The Message: Heartily Endorsed by the B-Man Himself!

[adam3000]

another hat in the ring against the message.

It's not that it uses common language that bothers be but that it treats the word of God flippantly changing the meaning of verses. Here is one example where Jesus is changed from "the only begotten Son" to "this one of a kind God expression"

John 1:18

KJV “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

MESSAGE “No one has ever seen God, not so much of a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.”

This is only one example of many. For anyone interested in the truth I'd recommend you stay with the version that has been tried in the fire and found faithful, the KJV.

If you want to seek out another translation be aware that there is a war on between Heaven and Hell, and the Devil does seek to corrupt the word of God. So do your research before you place your trust in one version over another.

 

[BVS]

John 1:18

KJV “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

MESSAGE “No one has ever seen God, not so much of a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.”

If I was a non believer and picking up the Bible for the first time, I'd be completely turned off by the KJV, it wouldn't hold any relevance.

bosom, begotten, hath...I mean come on. If Jesus were to come down today do you think he would wear the robes again? No, he would wear the clothes of modern society and speak in the language of modern society.

 

[adam3000]

That the KJV turns people off is a half-truth. There are some odd words in there that we don't use in everyday occurance, but it remains highly readable and understandable.

The main problem is people want Christ and the Bible to submit to their will instead of the other way around.

 

[BVS]

That the KJV turns people off is a half-truth. There are some odd words in there that we don't use in everyday occurance, but it remains highly readable and understandable.

Well even growing up in Church many there wouldn't read KJV.

The main problem is people want Christ and the Bible to submit to their will instead of the other way around.

Yes it is and people do that with every version of the Bible.

 

[adam3000]

The point is The Message itself bends to the will of man's selfish ego, by actually changing the meaning of the Word of God.

 

[BVS]

The point is The Message itself bends to the will of man's selfish ego, by actually changing the meaning of the Word of God.

Well that's your opinion, but the truth is every translation has been manipulated by man.

The only way we would have a completely infallible book is if God wrote it himself, not man and then translated by man over and over again.

 

[melon]

The point is The Message itself bends to the will of man's selfish ego, by actually changing the meaning of the Word of God.

Haha...good one. Do you know how many Biblical translations there have been in history? Even today, I find most modern Biblical translations to be abominable. Full of modern-day prejudices and bigotry inserted.

I like "The Message," because it recaptures the spirit of the vernacular Greek that the New Testament was written in. The passage from that Greek to Vulgar Latin to Medieval Latin to Early Modern English was messy and far too ornate.

Melon

 

[The Disciple]

Haha...good one. Do you know how many Biblical translations there have been in history? Even today, I find most modern Biblical translations to be abominable. Full of modern-day prejudices and bigotry inserted.

I like "The Message," because it recaptures the spirit of the vernacular Greek that the New Testament was written in. The passage from that Greek to Vulgar Latin to Medieval Latin to Early Modern English was messy and far too ornate.

Melon

Agreed.

 

[adam3000]

Well that's your opinion, but the truth is every translation has been manipulated by man. The only way we would have a completely infallible book is if God wrote it himself, not man and then translated by man over and over again.

BonoVoxSupastar, do you not believe the Bible in infallible? Jesus said himself "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" in Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33. God said he will protect every word forever in Psalms 12:6-7 and warns against man adding or taking away from them in Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Revelation 22:18-19.

Also the KJV has only been translated once. Given by God to man in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) and translated to English in the KJV.

I find most modern Biblical translations to be abominable. Full of modern-day prejudices and bigotry inserted.

Melon, what modern day prejudices and bigotry is inserted in modern translations? Please explain with specific examples of versions you find abominable and the verses showing their "predjudices and bigotry." How do you know the "prejudices and bigotry" aren't in the original greek and hebrew texts?

"The Message" ... recaptures the spirit of the vernacular Greek that the New Testament was written in.

Melon, how do you know it recaptures the spirit of the vernacular Greek? Maybe it has the readabilty of common language, but it changes the actual message, the truth, of God's Word. (See my comparison verse above)

The passage from that Greek to Vulgar Latin to Medieval Latin to Early Modern English was messy and far too ornate.

The KJV was translated from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and Greek of the New Testament writers. It was based on the majority and recieved texts not the Latin Vulgate.

