"The Message"

"The Message" is not a translation, it is paraphrase. Even Rick Warren, who uses it a lot in "Purpose Driven (R) Life", is very careful to call it a paraphrase and not a translation.

 

the term paraphrase refers technically to all true translations; unfortunately, it is used pejoratively in popular circles.

Check this out:

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossn.htm#paraphrase

 

I don't own a copy of "the Message", but I've read parts of it. Rather than translating the texts word for word, it translates them idiom for idiom. So, as far as a contextual revision, it's very good. But individual words may not be translated exactly, which could be an issue when it comes to verbatim Bible study.

 

Here are some examples where "The Message" "translates" the original text to suit the post-modern reader.

"Obsession with self in these matters is a dead end; attention to God leads us out into the open, into spacious, free life." is "Message's" version of Romans 8:6 which in NIV is translated like this: "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace". There is no mention of sin in the Message paraphrase. Moreover, "dead end" does not sound nearly as serious as "death".

In Message we read Heb. 11:7 "As a result, Noah became intimate with God". NIV translates the same verse: "By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness by faith". If you know anything of Christian doctrine, you know how sweet "righteousness by faith" sounds and how full of meaning it is. But the modern world prefers to hear about "intimacy" and without doctrine they can interpret it any way they want. Sad.

Another bad example from the Message is Phil. 3:10 (does not mention resurrection, sufferings, and death). John 4:23 omits Truth. Acts 2:42 omits breaking bread, i.e. communion. Heb 13:17 omits authority. Rom. 8:29 omits foreknowledge and predestination. 1 Tim. 4:16 omits doctrine. Etc.

 

You're making the same mistake KJVO's make: comparing two translations to each other. What you should instead do is compare the translations to the texts from which they were translated.

I'm not an expert at idioms and figures of speech of the time, so I wouldn't be able to comment without further study. But I DO know that simply comparing two translations to each other is problematic at beast, because neither is more authoritative over the other.

 

I greatly disagree. I would EASILY & HEARTILY say the KJV is FAR MORE AUTHORITATIVE than "The Message". The message is not even in the same class. AT ALL.

 

Still, I can't see how one version can correctly translate the same Greek phrase as "righteousness by faith" and another translate the same thing correctly as "intimacy"

This is a dictionary definition of intimacy:

n 1: close or warm friendship; "the absence of fences created a mysterious intimacy in which no one knew privacy" [syn: familiarity, closeness] 2: a usually secretive or illicit sexual relationship [syn: affair, affaire, liaison, involvement, amour] 3: a feeling of being intimate and belonging together; "their closeness grew as the night wore on" [syn: closeness]

As you can see using the word "intimacy" opens a whole field of possible interpretations, especially if "The Massage" is the only "bible" that someone is using.

 

Message in its translation of Acts 2:42 uses "common meal" to describe the Communion/Lords Supper.

I have a "common meal" every day at my work

Other translations translate is as "breaking bread" which makes it clear that it means Communion/Lords Supper.

 

Regarding "became intimate": The Greek context conters around the word ginomai, which does imply intimacy, believe it or not. In fact, in a slightly different context, it is used to refer to one who had gotten married. When I read these two verses side by side, the NIV (and the KJV) is more gramatically correct, but the MSG conveys an implication that was present in the Greek, but is absent in the English. This is a good example of the inhierent problems that are present when translating from one language to another.

Regarding "common meal": I remember this subject coming up in college. The Greek phrase "breaking bread" is a figure of speech of sorts for "sharing a meal". But the phrase in Greek implies a regular meal, as opposed to the Sabbath meal or cedar meals, which were identified by name. The meal in Acts 2:24 wasn't a communion feast, sabbath meal, or cedar meal. It was a regular meal. They met, they ate, they ate, and the fellowshipped.

 

I do not endorse or recommend the Message at all. It goes far beyond the pale of what a paraphrase should do, IMHO.

 

I guess I will have to learn Greek then.

 

To be frank, I'm not endorsing the Message at all. But I see its value as a side by side companion to a literal translation, like the KJV, ASB, or NIV, to name a few.

While I would never use it as a sole biblical source, I don't think anyone's faith would be different if they did use it as such. But such is only my opinion.

 

So what is the final authority and don't say the originals because they don't exist today.

 

So what is the final authority and don't say the originals because they don't exist today. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent question!

The final authority of our faith is not a what but a WHO.

The final authority of our faith is the person, Jesus the Christ. Our foundation is in Him, not the Bible. The Bible is simply His written message to us.

The just shall live by faith, not by trying to manufacture confidence in a translation of the scriptures.

 

So what is the final authority and don't say the originals because they don't exist today. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent question!

The final authority of our faith is not a what but a WHO.

The final authority of our faith is the person, Jesus the Christ. Our foundation is in Him, not the Bible. The Bible is simply His written message to us.

The just shall live by faith, not by trying to manufacture confidence in a translation of the scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. If it were not for the Bible Baptist Believer, you would not know how to be saved. It's more than just a "message," it's God's divine, inspired, infallible word for everyone. Try reading the "Fox's book of Martyrs." Then maybe you'll then more of it.

 

There is no text that is the "final" authority. But higher authority does lie with the original texts. You're wrong about the original texts. The texts that the the KJV translators used, for example, are in existence today, in their original language. You can purchase a copy at many bookstores. The TR, and MSS and LXX are all available today in untranslated form. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate all of these, are also available in many bookstores, in their original Hebrew.

As far as "final authority", that would lie with God, not the scriptures. I don't worship the Scriptures. I worship God.

 

How do you come to know God that you worship if not through His Word?