Is "The Message" a Reliable Translation?

[jubilationtcornpone]

It doesn't seem to me the standard is so much whether we like it or whether some people think that it is horrible. It seems to me that God has been using it to draw people to him and so I would say it is indeed God's Word.

I think we're on dangerous ground when we say such things. Even if some people are drawn to the Lord through some horrible paraphrases (which I find highly dubious), how many others are being led astray?

We can't just look at some positive effect that comes from this book and conclude that it's a good thing. Rather, our duty should be to preach the Word accurately and warn others when it is being misrepresented -- even when the misrepresentations produce some beneficial outcome here and there.

We have to trust that God knows what's best. If we stray from what the Bible teaches (as The Message does), then we are not being faithful. And if we applaud such digressions from the Word, then we are not trusting that God knows what is best.

 

[BigNorsk]

I think we're on dangerous ground when we say such things. Even if some people are drawn to the Lord through some horrible paraphrases (which I find highly dubious), how many others are being led astray?

We can't just look at some positive effect that comes from this book and conclude that it's a good thing. Rather, our duty should be to preach the Word accurately and warn others when it is being misrepresented -- even when the misrepresentations produce some beneficial outcome here and there.

We have to trust that God knows what's best. If we stray from what the Bible teaches (as The Message does), then we are not being faithful. And if we applaud such digressions from the Word, then we are not trusting that God knows what is best.

I never said any mistakes or misrepresentations were producing beneficial outcomes. Any translation falls short of transmitting the whole meaning and nothing else of the bible to us. Yet the story gets through doesn't it. Amazing really. By your standard it is a matter of being unfaithful to read in anything but the original languages and then only when one actually understands them.

I haven't seen any mass exodus of people being led astray by the Message. Even if they use it at first, once people get involved in bible studies they will switch over to other versions.

Marv

 

[SammeyDW]

Reliable - yes
However it is a bit too 'new english / slang' for me.

I see it as a way to reach people who only / primarily speak / understand this 'new english / slang'.
Then if they want some in depth study lead them to the NIV / NASB95.

 

[sanct1fym3]

The message is a meaning based transalation, in other words the meaning was attempted rather than exact wording when transalated, I am an MK (Missionary Kid) and this is the type of translation that was done in the tribe i grew up in, the wording was too hard to get exact because of the difficult languages, so we had to try to get the closest meaning possible.

I would like to think that it wasn't all for naught, so i'll say it's got it's purpose, and i'll leave deciding it's purpose up to you.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

I never said that.
....
I never said any mistakes or misrepresentations were producing beneficial outcomes.

Did you not say the following?

"It doesn't seem to me the standard is so much whether we like it or whether some people think that it is horrible. It seems to me that God has been using it to draw people to him and so I would say it is indeed God's Word"

--the logical implication being that if it draws people to God, then it must be okay, even if it is inaccurate? As I said, that is not the standard by which we should be judging any book.

The point is that The Message is a horribly twisted paraphrase. Even if it does "draw people to him," that doesn't justify its use.

Any translation falls short of transmitting the whole meaning and nothing else of the bible to us. Yet the story gets through doesn't it.

That only shows that God can make use of any circumstance. It doesn't mean that the book is any good. God made use of Joseph's betrayal and selling into slavery, after all. He also made use of Christ's betrayal. This does not mean that those were wonderful events that are worth of commendation.

In the same manner, if people come to Christ through The Message (for which I have yet to see any evidence), then this only demonstrates that God can even make use of abominations that twist his Word. This does not mean that such abominations are at all praiseworthy.

 

[choirfiend]

The message is a meaning based transalation, in other words the meaning was attempted rather than exact wording when transalated

And that "closest meaning" is of course someone's personal interpretation of the Bible, and we know how everyone has different interpretations of what nearly every verse means. When someone is going for the "closest meaning," they are teaching their interpretation. The only interpretation that is correct is the interpretation that the author used when he/she whoever chose their words. I will take the 2000 year old continual same interpretation of God's word over what some bunch of wazoos interpreted last week into a translation of a translation of a translation of what was said that loses the proper context and teaching surrounding it. It doesnt convey anything but the Tradition of the men who wrote it. I'll take the Holy Spirit working through the entire body of the Church as interpreter, thanks.

 

[Quantos]

How does one make the Bible more alive? Does it really take a changing of the Bible, or should it be a changing of the PERSON who thinks things have to be dumbed down, watered down, made entertaining, etc, in order to make things palatable enough to their personal taste to make it "alive" for them?
...snip...

I guess we should of never changed the bible from Greek / Hebrew, after everything after was changing it to make it easer for the people to read.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

I guess we should of never changed the bible from Greek / Hebrew, after everything after was changing it to make it easer for the people to read.

There is a world of difference between translating the Bible into a language that people can actually read, and liberally paraphrasing the whole thing.

It's like the difference between translatingthe Iliad into English and rendering it in a comic book form with a third-grade vocabulary. The former is necessary so that English-speakers can understand it. The latter takes tremendous liberties with the source so that people can understand it without applying much effort.

Before you object, I'm not saying that it's inherently wrong to help people understand the Bible. However, whenever we rely on these liberal paraphrases, we place ourselves on dangerous ground. Far better to rely on translations that accurately reflect the original text as best as they can!