"New improved" Version.

@@KaiHenningsen "Now with 100% fewer contradictions!"

@@minaguta41471000%!

@@minaguta4147 😂🤣

@@minaguta4147 I would have said "with 100% more accuracy". Because, you know, 100% more of 0%... 😁

🎯

The lack of scruples is stunning

How they did not explode from the cognitive dissonance is beyond me.

Most of them are unaware of how much the NIV has been altered from the original texts as their church leaders have fallaciously taught them that it is the most accurate version. The biggest problem with fundies is that they blindly trust the words of their leaders and in turn teach these fallacies to new converts all the while believing that they have found the truth that everyone else is missing out on.

They just put into writing the apologetics that have been in place forever. Even a diehard KJV only Baptist will insist there aren’t 2 creation accounts, and that 2:4 onward is a zoom in on day 6. It’s not, but they’ll insist it despite what the words say.

​@@Rhewin it's a particular version of that conviction, which is a consequence of evangelical shortsightedness and their failure to think critically or acknowledge the existence of interpretative schemata. Any intellectually credible branch of Christianity insists that the Bible doesn't make mistakes, but only Evangelicals *also* insist that it must be incredibly obvious and superficial in the interpretative act. There are plenty of traditions which understand the Bible coherently without doing this.

@@Rhewin Why do you think Geneis 2 is not a zoom in of day 6 in Genesis 1?

@@AlanCossey because it’s a different story. The most obvious difference is the creation of birds. Gen 1 puts it on day 5, before animals and humans. God doesn’t actually create the birds either, he commands the waters to do it. Then on day 6, he commands the earth to create animals. Finally, he personally creates humans, male and female. In Gen 2, he makes man first. When he realizes it’s bad for Adam to be alone, he takes dirt and creates birds and animals at the same time. And I’ve heard people try to say these are additional bird and animals, but the text is very clear that he creates *every* bird and animal at this time. God, in a scene played for comedy, shows Adam the animals to see if he can find a companion. When that fails, he finally creates woman. Gen 1’s God does everything through diving command; Gen 2’s does things by hand. Gen 1’s is elegant and divine; Gen 2’s is a bumbling fool who thinks Adam might want to shag an animal.

Lol true.

@@What-he5pr Worse. They have people who voluntarily listen to that!

🤣

Lol

It's basically the only place where rock is not dead nowadays. (Some would say that there are fates worse than death)

1st Tim 6:14-16 they added "God" so that it is not Jesus the only sovereign who is alone eternal etc. They are right.

Genesis 37:28 {NIV} “So when the Midianite merchants came by, -his brothers- *they* pulled Joseph up out of the cistern…” NIV is inserting “his brothers” as the subject of Pull, apparently to harmonize with other Genesis text. The antecedent in 37:28 is Midianite merchants.

There's Genesis 2:17: (NIV) 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, *for when you eat from it* you will certainly die.” (notice it does not mention when you eat of it, to harmonize that Adam will eventually die) Edit: sorry it does kinda (?) mention, but it does not mention a specific time period (NRSV) 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, *for in the day* that you eat of it you shall die.” (notice this mentions the day you eat of it, but this would contradict the story since Adam dies 900+ years later) Jeremiah 7:22: (NIV) 22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not *just* give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (notice the word "just", implying God gave additional laws apart from what he gave) (NRSV) 22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. (notice the lack of any word "just", implying God did not give them these commandments at all)

@@CB66941 Jeremiah is a great example. The next verse even starts “But,” rather than, “I also commanded,” which shows that the intention behind 7:22 was “Not,” not “Not just.” But G2:17 says “when,” which sounds more specific than “on the day.” I can’t think of an example of When that does (edit: Not) imply immediacy, as long as you don’t add “Eventually,” or “you start a process,” or something similar, and NIV G2:17 doesn’t.

