The Message ?

[~SHINE~]

I'm not sure that this is the place to post this, but seeing as this is the forum for indepth Bible verse studies, I'm sure many people here have opinions on this. What do you think of The Message translation of the Bible? It seems very different, but do you think it is an accurate translation of God's Word? I don't want to start quoting it or anything if parts of it seem off, but from what I've read of it, The Message seems to be an easier to understand translation, maybe for showing nonchristians.

 

[daveleau]

My studies have led me to the conclusion that this is a paraphrased version of Scripture. I prefer literal translations that attempt to adhere to the original writings. My favorites are the KJV, NKJV, NIV, HCSB, NASB and Amplified.

 

[songbird88]

It is not really a translation. It is a paraphrase, and actually an expanded paraphrase. You would like the Amplified Version better.

 

[filosofer]

Eugene Peterson, the one who translated the Message, stated clearly he did NOT want to hear his translation/paraphrase read publicly in church, nor use it for serious study. It was not meant for either.

If you want an easier reading translation in English, then God's Word is probably the best true translation in that category. In fact, I always recommend at least one Formal Equivalence translation (NAS, NKJV, ESV, NAB etc.) and one Meaning-Based translation (GW, CEV, TEV, NCV, etc.). Top pair:

NAS and GW

 

[MadeInOz]

I don't and would never use it as a main bible, because I think it waters down the translation and the meaning to the point where it loses all meaning at times. There are other translations who are a bit guilty of this as well, but the message... I dunno. I occasionally read it just to get a bit more insight, or a different interpretation if I don't understand it.

 

[Stinker]

I have come to rely on the KJV even though it is out of fashion today. Here is one simple passage just for example why:

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." (Jn.3:34)


The passage is telling of how Christ spoke for our Father in heaven while on earth because He received the Holy Spirit without measure. With this, Christ raised the dead and commanded the weather and many, many, other things (many not recorded Jn.21:25).



Read (Jn.3:34) in the more popular translations, and if your a Christian novice, you will be lead to believe that (Jn.3:34) applys to all Christians!

There are many other verses that the popular translations mislead the novice, but I thought that (Jn.3:34) was a good example.

 

[filosofer]

I have come to rely on the KJV even though it is out of fashion today. Here is one simple passage just for example why:

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." (Jn.3:34)

The passage is telling of how Christ spoke for our Father in heaven while on earth because He received the Holy Spirit without measure. With this, Christ raised the dead and commanded the weather and many, many, other things (many not recorded Jn.21:25).

Read (Jn.3:34) in the more popular translations, and if your a Christian novice, you will be lead to believe that (Jn.3:34) applys to all Christians!

There are many other verses that the popular translations mislead the novice, but I thought that (Jn.3:34) was a good example.

Except this is a good example of someone misusing the KJV because he/she has not read the KJV translation notes clearly enough. The words "unto him" are in italics in the KJV which mean that the words are NOT in the Greek (not matter the manuscript tradition followed - i.e. it is not in the Byzantine texts nor Alexandrian texts).

Thus, you are trying to make a casefor the KJV based on words that are not in the original text, and even the KJV translators acknowledge that.

 

[Stinker]

Except this is a good example of someone misusing the KJV because he/she has not read the KJV translation notes clearly enough. The words "unto him" are in italics in the KJV which mean that the words are NOT in the Greek (not matter the manuscript tradition followed - i.e. it is not in the Byzantine texts nor Alexandrian texts).

Thus, you are trying to make a casefor the KJV based on words that are not in the original text, and even the KJV translators acknowledge that.

When the Koine Greek language was (and is) translated into the English language, there is going to be words in our English translations not found in original texts being translated.

In the case of (Jn.3:34) it is obvious to mature students of the Bible that the passage is in reference to Christ, but it very well may not be the case to novices. The KJV is just making more obvious the meaning of (Jn.3:34) without changing the meaning.

 

[filosofer]

When the Koine Greek language was (and is) translated into the English language, there is going to be words in our English translations not found in original texts being translated.

In the case of (Jn.3:34) it is obvious to mature students of the Bible that the passage is in reference to Christ, but it very well may not be the case to novices. The KJV is just making more obvious the meaning of (Jn.3:34) without changing the meaning.

Having been involved in translating for 20+ years, I am aware of the need to provide more than a word-for-word gloss. However, the question has to be whether that is intended or whether the Greek would allow the ambiguity, being understood in more than one way. At that point the translation now has become commentary.

 

[wild01]

the message is a beautiful work intended to give an easy to read overview of the bible to the biblically illiterate. as such it does a fairly good job.
I would recomend reading the message much like you would listen to a good sermon, expect to hear the gospel explained in simple terms and expect to run across opinions and interpretations put in by the authors.
if you like the way the message reads I would recomend the new living translation to you. again I AM NOT SAYING that the nlt is a great word study bible, however in my experience it is alot more accurate than the message and flows just as easily. when you use any thought for thought translation it is always a good Idea to crossreference any passage that seems off with a word for word translation. I personally would recomend nasb or rsv but thats just my opinion. the nlt does have a few passages that I have found to be unreliable, but for the most part it is a very well done tht for tht.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

But whose thoughts are expressed in paraphrases? I look at the Message as a commentary of what Eugene Peterson takes from the word. If you follow the same theology as Peterson, this may be used as a sermon reading, but I prefer to thought for thought a more reliable translation on my own. I have been reading 2 Timothy over and over for a week now, and the thoughts that come when I read more inductively provide much deeper thought than anyone else's "pie in the sky" commentary ever could.

BTW, I used the pie in the sky reference as it is used in The Message.

Matthew 16:27-28 (The Message)
27"Don't be in such a hurry to go into business for yourself. Before you know it the Son of Man will arrive with all the splendor of his Father, accompanied by an army of angels. You'll get everything you have coming to you, a personal gift. 28This isn't pie in the sky by and by. Some of you standing here are going to see it take place, see the Son of Man in kingdom glory."

And here's the ESV:
27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

To honor God, I think it best to weigh any translation before you study it. It should be as tru to the original text as possible, while retaining it's readibility. The Message is quite readible, but how accurate is it to the source? I would only use it if I wondered what Peterson thought about a certain text.