The Message is the worst Translation

[Still Alive]

12 hours ago, JTC said:

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.

That was a very interesting post. I, too, have always had a hard time with the KJV because I felt like I was trying to read a German bible after only a year of learning German in high school. i.e. it's not in my native tongue and too much of my brain power is used just trying to understand the use of words. 

But, you mentioned the NIV, which reminds me of a funny story. My wife and I went to a "KJV only" church when we first moved to Kentucky. One day the pastor was reading a particularly confusing text in his KJV and stopped and explained to the congregation what it "really" means. Now, my wife had her NIV bible opened to the same verse and after he explained it in "plain english" she nudged me and showed me the verse. His "explanation" was, word for word, what the NIV said.

[Guest 1sheep]

19 hours ago, Still Alive said:

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.

Well in this case, his assessment lines up with others including myself, that clearly discerned the blasphemous content.

[Still Alive]

44 minutes ago, 1sheep said:

Well in this case, his assessment lines up with others including myself, that clearly discerned the blasphemous content.

Yes, I did agree with him on some points.

[Uber Genius]

Despite the lack of evidence in the OP's complaint, I was compelled to read the Message for myself. What I found was a serious misrepresentation of the nature of the entire book of Ecclesiastes.

OT Introductions highlight the apostate nature of Ecclesiates. Solomon is recorded in 1 Kings 11:4-13 as apostatizing or leaving God and worshiping pagan gods:

"'For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.5. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.6. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.7. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.8. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.9. And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, 10. And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.11. Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.12. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.13. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David My servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.'

 

However Eugene Petersen (author of the message represent Solomons message in Ecclesiates 1:2 to be "Theme: The meaninglessness of human efforts on earth apart from God (1:2)"

 

English Standard Version

Par ▾

All Is Vanity

1The words of the Preacher,^a the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2Vanity^b of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
4A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
5The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens^c to the place where it rises.
6The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
8All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
9What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
10Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
11There is no remembrance of former things,^d
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things^e yet to be
among those who come after.

 

all is vanity vs all is vanity apart from God. 

We will get to Eugene's point by end of the book, he shouldn't have put a verse behind his theme. What seems more important is that we see the wisest man in the world choose to walk away from God and live life as a pagan. It produces great meaninglessness. 

The amazing part is that God inspired the canonizers to include it as a bad example. There does seem to be a happy ending as Solomon appears to repent after encouraging much evil and destruction. But periphrastic translations try to capture meaning in modern vernacular. Formal or verbal equivalent translations like ESV or KJV try and capture something closer to the original language, dynamic equivalent usually modify the sentences to achieve original meaning. So translate at word level and rearrange words so they are grammatically correct in the target language,may English. Dynamic Equivalent NIV, try's to understand a sentence' meaning in Greek and then presents that sentence in the most optimum way for someone to understand in the new target language. Finally periphrastic versions look at paragraph or larger and rewrite them as one might communicate to a child. 

 

Most translations have a team of scholars behind them. But the Message has one interpreter and author. Eugene Peterson is a popular writer from an Evangelical tradition. You get what you pay for in his translation. I have given this to new Christians. But within a few months or a year of becoming a Christian one should be switching to a more literal translation. They should be learning to study, not just read, the Bible. They should be using exegesis to create inductive Bible teachings. Unfortunately in my experience I have only attended one church who taught these things. Most Pastors did these things but didn't encourage their flock to do the same. 

I doubt I will discourage people from reading the Message. But I will always challenge those I disciple to pull up their big-boy pants and wade into exegesis, application, inductive Bible study, systematics, rather than reading.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Uber Genius

[JTC]

1 hour ago, Uber Genius said:

I doubt I will discourage people from reading the Message.

But you must, especially if you see yourself as a teacher about God, or a mature Christian. Don't just discourage them tell them to avoid it especially new believers who don't yet know what The Word actually says. These fine folk can't know error from what is correct when the error looks right. What I mean is, I hope you wouldn't advise someone to study Satan so they'd recognize evil. It seems reasonable on the surface, but by learning about evil and how it works you may, 1. Invite evil into your life and 2. The believer may become persuaded the devils aren't as bad as they are said to be. Next thing that person might do is adopt New Age beliefs that claim to deny Satan but are following a few of his ways. This is already too common. Always shun evil, run from it and never seek to learn the so-called "secret knowledge". There's plenty of evil all around us. The new believer will learn of it just by being alive. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by JTC

[Uber Genius]

4 minutes ago, JTC said:

But you must, especially if you see yourself as a teacher about God, or a mature Christian. Don't just discourage them tell them to avoid it especially new believers who don't yet know what The Word actually says. This fine folk can't know error from what is correct when the error looks right. What I mean is, I hope you wouldn't advise someone to study Satan so they'd recognize evil. It seems reasonable on the surface, but by learning about evil and how it works you may, 1. Invite evil into your life and 2. The believer may become persuaded the devils aren't as bad as they are said to be. Next thing that person might do is adopt New Age beliefs that claim to deny Satan but are following a few of his ways. This is already too common. Always shun evil, run from it and never seek to learn the so-called "secret knowledge". There's plenty of evil all around us. The new believer will learn of it just by being alive. 

