The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation

[Van]

Folks, personal incredulity is no rebuttal of the evidence, its just another taint so post. But note the insults (uninformed opinion).

And then their is the claim on mind reading, stating I cannot read the NIV and compare with the Greek text to locate omitted,and added words. Well let me do a little mind reading of my own, TC is just trying to change the subject to my qualifications. Go figure.

 

[TCassidy]

I cannot read the NIV and compare with the Greek text to locate omitted,and added words.

If you could, you would. But you don't because you can't.

Your favorite translation adds 654 words, omits 876 words, and wrongly translates 7654 words. That is a FACT!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Fair Warning

Move the CvA discussion to that forum, otherwise, I'm closing this thread.

 

[Van]

ALL translations at times, in places omit/add/change, due to the nature of there really being NO strictly word for word translation, nor every word in chosen greek text 100% known or certain,,,,

More false claims. Is the standard that the NIV needs to be perfect? Nope. But many, dare I say most, translations of these verses provide a more accurate translation.

Lets consider John 21:5: The NASB has children rather than friends. The NKJV has children rather than friends. Now the Greek word is paidia meaning little boys (but in usage can refer to children of both sexes). In the NIV text the Greek word appears 52 times and is translated child or children about 48 times. Now in this verse the usage appears to be a term of affection, thus dear children might actually be the best translation. But the word does not mean friends, a different Greek word has that meaning.

 

[Van]

Gee, I thought we were discussing translations that alter the text to fit doctrine.

 

[rlvaughn]

Actually we started out discussing a particular translation -- The Purified Translation -- and we've gotten way off point.

 

[Van]

To discuss other translations that include the same sort of agenda driven translation choices does not seem too far off point.

 

[Van]

Years ago, in a movie, a specious charge was made - there are 57 communists working in the Defense Department - based on the fact 57 appeared on a ketchup bottle. That is a fact. The NIV contains several putrefied verse translations, and I have listed some of them. We could easily run the number up to say 57 by including some of the verses where "behold" is omitted. The Greek word appears 200 times in the NIV text, yet is translated only 85 times but omitted 115 times.

 

[Rippon]

The NIV contains several putrefied verse translations, and I have listed some of them. We could easily run the number up to say 57 by including some of the verses where "behold" is omitted.

The Vanster is at it again with a rather stinking post.

Behold! I have debunked his error-filled hit-list ages ago. Van doesn't want to learn, he just likes to throw dirt around. Make that mud. Well, go and wallow in it Van.

 

[Van]

Van doesn't want to learn
He likes to throw dirt
wallow in it Van
a rather stinking post

Liberals charge their opponents with whatever they are doing....
Next I will be colluding with the Russians.

 

[TCassidy]

The Greek word appears 200 times in the NIV text, yet is translated only 85 times but omitted 115 times.

Show me the Greek text compared to the English text. If you can.

 

[Van]

TC, you have shown us your efforts to change the subject. Do you deny any part of my post? Nope. Folks the NIV omitted to translate the Greek word about 115 times which provides 115 examples of word omission. Even JOJ indicated his dismay.

How many word or phrase omissions, additions and alterations does it take to put the NIV on the thanks but no thanks shelf, 5, 10, 25?

 

[TCassidy]

Folks the NIV omitted to translate the Greek word about 115 times which provides 115 examples of word omission.

Please give the Greek reading and the English reading to confirm your accusation.

 

[Van]

The fact of the NIV omissions is not in dispute. TC does not deny the validity. He just wants change the subject. Would he agree the NIV is useless as a study bible if I provided 5 verses where the NIV omitted to translate the Greek word? Nope. He is just engaged in obfuscation yet again. Ask yourself, why battle against truth?

 

[TCassidy]

The fact of the NIV omissions is not in dispute.

They are until you support your assertion with facts.

TC does not deny the validity.

I deny your assertion until you support it with facts.

He just wants change the subject.

No, you are the one wanting to change the subject so you won't have to post evidence which supports your assertion (probably because you can't!).

He is just engaged in obfuscation yet again.

No, that would be you. Talk talk talk but no facts. Post the Greek and show that a word in the Greek was omitted, changed, or one was added. Just man up and support your assertion.

Ask yourself, why battle against truth?

You have not posted any truth. Post the Greek and show that a word in the Greek was omitted, changed, or one was added.

You claim a word was added that is not in the Greek. So post the Greek to prove your claim.

You claim a word was omitted that is in the Greek. So post the Greek to prove your claim.

You claim a word was mistranslated from what is in the Greek. So post the Greek to prove your claim.

Any honest scholar would support his claims.

 

[Van]

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! (NIV)
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (NASB)

Now this evidence is not good enough for TC and he is unable to look and behold the Greek text of 2 Corinthians 5:17 and find the Greek word omitted by the NIV. He claims he cannot find Strong's G2400, transliterated as "idou" in the text. Yet the NIV omitted it.
Now does anyone believe TC cannot find the omitted word? Therefore he has been battling against the truth, trying to derail the thread and hoping no one will notice. Good luck with that.

 

[Van]

◄ 2 Corinthians 5:17 ►
English Greek Translit Strong's ... Definition .... Origin
behold, ἰδοὺ .... idou ... 2400 ..... look, behold... from eidon, used as a demonstrative particle

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact of the NIV omissions is not in dispute. TC does not deny the validity. He just wants change the subject. Would he agree the NIV is useless as a study bible if I provided 5 verses where the NIV omitted to translate the Greek word? Nope. He is just engaged in obfuscation yet again. Ask yourself, why battle against truth?

I do not think that the Niv is as good as the more formal versions for serious studying, but "useless?"

 

[TCassidy]

He claims he cannot find Strong's G2400, transliterated as "idou" in the text.

I made no such claim. I said YOU couldn't give us the Greek evidence. And you just proved my point!

Now does anyone believe TC cannot find the omitted word?

You finally got around to posting some (poorly transliterated) Greek, using Strongs, which got the word wrong, which you didn't notice because you can't read Greek!

The word in Greek is the second aorist, middle voice, imperative, second person, singular form of ὁράω (horao) which would be Strongs number 3708.

So, you have proven you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The new creation has come (is here, has appeared), just like the Greek says.

LOL! ROFLOL!

 

[Van]

TC has been given the evidence, says I said I could not provide the evidence, and still does not admit the NIV omits words and phrases, adds words and phrases and alters the meaning of words and phrases using less than the best translation choices.

Note that I was showing the omitted word, and TC then rewrites the effort to trying to prove I am fluent in Greek.

The advocates of poor translation should stick to the truth.