The Message Bible

[ayin jade]

Ok, I dont want this to turn into a KJV only thread. So please dont go there. Nor am I trying to tear apart this bible. I found an interpretational difficulty in it and I am curious how others feel about this bible.

A friend brought up a verse about Adam not being deceived but Eve was, and the reference to it in the New Testament. The Message Bible was mentioned and out of curiousity I looked up the verse there. Please note how it changes the meaning of the passage compared to other versions. All other versions (even the most loosely translated modern ones) make it plain that Adam was not deceived. The Message bible infers that Adam was deceived.

Question. Do you use the Message bible? If you use it, do you use it to study by? What do you do to make sure you are getting the right interpretation from it given the error in it that I found?

1 Timothy 2:13-14

Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first

[MrLuke]

Yes I use the Message Bible, but not for study just my own personal reading of scripture in what I think can be a more easily read way compared to some. I just think it flows better for reading, especially in the more story centered books (Gospels, Acts etc) and I trust it since it is translated from the original texts and not from another English translation.

But as for the verses you quoted, I think it means more that Adam wasn't decieved in the same way Eve was - Eve actually went against God's rule directly, not Adam. I think the Good News version shows that quite well:

" And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. "

As for the Message translation:

"...woman was deceived first

[Leonard]

The passage is quite an odd one. From what little of the Greek I can use these days it appears that the point IS Eve was deceived, not Adam. Which means Adam was in deliberate, bald-faced REBELLION, whereas Eve was just tricked.

To my little human reasoning, it would seem if God was going to choose either the gullible or the rebellious for leadership in the Church, He ought to take the more innocent gullible...BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO! God takes the rebel! It is quite an odd passage indeed.

Hence in the Message Bible the passage loses most of its ironic 'punch'!

[Guest Cephas]

It would be my take on it that Eve was deceived by Satan and then led Adam astray, which is why Paul states that women aren't to be in authority over men (at least in these passages-other places he allows it-as does God in other books and places) Paul is using the fact that Eve got deceived and then used her influence (and misunderstanding) to lead her husband astray

[Floatingaxe]

It would be my take on it that Eve was deceived by Satan and then led Adam astray, which is why Paul states that women aren't to be in authority over men (at least in these passages-other places he allows it-as does God in other books and places) Paul is using the fact that Eve got deceived and then used her influence (and misunderstanding) to lead her husband astray

Her influence? Adam was right there during that whole exchange! He needed no influencing. He sinned by being purely disobedient. Let's not get into the debate about women in authority in the church here, please.

[billie]

Yes, the wording of many translations suggests that Eve didn't have to go anywhere to give Adam the apple. She ate, gave it to him, and he ate. It does seem like he was right there.

[MrLuke]

Just imagine what the world would be like if only Eve had ate the fruit and Adam had refused!

[Guest LadyC]

i also use the message bible, but not for studying. i usually compare what i read in the message immediately with the NIV and the KJV on scriptures that i'm not soundly familiar with, so that i am not gaining an incorrect understanding of what is being said.

cephas, you seem to have misunderstood the passage regarding a woman having authority over a man. the passage is talking about our sexual responsibility in a marriage, and talks about how in this area, men and women are equal, and each have a responsibility towards the intimate needs of our spouse to help prevent the spouse from falling into sexual sin.

[Naziyr]

Adam wasn't right there when Eve did it. Just because point A and point C are joined without point B, doesn't mean that nothing happened between A and C. Traditional thinking on this, is that Adam would not have allowed Eve to take the fruit if he was sitting nearby. Adam knew fully, the Commandment (as it had been given to him directly from G-d), and would have helped his wife not submit to the snake's teaching. But he wasn't there.

There's no evidence to support this. Being that Genesis starts off in summary form, it's easy to see this is summary of what happened.

Shalom

[carrielles]

Just imagine what the world would be like if only Eve had ate the fruit and Adam had refused!

I think then only eve would have been cast out and Adam taken to heaven like Elijah. Then God would have a made a new man for the purposes He had already laid out before the foundations were formed.

This is all speculation of course. But it would make a good story. No - then some idiot might believe the story and then make a whole new bible and religion. Cant have that nevermind.....