|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1,863,106 members, 3,736,011 topics. Date: Sunday, 20 August 2017 at 08:47 AM
Poll: Which of the four things in the opening post do you believe?I agree with only number 1: 18% (2 votes)
I agree with only numbers 1 & 2: 0% (0 votes)
I agree with only numbers 1 & 3: 0% (0 votes)
I agree with only numbers 1 & 4: 0% (0 votes)
I agree with a different combination: 18% (2 votes)
I agree with ALL: 63% (7 votes)
This poll has ended
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by nuclearboy(m): 6:54am On Feb 21, 2012|
Here are a few examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS found in a single reading of the NIV. Here it is compared with the earlier NASV just to demonstrate that the NIV is bad in comparison even with its modern siblings.
Romans 4:1, NIV: "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?"
NASV (text option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?"
NASV (margin option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh?"
First of all, notice that the NIV ELIMINATES the term "flesh," which is one of the most important theological terms in the entire Bible. The "flesh theology" begins in Genesis 2-3, and continues throughout the Scriptures. It is extremely significant in the Pauline understanding, especially in the book of Romans. This is NOT "concept by concept" or "dynamic equivalence" -- it is an unwarranted reduction of the text by those who simply did not want to include the idea in the English. The NASV, with a far greater scholarship, included the term while acknowledging they were not certain about what the phrase "according to the flesh" modified.
Hebrews 11:11, NIV (text option): "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."
NIV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who made the promise."
NASV (text option): "By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised;"
NASV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah herself received power for the laying down of seed, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered him faithful who had promised;"
The second NASV reading is a literal reading and points us to the mighty and important "seed theology" that runs throughout the Scripture, from Genesis onward. In fact, the first mention of the seed theology refers to the WOMAN'S seed. Thus Hebrews 11:11 has a very important place in the seed theology of Scripture. Yet, the NIV mentions it NOT AT ALL, and the NASV mentions it only in the margin. How convenient for a translation that translates "concept by concept" simply to leave out one of the MOST IMPORTANT concepts in the entire Scripture from its translation here. But this is not paraphrastic -- RIGHT! Neither is it an issue of textual criticism -- the UBS text does not vary from the TR at this point in Hebrews 11:11 -- both read "kataboleen spermatos elaben." The problem is not with the eclectic text -- the problem is with the NIV (and the NASV text option). The NASV text option is *slightly* paraphrastic and does away somewhat with a proper understanding of the seed theology of Scripture in this place. But it is not as paraphrastic as the NIV!
The NIV is so paraphrastic that they made up things to place in God's mouth. Furthermore, the things they made up aren't even true! The NIV at Hebrews 11:11 attempts to make every scholar true and God a liar. Let me expatiate:
First of all, of the two NIV readings, only the marginal reading even *approximates* the Greek. And in approximating the Greek, it guts the passage by ignoring the seed theology. The text option, however, is just downright awful.
With absolutely no textual support in any textual tradition -- i.e. no Greek mss -- the NIV throws Abraham into the verse. It claims that Abraham was past age to have children -- which is clearly untrue, as Abraham's six sons by his second wife Keturah could testify (Genesis 25). Further, Abraham's behavior () with the handmaid Hagar is proof enough that it was not Abraham, but Sarah who was "past age." But the NIV leaves us with the distinct impression by INTRODUCING Abraham without any textual basis at all that Abraham as well as Sarah was past age for "bearing children" (much less laying down seed, which is the theological import that is missing from both the text option and the margin option).
Further examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS in the NIV are here grouped under seven categories:
1. Elimination of complex grammatical structures (pp. 18-21). Long complex sentences are broken into several shorter sentences. To do this, the [size=13pt]translators had to make interpretive decisions[/size] about the *theology* of the passage in question. Thus Ephesians 1:3-14, which the AV breaks into three sentences, the NIV breaks into eight. 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, which the AV keeps as one sentence, is broken into eight by the NIV. Compare also Acts 1:1-5 & Hebrews 1:1-4.
