Jump to content
IGNORED

The Message is the worst Translation


JTC

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  200
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  2,795
  • Content Per Day:  0.65
  • Reputation:   1,502
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/25/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/26/1952

14 hours ago, R. Hartono said:

Give some examples don't just complain

Quite honestly I was not complaining, I was warning everyone, most especially new Bible readers to avoid this like the plague. I listened to parts of it and the narrator made it sound worse because of his emphasis. Lots of people gave examples but what made me shut it off when his version of King Solomon's lamenting came out something like this: Since everything is meaningless anyway don't even strain yourself to work or do what's right. Sooner or later you will die so eat, drink, have fun, enjoy life while you can. I paraphrased that. This kind of thinking is largely responsible for our current messed up world. It's the old, "if it feels good do it" philosophy and it does not belong in what an unsuspecting person can read thinking it is the Word of God. This kind of thinking has legalized Gay marriage, wants to legalize bestiality, and may eventually want pedophilia made legal. The ancient Roman men would marry a boy and we've been going in their direction. One problem is the older generations who knew better didn't warn the younger ones enough. I'm now 1 of the older folks who knows better and my post was a warning.

Take our word for it. Don't read it yourself.  

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  13,256
  • Content Per Day:  5.40
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  62
  • Joined:  07/07/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/25/1972

17 hours ago, JTC said:

I just listened to some of the translation called The Message. It was terrible especially the book of Ecclesiastes. It actually says things that are not true. This was extremely obvious to me because I had just finished Ecclesiastes in the ESV. It was so bad I had to stop. Sure Solomon was disgusted and a little sad towards the end of his life but he didn't say what this translation claims he said. Do Not Read it. I'm a Bible reader for 40 years and I was just checking out the translation. It's garbage. Even worse to a new believer. Shun this translation.

Spot on JTC  .  SPOT ON and THANKS SO MUCH FOR doing all to ensure that none even reads it . 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  13,256
  • Content Per Day:  5.40
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  62
  • Joined:  07/07/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/25/1972

16 hours ago, 1sheep said:

Here is a review of The Message. Its very detailed. Final word: Yes. It is garbage. Its wintertime. It will make good kindling.

http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/BV.0101_04_Is_Eugene_Petersons_book_The_Message_Gods_Word.html

EXACTLY . 

Anyone who knows of any who reads this message , call them up and mail all copies to one sheeps house .  She can burn them all and keep warm at the same time .

who needs space heaters or heaters .    Mail all these to one sheeps addresss,    oh be warm this winter one sheep , oh be warm .

And while we are at this , if any has or knows of any who has the shack , or circle makers or any books by joel olstein , rick warren

mail them to one sheep.  OH let the greatest bon fire be seen the world round .    And , one sheep, you just read your bible

as you burn these other books . 

Edited by frienduff thaylorde
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,015
  • Content Per Day:  1.34
  • Reputation:   1,220
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

17 hours ago, 1sheep said:

Here is a review of The Message. Its very detailed. Final word: Yes. It is garbage. Its wintertime. It will make good kindling.

http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/BV.0101_04_Is_Eugene_Petersons_book_The_Message_Gods_Word.html

That article seems to have been penned by a KJV only author. Most of the time he's not just slamming "the message: but, rather, slamming all "new versions." I can't take KJV only people seriously.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Loved it! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  788
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   872
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/07/2015
  • Status:  Offline

21 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

may i respectfully ask why not? genuine question, not being contentious here.

I find it very hard to take the KJV-only issue seriously as well (the first time I came across it, I thought it was a joke). The main reason is that the 'evidence' produced to support it is so flimsy.

 

As for The Message - it's a very free paraphrase (i.e. NOT a translation - so not really comparable to versions like the KJV, ESV and NIV anyway), so inevitably it has a lot of personal interpretation in it. And - surprise, surprise - a lot of Peterson's interpretations don't agree with mine. It's also in such idiomatic American English that there are places where I (as a Brit) don't quite understand it. So I don't like it at all, personally.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,015
  • Content Per Day:  1.34
  • Reputation:   1,220
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

29 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

may i respectfully ask why not? genuine question, not being contentious here.