 

[BVS]

BonoVoxSupastar, do you not believe the Bible in infallible?

No I don't believe the Bible to be infallible. It may be inspired by God but it's written by man.

If it were infallible we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[melon]

BonoVoxSupastar, do you not believe the Bible in infallible? Jesus said himself "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" in Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33. God said he will protect every word forever in Psalms 12:6-7 and warns against man adding or taking away from them in Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Revelation 22:18-19.

The Book of Revelation was added to the Bible last. The early church fathers were hesitant to ever add it to the Bible, because it largely reflects the Montanist heresy, which was persuasive enough to convert Tertullian in A.D. 206. But it wouldn't be the first time that Christianity fused with "heretics." St. Paul's theology infuses Mithraism and St. Augustine brought Manicheanism in with him.

Regardless, when it was talking about "adding or taking away" from the book, it meant the Book of Revelation itself. No larger meaning.

Also the KJV has only been translated once. Given by God to man in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) and translated to English in the KJV.

You really need to bone up on your history, if you believe that romanticism.

Here's a list of Old Testament canons in history:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap31.html

Here's the history of the development of the New Testament canon:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

The only complete "Hebrew" OT in existence is the Masoretic text dated from the 10th and 11th centuries A.D. The only other complete OT is the Greek Septuagint from the 1st century A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragments are in Hebrew, but are taken from the Essenes, so differences are expected amongst competing Jewish sects.

Melon, what modern day prejudices and bigotry is inserted in modern translations? Please explain with specific examples of versions you find abominable and the verses showing their "predjudices and bigotry." How do you know the "prejudices and bigotry" aren't in the original greek and hebrew texts?

The so-called "anti-gay" passages are examples of bigotry, because they refer to archaic pagan temple practices. In the ancient world, most cultures surrounding Israel believed that one could become closer to God through massive temple orgies. These practices were wiped out completely by the 4th century A.D., and, hence, modern language (remember: "English" as we know it did not exist until around the time of William Shakespeare) does not have a word for these concepts. As such, they have been ambiguously translated for centuries, colored by the prejudices of tradition and translators.

"Homosexuality," in the modern sense, was "discovered" in 1874 in Germany. Anything prior to that reflects archaic concepts.

Melon, how do you know it recaptures the spirit of the vernacular Greek? Maybe it has the readabilty of common language, but it changes the actual message, the truth, of God's Word. (See my comparison verse above)

And you have merely accented my point. Why have you deified the KJV as the "definitive" Biblical translation? You should know that, in its day, William Tyndale, the translator of the KJV, was burned at the stake for it at the instigation of Henry VIII and his Anglican Church.

A lot of the argument is that the KJV did nothing but use overly ornate language that merely reflected the bias of medieval Europe. "Christianity" became a highly ornate reflection of imperialism (lofty language, cathedrals of equal stature to secular palaces, royal control over the church, etc.), which was a completely different environment in which the New Testament was written.

The KJV was translated from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and Greek of the New Testament writers. It was based on the majority and recieved texts not the Latin Vulgate.

Well, as I said, the only "Hebrew" OT in existence is the medieval Masoretic text. The Dead Sea Scrolls, even in fragmented form, paint a different OT. And if the Sadducees had survived the destruction of Jerusalem, they'd have objected to all the Messianic texts, since they did not believe in the existence of a Messiah.

My point is that if you're looking for a "definitive ancient text," you're not going to find it, because priorities were different centuries ago. Rather than being documents sealed in time ad infinitum, they were modified and changed with the times.

Melon

 

[adam3000]

No I don't believe the Bible to be infallible. It may be inspired by God but it's written by man. If it were infallible we wouldn't be having this discussion.

BonoVox, Christ said every "jot" and "tittle" will not pass away even though all of Earth and Heaven may pass away (Mat 5:18, Luke 6:17). God promises protection over the smallest characters of his word. You might say this only applies to the Old Testament, but if you believe that Jesus was who he said he was and all the apostles were not liars, then their phrophetic teachings straight from God are protected too. If you don't believe God will protect his Word, then you can believe none of it. If you don't believe God will protect his Word, then there is nothing you can show me in the Bible that I would have to believe and you can basically make up anything you want. But the Bible says the opposiste. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." If we can't trust God's protection over his word, then how is it useful for doctrine? It's like the Koran: Muhammed says one day God gave him all the text, then down the road said, well some of it was from Satan. How can we trust any of the Koran? It's impossible.

