answering the claim we don't need teachers

[Michael37]

6 hours ago, Daniel Marsh said:

1 John 2:26-27 The Passion Translation (TPT)
26 I’ve written these things about those who are attempting to lead you astray. 27 But the wonderful anointing you have received from God[a] is so much greater than their deception and now lives in you. There’s no need for anyone to keep teaching you. His anointing teaches you all that you need to know, for it will lead you into truth, not a counterfeit. So just as the anointing has taught you, remain in him

1 John 2:26-27 The Message (MSG)
26-27 I’ve written to warn you about those who are trying to deceive you. But they’re no match for what is embedded deeply within you—Christ’s anointing, no less! You don’t need any of their so-called teaching. Christ’s anointing teaches you the truth on everything you need to know about yourself and him, uncontaminated by a single lie. Live deeply in what you were taught.

The context of the text is a specific situation related to discernment,  not direct teaching of doctrine like Paul claimed he got.

In short, Paul's claim is that he was taught doctrine directly by Christ and only consulted with Peter and the others 14 years later.

Yikes, you think The Message and the Passion are worthy of respect. We call them "heresy versions".

[missmuffet]

This world does needs godly teachers to teach the true Word of God. But they have to preach the truth. No false teaching. 

[Daniel Marsh]

8 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Yikes, you think The Message and the Passion are worthy of respect. We call them "heresy versions".

I see them as paraphrases.    Please start a thread on them,  I like to see the evidence.   thanks, daniel

6 hours ago, missmuffet said:

This world does needs godly teachers to teach the true Word of God. But they have to preach the truth. No false teaching. 

Amen

[Daniel Marsh]

Most unfriendly critical review of the Message I could find is below.    When one treats it for what is,  A Pastor trying to reach people who are bored with translations like the KJV, it is well worth using.

"

Peterson's purpose in this is to present something new and provocative at every turn, something vivid and unusual, in order to stir up the dull minds of people who have become bored with their familiar Bibles.

His method is comparable to that of a preacher in the pulpit, who dwells on one thing for a while and then rushes over another, alternatingly serious and jocular, doing whatever he can to maintain the attention of his audience. The version incorporates a number of interesting but peculiar interpretations that can only be described as homiletic:

Literal translation	The Message
Matthew 1:22. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet	This would bring the prophet's embryonic sermon to full term
Matthew 5:13. You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.	Let me tell you why you are here. You're here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You've lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage.
John 3:5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.	Unless a person submits to this original creation—the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life—it's not possible to enter God's kingdom.

Such 'homiletic' elements of the version are sprinkled here and there on a translation which is for the most part extremely colloquial. Long and formal-sounding sentences in the original are often simply replaced with punchy phrases: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you" is replaced with a jovial "Enjoy the best of Jesus!" Many renderings can only be described as facetious: John 1:14 "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" becomes "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood." The language is spiced up with slangy and amusing idioms: 2 Corinthians 4:17 "These hard times are small potatoes compared to the coming good times." In Acts 13:6 "crooked as a corkscrew" is used instead of the simple adjective "false."

Often the version portrays things in a more colorful way than the original, and it sometimes takes on a cartoonish quality. For example, in James 4:7 instead of "resist the Devil and he will flee from you" we have "Yell a loud no to the Devil and watch him scamper." This is intended to make us chuckle. In Acts 12:16 according to The Message the disciples were not only "amazed" when they saw Peter, they "went wild," which suggests an amusing scene of commotion that is not indicated in the original text. (At least they didn't go bananas!) Many renderings inject the same kind of breezy slang that provoked Alexander Tytler to ask, "What must we think of the translator, who makes the solemn and sententious Tacitus express himself in the low cant of the streets, or in the dialect of the waiters of a tavern?" ⁽²⁾

A psychologizing tendency is evident in several places. In Luke 2:34-35 Simeon prophesies that Christ will be "spoken against" or opposed, and that by this opposition "the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." Peterson analyzes these thoughts, and says that Christ will be a "misunderstood" figure, whose rejection will "force honesty" upon the opposers. Yet the Bible's own "psychology"—as reflected in its use of the word psyche (soul)—is muted in the version. For example, in Acts 14:22 instead of "strengthening the souls of the disciples" Peterson gives a bodily metaphor: "putting muscle and sinew in the lives of the disciples." In John 12:27 he eliminates Jesus' reference to his own soul. Instead of "Now is my soul troubled" we read "Right now I am storm-tossed." In a similar manner he avoids using the word "spirit" (pneuma), as in John 13:21, where the Greek says that Jesus was "troubled in his spirit (pneuma)" but Peterson says "visibly upset." In Luke 23:46 he writes "Father, I place my life in your hands" instead of "into your hands I commit my spirit." When Stephen is martyred in Acts 7:59 Peterson makes him cry "Master Jesus, take my life" instead of "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." The avoidance of the words "soul" and "spirit" in the version appears to be deliberate and systematic. ⁽³⁾ The same thing is done with the Hebrew word ruach "spirit" in the Old Testament. In Psalm 51:10 where it says "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit (ruach) within me" Peterson gives a very fanciful rendering—"God, make a fresh start in me, shape a Genesis week from the chaos of my life." Here Peterson plays with a concept suggested by the word bara "create" in the verse (same word as in Genesis 1:1), and his rendering may be appreciated as an interesting homiletic development, but it cannot be taken seriously as a translation of the Hebrew.

Sometimes Peterson obscures the main point of a passage by distracting attention from it with a homiletic flourish, as in Romans 9:27-28. Here the apostle Paul is dealing with the question of why the Church has so few Jews in it, and so he quotes Isaiah's prophecy concerning the relatively small remnant that will remain after God has dealt with them in judgment."   http://www.bible-researcher.com/themessage.html

The Paraphaser himself says, "“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.'”"

Being Presbyterian USA I keep an eye out for liberalism in the popular culture of today.   Or that he is part of the PC Police.

But,  I can not think of any of their prooftexts at this time.  

 

Everyone is encouraged to post any of those liberal translated proof texts from the Message and RSV for contrast.

 

On the Passion, we learn:

"This version is referred to as a “single-person translation.” It is principally the work of Brian Simmons, a former missionary and linguist. He began his Biblical studies with the New Tribes Bible Institute, subsequently serving as a missionary with New Tribes Mission in Central America. He co-translated the Paya-Kuna New Testament for the Paya-Kuna people of Panama."   http://www.larryoverton.com/a-critique-of-the-passion-translation/

Being filmar with the theories of paraphrase the author uses,  I see no major problem at this time using it for devotion.

An example that has me a little concerned is, 

"This example comes from the promotional website. In Gal 2:19, hina theō zēsō, which simply means “that I might live for God”, has been “translated” as “so that I can live for God in heaven’s freedom”. "   The underlined is not in the Greek texts that I know of. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Daniel Marsh]

At this point I see both as OK for devotional for knowledgable Christians.   Who know the Bible and what it says.   Both give one pause to think about the text to see how they came up with what they did.   I only quoted them where I knew from old translations and manuscripts were right.   Those did a better way of bringing out the Sentence I was highlighting.