My point is that the message for salvation is very simple and repeated enough such that any translation that does not deliberately try to inject a churches doctrine into the translation will suffice.
Word for word translations still depend on understanding of the text because words do not map word for word between languages. Many times word for word translations sound mechanical and your much lambasted NIV reads far better than those.
As to your claim one would be better off without the NIV, that is as you profess your opinion. Your dissatisfaction with certain verses of said translation amounts to the doctrine that you were taught being at odds with the doctrine of those that were involved in that translation. Obviously some are in agreement with the NIV's understanding of scripture. Regardless the number of contested texts is a small percentage of scripture.
Now the purists/experts always revert to original texts. Problem is, as observed in CF, they still disagree on meaning and in the end revert to an understanding they were taught in their seminary which is usually denomination based which has the baggage of their doctrine.
And, how edifying would it be for the Church if CF was conducted in original languages? I guarantee, the forum would be dead.
So, you were being sarcastic?
Just remember, if somebody doesn't know you they might not know how to take that.
I agree with you although I still see a bias present in translations like the NIV. Where it does read well, it adds to Scripture in various places based on their own dispensational paradigm taking the ability of the reader to come to their own conclusions. The reader is almost forced into the bias of the translator because they have put their trust in the words without knowing additions have been made. For example...
Mark 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (
In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
In the above verse, the underlined is not represented in the Greek. This is added based only on personal dispensational bias. Even if it is correct, it is wrong to add in this manner for the reason I already shared.
Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of the things that
were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
The word "were" is added to the text, not represented in the Greek. It turns something present tense, the Sabbath and feasts are a shadow of things to come, into something that has happened already, past tense. Not only can I prove this false, I can be entirely wrong and still be right about the fact that they added "were" to the text based only on their own bias.
So I agree, it reads better, I even use it to quote from time to time depending on how something is being said. But to place trust in it as a reliable representation of the Greek texts (in the case of the NT) is something I, personally, can't do.
Peace.
Ken
