The "Message" Bible ???

S&T, thanks for the specific quotes. Now I know what we're talking about.

TERMS S&T IS CONCERNED ABOUT:

“as above, so below” = Peterson decided to express the -idea- behind “on earth as it is in heaven” as simply and briefly as possible to emphasize the main point of the passage below.

Matthew 6:7-13

"The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They're full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don't fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best--
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.


”focused center” = simply way to express that the teaching in question is the primary and guiding principle.

”deep consciousness” = simply a description of the practice of being aware of God’s presence in even the smallest details of our lives and the need for this awareness to affect the way we live. In my opinion, it is a very good way to render this idea.

”inside out” = I think the point Peterson was trying to express was that the light coming from Jesus was not from the reflection of the sun on his white clothes that blinded the disciples or a shaft of light from heaven breaking through the clouds (like some anti-supernaturalists would have us believe), but rather that the body of Jesus was transformed, revealing a bit of the glory of God in Christ – His true nature. (Remember the image of the Son of God being our light in The Revelation?)

Matthew 17:1-2

Six days later, three of them saw that glory. Jesus took Peter and the brothers, James and John, and led them up a high mountain. His appearance changed from the inside out, right before their eyes. Sunlight poured from his face. His clothes were filled with light.


“true self/selves” = Refers to their very being/their spirits (the same thing that is traditionally expressed as “their hearts”)

John 4:23-24

But the time is coming--it has, in fact, come--when what you're called will not matter and where you go to worship will not matter. "It's who you are and the way you live that count before God. Your worship must engage your spirit in the pursuit of truth. That's the kind of people the Father is out looking for: those who are simply and honestly themselves before him in their worship. God is sheer being itself--Spirit. Those who worship him must do it out of their very being, their spirits, their true selves, in adoration."

1.) The use of the same words does not necessarily mean that he is referring to “new age” or occult concepts. The context of words help us determine their meaning. The context of all of these terms is consistent with the Christian message, not an occultic message.

2.) Even if Peterson is somehow consciously co-opting “new age” and occultic terms for his work, he is completely changing their meaning for the purposes of communicating the gospel. The biblical writers did this in numerous places. The most obvious place is the opening to the gospel of John and the use of the pagan Greek concept of the “logos” (“the word” in English). John used a concept already familiar to the pagans (and most Jews) throughout the Roman world and reinterpreted it in light of Christ. And in another more basic way, the New Testament itself was primarily (if not completely) written in Greek, a pagan language not native to the Hebrew people that God has nurtured to bring for the Messiah. Like every language, the Greek language structures the way ideas and concepts are communicated. If God would use something as limited as human language to communicate with us, why should we get bent out of shape when the limits of language reveal themselves when we pull phrases out of context?

In any case, thanks for explaining your concerns. I hope you will give “The Message” another chance and get a sense of what Peterson has done.

Thanks!

 

Does anyone here think that the Message should really be considered as a translation?

I have a book entitled, "The Book of God," by Walter Wangerin, Jr. This is the bible written as a novel. Nowhere does it claim to be a translation. I enjoyed reading this novel and will probably read it again, but I in no way consider it Holy Writ. I believe that the Message is more closely related to this novel than to an actual translation of the Word of God.

 

Depends on what you mean by translation.

In the traditional sense of the translating the Bible as literally as possible, I'd have to say no. In the sense of trying to express the meaning of the Bible as clearly as possible in plain, modern English, I'd say yes.

But I wouldn't simply trust the interpretation of one man (or one committee as in the case of most tradition translations) over careful study of multiple translations and personal study of the original language texts.

Those who do not have the training to read the original languages, should use multiple translations whenever possible so that they can get a fuller depth of meaning from the texts.

I've had an opportunity to read small portions of it and it seems very interesting. One of these days I will probably get myself a copy of it.

I would disagree because Peterson worked very hard to reflect the meaning of the original languages in his prose. (As I mentioned before, a friend of mine who is very skilled in classical Greek was impressed with Peterson's New Testament work.) I don't think (but I could certainly be wrong) that Wangerin did most of his work from the original languages.

 

Translations do it all the time. Not every term or turn of phrase means the same thing from culture to culture, language to language.

Nope, you’ve made a false conclusion. But if you are going to be consistent in your position, you need to immediately reject all translations of scripture but your own work from the original languages. Somehow I doubt you want to be consistent.

Apparently I missed the part where the “true word” was “watered down”. How does Peterson’s work “water down” the written word of God?

I don’t know if you are referring to the alleged “watering down” or the events described in the scriptures. In any case, Peterson did not do anything to contradict or distort either.