*John 19:16 NIV adds “soldiers”* John 19:16 Pilate handed Jesus over to “them.” The antecedent is the chief priests (of the Jews). “So -the soldiers- they took Jesus.” The antecedent is still the chief priests. In 19:18 the same “they” crucifies Jesus. 19:23 Here the Greek does say the soldiers crucified Jesus. Is “soldiers” here a later interpolation?

I've found a lot through Google searches, but they do have apologist bias. I'd love to see a Bible scholar without an agenda give more examples, like Dan!

There actually is a really good site that does this. Just search on Google for “Poor and Misleading Translation in the NIV”. It’s from a site called “Is that In the Bible”. Should be the first search result. It’s quite a comprehensive list.

There’s a good one if you search for “Poor and Misleading Translation in the NIV”. Very comprehensive.

Basically every English translation is redacted, censored, or altered in some way. When in doubt I just refer back to the Vulgate

An example David Bentley Hart has complained about is how they translate sarx/flesh as something different than flesh in 1 Corinthians in order to make Paul sound less Gnostic when he says that the flesh fights against the spirit. And that flesh and blood can’t inherit the Kingdom of God.

The rewriting of the Septuagint in the 7th or 8th century being the most obvious example.

1 John 5:7-8 ,John 7:53,8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 not in earliest original koine Greek new testament. Mathew 17:21 removed. Church fathers modified edited Hebrew scripture such as Isaiah 7:14 to Virgin in future tense added. Dozens of modifications made to Hebrew scripture.

Celsus in his _On the True Word_ complained that the Christians kept changing their scriptures to alter, eliminate, or cover up problematic passages.

@@user-uo7fw5bo1o Fact ,indeed, there are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the earliest original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew sources.

@@apachewraith //The rewriting of the Septuagint in the 7th or 8th century being the most obvious example.// Eh? We have the Greek Old Testament in manuscripts from the 350s-ish AD, e.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

I’ve come to the conclusion that evangelicals worship “The Bible” as a stand-in for God. The Bible is their proof that God exists and their proof of crucifixion/resurrection. So it must be inerrant and univocal or the jig is up. The circular claim is the Bible is the word of God, therefore God exists, therefore the Bible is inerrant. And because their particular idea of deity is unseen (if not absent as the atheists claim), the Bible is the only constant manifestation of God. “God is in the Bible” shifts from metaphor to concrete belief. He who controls the Spice . . . I mean Bible. He who controls the Bible controls the Bible worshippers. The NIV represents a new-ish form of control not seen in centuries. The book worshippers have lost control of the interpretation of the Bible, so why not just impose control on the Bible by rewriting it. This isn’t the first time it’s been rewritten. But it might be the most radical rewrite.

I'm sorry you're stuck going to an evangelical service. Been there, done that, awful stuff. I'm glad you've managed to maintain a marriage despite the discrepancy in beliefs, tho. I've been unable to, myself.

If you could get her to go to an Episcopal church, you will find that a lot more palatable. Any Mainline denomination will be better.

The ignorance is yours, sir. There are two main differences between translations. One is a literal translation and the other an attempt to communicate the essences of the idea the text is trying to convey. Forget that it is the Bible. Consider any other ancient text. You can create a literal translation of it but that doesn't guarantee meaning. In order to understand what is being said, you have to understand the culture to which it was being written. You have to have the assumptions they had. You had to have the worldview they had. If you don't, you won't understand what is being said. That is why multiple translations are used by pastors. They are trying to convey a concept, not literal translations of words.

​@@drakkonis1 that and sometimes a passage is phrased in a more pleasing manner in one verse but another does for another. I'm talking about aesthetics and subjective beauty not validity.