Regardless, when it was talking about "adding or taking away" from the book, it meant the Book of Revelation itself. No larger meaning.

Melon, I directed you to other verses also. This isn't just a one-off example of God protecting his word and warning of those who would change it.

You really need to bone up on your history, if you believe that romanticism.

Here's a list of Old Testament canons in history:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap31.html

Here's the history of the development of the New Testament canon:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

The only complete "Hebrew" OT in existence is the Masoretic text dated from the 10th and 11th centuries A.D. The only other complete OT is the Greek Septuagint from the 1st century A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragments are in Hebrew, but are taken from the Essenes, so differences are expected amongst competing Jewish sects.

What you call romanticism, I claim as faith in God to protect his Word. I've read how Jewish scholars turmoiled over the ages about which books are cannon and which aren't. Yet when Jesus spoke about the Old Testament he said not one jot or tittle would pass away. Beyond all the cynisism that man controls history, I know God controls it. When the Israelites were disobiedient to God, God allowed neighboring enemies to destroy them. God can use the wicked and the good to accomplish his glory.

I don't know if you are a believer or not. If you are an unbeliever I can understand how you cannot trust God to protect his word. If you are a believer, why are you pointing to the godless, the haters of God, agnostics to prove your point?

The so-called "anti-gay" passages are examples of bigotry, because they refer to archaic pagan temple practices. In the ancient world, most cultures surrounding Israel believed that one could become closer to God through massive temple orgies. These practices were wiped out completely by the 4th century A.D., and, hence, modern language (remember: "English" as we know it did not exist until around the time of William Shakespeare) does not have a word for these concepts. As such, they have been ambiguously translated for centuries, colored by the prejudices of tradition and translators.

"Homosexuality," in the modern sense, was "discovered" in 1874 in Germany. Anything prior to that reflects archaic concepts.

That lame temple practices excuse is used by secularists and pagans and it's getting moldy. Don't you know there is nothing new under the sun? The wickedness of man and the evil of his heart has been with us for all human history. For Sodomy to be "discovered" in 1874! Talk about a modern bias. I suppose we are supposed to praise science for turning the sin of drunkeness into merely a disease to be cured. Or whoremongering and fornication now converted to an addiction only and not something to be repented of. I can't wait to see what modern man calls beastiality and pedophilia. Too many believers are getting sucked into these lies.

And you have merely accented my point. Why have you deified the KJV as the "definitive" Biblical translation? You should know that, in its day, William Tyndale, the translator of the KJV, was burned at the stake for it at the instigation of Henry VIII and his Anglican Church.

To compare Eugene Peterson and the Message to the King James Translators (of whom Tyndale was a leading influence but not a part of) and the KJV is just plain sad. The KJV Translators revered the word so much that they put in italics any word they added for clarity in fear of God. Peterson uses the Bible like a box of crayons to twist and color in any shape he wants. I tried to use a very clear example of this (how Peterson turns Jesus from "only begotten Son of God" into "one of a kind God expression"), but nobody cared.

A lot of the argument is that the KJV did nothing but use overly ornate language that merely reflected the bias of medieval Europe. "Christianity" became a highly ornate reflection of imperialism (lofty language, cathedrals of equal stature to secular palaces, royal control over the church, etc.), which was a completely different environment in which the New Testament was written.

Well, as I said, the only "Hebrew" OT in existence is the medieval Masoretic text. The Dead Sea Scrolls, even in fragmented form, paint a different OT. And if the Sadducees had survived the destruction of Jerusalem, they'd have objected to all the Messianic texts, since they did not believe in the existence of a Messiah.

To believe that God would go 2000 years before "correcting" His Word by allowing man to find the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates a feeble God and any untrustworthy text. How much longer must we wait until we find some other discarded text that really shows us what the Bible said? Another 2000 years? If you follow this line of thinking it will either lead you to a new religion like Mormonism (where the founder claimed all text had become corrupt and God showed him the golden plates to restore true Christianity) or it will lead you to believe that none of the Bible can be trusted in which case you might as well toss in the garbase because you can't trust any of it.