1. Because I can't take seriously anyone who believes that only one single version is "THE" word of God and all the others are wrong. However, only some KJV people do this. There is no such group for any other version, regardless of language. 

2. The KJV is rife with errors and additions that can be documented and have been. https://www.bing.com/search?q=extra+verses+in+KJV

3. Many ancient manuscripts have been found since the KJV was originally penned. Many of these add a LOT of clarity to the bible.

4. The KJV has been changed since 1611, so even if someone says the KJV is the only true word of God, it begs the question, "Which version?" 

I think the KJV is useful, but I think it is one of the most flawed mainstream versions out there. But that is just me. I think the arrogant hubris of KJV only people is, well, kinda funny.

Go to Youtube and watch any James White video about KJV onlyism. And then watch those that disagree with him. I don't agree with him on all his theology, but he's pretty solid on bible version history. 

And here's a great article on the subject: https://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  68
  • Topic Count:  185
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  14,204
  • Content Per Day:  3.35
  • Reputation:   16,629
  • Days Won:  30
  • Joined:  08/14/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Many of the KJV words were translated correctly in the 1600s but have changed in meaning over the centuries.  One of those words is conversation; it meant manner of life back then but today it means a dialogue between people.

The Message is not a translation.  Neither is the Living Bible.  The New Living Translation retains a lot of the words in the Living Bible but tries to make it truer to the text.  I am not a fan.  The New World Translation is not a translation since the changes were made by a person who does not know the original languages as he demonstrated in a court of law.  Likewise, many of the translations produced by the American Bible Society for poorly educated or English second language people are too loosely translated, like Good News.    If every jot and tittle was held to by God, it would seem that we need to be as accurate as possible.

NIV is good in some areas but some of its translators used too much paraphrase in the portions they translated thought for thought so I trust it less.  NASV was a good translation of its manuscript but I personally believe the "earliest" manuscript left out too much.  

 So I prefer NKJV, Amplified Bible or ESV.  ESV restored most eliminated passages to the text with a foot note.  Amplified adds words other literal translations have used to translate a Greek or Hebrew word; other  words added by translators are in brackets so you may understand it is not part of the Greek or Hebrew text.  

Others that I refer to are: YLT, LITV, Wuest, ALT3.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,459
  • Content Per Day:  0.61
  • Reputation:   2,377
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline

20 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

may i respectfully ask why not? genuine question, not being contentious here.

From what I can tell, there are some Christians who believe that the KJV is God's Word for the English speaking peoples and that it is the only version for which that is true.   All other versions (or *perversions* as a term as some are wont to use) are to be judged by how much they differ from the KJV.  There is often a push for the idea that spiritual attacks against the truth are the primary reason why there are differences from the KJV in new versions.  Here is a link to all of this site's articles on Bible versions.  http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/index.html    This site is fairly mild compared to some.  Here's one of their short articles from that site which claims that the NIV commands Christians to reject Jesus.  

We would ask those who believe the NIV is God's word  -  and who actually do what it says to do  -  to consider the following verses and to decide whether they are truly written by God:   a. Jesus said, (as recorded in the NIV):  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. (Luke 12:51 NIV)  b. Paul teaches us later (as recorded in the NIV):  Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time.  After that, have nothing to do with him. (Titus 3:10 NIV)

I'm somewhat familiar with NT manuscripts.  I've read the Greek NT a number of times and am on my 3rd time through the Septuagint.  The bottom line is that there are variances between existing Greek manuscripts of the NT.  Indeed, very few manuscripts are identical to each other and contain small variations.  The majority of these are minor variations though a few are significant.  The question is how we are to deal with these differences.   For all Christians, the question is what was the wording of the originals?   There are two approaches Christians take to this question.  

The first is to look at all of the existing manuscripts and ask which are the most credible witnesses to the original words?  From this, Christian scholars attempt to answer that question.   Basically, these scholars look at many things trying to determine which readings in which manuscripts are the most credible witnesses to the original words.   This is a painstaking verse by verse approach rather than simply trying to argue which manuscript is the "right" one and accept all the readings according to that one.   As more ancient manuscripts are found, the scholars incorporate those into their work.  The result of this work is a series of versions of the Greek New Testament which is based on this work.  These Greek New Testaments contain extensive footnotes and comments as to the differences between various manuscripts.  Translations into modern languages are carried out from these versions of the Greek NT.  This is the approach taken which is accepted by the majority of Christians and churches.  

