Translations.

[B-B]

23 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

The Message is a paraphrase, but it is well-written

I’m afraid I don’t agree….

[Jayne]

39 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

The Message is a paraphrase, but it is well-written and a good way for those new to Christianity to understand the Bible in their terms.  I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't a newcomer. 

Hi, brother...

A newcomer needs to know what God said - precisely what God said.  You can't get that with the Message.

The Message is a very bad paraphrase.  Eugene Paterson, who I think meant well, leaves out very important teachings and then adds his own.

I would  give a newcomer to Christianity or someone seeking answers or someone whose reading level is weak an NIV, ESV, NLT, or NKJV.

I would never given anyone a copy of the Message as the words, meanings, ideas, and teachings of God are changed.

[JimmyB]

37 minutes ago, Alive said:

I do not agree. A new convert needs to be properly discipled and the word og God properly translated is the best tool.

I am speaking from personal experience.  Before I became a Christian, I was an atheist. I read "The Living Bible" so I could argue with a pastor who came to our home.  God can use whatever translation He wants to communicate His truths.

"Properly discipled" has the ring of legalism.

[Jayne]

Just now, JimmyB said:

I am speaking from personal experience.  Before I became a Christian, I was an atheist. I read "The Living Bible" so I could argue with a pastor who came to our home.  God can use whatever translation He wants to communicate His truths.

"Properly discipled" has the ring of legalism.

That's just it.  The Message is not a translation.  It's a paraphrase and a very bad one.

"Properly discipled" is a concept that Jesus Christ taught.  He said that we are to make disciples of people of all nations.

You can only do that with the actual words of God.   

And there is a small variety of GOOD translations that are actually translarions.

[JimmyB]

1 minute ago, Jayne said:

Hi, brother...

A newcomer needs to know what God said - precisely what God said.  You can't get that with the Message.

The Message is a very bad paraphrase.  Eugene Paterson, who I think meant well, leaves out very important teachings and then adds his own.

I would  give a newcomer to Christianity or someone seeking answers or someone whose reading level is weak an NIV, ESV, NLT, or NKJV.

I would never given anyone a copy of the Message as the words, meanings, ideas, and teachings of God are changed.

"Precisely what God said" is meaningless.  Translations are just that: translations (from three ancient languages into English).  No translation is perfect.

I disagree with "The Message is a very bad paraphrase.  Eugene Paterson, who I think meant well, leaves out very important teachings and then adds his own."

[JimmyB]

2 minutes ago, Jayne said:

That's just it.  The Message is not a translation.  It's a paraphrase and a very bad one.

"Properly discipled" is a concept that Jesus Christ taught.  He said that we are to make disciples of people of all nations.

You can only do that with the actual words of God.   

And there is a small variety of GOOD translations that are actually translarions.

Conflating Jesus saying that we are to make disciples of all people and claiming that only certain translations are acceptable is wrong.

=> We don't have "the actual words of God" <=  We have translations into English from early manuscripts (and other relevant sources).  They all share a common purpose: communicating God's message to people in language that they can understand.  God can use whatever means He chooses to communicate His truths.  In printed form, that goes from the most literal (and least understandable) to a paraphrase.  God is not limited by which version of the Bible is being read.

[Alive]

I just researched the message. Itis atbest one man's commentary and a bad oneatthat.

A comparison ofverses confirms this. Their can be no reasonable debate on this.

[Jayne]

13 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Conflating Jesus saying that we are to make disciples of all people and claiming that only certain translations are acceptable is wrong.

=> We don't have "the actual words of God" <=  We have translations into English from early manuscripts (and other relevant sources).  They all share a common purpose: communicating God's message to people in language that they can understand.  God can use whatever means He chooses to communicate His truths.  In printed form, that goes from the most literal (and least understandable) to a paraphrase.  God is not limited by which version of the Bible is being read.

Yes, but I repeat again, if the paraphrase is BAD, the teaching and learning is bad.

As for paraphrases, I like the New Living Bible. 

 

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

I can tell you that a " right"  translation is one that identifies as close to the autographs as possible. If a translator has not the Holy Spirit guiding them and/ or their intentions are evil,you will come up with a translation that is weak in power at the very least and corrupt or misleading in false teaching at worst.

Remember Satan will do anything to turn people away from the truth.... what would be the most influential or direct way? That's why true believers gravitate towards a powerful translation ( such as) the KJV. 

I find that second paragraph interesting, as many evangelicals often bristle with the concept of "tradition", I assume mainly from the context of the RCC. Yet here tradition is venerated.

The implication that KJV adherents are "true believers" is also noted. 

[teddyv]

9 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Yes, but I repeat again, if the paraphrase is BAD, the teaching and learning is bad.

As for paraphrases, I like the New Living Bible. 

 

I've heard lots of sermons over the years where pastors may quote from The Message but never as a standalone source. Peterson, in places, does make interesting commentary and language regarding certain verses. 

Most pastors learn Greek and Hebrew in seminary and should be in a position to make good judgment in the application of any paraphrase and should be well aware of the difference between translations and paraphrases.

I would agree that anyone formulating doctrine based on The Message would have some serious issues. But is this even an issue?