Translations.

[Ani Tefillah]

Personally, because of all the translations during the years, I believe that much of the SALT is watered out, which I don't think is good for me. 

[JimmyB]

24 minutes ago, Alive said:

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.

Now I don't want this to be disrespectful, but...

Judging by your post, your command of English is not too good.

a) the message is "The Message", a book title.

b) " Itis atbest one man's commentary and a bad oneatthat." is poorly written.

c) Ditto for "A comparison ofverses confirms this."

d) "Their can be no reasonable debate on this." is 1) poor English and 2) confrontational.

We are discussing the communication of God's word via various translations.  You seem to be quite judgmental about a paraphrase, yet your own writing is careless.  If language is important at all it should be important in what we read and write.

[Alive]

Lighten up, Francis.

:-)

[Jayne]

7 minutes ago, teddyv said:

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

Yes, I think it is somewhat of an issue.

I bought a hardback copy of the Message when it first came out.  I was going  to use it as my primary Biblefor that particular year.

There were too many alterations of words and phrases that either added to or deleted the literal message of the Bible for my taste.  To me, it's the mind of Peterson, not the words of God.

I'm not going to go around burning these books.  Just suggesting that people use something else.

 

[JimmyB]

Here is a brief history of the translations that I have used, along with some commentary...

Before I became a Christian in 1977, a pastor used to come to our home and read from the King James Bible to teach us about Christianity.  I couldn't get used to the strange language so I bought a copy of The Living Bible, which I read and understood. I was ready to debate whenever she came!

I was miraculously healed in the hospital by Jesus -- He broke an "unbreakable" asthma spasm -- and we began to attend her church.  Everyone used THE BIBLE, a.k.a. the King James translation, so I bought one (which I still have), and struggled to understand the strange language. (I have a Master's degree and am in the top 1% of general intelligence.) Of course I was helped by the oft-repeated "now what this means is" -- re-translation "on the fly".  We were "discipled" by teachings such as "a woman who wears men's clothing is an abomination to God" (when my wife wore pants to a Bible study), which taught me all about fundamentalism and legalism extracted from the King James Bible.

Right around that time the NIV was published.  I bought one (which I still have) and my Spirit soared!!!  Finally, I could read God's words in my own language!  I learned about the truth in Christ as the Holy Spirit guided me.  Following God's leading, we enrolled in a year-long Bible class, where I learned about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and my Spirit soared even higher!!!

I have been a serious, devoted Christian since that time -- 1977 -- and own a bunch of Bibles.  I primarily read the NET, the NIV, and the NRSV, and occasionally read the 1599 Geneva Bible (to understand the theology of the time).  The Spirit within me has been my constant teacher my whole Christian life, including the time I served as a deacon in my non-denominational church.

If you have read the above, you can understand why I am negatively affected by KJV people and their insistence that it is the only valid translation, giving them the right to force their idea of "discipleship" on others.  I believe that God can (and does) use whatever version of the Bible (including paraphrases such as The Message) to communicate His words, using the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, as well as loving people who communicate His truth.

[JimmyB]

On 2/17/2022 at 6:37 AM, MonicaWife said:

I have another question for you. 

What is the oldest Bible (or New Testament with the Psalms) that you have in paper books? Any language. 

My oldest New Testament with the Psalms, is from 1936. It is a Norwegian one, in what we call "nynorsk" which actually means "new Norwegian", but I would call it "old Norwegian", as the language is not the same as we use today. 😊 

 

I have a New Testament dated 1865.  It was a soldier's Bible from the Civil war era.

[Marathoner]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

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. 

That's part and parcel of the "KJV Only" crowd. 

[teddyv]

10 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

That's part and parcel of the "KJV Only" crowd. 

Oh, yeah, I'm well aware of that. I did not want to assume that the poster was necessarily KJV-only and perhaps used poor word-choice. I don't have a problem if that is a favourite or preferred version.

If it's a test of a "true believer" then I'm certainly not in that group.

Edited June 12, 2022 by teddyv
grammar

[Ani Tefillah]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

I have a New Testament dated 1865.  It was a soldier's Bible from the Civil war era.

Really? That's neat! I used to have a NT with the Psalms from 18th century, and it was written in kind of Gothic letters, but I could understand much of it. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by MonicaWife
Added

[Marathoner]

Seeing as how the scriptures testify of Jesus Christ, any translation which is true to this testimony is acceptable. We all have our preferences regarding what we value in a translation, and I prefer a translation which includes cross references to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint in the footnotes, which means the NASB is my favorite.

I have no issues with reading and understanding the KJV but again, I value footnotes which were removed during previous revisions of that translation. My first print bible was a King James bible and it is more than adequate to the task. I'm not inclined to split hairs and swallow gnats in pursuit of that most excellent translation, knowing that most are works of skill and care.

I've never read paraphrased renditions so I won't comment on those.