Hmm… Seems like you may have come into this discussion with an agenda.

 

I am familiar with the Greek on a number of Greek passages and Peterson’s prose seems to do a nice job translating the ideas of the passages in plain modern English. It is a dynamic equivalence translation/paraphrase, so you shouldn’t expect to see a one-to-one correlation with the Greek words. Furthermore, a friend of mine noted that Peterson brings out some nuances in the Greek that is usually not found in most other English translations.

1.) The original texts did not have verse numbers. To be consistent with your critique, you need to extend it to the original inspired texts.
2.) In my experience using “The Message” as an alternate reading in a church setting, no one seems to have any trouble with it.
3.) I think it’s a good thing to read the scriptures without a bunch of manmade divisions that sometimes skew the interpretation.

Feel free not to appreciate it, it’s a matter of preference after all, but the use of a term that pagans also happen to use is no basis to condemn a translation/paraphrase of the scriptures. There is ample biblical precedent for doing – as I previously pointed out, the opening to the gospel of John.

To be consistent in this objection would require you to reject several key portions of the scripture as well as hold the rest of it in question because it was written in human languages that are riddled with pagan influences.

It’s actually God’s advice, and I’ll do the same with your allegations.

1.) You made an allegation.
2.) I asked for clarification and examples.
3.) You kindly provided examples of your concerns.
4.) I investigated your claims and applied scriptural guidelines and precedents to them and responded.
5.) You apparently rejected the scriptural guidelines and precedents (you did not respond to them) and repeated your allegations and added a complaint about not having verse divisions.
6.) I responded to your concerns and repeated the biblical position.


Based on what you have stated so far, I am compelled to reject your assertions based on careful study and the written word of God.

 

If this is your standard, you should avoid all translations and simply use the original language texts because all translations from one language to another alters terminology.

If you have been reading along, you already know that I use multiple translations to understand the meaning of the written scriptures.

Ah, nothing like inflammatory rhetoric to avoid dealing with scriptural responses to an unscriptural argument!

Words derive their meaning from both their definition and context in which they are presented. It is clear to even a casual reader that the verse from the Message uses the word “consciousness” to mean “alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation”. In the occult site you referenced, the word “conciousness” is obviously the psychoanalytical meaning of “the component of waking awareness perceptible by a person at any given instant”. It is clear from context that the meaning is not the same.

I’m sure you could ignore standard rules and structures of language and twist things to fit your prejudices all day long, but it doesn’t make you correct.

Sad but true. You will not be convinced by biblical evidence, sound reasoning or the expertise of others. You will have to make a decision to educate yourself and deal with these things honestly before you will change.

May God bless your journey.

 

I like the fact that the message doesn't have verse numbers. The chapter/verse were added later and can be useful in finding some passage quickly, sometimes they cut off a thought in the middle.

I have Tyndale's 1535 NT and it doesn't have verse divisions either. So what is your point? Is it any less the word of God for not having what man added?

I read the Message occasionally and happen to think that it's a good paraphrase. I don't put much stock in your claim that it promotes new age/occult stuff because you say you find similar wording in new age/occult literature. It cannot be taken that way in context.

And because I don't read greek or hebrew, I use a wide variety of translations to get the sense of what the scripture is saying.

 

It's well-known that the Gospel of John uses some of the same terminology employed by early gnostics. But we all know that John is not trying to promote Gnosticism. Just because someone uses terms or forms used by worldly groups does not mean that they endorse those pagan beliefs. Perhaps someone should put together a list of words Christians can or cannot use.

 

Actually, a quick search on google disproves that. The phrase is, indeed, found on the "Emerald Tablet" but means "As it is in heaven, let it be on earth."

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/below_above.html

Even so, Satan can use anything good and pervert it. The Emerald Tablet and like documents are perversions of the Lord's Prayer - it's not a matter of the Message trying to sneak occultism into its text. Eugene Patterson is too much a man of God for this to occur, IMO.

 

I have a copy of "The Message" on my computer and it has the verse numbers. I got it at E-Sword.

 

I'll bite. I googled "As above, so below" and "Hell." Not a single reference came up with what you are saying. Let's see some proof that below means hell and not earth.

 

The problem is that it is not poison. It is a modern way of translating the Scriptures. Is it perfect? No, but no man-made translation is. Does this mean it is poison? Several people I know have come to know Christ through the reading of the Message. It made sense - the Bible was in very understandable terms.

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. I have no idea how using the Message can be compared to using MTV as a babysitter.

Life is also about Truth and Reality.

Very true. But the Message does not fit in this. Sorry, man.