So we may differ a little on defining one individual's interpretation as "wrong," While I think that if Eugene Petersen suggested Jesus never claimed to be God, is wrong and a serious error, I don't agree that Eugene has fundamentally misled readers as to the nature or theme of Ecclesiastes being, "The meaninglessness of human efforts apart from God."

You will have to being specific claims, quoting where the Message misrepresents the word of God.

you will have to defend which translation you claim accurately yields the correct meaning. 

No slippery slope fallacies of mistranslation leading to New Age leading to apostasy will be accepted as coherent.

Similarly claims of disagreement within the pale of orthodoxy are not to be labeled as "Evil."

This is an appeal to emotion in order to discount views one finds unacceptable but can't articulate any reasons to justify their position. Let's avoid fallacy.

we know your general claim: The Message is bad due to Ecclesiastes changing the meaning from other translations. 

Now we need justification by providing examples of misrepresentations.

since periphrastic translations translate meaning at the paragraph level or above, as opposed to sentence or word level, you will have to compare apples to apples and demonstrate why The message violates periphrastic translation for like perephrastic translations. 

I have yet to make any conclusion as I have no factual claims of any violations that can be examined.

 

[frienduff thaylorde]

19 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

So we may differ a little on defining one individual's interpretation as "wrong," While I think that if Eugene Petersen suggested Jesus never claimed to be God, is wrong and a serious error, I don't agree that Eugene has fundamentally misled readers as to the nature or theme of Ecclesiastes being, "The meaninglessness of human efforts apart from God."

You will have to being specific claims, quoting where the Message misrepresents the word of God.

you will have to defend which translation you claim accurately yields the correct meaning. 

No slippery slope fallacies of mistranslation leading to New Age leading to apostasy will be accepted as coherent.

Similarly claims of disagreement within the pale of orthodoxy are not to be labeled as "Evil."

This is an appeal to emotion in order to discount views one finds unacceptable but can't articulate any reasons to justify their position. Let's avoid fallacy.

we know your general claim: The Message is bad due to Ecclesiastes changing the meaning from other translations. 

Now we need justification by providing examples of misrepresentations.

since periphrastic translations translate meaning at the paragraph level or above, as opposed to sentence or word level, you will have to compare apples to apples and demonstrate why The message violates periphrastic translation for like perephrastic translations. 

I have yet to make any conclusion as I have no factual claims of any violations that can be examined.

 

Uber .   its high time for folks to get far more serious .

We don't feed to babes or anyone , that which is polluted .     We feed them only the PURE MILK of the word that they may grow .

This book is seriously polluted .    If we have a baby we don't mix its formula with thirty percent poison .   It would kill it .   Well feeding folks what is spiritual poison

it wont help , it will damage and destroy .   

[Uber Genius]

11 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

This book is seriously polluted .    If we have a baby we don't mix its formula with thirty percent poison .   It would kill it .   Well feeding folks what is spiritual poison

 

Yes. I read your initial response and was expecting a litany of evidence against THE MESSAGE's interpretation. Followed by clarion call to believers to eschew logical fallacy as incoherent and manipulative if purposely chosen as a rhetorical strategy. Instead I find a vague reference to the same appeal to emotion. 

 

Please stop arguing in this fashion! I am not persuaded by propaganda since my first class in logic almost 40 years ago. 

 

I am am more than willing to think for myself as well as handle exegetical and hermeneutical tasks at hand. I'm further quite acquainted with the small set of essential doctrines and their entailments. So I would like cogent examples as per my request I am willing to join your camp but not because the masses are shouting epithets at Eugene Petersen! Mob appeals do no more than straw men, or slippery slope arguments, or ad hominems. 

Just the facts please.

[Willa]

On 12/18/2018 at 1:27 PM, GandalfTheWise said:

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. 

  

The problem addressed in this thread is that The Message is not a translation but a paraphrase which departs wildly from any text.  As such it should be considered a commentary rather than a Bible.

[JTC]

Hey Uber, I hate to have to tell you this, but this is not a philosophy class and even though some of us may have learned the rules of logical arguing, those rules are forgotten because there's no use for them in daily life. Even so, you have several false presumptions, such as the reason for my OP. It wasn't a criticism I meant it as a warning to new Bible readers to stay away from the Message.

       ***********************************************

While it's true that in logic the number of people who have a certain opinion doesn't add to nor detract from whether a statement is true or false that logic doesn't apply here. However, familiarity with scripture as well as the person of King Solomon does count. Almost everyone who agreed with me about the worthlessness of The Message are long time Bible readers. Furthermore we know Solomon in more places than just Ecclesiastes. He wrote most of Proverbs, many Psalms, his deeds are recorded in Kings, Chronicles and possibly elsewhere. After years of reading those books you get a feeling for who he was and how he thought. Based on all that, not logic, I know he didn't say what Petersen claims he said. I only listened to parts of Ecclesiastes and that was enough to make me know it's garbage. I turned it off. I suggest you read and compare Petersen's rendering of Ecclesiastes to the NIV, KJV, ESV or most of the others. You're bright enough to see Petersen's errors right away. I'm not going to retype everything I stated 2 pages ago. Especially since I perceive you're looking to practice philosophical arguing not seeking truth. Furthermore, I personally detest arguing.