@@Texasmade74 Although I'm not the person you're asking, I've been approached by this kind of questioning when I admit my own atheism, and I hope maybe I can bridge the divide a little here. In your comment, you make a lot of assumptions about someone's mindset and views within a single question. It seems that you're asking this question as an entitled theist, so I'll address it as if that's the case. I'm pretty sure @bazcuda just told you the most critical reason they became an atheist: they read the bible cover to cover, twice. There's a long-running trope that the road to atheism is paved with sacred texts read cover to cover. When you attempt to make sense of the claims of such texts, approach them with basic openness to their actual history and origins, or even just read what they actually say, it becomes clear to many people that such texts are not any kind of "sacred" guidebook, but a list of fantasy tales written by ignorant people. In the case of the Christian bible, the text is full of gruesome, horrific tales of vicious, sexist, bigoted warmongering, with a narcissistic veneer of "love" over the top. Someone reading with an open mind to the most likely sources of the claims in it, and with a basic sense of reason and empathy, might find it repulsive. I'm sure @bazcuda has their own detailed list of things that, eventually, over time, caused them to lose their faith. A _personal_ list, like it would be for anyone, just like I'm sure you have a personal list of things that you feel support what _you_ believe or reject. But what I'm fairly confident in asserting on @bazcuda's behalf is that their position wasn't some ridiculous, cartoonish snap judgement like you're implying here. They didn't read the NIV the second time and suddenly say "Nope, that's it. I reject any and all monotheisms, and I am now an atheists." That's a preposterous reduction, dismissing the human struggle of belief that many atheists experience. Many of us fight against our reason and logic and the evidence before our eyes--often times for many painful, confusing, frightening years--before admitting to ourselves that we just can't maintain the suspension of disbelief any more. We face social rejection, loss of friends, family, and community, some of us even lose jobs and/or housing, because we no longer conform to the belief system. We don't want to lose these things, we struggle and anguish over these things, but we can't blatantly deny ourselves, deny the facts and reality before us, and still live with ourselves. I could turn the question back on you to show you how silly and insulting it is: Did you believe in a monotheistic god because you were automatically closed-minded to polytheistic religions? I dare say that's not at all what informed your beliefs. What do you think caused you to make such a strange assumption about @bazcuda?

If Christianity isn't "true", and the atheist is right, then "morality" is irrelevant. As the 20th century bloodbath made very clear.

I love how John Piper wrote an entire article about this and legitimately said, "The NIV agrees with me and so it's the best translation for this verse." Born prematurely does not make any sense given the Hebrew word used and the context of the verse.

Gives birth (prematurely) seems a valid translation of וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יה. Oh, and by the way, the NIV has "miscarries" as an alternative translation, at least in the 2011 edition.

@@AlanCossey No, it's not valid. There's no crime or injured party for a fine to be paid if a healthy baby is born as a result, even if prematurely (and the word prematurely doesn't exist in the text and has no justification). The fine only makes sense as a miscarriage. They're deliberately rewriting the text.

It’s not valid literally, contextually, or logically. I’m not even sure you could create a context where those words would be chosen. How could you construe “my products of conception were expelled” as a preterm live birth? Where would the legal harm lie even if we’re being generous?

The Latin text has "abortivum" which basically means abortion or miscarriage.

Much of the older parts of the Hebrew Bible only makes sense if what is written is based on the premise that there are multiple deities, and while Yahweh might have generally been the one that kicked the most ass, he was far from omniscient or omnipotent and was more akin to the portrayal of other gods in that he could be petty and vindictive and sometimes just wrong. It's the insistence on trying to jam a universal, single, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-loving deity into those old stories that cause most of the problems for apologists instead of simply reading what it says as opposed to what they want it to say.

Or, "It's now sola scriptura the way we want it!"

You seem to be mixing up the different groups of people. The NIV translators have not "consciously altered" anything. Like other translators, they have tried to give the best translation they could.

It was pretty much the only version used in the Southern Baptist church I grew up in. A few people preferred the NASB because they wanted to have some insight into the original languages without learning the original languages.(To be fair, for a lot of people, learning ancient languages would be a pretty hefty lift, while also working their full-time jobs and running their kids to soccer practice.)

These are not the contradictions you are looking for.

The ESV otherwise known as the Extra Sexist Bible. It suffers from the same ideology as the NIV but IMO it’s even worse.

