Question about "The Message" Bible

[WeakButHopeful]

I just stumbled on "The Message" Bible and looked up one of my favorite chapters to see what it would read like:

Romans 7 MSG - Torn Between One Way and Another - You - Bible Gateway

I am very impressed. As a 59 year old Christian I wish I had it when I was young.

I just thought I'd do a simple CF thread to ask if this version is well thought of and faithful (though obviously not literal). I guess I could Google but I didn't think folks would mind this simple question.

Thanks.

 

[ebedmelech]

I think the New Living Translation (NLT) does it better:

Romans 7 NLT - No Longer Bound to the Law - Now, dear - Bible Gateway

 

[Radagast]

I just stumbled on "The Message" Bible and looked up one of my favorite chapters to see what it would read like:

Romans 7 MSG - Torn Between One Way and Another - You - Bible Gateway

I am very impressed. As a 59 year old Christian I wish I had it when I was young.

I just thought I'd do a simple CF thread to ask if this version is well thought of and faithful (though obviously not literal). I guess I could Google but I didn't think folks would mind this simple question.

Thanks.

Eugene Peterson's philosophy and approach are described in this great little book, and he also writes:

"While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become 'old hat.'"

The Message ranges from good though loose translation in some passages to outright paraphrase in others. Sometimes I think he nails the meaning exactly, while at other times I'm not sure what he's thinking. But he's always great at making the passage hit home.

Read it and be blessed, but ideally follow it by reading something more literal.

 

[ebia]

Eugene Peterson's philosophy and approach are described in this great little book, and he also writes:

"While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become 'old hat.'"

The Message ranges from good though loose translation in some passages to outright paraphrase in others. Sometimes I think he nails the meaning exactly, while at other times I'm not sure what he's thinking. But he's always great at making the passage hit home.

Read it and be blessed, but ideally follow it by reading something more literal.

This. The whole series is worth reading.

 

[ebia]

Some people hate it. Sometimes that's because they see the exact wording as divine in some sense. Sometimes it's just because it challenges the way they have been reading the text and they don't like that.

Occasionally the americanisms or anachronisms do grate a bit, though.

 

[dcyates]

I just stumbled on "The Message" Bible and looked up one of my favorite chapters to see what it would read like:

Romans 7 MSG - Torn Between One Way and Another - You - Bible Gateway

I am very impressed. As a 59 year old Christian I wish I had it when I was young.

I just thought I'd do a simple CF thread to ask if this version is well thought of and faithful (though obviously not literal). I guess I could Google but I didn't think folks would mind this simple question.

Thanks.

Quite frankly, it bothers me when I hear people disparage Eugene Peterson's "The Message." The man is a legitimate Bible scholar who knows both Hebrew and Greek. (I wonder how many of those who complain about his translation can make the same claim.) He had a particular purpose in mind when he translated the Bible as he has, and it wasn't to produce a Bible from which anyone should do serious study but rather one that practically anyone can sit down with and read, and actually enjoy it, and perhaps even give you special insight with the way he's chosen to word this or that given passage that you otherwise know so well you could recite it from memory.

I know several people who simply don't get much out of reading other translations but who genuinely enjoy reading "The Message." I wouldn't recommend it being the ONLY version of Scripture that anyone should read, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with it being one of them.

 

[WeakButHopeful]

Thanks everyone for your replies, they were exactly what I was hoping for. As I said in my OP, I would have been willing to Google for background, but I figured I would get less random and more thoughtful results from CF (or maybe I was being lazy).

Yes, I was impressed by the directness and clarity of the message. And now that I know the authorship is respectable, I feel more confident using it.

ebedmelech, I looked at the equivalent NLT for Romans 7 and it certainly is more contemporary, but something about the Message version sounds like Paul is describing my life, whereas NLT sounds more generic, like WebMD. I do *not* mean to disparage any translation, but for a thick headed Irishman like myself, I think anything that holds my nose to spiritual truth is edifying.