2. Addition of words in translation (pp. 22-28). To be fair, older translations have done this as well, but when the AV adds words to clarify meaning it puts them in italics. The NIV does not -- it therefore gives no warning or notice to the reader as to what it has done. For example, 1 Cor. 7:9 states "it is better to marry than to burn," a statement which is subject to numerous interpretations. The NIV in its stead says, "to burn with passion," an addition to the text that is not indicated by any italics (or other flags) and that simply settles the interpretation for the reader. Acts 5:20 says, "all the words of this life," but the NIV reads "the full message of this new life." The word "new" is nowhere to be found in any Greek ms. It has been added by the NIV translators and clearly adds a "new thought" to this verse -- a thought which is man's and not God's at this place.
3. Omission of words (pp. 28-29). Be careful -- some words are omitted due to a difference in textual choice. That is not what the author is speaking to here. The NIV often omits conjunctions and interjections. The word "lo" or "behold" occurs 62 times in Matthew, but the NIV omits it 37 times. Mark's gospel abounds in the term "immediately" and creates a major theme in Mark's Davidic perspective on Jesus. The NIV omits it in 5 places. In Matthew 10:6, "of the house" is simply left out, and "unto himself" is left out of Ephesians 1:5 -- neither of these omissions have any textual basis.
4. Erosion of technical vocabulary (pp. 29-38). There are parts of the Bible that use highly technical words -- words that have been used in a specifically Christian way by the author. Thus the NIV translates the Greek term *dikaioo* as "justify" except in Romans 2:13 and 3:20, where it reads "declared righteous." This author correctly points out that justification "involves the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us," not simply a mere verbal declaration. Propitiation becomes the vague "sacrifice of atonement" and "atoning sacrifice" in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2. Martin provides several pages of discussions of the "flesh" as mentioned in another post on Romans 4:1.
5. Leveling cultural distinctives (pp. 38-40). "Girding up the loins of your mind" in 1 Peter 1:13 becomes "prepare your minds for action" in the NIV. The NIV does give the "sermonic gist" of the idea, but[b] it eliminates the biblical imagery which calls to mind much of the OT, especially the priestly ministry. The priests were forbidden to approach the altar by steps, lest their unclothedness be exposed. They were given special, anointed loin coverings (breeches) so that they could do so. Ordinary underwear would not cover "unclothedness" any more than Adam's figleaves did. Thus the notion of girding up the loins has a priestly ring to it, which the NIV eliminates[/b]. See Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43; Lev. 9:30.
6. Slipping in subjective interpretations (pp. 41-62). Here is a handful of numerous illustrations: In each case, the first translation is word-for-word formal equivalency; the second is the NIV. In each case, the NIV decides to perform the office of pope for us by interpreting the "sense" of the Greek.
John 17:11 in thy name
by the power of your name
Gal. 1:11 according to man
something that man made up
Phil. 2:1 in Christ
from being united with Christ
1 Thes. 4:2 through the Lord Jesus
by the authority of the Lord Jesus
7. Finally, paraphrasing. The problem with paraphrasing again is that it allows too much latitude to the translator to do our thinking and meditating for us. But the primary focus that is illustrated in this category is the manner in which the cadence and beauty of the original text is changed. Here are just a *few* of numerous illustrations. [size=14pt]Remember, there is an entire generation being raise on this pap. . .[/size]
Matt. 12:49 and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said
NIV pointing to his disciples, he said
(the hand is eliminated)
Matt. 13:33 in three measures of meal
NIV into a large amount of flour
(the number three is eliminated)
Mark 1:2 before your face
NIV ahead of you
(the face is eliminated)
Luke 1:15 from his mother's womb
NIV from birth
(completely changes the meaning; pro-abortionists can take comfort here!)
John 1:20 and he confessed and denied not; and he confessed
NIV and he did not fail to confess, but confessed freely (lessens the emphatic character of the language)
1 Thes. 4:6 the Lord is an avenger
NIV the Lord will punish (the OT Avenger of Blood theology vanishes)
The kinds of errors outlined in this and the previous post reveal more than just the usual mistakes that are made in any translation. They reveal a cavalier attitude toward the doctrine of VERBAL inspiration. The NIV is not interested in translating the WORDS of God, but the CONCEPTS of God. Yet such cannot be done apart from the words. I would remind anyone interested in the truth, that Paul based an important aspect of the "seed theology" on the fact that the word occurred in the SINGULAR and NOT the PLURAL form. If even singulars and plurals are important to a correct understanding of God's word, how dare we take such an attitude toward it that we will translate "idea by idea" rather than word by word?
