Translations.

[David1701]

6 hours ago, JimmyB said:

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

You don't need to have a "perfect interpretation", to know an abysmal interpretation, when you see one.  The Message is just that.

[OneLight]

2 hours ago, JimmyB said:

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!

There is a gap larger than I can imagine between a translation of true scripture into English, when done word for word, than the poetic rambling of The Message.  I do return to the translated manuscripts from Hebrew and Greek as much as possible when I find a question on clarity.  The Message is so far off that it becomes impossible  to see any resemblance.  I've been doing research on The Message since early 2000 when it was first written and showing up in churches, so I am not new to any of this. 

How much research have you done on the subject?

About 2 Timothy 4:3-4 ... here is what I study from while using other translations when posting for the readers ease of reading.

shall-be for era when the being-sound teaching not they-shall-be-tolerating but according-to the own desires to-themselves they-shall-be-heaping-up teachers being-tricked the hearing and from indeed the truth the hearing they-shall-be-turning-away on yet the myths they-shall-be-turning-aside.

The Message is not a reliable version of true scripture.  You want to go down that rabbit hole with him, that is your business.  I will refute what you call scripture (The Message) as long as I am alive as it is a poetic rendition derived from his train of thought, not scripture.

 

[JimmyB]

12 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You don't need to have a "perfect interpretation", to know an abysmal interpretation, when you see one.  The Message is just that.

That is simply your opinion.  Nothing more.

[David1701]

13 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

That is simply your opinion.  Nothing more.

John 1:1,2 (The Message)

The Word was first,
    the Word present to God,
    God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
    in readiness for God from day one.

John 1:1,2 (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

I've used the KJV, but I could have used almost any Evangelical translation, because they are all vastly better than the Message.

1) "The Word was first" has a different meaning from "In the beginning was the Word.".  Why did Peterson change the meaning here?  Who knows, but it's wrong.

2) "the Word present to God, God present to the Word" does not mean anything.  It is garbled nonsense.  "the Word was with God"  is much, much clearer.

3) " in readiness for God from day one" is more nonsense. "The same was in the beginning with God." is clear and simple.

This is the kind of rubbish that is present throughout The Message.  Any born again Christian should be able to discern that it is not a sound paraphrase.

[JimmyB]

31 minutes ago, David1701 said:

John 1:1,2 (The Message)

The Word was first,
    the Word present to God,
    God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
    in readiness for God from day one.

John 1:1,2 (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

I've used the KJV, but I could have used almost any Evangelical translation, because they are all vastly better than the Message.

1) "The Word was first" has a different meaning from "In the beginning was the Word.".  Why did Peterson change the meaning here?  Who knows, but it's wrong.

2) "the Word present to God, God present to the Word" does not mean anything.  It is garbled nonsense.  "the Word was with God"  is much, much clearer.

3) " in readiness for God from day one" is more nonsense. "The same was in the beginning with God." is clear and simple.

This is the kind of rubbish that is present throughout The Message.  Any born again Christian should be able to discern that it is not a sound paraphrase.

All this shows me is that you don't understand Scripture, in this case what John wrote.  "The Word was first" has a clear meaning; "In the beginning was the Word does not."  One would have to be familiar with Genesis 1 to discern what John was referring to; Peterson was stating the principle clearly without requiring special knowledge. 

Most people wouldn't understand "the Word was with God and the Word was God". (You left out the second part) They would think: how can He be with someone and also be that person?  Peterson saying that God and the Word were "present" to each other is clearer, although not by much. It's a difficult concept.

And you actually think that "The same was in the beginning with God." is clear?  How can someone unfamiliar with the concept of the Son figure out how anyone can be with someone and be that person?  For example, they might think: I am with my wife, but I am not my wife.  How is that possible?  "The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." is clearer.

It's obvious that you deliberately chose verses that are very difficult to understand, even for Christians, to show the supposed weakness of The Message.  Judging by your nearly-incomprehensible translation of 2 Timothy, you obviously don't understand that Scripture is meant to be understood.  That was Peterson's goal and, IMHO, he did a pretty good job (better than you).  People that are new to the faith need something comprehensible.  They can always graduate to more difficult translations after a while, but I wouldn't hesitate to give a person trying to learn about Christianity a copy of "The Message".  At least they would be able to understand the basic principles, more easily than translations for the mature Christian.

Here is a brief summary of my early days in the faith.  I read "The Living Bible" in order to discuss Christianity with a visiting pastor.  I learned a lot from that translation!  When I became a Christian, the pastor insisted that the only valid translation was the King James.  I read it and struggled with the weird wording and strange meanings (which of course she interpreted for me).  Then I discovered the NIV and "my eyes were opened".  Each translation has value.  It's too bad that you can't see that!

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by JimmyB

[OneLight]

22 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Taking things from back to front...

Your self-righteous attitude makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion.  I really have no interest in what you call scripture.