Also, why would we listen to the Sadducess as to what OT text are cannon? Jesus denounced them unbelievers cast off from the vine because of their unbelief. Either you believe Jesus or you don't.

My point is that if you're looking for a "definitive ancient text," you're not going to find it, because priorities were different centuries ago. Rather than being documents sealed in time ad infinitum, they were modified and changed with the times.

Again your reliance for the preservation of Christianity and the Bible is pinned on man. But God is the one who directs the paths of those who follow him and he will preserve His Word. I am placing my faith with God not man.

Melon, my point is all this is that I don't want anyone to waste their years following their own "religion" instead of the word of God. In your theme of modern biases Christianity is going the way of a one world religion saying Christianity is right, Catholicism is right, Budism is right, Muslims are right,
Paganism is right, but the Bible says the opposite:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

If God doesn't preserve the Bible, then we can't trust these words and Christianity is a farce. Maybe you believe it is a farce. That it doesn't matter what you believe, any religion is fine. But how can you know that? What backs you up? Infidels.org? They don't believe in Heaven or Hell or God. They think you are a fool for spending anytime on Christianity. What backs you up? Your own thoughts and heart? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). If you don't believe God protects his word you are cut a drift from knowing anything.

But Christianity is not foolishness. Melon, your time spent seeking God through His Word is wise and worthy of your time. Why? Because we can trust his word. But the bottom line is "the Message" is a wreckless paraphrase of God's Word. However the KJV has been tested through time as the best English translation done by God fearing men and God has blessed it through preachers like Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon and through events like the Great Awakening.

 

[BVS]

BonoVox, Christ said every "jot" and "tittle" will not pass away even though all of Earth and Heaven may pass away (Mat 5:18, Luke 6:17). God promises protection over the smallest characters of his word. You might say this only applies to the Old Testament, but if you believe that Jesus was who he said he was and all the apostles were not liars, then their phrophetic teachings straight from God are protected too. If you don't believe God will protect his Word, then you can believe none of it. If you don't believe God will protect his Word, then there is nothing you can show me in the Bible that I would have to believe and you can basically make up anything you want. But the Bible says the opposiste. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." If we can't trust God's protection over his word, then how is it useful for doctrine?

Ok so you say 'The Message'

actually changing the meaning of the Word of God.

So how come God didn't protect his word? And if it happened here it can happen anywhere, therefore nothing can ever be infallible.

That lame temple practices excuse is used by secularists and pagans and it's getting moldy. Don't you know there is nothing new under the sun? The wickedness of man and the evil of his heart has been with us for all human history. For Sodomy to be "discovered" in 1874! Talk about a modern bias. I suppose we are supposed to praise science for turning the sin of drunkeness into merely a disease to be cured. Or whoremongering and fornication now converted to an addiction only and not something to be repented of. I can't wait to see what modern man calls beastiality and pedophilia. Too many believers are getting sucked into these lies.

Well you just lost any credibility you may have had.

 

[melon]

What you call romanticism, I claim as faith in God to protect his Word. I've read how Jewish scholars turmoiled over the ages about which books are cannon and which aren't. Yet when Jesus spoke about the Old Testament he said not one jot or tittle would pass away. Beyond all the cynisism that man controls history, I know God controls it. When the Israelites were disobiedient to God, God allowed neighboring enemies to destroy them. God can use the wicked and the good to accomplish his glory.

I don't know if you are a believer or not. If you are an unbeliever I can understand how you cannot trust God to protect his word. If you are a believer, why are you pointing to the godless, the haters of God, agnostics to prove your point?

Reason is not contrary to the Word of God. In fact, the true Word of God is truth, not a lie. If you wish to comfort yourself in a romanticist lie, then so be it. But you will not find God in a lie. Period.

That lame temple practices excuse is used by secularists and pagans and it's getting moldy. Don't you know there is nothing new under the sun? The wickedness of man and the evil of his heart has been with us for all human history. For Sodomy to be "discovered" in 1874! Talk about a modern bias. I suppose we are supposed to praise science for turning the sin of drunkeness into merely a disease to be cured. Or whoremongering and fornication now converted to an addiction only and not something to be repented of. I can't wait to see what modern man calls beastiality and pedophilia. Too many believers are getting sucked into these lies.