For CLEAR evidence that both NASV and NIV have a chiliastic bias, simply compare Matthew 24:30 in either of those versions with the ACCURATE translation to be found in the AV. It is not a sign that appears in the sky or heaven, but rather a sign is given that the Son of Man is in heaven. Again, while theologians of various eschatological stripe may dispute the *MEANING* of this text, the AV preserves the word order and sense of the Greek text and allows for more than one interpretation. At this point, both the NASV and the NIV remove "ambiguity" from the text by FORCING one interpretation onto the text.
The Bible was not written in 20th century "street English." It was written in Hebrew and Hebraized Greek. Attempts to make the Bible sound like a modern novel do it no service and in the opinion of numerous scholars (James White's unwarranted claim to a "majority of scholars" notwithstanding) are beginning to realize that the NIV went WAY OVERBOARD with a new idea -- an idea that is philologically unsound.
[size=13pt]It should be noted, however, that many of the more Reformed men on the translation committee dropped out of the work over time, no longer desiring to be associated with it. Also, in the years since 1965-78, many more Reformed linguistic scholars are coming to understand the numerous flaws contained in the NIV.[/size]
Further, if James White is to be believed (how could we doubt the scholarship of Mr. White?), the preface to the NIV is simply WRONG when it states "For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic text as published in the latest editions of *Biblia Hebraica*, was used throughout." Yet Mr. White informs us that the NIV *really* used a non-standard ms variant at Psalm 12:7 (ENG) to come up with "you will keep us."
How many examples does one have to give? It is very interesting to find some people actually say that [size=18pt]the NIV does have the right initials which mean - (Non-Inspired Version)[/size]. From the error of changing fornication into "marital unfaithfulness" in Matthew 5:32;19:19 to the taking away of many passages, this version of the Bible is truly a perversion of God's Word.
ONE MAJOR ISSUE THAT WILL CAUSE A LOT OF CONTROVERSY HERE ON NAIRALAND FOLLOWS
# NIV Psalms 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
Biblical reasons WHY this is wrong:
1. Sin is breaking God’s Law I John 3:4
2. Sin is not passed on Ezekiel 18:20
3. You are pure until you sin Ezekiel 28:15
4. Man causes himself to be a sinner Ecclesiastes 7:29 “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”
5. Sin has do be done by someone realizing right and wrong James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
6. Can a baby sin? God says that we are to become as these little children not little sinners Matthew 18:3.
7. Out of this doctrine comes infant baptism.
a. Out of nine conversion examples in the book of Acts not one time was a baby converted (Acts 2:36-41, Acts 8:5-13, Acts 8:26-39, Acts 9:1-20, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 16:13-15, Acts 16:23-34, Acts 18:8, and Acts 19:1-7).
b. Can a baby believe in God? You cannot separate belief from baptism (Mark 16:15-16).
* NIV Romans 10:10 "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
Biblical reasons this is wrong:
If confession was enough why did the Eunuch not stop at that (Acts 8:37)? [If you are using the NIV you will have to look at another version to read Acts 8:37, the NIV has taken it out. Again, see # 7 a above. NIV John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
1. If one is saved by faith alone explain why there are no examples of this post Calvary. (See point 7 a above for how many examples of baptism there are)
2. Jesus said faith and baptism not faith alone Mark 16:15-16.
3. Jesus stated (John 3:5) "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
4. Read James 1:19. If we are saved by faith alone why did Jesus condemn the devil and his angels to hell (Matthew 25:41)?
5. Read James 2:19-26 and explain how God says we are NOT saved by faith alone and why the NIV contradicts itself here with John 3:16?