@@chuckshingledecker2216 How did you come to the conclusion that it's even worse? What evidence did you find? Please be specific.

New Revised Standard Version.

He usually recommends the NRSV for being faithful to the source texts. It's found as the Oxford Study Bible and the Harper Collins Study Bible

In previous videos he has mentioned the NRSVUE as a good scholarly translation, and the New Oxford Annotated Bible as a good Bible translation with scholarly commentary. One of the better lists I've seen on NIV mistranslations can be found by searching "Poor and Misleading Translation in the New International Version". This doesn't even contain several of the examples that Dan gives in this video though, so clearly despite the hundreds listed there it is still not comprehensive.

A lot of questions people ask of Dan can be found answered in his earlier videos. A search for basic topics or key phrases/words can help you find answers to most questions. He has never--that I've seen--engaged in the comment section of his KZfaq crossposts.

The NWT is JW trash. It's OG translator was an ocultist. Look it up, bad translation with JW words inserted to assert their theological ideas

What about other species of humans, I wonder? The Genesis story is one of A people, not "people" it seems.

JWs have their own Bible translation, right? I was raised evangelical, and as a kid I was taught that the JW translation was deliberately altered to change the meaning of the original. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true, but it's ironic that the evangelicals' favorite translation is deliberately altered, just as they accuse some other sects of doing. :-D

@@weebunny yeah exactly, the JW Bible really isn't all that bad but it's terrible for reading, it has everyone talking like 20th century people and yeah there are many verses which make Jesus appear to be just a guy, definitely not God, so when I quit the JWs I bought a bunch of Bibles and one was one the niv and I read it and was like holy crap this is bad, then I found out it was based on the same texts and I was like how the heck is that possible. I find Catholic Bible to be the best to be honest.

//I think the King James Version is the version approved by God to bring a person into a closer, truer relationship with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.// Why is that?

@@AlanCosseybecause that’s the version they grew up with. That’s the only reason. Also probably because they only speak English.

@@baneofbanes What about those who didn't grow up using the KJV?

@@AlanCossey then they’re just morons. Most KJV only people however grew up with the KJV

The NRSV is the most accessible, but the Jewish Study Bible and the Oxford Study Bible are also pretty good.

@@VulcanLogic Thanks for the info.

Unlike Jewish and Islamic traditions, most Christian traditions accept vernacular translations as meant to be accurate and authoritative. Every translation is of course an interpretation; but deliberately distorting the text and representing it as accurate is a step beyond the literal/meaning divide. The NRSVue is the scholarly standard.

A “thought for thought” translation means that the translators have applied their interpretation to the text. Some nuance might get lost in favor of the translator’s theology. On the opposite end, translations like NRSV are concerned with being as literal as possible with no deference to theology.

To back up what @rhewin said, even though the NRSV gets a reputation for being scholarly, I have found it to be one of the easiest translations to read. It makes more sense than the NIV or GNT to me.

@@Rhewin And sometimes being literal misses the point.

@@AlanCossey being too literal is how you get the NASB.

Nope, they are looking to give the best translation they can.

@@AlanCossey I'm sure that's what they would say. The evidence points to them pushing their pre-existing religious views regardless of the text.

@@BobHutton But your pre-existing religious view doesn't? Are you saying that your views are more balanced than theirs?

@@AlanCossey I'm saying I'll go with scholars and translators who haven't had to sign on to a confession of faith before they can start work. I'll go with the ones who's priority is to understand the original text in its original context. The only thing I'm looking for is accuracy.

@@BobHutton Why do you think signing a confession of faith is incompatible with having a priority of understanding the original text in its original context? What problem do you see with the different translations of the NIV for Mt 13:32? The latest version "Though it is the smallest of all seeds" looks to me to be the better translation. Happy to discuss the Exodus 6:3 problem if you like.

My favorite reading Bible was the NJB, a Catholic Bible that has Yahweh throughout

@@cygnustsp I’ve got that Bible!! It’s absolutely wonderful. I’m disappointed I failed to mention it. It actually uses the divine name + apocrypha + it’s a clear translation to read with copious commentary notes.