Exposing false teaching and false scripture is not an act of self-righteousness.  The Message is not a translation of scripture and that is the truth.  Exposing a lie with truth is what needs to be done more often, not less often by allowing people to come here claiming a lie as the truth.

22 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

The previous paragraph is the most absurd rendering of Scripture that I have read in a long time.  You're clearly deluding yourself about "ease of reading".  No wonder you don't like the Message: it makes sense and you don't.

It is obvious that you do not know true scripture when you see it - word for word translation - as you hold to the Message as if it were true.

22 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

 

Even though it's out of context -- it's in the middle of a paragraph in most modern translations -- here is a very good translation of those verses: "For there will be a time when people will not tolerate sound teaching. Instead, following their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves, because they have an insatiable curiosity to hear new things. And they will turn away from hearing the truth, but on the other hand they will turn aside to myths." (NET Bible) 

 

Here is your "ease of reading(!) version: "shall-be for era when the being-sound teaching not they-shall-be-tolerating but according-to the own desires to-themselves they-shall-be-heaping-up teachers being-tricked the hearing and from indeed the truth the hearing they-shall-be-turning-away on yet the myths they-shall-be-turning-aside." (Difficult to read, with the meaning obscured)

I guess you did not read what I posted clear enough if you consider what I posted as ease of reading.  No wonder you like the Message. 

22 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

And from "The Message":  You’re going to find that there will be times when people will have no stomach for solid teaching, but will fill up on spiritual junk food—catchy opinions that tickle their fancy. They’ll turn their backs on truth and chase mirages." (Easily clearer and more understandable than your gobbledygook).

Yup, and you are proof of his teachings as you are filling yourself up with spiritual junk food.  It's called a lie for a reason.

[David1701]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

All this shows me is that you don't understand Scripture, in this case what John wrote.  "The Word was first" has a clear meaning; "In the beginning was the Word does not."  One would have to be familiar with Genesis 1 to discern what John was referring to; Peterson was stating the principle clearly without requiring special knowledge. 

Most people wouldn't understand "the Word was with God and the Word was God". (You left out the second part) They would think: how can He be with someone and also be that person?  Peterson saying that God and the Word were "present" to each other is clearer, although not by much. It's a difficult concept.

And you actually think that "The same was in the beginning with God." is clear?  How can someone unfamiliar with the concept of the Son figure out how anyone can be with someone and be that person?  For example, they might think: I am with my wife, but I am not my wife.  How is that possible?  "The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." is clearer.

It's obvious that you deliberately chose verses that are very difficult to understand, even for Christians, to show the supposed weakness of The Message.  Judging by your nearly-incomprehensible translation of 2 Timothy, you obviously don't understand that Scripture is meant to be understood.  That was Peterson's goal and, IMHO, he did a pretty good job (better than you).  People that are new to the faith need something comprehensible.  They can always graduate to more difficult translations after a while, but I wouldn't hesitate to give a person trying to learn about Christianity a copy of "The Message".  At least they would be able to understand the basic principles, more easily than translations for the mature Christian.

Here is a brief summary of my early days in the faith.  I read "The Living Bible" in order to discuss Christianity with a visiting pastor.  I learned a lot from that translation!  When I became a Christian, the pastor insisted that the only valid translation was the King James.  I read it and struggled with the weird wording and strange meanings (which of course she interpreted for me).  Then I discovered the NIV and "my eyes were opened".  Each translation has value.  It's too bad that you can't see that!

 

 

Good grief! 

I didn't give any translation of 2 Tim.!

The Living Bible is terrible, but at least it's better than The Message.

Never mind...

Edited August 17, 2022 by David1701

[JimmyB]

35 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Good grief! 

I didn't give any translation of 2 Tim.!

The Living Bible is terrible, but at least it's better than The Message.

Never mind...

You didn't write this..?

About 2 Timothy 4:3-4 ... here is what I study from while using other translations when posting for the readers ease of reading.

shall-be for era when the being-sound teaching not they-shall-be-tolerating but according-to the own desires to-themselves they-shall-be-heaping-up teachers being-tricked the hearing and from indeed the truth the hearing they-shall-be-turning-away on yet the myths they-shall-be-turning-aside.

 

page #29, near the top

Edited August 18, 2022 by JimmyB

[Dennis1209]

6 hours ago, JimmyB said:

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.

Thank you

[David1701]

18 hours ago, JimmyB said:

You didn't write this..?

About 2 Timothy 4:3-4 ... here is what I study from while using other translations when posting for the readers ease of reading.

shall-be for era when the being-sound teaching not they-shall-be-tolerating but according-to the own desires to-themselves they-shall-be-heaping-up teachers being-tricked the hearing and from indeed the truth the hearing they-shall-be-turning-away on yet the myths they-shall-be-turning-aside.

 

page #29, near the top

That is correct.  I did not write that.  OneLight wrote it.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/275652-translations/?do=findComment&comment=3547098