You are moldy, but I forgive you anyway. And I agree that the wickedness of man has been with us throughout human history, but we will likely disagree on the source. After all, the Pharisees were "believers" and believed in the Bible too. But in their literalist zeal, they didn't see Jesus right in front of them, and now these "believers" are perhaps the most reviled group in Judeo-Christian history.

"And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy." - Ezekiel 16:49

And, of course, "sodomy" is as old as time itself, but "homosexuality" (as in the sexual orientation) is not. Prior to 1874, the idea was that heterosexuals committed same-sex acts. But "homosexuality" is not the sin of Sodom. The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. And we can see what happens to inhospitable regions of our country. Why else does the "Bible Belt" get pelted with hurricanes, tornadoes, and a whole assortment of natural disasters like clockwork?

To compare Eugene Peterson and the Message to the King James Translators (of whom Tyndale was a leading influence but not a part of) and the KJV is just plain sad. The KJV Translators revered the word so much that they put in italics any word they added for clarity in fear of God. Peterson uses the Bible like a box of crayons to twist and color in any shape he wants. I tried to use a very clear example of this (how Peterson turns Jesus from "only begotten Son of God" into "one of a kind God expression"), but nobody cared.

"Nobody cared," because your logic is specious. You hold up the KJV as some kind of ideal only because it's seen as a "traditional ideal." "Tradition" is not evidence; it could be a 500 year old lie. After all, even you have said that wickedness has existed throughout history.

William Tyndale was not God. He was a human being like everyone else. No, I don't believe he deserved to be burned at the stake, but that's just to show you that he was seen as a heretic in his own day--just as you see Eugene Peterson as a heretic today.

To believe that God would go 2000 years before "correcting" His Word by allowing man to find the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates a feeble God and any untrustworthy text. How much longer must we wait until we find some other discarded text that really shows us what the Bible said? Another 2000 years? If you follow this line of thinking it will either lead you to a new religion like Mormonism (where the founder claimed all text had become corrupt and God showed him the golden plates to restore true Christianity) or it will lead you to believe that none of the Bible can be trusted in which case you might as well toss in the garbase because you can't trust any of it.

You presume everything is a matter of "right and wrong" / "good versus evil." Unfortunately, that is St. Augustine's enduring gift when he brought in the beliefs of the Manicheanist heresy into Christianity. Of course, I don't expect you to know that.

And you don't need to presume that the Bible has remained unchanged over 2000 years. On the contrary, we have 2000 years of Biblical translations that scholars can refer to. They can see the changes from themselves. Even today, there are many Biblical translations that concurrently exist today, none of which are identical. So which one is "right"? By your logic, that would mean that the rest are "wrong."

So you can either believe in the lie that the Bible is unchanging or you can accept the fact that it has changed.

Also, why would we listen to the Sadducess as to what OT text are cannon? Jesus denounced them unbelievers cast off from the vine because of their unbelief. Either you believe Jesus or you don't.

That's complete babble, considering that the Old Testament was canonized by the Pharisees in the 1st century A.D. The early Christian church debated accepting the Pharisees' Old Testament, and many outright wanted to reject it, being the raving anti-Semites that they were. The compromise they created is where the drive to create a New Testament canon came from.

Again your reliance for the preservation of Christianity and the Bible is pinned on man. But God is the one who directs the paths of those who follow him and he will preserve His Word. I am placing my faith with God not man.

Melon, my point is all this is that I don't want anyone to waste their years following their own "religion" instead of the word of God. In your theme of modern biases Christianity is going the way of a one world religion saying Christianity is right, Catholicism is right, Budism is right, Muslims are right,
Paganism is right, but the Bible says the opposite:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

If God doesn't preserve the Bible, then we can't trust these words and Christianity is a farce. Maybe you believe it is a farce. That it doesn't matter what you believe, any religion is fine. But how can you know that? What backs you up? Infidels.org? They don't believe in Heaven or Hell or God. They think you are a fool for spending anytime on Christianity. What backs you up? Your own thoughts and heart? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). If you don't believe God protects his word you are cut a drift from knowing anything.

But Christianity is not foolishness. Melon, your time spent seeking God through His Word is wise and worthy of your time. Why? Because we can trust his word. But the bottom line is "the Message" is a wreckless paraphrase of God's Word. However the KJV has been tested through time as the best English translation done by God fearing men and God has blessed it through preachers like Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon and through events like the Great Awakening.