There are so many other issues including some ridiculous ones - many analysts complain about NIV using language constructs that state Jesus Christ & Satan are the same, since the term Lucifer and/or star of the morning are used interchangeably when referring to them - This also due to attempts to make the NIV more modern-friendly rather than pass on what they started with.
Anyone interested can simply search for more information and make their own deductions!
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by MyJoe: 11:44am On Feb 21, 2012|
If I wrote my own Bible, surah 2:1 would read:
When thou seest nations rising against nation, when thou want to speak to the guy in the next room and thou pick up thy mobile phone, when thou ask a simple question and thou get a referral to Google, knowest thee that the end times are here.
I merely wished to know why you think the NIV is heavily compromised. One finds a lot of things in Google and I’m not smart enough to know what’s in your mind or a certain POV by wading through tons of text. No, I don’t wish to be spoon fed but I appreciate a simple ansa to a simple kweshon and I certainly imagined you could give one, like this:
That^^^ does not explain “notoriously compromised” but it shows what you were thinking and what you consider the “POV of…”. And I think you could have cut to this earlier instead of "heating up the polity". But I guess it’s a sign of the end time. Or maybe it was delayed ej.ac.ul.ation.
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by MyJoe: 11:50am On Feb 21, 2012|
Thanks for this. You have highlighted things I had not previously considered or been aware of. There is a lot I find agreeable in it, there is also a lot I disagree with – in terms of the deductions made but more particularly the approach employed in making them. I will read it more closely later and hopefully understand this POV better.
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by nuclearboy(m): 12:47pm On Feb 21, 2012|
No frustrations here, Sir & thus no requirement now or ever to eja-cu-late on NL! I only wonder why this polity is being heated up simply because I trusted my audience to be of such quality as to make inquiries from google (an impersonal guide)!
As I stated earlier, how many examples or references can one give? Which would be why someone accorded much more respect and academic capability was expected to take out a few minutes for personal research! this more so when what has now being stated only just starts to scratch the surface!
But then, I may be giving respect whist not being accorded any so the perception may have been of nuclearboy being perfectly vacuous and lacking in substance! I should thus re-examine self, I guess but still maintain - an even cursory application of intellect towards checking out my "vacuous" claim would have "cooled the polity".
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by MyJoe: 1:29pm On Feb 21, 2012|
Thanks again and best regards, too.
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:30am On Feb 23, 2012|
I get your point that none is greater. The analogy and the Scripture below explains it better:
If I give you a small slice of cheese from a large block (the taste being constant throughout the whole block), and you spit out the cheese saying you hate the taste, then you reject the whole block. Jesus was God manifest in human form. If the Jews and other religious folks rejected Him, they rejected the Father also -- he who is of God hears God's words. John later stated in his epistle,
"Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father, (but) he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23).
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by Enigma(m): 9:09am On Sep 25, 2012|
Recall! Error, wrong thread!
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by ijawkid(m): 10:19am On Sep 25, 2012|
Enigma: Many people say they do not believe in the idea of God as "Trinity". However, quite often when some of them make a few posts it seems that they are supporting that which they deny. I suggest that (leaving aside the "intellectual shenanigans" at Nicea) there is really a simple test for a person to know and or determine whether or not s/he believes that God is "Trinity".
U should have added:::
DO u believe that the angels are God??
Also do u believe satan is GOD??
Do u believe you are God??
Why did u stop at those 3 entities??
GOD is not a name mr man.....
Read and understand......
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by Nobody: 10:35am On Sep 25, 2012|
Guys can you help me here.
I read the following scripture and need to to understand how you see it and point out the trinity.
Exodus 33:18 - 34:5-7
New International Version (NIV)
18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”
19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
Can you kindly help us wrench the concept of the Trinity out of this scripture master piece.
1. how many Faces do we have here
2. how many Backs do we have here
3. how many Hands do we have here
Thanks in advance.
|Re: The Trinity - A Simple Test by truthislight: 11:16am On Sep 25, 2012|
numo86: @snowy, just d way Yahweh & Jesus are one, so also we christians are one with Jesus, so also a husband is 1 with his wife,but 1 always greater than the other,^^^
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2017 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 320