Thanks once again for all who took their time to give me their take on the translation!

 

[ebedmelech]

ebedmelech, I looked at the equivalent NLT for Romans 7 and it certainly is more contemporary, but something about the Message version sounds like Paul is describing my life, whereas NLT sounds more generic, like WebMD. I do *not* mean to disparage any translation, but for a thick headed Irishman like myself, I think anything that holds my nose to spiritual truth is edifying.

Thanks once again for all who took their time to give me their take on the translation!

No problem brother. You're in the "word" and if The Message speaks to you best, be blessed reading it!

 

[seeingeyes]

My favorite way to use the Message is to have an ESV or NIV within arms reach. I'll read and read and read (cause the Message is so easy to just read), and I'll get to a passage where I think, "nuh-uh, the Bible doesn't say that!" So I look it up in a more accurate translation. And sure enough, the Bible does say that.

(Yes, I argue with myself. Out loud. In my living room. Don't judge me. )

I like it a lot because after so many years of reading and hearing the Bible, I found myself not really 'hearing' it anymore, you know? The Message shakes it up a bit, which is good for my calcified brain. Even the sections where I might disagree a bit theologically with Mr. Peterson, I still have to work out precisely why I disagree biblically and it's a good work-out.

That Bible has been a blessing to me.

 

[OzSpen]

I just stumbled on "The Message" Bible and looked up one of my favorite chapters to see what it would read like:

Romans 7 MSG - Torn Between One Way and Another - You - Bible Gateway

I am very impressed. As a 59 year old Christian I wish I had it when I was young.

I just thought I'd do a simple CF thread to ask if this version is well thought of and faithful (though obviously not literal). I guess I could Google but I didn't think folks would mind this simple question.

Thanks.

For me, the major issue with "The Message" is that it is a one-man paraphrase. You are better choosing a committee translation where there are many scholars of OT and NT who compare and interact with each others' works.

If you like dynamic equivalence - which gives meaning for meaning - The New Living Translation and The New International Version are the best contemporary examples. The NLT uses rather simple contemporary language. I'm reading it for my daily Bible reading this year.

If you want a more formal equivalence translation, i.e. more like word for word translation, I've recommend the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. I think that the ESV flows better in its English style than the NASB. I used the NASB for many years but now prefer the ESV.

The New Revised Standard Version is another worthy formal equivalence version, but because of the theologically liberal mix of translators, many evangelicals find it difficult to recommend this translation. I'm not of that view. I read and have taught NT Greek, so I understand some of the NT translation difficulties.

For me, I use the NLT, NIV and ESV. I would not use a one-person paraphrase such as The Message, The Living Bible or J. B. Phillips NT.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[joep222]

It is not wrong to read "The Message". However, it is not very accurate at times and it has left out some key verses (can't think of them at the moment) and is fairly watered down to the point of being inadequate paraphrase.

 

[ebia]

For me, the major issue with "The Message" is that it is a one-man paraphrase. You are better choosing a committee translation where there are many scholars of OT and NT who compare and interact with each others' works.

If you like dynamic equivalence - which gives meaning for meaning - The New Living Translation and The New International Version are the best contemporary examples. The NLT uses rather simple contemporary language. I'm reading it for my daily Bible reading this year.

If you want a more formal equivalence translation, i.e. more like word for word translation, I've recommend the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. I think that the ESV flows better in its English style than the NASB. I used the NASB for many years but now prefer the ESV.

The New Revised Standard Version is another worthy formal equivalence version, but because of the theologically liberal mix of translators, many evangelicals find it difficult to recommend this translation. I'm not of that view. I read and have taught NT Greek, so I understand some of the NT translation difficulties.

For me, I use the NLT, NIV and ESV. I would not use a one-person paraphrase such as The Message, The Living Bible or J. B. Phillips NT.

