{Thread Moved} Bible translation: The Message

[70x7]

Whats your take on this translation?
I have been reading it and I will admit that it does put in an everyday type of language. I did compare it to the NKJV that I have and granted the words are more contemporary, the message is the same.
It reads more like a story.

The only thing I feel that one might miss from reading older translations is the eloquence of the wording. I havent read to the New Testament yet, so I haven't compared the words of Jesus to see how that pans out.

Thoughts?

 

[arunma]

The Message is a translation with a built in commentary. As long as it is read as such, I see no problem. But I would never use it when trying to understand doctrine at any serious level. It's no substitute for a real Bible.

But I'm not sure why one would read it for ease of language. There are many fine modern translations. There are word for word translations like the ESV, as well as paraphrase translations like the NIV, which don't interpret very many words into the text. All of these translations are at a level such that a grade school student (native English speaker, obviously) could read it. Do you think that there are many people out there who don't find standard translations to be readable?

 

[BereanTodd]

It's not a version I would recomend for any serious study, and I wouldn't go to it to form my doctrine. It is a decent commentary, but it often changes not just words to be more contemporary, but adds inflections and things that are not there. It is not apostate or anything, and a Bible that is getting read is better than one not being read. But it is better thought of as a loose (at times very loose) commentary than as an actual translation.

If you want a very, very readable translation with actual great accuracy, try out the ESV. It is not quite as accurate as the NKJV or NASB (the two most accurate versions out there) but it is much more readable, probably more readable than even the NIV.

 

[BobW188]

It's a good starter. Sort of a Bible with training wheels, and ideal for those with limited reading skills. But the whole idea of training wheels is that in time they become unnecessary.

 

[70x7]

I got it for Christmas and am reading it. Of course, when I do my actually strudying with notes and such, I use it along side my other NKJV. I dont find the King James harder to understand, but I do find the Message to be an easier read.

I do think there are those who do not understand the meaning and the wording of the older translations. Bibles like The Message could help to get that crowd familiar with the story and concept.

 

[Celticflower]

The former youth pastor at our church used the Message alot. When it came time to replace my daughter's Bible (she felt she'd outgrown the kiddie friendly one she'd gotten in 3rd grade) she wasn't sure if she wanted to stay with the NIV (the version most commonly used in church) or switch to the Message. We found her a parrallel Bible with both so she can compare. She also has access to KJV, RSV, NRSV, and a couple of paraphrased versions here at home. She likes to read the Message - unless she is reading Psalms. She says they sound awful - no poetry or flow to them -- so she uses the NIV there.

 

[MikeMcKinney]

Whats your take on this translation?
I have been reading it and I will admit that it does put in an everyday type of language. I did compare it to the NKJV that I have and granted the words are more contemporary, the message is the same.
It reads more like a story.

The only thing I feel that one might miss from reading older translations is the eloquence of the wording. I havent read to the New Testament yet, so I haven't compared the words of Jesus to see how that pans out.

Thoughts?

The message isn't a translation, it's a paraphrase.

The difference is that a translation looks at the original languages and translates them into English so that you can read the Bible as it was written.

A paraphrase is the editor's opinion of what the text means.

So when you're reading a paraphrase, you're not getting the pure scriptures. You're getting the editor's opinion of the scriptures.

I don't believe the Message is a good representation of scripture at all and I couldn't reccomend it to anybody and I would run from any church that approves of it.

 

[JohnDB]

Any time that you use an "easy to read" translation or paraphrase there becomes issues of doctrine.

Read Galations 3:16

Then look in the cooresponding passage in Genesis 12.
I am going to tell you that when the blind man was shouting at Jesus "Son of David..." he reall wasn't...it more was in line with "Seed of David"...for that same "Seed" that was promised in Genesis 3 was also promised to David..as well as Isaac and Jacob.

Since also much of the Bible is in poetry there also is a bit of artistry needed when deciphering the original language.
Everyone for years thought that there was a cave at En-Gedi in the Judean wilderness where Saul went to "relieve himself"...but this simply isn't true.

The basic messages of how God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble isn't ever covered up....neither is the message of how Good God is either...although at times it does get tough to see from some of these translations.

You have to remember that these days Hermeneutics is at an all time low. We may be in an "information era" but that doesn't mean that many people will have any wisdom as to what this information means.

I can tell you though that IF you make understanding the bible an absolute passion you will not be unrewarded...including some of the "boring" sections. There is always a very very enlightening and poignant message if you keep digging and searching as to the meaning behind these sections. Flat stories with no real purpose or meaning all of a sudden become some of the best stories you can imagine...or better than you can imagine.

Commentaries won't do it for you...neither will anthropologists or geologists...you are going to have to find some of the information out on your own...independant of others at times...

But then again...the choice is always yours...

 

[synger]

I agree that Psalms in the Message are horrendous. There's no poetry, no movement... it sounds like a grandfather trying to be "cool" by using teen-aged slang, without quite knowing what it means and how to use it.

I sometimes listen to a podcast of the Bible being read. The reader alternates translations from week to week. So occasionally I hear The Message. So long as I know what it is, I'm okay with listening to it or sometimes reading it. But I don't study from it at all.

 

[Adrift*]

The Message is more accurately described as a paraphrase than a translation. From that vantage point, I quite like it. In fact, it was The Message Bible that got my then girlfriend (now fiancee) to actually read the Bible as a new Christian who just made Jesus Lord. Bereantodd mentioned that the NKJV is more accurate (word for word) than the ESV. I've never heard that before (though I have heard it for the NASB).