In your self-righteousness, you presume that you and only you are the true believer. Remind you of the Pharisees at all? And with that kind of attitude, you're anything but. The Word of God is love, not the Bible.

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

While you're busy thumbing your nose to everyone while applauding yourself, you've missed Jesus' sole commandment: to love one another. And if you've missed that point, then all your talk about the "Word of God" is meaningless. You might as well have never seen the Bible or have even learned about Christianity. If you cannot grasp such a simple concept, then you've failed as a Christian. Period.

FYI, I knew you would pick apart the domain, "infidels.org," but such a site has merely reposted what serious Biblical scholars have uncovered through the decades. What you label as "atheism," others label as the pursuit of truth. Some, indeed, when they have discovered the truth, they come out of it as an atheist. But that is only because their faith was built on a lie that is "tradition."

No matter how painful the truth is, God is "truth," not a lie. And if you have built your faith in Jesus on a lie, then you have done nothing but build a skyscraper out of a sandcastle.

Melon

 

[pax]

What hath I wrought?

I'm still reading and enjoying The Message, for what it's worth. I have it alongside my Oxford NRSV ("the big red Bible") and often read passages side-by-side.

melon, as usual, your thoroughness and precision astonish.

 

[stammer476]

The point is The Message itself bends to the will of man's selfish ego, by actually changing the meaning of the Word of God.

I had to laugh out loud at that one. Have you ever researched why the KJV is titled "King James"? Talk about an ego problem.

 

[shart1780]

I've grown up reading the King James version, so I'm more than comfortable with it.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The Message is now out on CD rom/mp3 format, I saw it on QVC

 

[gamecockvic]

I was raised with the KJV exclusively. I have read the NIV and NAS which I found easier to read and understand. The Message is used occasionally by my pastor. I liked the way it expressed the Word in plain language so I bought it earlier this year. I have read the New Testament and have started the Old Testament. I can only say that it makes me WANT to open God's Word each morning and blesses me! Only after I bought it did I see Bono's endorsement of it.

Perhaps translations are like worship styles, so that different people need formality, simplicity, etc. As long as we are worshipping the God whos sent His Son to die for our sins so that He might have a relationship with us, does it really matter what translation we are reading? Just a thought. God bless!

 

[clifedge]

The Message doesn't always really stay true to what the original Hebrew and Greek says. That said, it still does contain truth, and that's important. It's clearly had a good effect on Bono to the extent that he endorses it, so it has done good things.

Personally, I recommend the ESV. It was translated a couple years ago, and while extremely accurate and mostly literal, it's not as clunky-sounding as other translations like it, such as the NASB.

 

[clifedge]

I have a few things to say to champions of the KJV over The Message.

Both are inaccurate. No translation will be able to say in English exactly what the Hebrew and Greek means in their respective languages.

Here are some problems with the KJV:

In Mark 6:20- when the KJV says "observed", the Greek means "to protect"

In Luke 18:12- when the KJV says "possess" the Greek actually means "acquire or get", which makes a lot more sense if you read the context

In Acts 5:30- clearly the Jews did not slay Him THEN hang him on a tree...they slew Him BY hanging him on a tree

Other words it uses are simply archaic:
Who can tell me, in Joshua 15:3, what "fetched a compass" means. <It means "turned around">

Anyone know what "cockatrice" means in Is. 11:8?
"Wimples" in Is. 3:22?
"Sackbut" in Daniel 3:5?
"Habergeon" in Job 41:26?
"Tabret" in Genesis 31:27?

The list goes on, but my point is not to attack the KJV. All I'm trying to say is that it is by no means superior to all other translations. If you criticize someone for reading The Message, make sure you know your own Bible and where it came from.

 

[gamecockvic]

Good points clifedge. Funny, everyone who has ever told me a translation wasn't "true to the original Greek or Hebrew" could read or understand neither! You seem to have knowledge in this area without making a judgement about it. God bless!

 

[melon]

Both are inaccurate. No translation will be able to say in English exactly what the Hebrew and Greek means in their respective languages.

You're right. That's where I have my beef with how every archaic pagan sexual practice ended up mistranslated as an anti-gay passage, when it was really more about idolatry with the sex being incidental.

Melon