The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation

[TCassidy]

1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read, "revealed in the flesh."

You didn't answer my question. What is the basis for your contention that the above should read "revealed" vice "appeared?"

The Greek reads ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκι. ἐφανερώθη is an aorist, passive, indicative, third, person, singular, verb.

"Was made to appear" would be the most literal translation.

So, I ask again, on what basis do you make these changes? Obviously not the Greek. Another translation? Some sort of version preference akin to KJVOism?

 

[TCassidy]

How come I can be insulted in post after post with no notice of a "rule violation."

Did you report the posts?

 

[Rippon]

Variations of the above mess was debunked by yours truly in that thread over and over.

 

[Van]

You didn't answer my question. What is the basis for your contention that the above should read "revealed" vice "appeared?"

The Greek reads ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκι. ἐφανερώθη is an aorist, passive, indicative, third, person, singular, verb.

"Was made to appear" would be the most literal translation.

So, I ask again, on what basis do you make these changes? Obviously not the Greek. Another translation? Some sort of version preference akin to KJVOism?

Mistranslation 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 Thess. 2:13 to be saved should read, "for salvation."
11) 2 Thess. 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) Rev. 13:8 from the creation should read, "from the foundation."
20) Rev. 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."

Examples 1, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 document omission of words or parts of words.
Examples 5, 15, and 16 document addition of words.
Examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 document replacement of the inspired word with a different word or different words.

Hi TC, I provided the basis, #12 says the NIV replaced the inspired word with a different word or phrase. Here the idea is Jesus revealed God in the flesh. Yes, the NIV is not a total outlier, but in other places the NIV does render the word as revealed. And here a great many translation have revealed.

I see you overlooked the examples of omission, and addition. On what basis?

 

[TCassidy]

I see you overlooked the examples of omission, and addition. On what basis?

I will be happy to deal with them when you show that the words were or were not represented in the Greek text it was based on.

And you didn't really answer my point on 1 Timothy 3:16. Is the Greek word ἐφανερώθη or isn't it? Is it an aorist, passive, indicative, third, person, singular, verb or isn't it?.

Does it mean "was made to appear" (as all the best lexicons indicate) or doesn't it. If not why not?

 

[Rippon]

12) 1 Timothy 3:16 appeared in the flesh should read, "revealed in the flesh."

Hi TC, I provided the basis, #12 says the NIV replaced the inspired word with a different word or phrase. Here the idea is Jesus revealed God in the flesh. Yes, the NIV is not a total outlier, but in other places the NIV does render the word as revealed. And here a great many translation have revealed.

Van said the following on 10/22/2015 regarding 1 Timothy 3:16:
"Revealed seems a tad better than appeared, but let's not make mountains out of molehills."

Yet Van keeps it on his NIV hit list anyway.

Van's perpetual mantra is "should read" based entirely on his say-so.He is under the impression that "should read" means fully explained.

Van is his own source of authority.

Van's pet wording must be right. Any translation that differs with his issued edicts is certainly wrong.

 

[robycop3]

Personally, I try to stick with LITERAL

 

[robycop3]

Personally, I stick to LITERAL-AS-POSSIBLE translations, as I believe Scripture literally-as-possible. And as Dr. Cassidy pointed out, the Greek in John 2: & 10 reads "WINE", not "grape juice" or "beverage".

That's why I don't use "dynamic equivalence" translations, which are often tainted with the translators' opinions, rather than presenting what the author of the material being translated meant in his writings.

But then, that's just MY view.

 

[Rippon]

Personally, I try to stick with LITERAL

There is such a concept as 'literal as possible" --but it always breaks down. You want a translation, not an interlinear.
"Translators who view their work as pure renderings rather than interpretations only delude themselves; indeed, if they
could achieve some kind of noninterpretative rendering, their work would be completely useless." (Moises Silva)

I prefer accuracy instead of a stiff formal approach.

 

[Van]

I will be happy to deal with them when you show that the words were or were not represented in the Greek text it was based on.