Nope.

Alma 32:21 “Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore, if you have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.“ Mistranslations and misunderstandings of the Bible lead people to “things which are not true” which creates weak faith that eventually fails. I believe having an accurate understanding of the Bible actually helps build faith and spirituality because we can better understand people’s experiences with deity, rather than filtering through our own ideas.

@@jhmaughan that checks out. 👍

You misunderstand what "dynamic translation" means then.

I thought he said "pluperfect".

@@AlanCossey it's one of the perfects. Past perfect.

Nah, we use it all the time (and past perfect and pluperfect are the same thing, in English at least). "I went into the kitchen to have a slice of cake, but I discovered my little brother HAD already EATEN it all before I HAD even GOTTEN one piece." That's past perfect. The issue in Dan's example was that they incorrectly rendered the word into English in pluperfect tense, when in the original text, it was written in perfect tense (or its equivalent in ancient Hebrew).

@weebunny That's what I said in response to another comment: pluperfect is past perfect. I am pretty sure that the use of perfect tenses is not the vernacular in the US. The use of past simple is more often applied. Viewers of this kind of diagnostic content are probably more grammatically aware.

Would you give us a few examples, please?

@@AlanCossey 1 John 5:7-8. John 7:53 John 8;11 Mark 16:9-20 Mathew 17:21. Just a few not found in original koine Greek new testament.

@@MitzvosGolem1 Agreed. Those items were not in the original text, but crept in via notes in margins that later copyists thought were actual text. Stuff like that. However, it is important to note that the vast, vast majority of variants in the manuscripts are not important and, according to people like Bart Ehrman, p252 in the American edition of Misquoting Jesus, do not affect any critical Christian doctrine.

@@AlanCossey 1 John. 5:7-8 Trinity an admitted insertion by church fathers. Isaiah 7:14 "Virgin birth in future tense" not in original Hebrew scripture. Molded shaped changed Christian theology.. To say they never affected such is not being honest. There was no Trinity in earliest original Church of James and Peter. All this came in long after Jesus died. Christianianity oddly follows Paul and paulianity anyways.

The NIV is also the translation where the English text clearly implies in Deuteronomy that a woman must marry her rapist, which the Hebrew text itself does not warrant. (It comes right after a passage that is clearly about rape, but both that passage and the former one do share the similarity of being outcomes that the woman's parents did not want to happen.)

@@stalemateib3600 Agreed, that bit of the NIV is not a good translation.

The Passion Translation is an exercise of extreme creativity to the point of the Bible being a re-write. Unfortunately, Charismatic churches are using it as evidence of their theology being correct.

These broom closet denominations cut ties to the history/tradition and therefore the "authority" of the teachings. Just make up your own shit, get a tax shelter, and write your own stories.

That’s because there was an update to the NIV at the time which brought it more into line with actual scholarship. Evangelicals decided this update was of the devil.

​@@chuckshingledecker2216 maybe yes, maybe no. It wasn't an issue of Alexandrian Text vs. Byzantine Text.

He’s made a video on the ESV as well, you should be able to find it with a search. He’s not a fan.

If you've ever thought the NIV wasn't misogynist enough, the ESV might be for you.

#maklelan1914

​@@digitaljanusThe niv one upped itself and changed again in 2011.

It is.

Without learning the original languages it's impossible to get exact meaning. Languages don't translate well between each other. We can get approximations though especially if no agendas involved. I recommend using multiple versions side by side. KJV and ESV is what I use. They have their issues but I'm not going to learn Hebrew or Greek.

@@mandosamurai4169 One of the better posts here.

Agreed... unless those verses were not in the original.

@@AlanCossey Except they were. The Textus Receptus IS the original.

@@andrewericjamesclark6808 Please would you explain why you think that to be the case (without using the circular argument of "it is the original because it doesn't have verses taken out").