A second way of approaching this is with the belief of preservation in some form that is basically that God has always provided a perfect version of His Word to all generations and languages.  Some believe that the KJV in English is God's perfect Word for English speakers and thus the version of the Greek NT used for translating the KJV (called the Textus Receptus or TR) is the perfect Greek NT.  In addition, the KJV scholars were those who God appointed to perfectly translate into English from Greek so later translations (even if based on the TR) are in error as to how different they are from the KJV.  All Greek manuscripts which differ from the TR contain errors.  Unfortunately, the oldest manuscripts in existence differ the most from the TR so are to be rejected.  For Christians with this viewpoint, the only issue to be considered when looking at ancient manuscripts is how much they differ from the TR.   For the most part, scholarship from this group boils down to knowing beforehand which manuscripts to accept or reject (being how close they measure up to the TR and KJV) and giving reasons why that is so.   For this group, there is no discussion possible based on historical, linguistic, or other evidence why a manuscript is to be accepted or not, this is pre-decided by whether or not it lead to the TR and KJV.  

The one group approaches existing manuscripts and translation into living languages as an ongoing mission and work of the church which involves every generation of believers deeply into the transmission and preservation of the Gospel to all peoples and languages.  The other group approaches manuscripts and translation as an accomplished fact that God has already done perfectly.  For Christians today, the heart of the issue is this.  Did God do a miraculous work with the KJV which makes it The Bible in English?  Or has God appointed this task to all generations of believers to contribute to and work on?

I've personally found that the most useful criticisms of paraphrases such as The Message or other translations come from the group which treats translation and manuscript study as an ongoing work of the church.  They tend to issue criticisms based on methodology and try to explain *why* there are problems and explain what the paraphraser or translator could have done better.  This is in contrast to criticisms that basically point out the obvious that it is not the KJV with the underlying belief that any new version should never have been done in the first place. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steward

  • Group:  Steward
  • Followers:  110
  • Topic Count:  10,461
  • Topics Per Day:  1.26
  • Content Count:  27,742
  • Content Per Day:  3.34
  • Reputation:   15,386
  • Days Won:  126
  • Joined:  06/30/2001
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  09/21/1971

3 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

many thanks for the replies. I think it would be a good idea for me to look at the Amplified Bible.

and now I will stop derailing this thread : )

Have you ever simply tried reading a Parallel Bible?

This is the one I've had for a very long time ...

https://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Study-Bible-PR-KJV-NASB-B-PR-ZON/dp/B001TID14O/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  200
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  2,795
  • Content Per Day:  0.65
  • Reputation:   1,502
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/25/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/26/1952

2 hours ago, Still Alive said:

4. The KJV has been changed since 1611, so even if someone says the KJV is the only true word of God, it begs the question, "Which version?"

I'm glad you said this. Back in the 1970's I made a donation to Jimmy Swaggart Ministries and as a thank you he sent out lovely wooden hard covered copies of the NT. Swaggart himself was a JKV-only person, so of course, the Bibles he sent out were KJV. I have nothing against the KJV my problem is I just don't understand old English. But I found the NT Swaggart sent out even harder to understand so I compared a few verses to the typical KJV of which I owned one. There were quite a few differences. The meanings hadn't changed but many words were changed to make it read more like poetry than the KJV I owned. So many words were different I was surprised that Swaggart sent them out. I later read an article saying there are indeed 3 or 5 KJVs. The Swaggart one may have been closest to the original KJ's Bible because recently I read an article stating King James liked poetry and therefore his translators made it as poetic as they could to please their King. Great, but I'm no better with poetry than I am with old English.

   I'm forever indebted to the writers of the original NIV because it rescued me when I was lost. Sadly, that original NIV doesn't seem to exist anymore but I still have mine. It was less paraphrased than the Zondervan press versions are, but I still like some of them. I also use a NJKV and more recently the ESV.

   Many Bible versions are good, a few are okay, but the Message version is garbage. I couldn't even finish 1 page nor 1 Psalm.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...