The Message Bible

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by crakjak

In context none of the above is problematic. Which part do you have a problem with?

However, this thread was about the "Message" not "The Shack".

Hand in hand as many have pointed out on the liberal agenda in both. If you want to say "context" then I have nothing else to say because the mentality portrayed is very clear and is heretical!

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

It's not a TRANSLATION! It's a personal opinion piece with added meaning per his theology. "The Shack" is about as heretical as it gets with it's antinomian doctrine and Universalism slant.

REVELATION.... ROFL yeah uh huh!

Of course it's a translation. On the continuum of literal word-for-word, and thought-for-thought, it obviously swings wide to the thought-for-thought field. The Message uses the same scholarship for interpretation, but rather than approach the text in a literal way, the intent of The Message was to capture "the message," that thought, convey the bottom-line on the passages in a context that makes sense to today's audience. No one I know claims The Message as an exclusive translation of the Bible. The exegesis EP does with TM is wonderful -- despite an occassional disagreement about how the passage should be read.

Anyone who has spent time in Exegetical Commentaries recognizes the refreshing flow of The Message. EP does a wonderful job.

To say it's "personal opinion" is quite misleading.

[TheLegalist]

http://www.seekgod.ca/drpeterson.htm

refreshing??? OK that makes me laugh!

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Of course it's a translation. On the continuum of literal word-for-word, and thought-for-thought, it obviously swings wide to the thought-for-thought field. The Message uses the same scholarship for interpretation, but rather than approach the text in a literal way, the intent of The Message was to capture "the message," that thought, convey the bottom-line on the passages in a context that makes sense to today's audience. No one I know claims The Message as an exclusive translation of the Bible. The exegesis EP does with TM is wonderful -- despite an occassional disagreement about how the passage should be read.

Anyone who has spent time in Exegetical Commentaries recognizes the refreshing flow of The Message. EP does a wonderful job.

To say it's "personal opinion" is quite misleading.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

http://www.seekgod.ca/drpeterson.htm

refreshing??? OK that makes me laugh!

Yes, refreshing. More than once, have I read a verse into The Message that accentuated the emotion and relevance in a passage that included things so far removed from my present reality. Refreshing for sure.

Your link is from an advocacy group, whose soul purpose is anti-ecumenicalism. I have no problem with it. Let them poke and prod into Peterson's qualifications. I can tell you, there are many scholars who use his remarkable work, that many refer to as a bridge between a translation and a paraphrase (intellgent paraphrase it is called).

Way to Google search criticisms of The Message though (seekinggod was the first group that popped up). At the end of the day, they only have questions. No concrete info. Similar to our thread about DKB and LS.

Peterson, prior to the message, authored almost 30 booksseveral of which were Gold Medallion winners. One of them A Long Obedience in the Same Direction is an award-winning book on Biblical interpretation.

From Wikipedia, Peterson's own reasoning behind his 9-year project:
While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become 'old hat.'[1]

His handling of many verses is up to par of some of the greatest exegetes (many of whom he referenced), yet his gift with bringing a meaningful, timeless message into the present is to be commended.

No one has suggested on this thread that The Message should be used as a Bible Study tool.

So anyhow, still not sure why "refreshing" caused you to cackle so loudly.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Yes, refreshing. More than once, have I read a verse into The Message that accentuated the emotion and relevance in a passage that included things so far removed from my present reality. Refreshing for sure.

Your link is from an advocacy group, whose soul purpose is anti-ecumenicalism. I have no problem with it. Let them poke and prod into Peterson's qualifications. I can tell you, there are many scholars who use his remarkable work, that many refer to as a bridge between a translation and a paraphrase (intellgent paraphrase it is called).

Way to Google search criticisms of The Message though (seekinggod was the first group that popped up). At the end of the day, they only have questions. No concrete info. Similar to our thread about DKB and LS.

Peterson, prior to the message, authored almost 30 booksseveral of which were Gold Medallion winners. One of them A Long Obedience in the Same Direction is an award-winning book on Biblical interpretation.

From Wikipedia, Peterson's own reasoning behind his 9-year project:
While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become 'old hat.'[1]

His handling of many verses is up to par of some of the greatest exegetes (many of whom he referenced), yet his gift with bringing a meaningful, timeless message into the present is to be commended.

No one has suggested on this thread that The Message should be used as a Bible Study tool.

So anyhow, still not sure why "refreshing" caused you to cackle so loudly.

http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html

He has a agenda...

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html

He has a agenda...

TL, first, that doesn't change how refreshing his translation/paraphrase is. Second, your link proves nothing. You are Googling as many critiques as you can about The Message and dropping them off. I can do the same for any other translation. Take up the issue case-by-case. The link you sent sounds like paranoid fanatics to be honest. Very much creepy conspiracy clowns. It was also written in 1993. Here's a 2005 interview from Peterson that more accurately shows his "agenda":

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...rch/26.42.html

Peterson doesn't even encourage churches to read The Message in lieu of another translation at times of official gatherings. In fact, he is quoted as saying he "winces" at that. However, where his vulnerabilities are of missing something, the overly literal-for-word are vulnerable in missing something as well. TM is the opposite end of the spectrum on the continuum of biblical translations.

The Book, The Jesus Way, by the way is a must-read. So many great reads.

[TheLegalist]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/themessage.html


As Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary has put it, "it is freer even than a paraphrase. I think of it more as devotional literature than as a version of the Bible and wouldn't recommend it for any other role." (12)

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

TL, first, that doesn't change how refreshing his translation/paraphrase is. Second, your link proves nothing. You are Googling as many critiques as you can about The Message and dropping them off. I can do the same for any other translation. Take up the issue case-by-case. The link you sent sounds like paranoid fanatics to be honest. Very much creepy conspiracy clowns. It was also written in 1993. Here's a 2005 interview from Peterson that more accurately shows his "agenda":

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...rch/26.42.html

Peterson doesn't even encourage churches to read The Message in lieu of another translation at times of official gatherings. In fact, he is quoted as saying he "winces" at that. However, where his vulnerabilities are of missing something, the overly literal-for-word are vulnerable in missing something as well. TM is the opposite end of the spectrum on the continuum of biblical translations.

The Book, The Jesus Way, by the way is a must-read. So many great reads.

I think the review must be balanced... Here are reasons why it has issues... non have shown a "critique of it" and I am giving reference info. Don't like it...tough. Throw up the list of supporters I don't care. Big deal! One of the links has a link TO the supporters... and oh by the way I have these saved on my harddrive and click a link and it takes me to the page. No need for google as I have already read about "the message" a long time ago.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

I think the review must be balanced... Here are reasons why it has issues... non have shown a "critique of it" and I am giving reference info. Don't like it...tough. Throw up the list of supporters I don't care. Big deal!

What's your problem?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

What's your problem?

stupid thing sent before I was done... I edited the above. I don't have a problem. I am giving the "other side" and it you think it is refreshing... fine. I think it's on the border of heretical. God's Word doesn't need fluff but accuracy to the text. Not man's NON TRANSLATION that anyone could do. You don't need to know Greek to do what he did.