Sincerely, Oz

He did get it checked and took advice from other scholars. Committees have their good and bad points.

 

[OzSpen]

He did get it checked and took advice from other scholars. Committees have their good and bad points.

The Message is still a one-man paraphrase. Committee translations have a better track record for accuracy.

However, no translation, whether dynamic or formal equivalence, will be perfect as fallible human beings do the translating.

I noted that you gave your personal opinion of Committee [translations] having good and bad points but you did not give one example. It would be helpful to provide evidence.

Oz

 

[Radagast]

The Message is still a one-man paraphrase. Committee translations have a better track record for accuracy.

I don't think anyone claims The Message is the most accurate. Peterson himself didn't intend it as a substitute for a more literal translation.

It's strength is it's "whup you over the head" forcefulness -- whoever called it "watered down" obviously hasn't read it.

 

[Radagast]

And great to see the Aussies congregating here!

 

[OzSpen]

And great to see the Aussies congregating here!

In which part of this great land do you live? I'm in a northern Brisbane suburb!

In Christ, Oz

 

[kirraantrobus]

Since The Message is a paraphrase, I would not be comfortable with anyone using it as their sole Bible "translation." I understand that it can be good for devotional reading, but you need a good translation as well, such as the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, or the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Enjoy The Message but remember, like the poster above said, it's a paraphrase rather than a translation, and it was the work of one person so it is more likely to carry his presuppositions than a group of people working on a translation together.

 

[OzSpen]

Since The Message is a paraphrase, I would not be comfortable with anyone using it as their sole Bible "translation." I understand that it can be good for devotional reading, but you need a good translation as well, such as the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, or the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Enjoy The Message but remember, like the poster above said, it's a paraphrase rather than a translation, and it was the work of one person so it is more likely to carry his presuppositions than a group of people working on a translation together.

I note in your "good translation" that you include only formal equivalence translations such as the ESV, NASB and the HCSB.

Why have you not included dynamic equivalence committee translations such as the New International Version and the New Living Translation?

Oz

 

[kirraantrobus]

I note in your "good translation" that you include only formal equivalence translations such as the ESV, NASB and the HCSB.

Why have you not included dynamic equivalence committee translations such as the New International Version and the New Living Translation?

Oz

When it comes to the the NLT, long before I ever knew anything about one translation being better than another beyond simple preference, I just didn't care for the NLT. Now, I don't know enough about it one way or the other to recommend or discourage it, beyond my personal, stylistic dislike of it.

As for the NIV, I used the 1984 version (the most current version before the TNIV and the NIV 2011) heavily through high school and college. In college, I discovered that it has some Calvinist leanings in translation. That wouldn't necessarily cause me to completely dissuade someone from using it, but I do prefer the formal equivalent translations of the ESV, NASB, and HCSB. These days, I use all three of these interchangeably, and seldom use anything different. I think they are the better translations, more literal translations of the manuscripts we have available.

Unfortunately, the NIV 1984 is not easily available anymore, now that the 2011 version has been released. The 1984 version is no longer being printed. My church used to keep NIV Bibles in the chairs at church, but since they were unable to purchase more of them, they have since switched them out to the English Standard Version. Also, publications that use the NIV have been told to quit using the 1984 version and only use quotes from the 2011 version. The new version has some very controversial changes, especially concerning gender terms that widen the gap between the NIV and the ESV, NASB, and HCSB. I wouldn't recommend it at all.

I don't necessarily have anything against dynamic equivalents in general, even though I prefer formal equivalents. I think if someone is going to do some in depth Bible study, a great idea would be to have one of each. And even The Message can be useful, so long as it is used to supplement the translations rather than as the sole version used.

I hope that answers your question, but if not, let me know.

 

[Romans Road]

Please avoid The Message. It is a very bad and dangerous paraphrase. Please check out this article that compares The Message to other translations.

http://www.justinpeters.org/The_Message[1].pdf