study aid, lexicon, or from your unique gray matter?
Would love to read the van systematic theology and study bible editions!Van, you still have not come to grips with what I presented in my post # 104. Your new pet phrase is not used in your favorite translation --the 1995 NASB, in seven passages where you think it should. As a matter of fact, absolutely no translation has your odd spin of "before humanity's subjugation" in those seven verses or anywhere in the canon of the Bible.
Could you rehearse for us your thought process in order for you to come up with that rendering? Is your source from a Bible commentary, study aid, lexicon, or from your unique gray matter?
Why is this poster allowed post false statement after false statement, all off topic. I am saying the exact same thing.You had said a decade ago that most italicized words should not be added for clarification. And that is the exact opposite of what you are now advocating. It's certainly your right to change your mind, but that is indeed what you said in 2011.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.