And you didn't really answer my point on 1 Timothy 3:16. Is the Greek word ἐφανερώθη or isn't it? Is it an aorist, passive, indicative, third, person, singular, verb or isn't it?.

Does it mean "was made to appear" (as all the best lexicons indicate) or doesn't it. If not why not?

LOL TC, I answered your question, but you will not deal with the evidence for omissions and additions?

And note that "made to appear" indicates an action to reveal or display or show, as in Christ revealed God in the flesh. The NIV mistranslated the verse, using less than the best English word, as revealed by the fact many of the best English translations have revealed.

 

[Rippon]

The NIV mistranslated the verse, using less than the best English word, as revealed by the fact many of the best English translations have revealed.

How convenient! You permit yourself to be inconsistent yet claim to be principled.

Many of your pet phraseologies in that hit list of yours are not present in many English translations. In some cases no English translation has your unique spin. However, that does not hinder you in the least. The translators of a wide variety of versions just had it totally wrong, and you are just the one to set them straight.

Yet when it suits you you claim that many English translations have thus and so.

In short, you speak with a forked tongue as they say.

 

[TCassidy]

you will not deal with the evidence

What evidence? What Greek text have you quoted to prove a wrong word choice, or an addition or omission?

What Hebrew or Greek lexicon have you quoted to support your assertion of changing the meaning of a word?

I have some very bad news for you. Your uninformed opinions do not constitute natural law.

And note that "made to appear" indicates an action to reveal or display or show, as in Christ revealed God in the flesh.

And now you prove, conclusively, that you don't know what a passive voice verb indicates!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are not Paul.

I know, was just joking!

 

[Yeshua1]

2 Thessalonians 2:13 clearly teaches our election for salvation is through faith in the truth. Therefore Unconditional Election for salvation is fake theology. Rather than threaten me with censorship, why not teach the truth.

The MSM puts out fake news, stuff with no basis in fact, non-stop. I am constantly attacked, disparaged and now given an implied threat, all from the same group of people who cannot defend their beliefs. Does the bible teach we should accept the teachings that do not conform to scripture.

What you call fake theology many such as Spurgeon called the Gospel!

 

[Yeshua1]

Folks, notice how the thread has been derailed by posting insults instead of insights. The fake theology advocates have nothing to say concerning the topic, the problem with translation according to what the translator wants scripture to say. And to avoid discussion of the fake theology favorite (ear tickling) translations, they bring up spelling, grammar and the kitchen sink. Oh and do not forget the deliberate misrepresentation, equating accuracy with awkwardness. Obfuscation on display.

The NIV omits words and phrases, adds words and phrases and changes the meanings of words and phrases [Edited: Attack on bible version].

All translations do that to some extent though, and the Niv only omited certain words due to them not seeing them as being in the original texts!

 

[Van]

SNIP
The NIV omits the word "behold" more than 50 times.

 

[Van]

God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8).

Here is a typical claim of support in scripture for unconditional election for salvation.

Mark 13:20 proves God chooses or elects individuals for salvation. That is not in dispute. Therefore this verse provides absolutely no support of unconditional election, yet it was listed! Strike one.

Ephesians 1:4-5 proves God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be made holy and blameless before Him. Again this verse does not indicate the basis of election other than we were chosen "in Him." This actually means when Christ was chosen to be God's Redeemer, all His Redeemer would redeem were chosen corporately, i.e. in Him.

Revelation 13:8 says the names not written from (or after or since) the foundation of the world. It provides no support for unconditional election since creation, none whatsoever. However, if you click on the link, you will see that version says before rather than from or since. Therefore is reference is doubly bogus.

Revelation 17:8 says the names not written from (or after or since) the foundation of the world. It provides no support for unconditional election since creation, none whatsoever.

If you read a MSM news story where four sources were listed, but upon verification, none actually supported the story, you might say the story was "fake news." What would say about a doctrine with no actual support? But wait, there is more. About a dozen verses indicate our individual election for salvation was through faith in the truth, a conditional election. So in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, 1 Cor. 1:26-31, Romans 4:4-5 plus Romans 4:23-24 we have overwhelming evidence of the lack of validity of unconditional election. Why not call it what it is?

