Featured The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

Personally, I try to stick with LITERAL

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I know, was just joking!

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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....

 

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

 

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.