 

[BereanTodd]

The Message is more accurately described as a paraphrase than a translation. From that vantage point, I quite like it. In fact, it was The Message Bible that got my then girlfriend (now fiancee) to actually read the Bible as a new Christian who just made Jesus Lord. Bereantodd mentioned that the NKJV is more accurate (word for word) than the ESV. I've never heard that before (though I have heard it for the NASB).

It comes down to your view of which manuscripts are best. The NKJV leans towards majority text, the NASB/ESV lean more towards the critical text. But it is generally accpeted at most conservative evangelical seminaries that you have a line something along the lines of

NASB/NJKV -->ESV---->KJV-------->everything else

Now I'm not accounting for the NRSV as I've never looked at it, or the HCSB which is very new and I've never used. NIV would fall with everything else. But of relative accuracy the NASB/NKJV are the tops in my experience, and from the information given by my undergrad and seminary schools.

 

[Adrift*]

It comes down to your view of which manuscripts are best. The NKJV leans towards majority text, the NASB/ESV lean more towards the critical text. But it is generally accpeted at most conservative evangelical seminaries that you have a line something along the lines of

NASB/NJKV -->ESV---->KJV-------->everything else

Now I'm not accounting for the NRSV as I've never looked at it, or the HCSB which is very new and I've never used. NIV would fall with everything else. But of relative accuracy the NASB/NKJV are the tops in my experience, and from the information given by my undergrad and seminary schools.

Very interesting. Thanks for that tidbit of knowledge BereanTodd.

 

[Radagast]

"The Message" is a rather loose translation, or paraphrase rather, intended to be readable, clear, and forceful. It started as a set of Bible study notes, apparently.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

Please note this thread has been moved from Exploring Christianity for better response.

Thank you​

 

[crishmael]

I got a Message Bible a few years back at Christmas, and I read it from time to time. I agree that it is sort of a commentary version, kind of like how someone would give their take on a passage to help explain to someone else what the Bible's talking about. I consult it from time to time as a devotional Bible, but it's not my main Bible. I've met a few people who use it as their main, but I'd recommend an actual translation (like the NIV, ESV, KJV, TNIV, etc) over a paraphrase like the Message.

 

[synger]

Has anyone read the New Century Version (NCV)? It's aimed at a fifth-grade reading level, but I'm not clear on the accuracy.

It's the one those Biblezines use. I'm seriously thinking of getting Blossom for my soon-to-be-eight year old.

 

[crishmael]

Has anyone read the New Century Version (NCV)? It's aimed at a fifth-grade reading level, but I'm not clear on the accuracy.

It's the one those Biblezines use. I'm seriously thinking of getting Blossom for my soon-to-be-eight year old.

I got one as a gift a few years back. It was some Max Lucado version with devotions by him in the margins. I read it a bit, and it was okay. Kinda reminded me of the NLT. As far as accurate, it's probably not word for word--not that it would really be possible at a fifth grade reading level (at least in my opinion)--but I don't think they snuck heresy in either.

 

[wildboar]

The message is not a translation--it's a paraphrase. That's what Eugene Peterson intended it to be. I think people run into trouble when they use it as if it were a translation and some of the marketing done by NavPress suggests that it is a translation. I think it can be helpful to get a fresh reading of familiar Bible passages but don't think a person should use it as their primary Bible. It's a lot like people who have a Strong's Concordance and all of a sudden think that they know the Biblical languages. It's not Strong's fault that people misuse his work.

I'm not a big fan of the NCV. I think the problem is that the Bible in its original languages was written at various reading levels and so it loses something when you try to bring it all down to the same level. Books like Mark sort of work but Hebrews doesn't. I think it's better to teach children the Bible with a standard Bible and for parents to explain what the passages are saying to their children. Otherwise children start memorizing a Bible verse in some children's version and get all confused when they switch over to some other version at a later age. I've got a four year old to who has six verses memorized and a two year old that has one verse memorized and I use the NKJV and have tried to work with them so that they understand what those verses mean.

The "New Evangelical Translation" (not to be confused with the NET Bible) is probably the best I've seen at pulling off easy reading and accuracy but unfortunately it was only made available in the New Testament. They did revise it and included the Old Testament and it became the "God's Word" translation but in its revised form it suffers from some of the problems of other easy-reading translations.

The KJV still stands as a wonderful piece of English literature and children who are raised on it can usually understand it.

 

[DanC922]

I would never use a Message. Translating from one language to another makes it hard enough to keep original ideas intact, and using incredibly loose language and slang doesn't translate the original ideas well. A writer writes with a certain idea in mind, and he wants the reader to read that idea, not make up his own. God wants the same with His Word. It's hard to find out what He is really saying when you can't pull out the depth of what you're reading. I think interpretation of ideas should be done by the reader, not the translators. I've used the NIV my whole life, but recently switched to ESV because it's a much more word for word translation and the new ESV Study Bible is great.

That being said... I'm certainly not a Bible version snob. If a non-Christian asks me if they should read a certain Bible version, I will say READ IT. As long as it has the true Gospel, I want them to read no matter what version it is.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I enjoy The Message very much for casual reading, but I always bear in mind its limitations, that it's a paraphrase rather than a translation. It's like a pastor (which Eugene Peterson is) telling me bible stories in his own words. That's not a bad thing at all, and Peterson has some good insights... but it's still not the same as reading God's word for myself.

For any kind of study, I rely most on my ESV Study Bible, and I compare it with other versions.

One interesting edition I own: an NASB/Message parallel bible. That's just perfect - one of the most literal translations and a total paraphrase, side by side for easy comparison.