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is a typical claim of support in scripture for unconditional election for salvation.

Mark 13:20 proves God chooses or elects individuals for salvation. That is not in dispute. Therefore this verse provides absolutely no support of unconditional election, yet it was listed! Strike one.

Ephesians 1:4-5 proves God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be made holy and blameless before Him. Again this verse does not indicate the basis of election other than we were chosen "in Him." This actually means when Christ was chosen to be God's Redeemer, all His Redeemer would redeem were chosen corporately, i.e. in Him.

Revelation 13:8 says the names not written from (or after or since) the foundation of the world. It provides no support for unconditional election since creation, none whatsoever. However, if you click on the link, you will see that version says before rather than from or since. Therefore is reference is doubly bogus.

Revelation 17:8 says the names not written from (or after or since) the foundation of the world. It provides no support for unconditional election since creation, none whatsoever.

If you read a MSM news story where four sources were listed, but upon verification, none actually supported the story, you might say the story was "fake news." What would say about a doctrine with no actual support? But wait, there is more. About a dozen verses indicate our individual election for salvation was through faith in the truth, a conditional election. So in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, 1 Cor. 1:26-31, Romans 4:4-5 plus Romans 4:23-24 we have overwhelming evidence of the lack of validity of unconditional election. Why not call it what it is?

We are saved by God by grace and thru faith, and even that faith us His gift to us to use and to have! And Romans 8 pretty much destroys your foundation....

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Are any of you familiar with:

The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation. The New Testament. Glenside, PA: The Lorine L. Reynolds Foundation, 2000

I received this New Testament free in the mail several years ago – wondered what it was, kind of glanced at it and then stuck it away on a shelf. Out of curiosity I have recently pulled it out and started looking at it. It is particularly the work of Stephen Mills Reynolds and Charles Butler, and possibly others. (Reynolds served in some capacity on the New International Version translation, but I’m not sure of his role.) This “Purified” translation, which might be looked at as more of an interpretation and commentary, is peculiarly focused on promoting teetotalism. The reviewer at International Society of Bible Collectors writes, “Dr. Reynolds goes to extraordinary lengths to support his convictions regarding the use of alcohol.” Here’s an excerpt from John 2.

John 2:3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”19
John 2:9 When the master of the feast tasted the water that had become grape juice,…25
John 2:10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good beverage,…26

19. Oinos, the Greek word for wine, is neutral as to alcoholic content. Here the context indicates it was alcoholic…
25. Oinos (Gr.) here is grape juice. Jesus surely obeyed Proverbs 23:31 and did not create alcoholic wine.
26. The master of the feast uses oinos in its neutral sense, speaking of the good quality of the beverage. Whether it was alcoholic or nonalcoholic is not in view.

In the three verses above, oinos is translated wine, grape juice and beverage, according to the ideas of Reynolds concerning alcohol consumption. In footnote 19 Reynolds also explains the wedding situation with Mary the mother of Jesus serving as the caterer of the wedding – that after Joseph died Mary may have started a catering business to support her family, and that she may have felt obligated to furnish alcoholic wine as part of her obligation to her customers. (A Purified Translation, The New Testament; pages 197-199)

This translation also has an interesting peculiarity of abandoning “the archaic ‘thou’, etc.” while distinguishing between second person singular and plural with a mark. “A (`) in this translation indicates the second person singular. The plural remains unmarked.” (p.3, footnote 9)

It sounds like to me an interpretation, albeit faulty, rather than a translation.

 

[Van]

We are saved by God by grace and thru faith, and even that faith us His gift to us to use and to have! And Romans 8 pretty much destroys your foundation....

Nothing in Romans 8 supports your doctrine. Answer this: How can we be chosen through faith if we were given faith. A person would first need to be chosen to receive faith. But 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen through faith in the truth. Your doctrine conflicts with scripture.