Translations.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, OneLight said:

The Message is not a translation, pure and simple.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is 

[B-B]

9 hours ago, JimmyB said:

You obviously want to invalidate the translation, not realizing that every translation has words that are questionable.

@JimmyB…do you believe that the message is a translation?

Edited August 17, 2022 by B-B

[JimmyB]

17 hours ago, David1701 said:

What is wrong with what The Message says, is that it is not the same meaning as the original.  It adds things, changes things and omits things.  A paraphrase is supposed to convey the same message as the original, using different words; it is not supposed to make wholesale changes to the meaning.

So you have a perfect interpretation of what the Bible means?  How about sharing with us, starting with the so-called Lord's prayer.

[JimmyB]

12 hours ago, OneLight said:

The Message is not a translation, pure and simple.

Since it is written in English, not ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek, it is a translation into English.  It focuses on the meaning of the text -- the message -- instead of the literal words.

[JimmyB]

8 hours ago, B-B said:

@JimmyB…do you believe that the message is a translation?

See my post immediately above.  Every Bible in the English language is a translation (obviously).

 

Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by JimmyB

[OneLight]

24 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Since it is written in English, not ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek, it is a translation into English.  It focuses on the meaning of the text -- the message -- instead of the literal words.

Words have meaning.  If you change the words in a sentence, you change the meaning of the sentence, loosing the meaning of the original for the acceptance of the rewritten.  The Message is not scripture.  It is a poetic rendering of what the author was thinking.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

[Dennis1209]

To dovetail a bit on what @OneLight said above:

It is God’s inspired Word, not man’s interpretation of it.

Revelation 22:18 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Some translations border on the warning given above.

Since the 19^th century, there has been an explosion of Bible versions and translations. Is it a coincidence this coincides with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution? The Bible has been “evolving” ever since.

Were people too illiterate and lazy to read the handful of accurate Bibles (Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Miles, Matthew’s, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV?) What separates the Bibles mentioned above from translations of the modern era and today? Copyright law sets permission of use and fee on God’s Word.

In other words, the best-selling book of all time was turned into a cash cow beginning in the 19^th century.

As OneLight stated, words have meaning. Each word in the original manuscripts was inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the commoner’s Greek by the Holy Spirit. As we all know, Hebrew & Greek is a much more precise language vs. the English language.

[JimmyB]

5 hours ago, OneLight said:

Words have meaning.  If you change the words in a sentence, you change the meaning of the sentence, loosing the meaning of the original for the acceptance of the rewritten.  The Message is not scripture.  It is a poetic rendering of what the author was thinking.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Of course you're aware that the Bibles that we have are based on a collection of writings in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, none of which contains a single English word.  Therefore, a literal, word-for-word translation is impossible.  There is a spectrum of translation.  The Message is on the figurative end of that spectrum, but it is still a translation.  It is not "a poetic rendering".

If I correct your use of the word "loosing" have I changed your post?

BTW, your quoting 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is quoting a translation of the Greek, so how do I know it is what the original actually says?  Hint: I don't, and neither do you.

And of course you realize that the quote is a) out of context and b) there were no verses or chapters in the original documents.  There wasn't even punctuation!  So while you think that you're actually quoting Scripture, you're not!

Eugene H. Peterson created an extremely readable version of the Bible.  It's actually quite an excellent read; you should try it!

Edited August 17, 2022 by JimmyB

[JimmyB]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

To dovetail a bit on what @OneLight said above:

It is God’s inspired Word, not man’s interpretation of it.

Revelation 22:18 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Some translations border on the warning given above.

Since the 19^th century, there has been an explosion of Bible versions and translations. Is it a coincidence this coincides with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution? The Bible has been “evolving” ever since.

Were people too illiterate and lazy to read the handful of accurate Bibles (Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Miles, Matthew’s, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV?) What separates the Bibles mentioned above from translations of the modern era and today? Copyright law sets permission of use and fee on God’s Word.

In other words, the best-selling book of all time was turned into a cash cow beginning in the 19^th century.

As OneLight stated, words have meaning. Each word in the original manuscripts was inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the commoner’s Greek by the Holy Spirit. As we all know, Hebrew & Greek is a much more precise language vs. the English language.

The development of "modern" translations more closely coincides with the development of the automobile, so your comparison with Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (1859) is silly.  What is also silly is saying that the Bible has been “evolving” ever since.  

It's even more ridiculous to say that people were too illiterate and lazy to read the handful of accurate Bibles (Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Miles, Matthew’s, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV?) What makes you think that those old translations were "accurate"?  They were developed using the best available source documents and used the art/science of translation of the time, but both have improved.  There are many more source documents available in modern times and the art/science of Bible translation is far better than it was centuries ago.

I have read the "copyright" theory before, and it is nonsense.  FYI, the King James is copyrighted; the copyright is owned by the British Crown.  There is also extensive permission given to quote from modern translations.  Your statement that "Copyright law sets permission of use and fee on God’s Word" is a distortion of the truth.  What is not permitted is extensive reproduction of a given translation without attributing the proper ownership of that translation.

Since your mind is closed to the truth about Bible translations I won't discuss this further with you.

[David1701]

On 8/16/2022 at 9:51 PM, JimmyB said:

There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation.  All translations add things, change things and omit things.  The Message is meant to convey -> the message <- and I think it does that quite well.

It's simply your (unqualified) opinion that The Message makes wholesale changes to the meaning.  I disagree.

BTW, have you even read The Message?

I was not referring to the alterations necessary to make an English translation make sense, and be in good English.  All translations do this, except interlinears.

Even in the passage I quoted (the Lord's prayer), The Message makes several changes to the meaning, including using a phrase from the occult ("as above, so below").

I've read bits of The Message; but, there is absolutely no chance that I will read all of it!  Many of the bits I have read are barely recognisable as being the Bible at all (and I have several translations, of different styles).