Featured The Message--ARRRGGGHHHH!!!

Yeah, not a fan. It's almost like reading a "Christian" novel- and a bad one at that!

 

Yeah, I agree. He should have said "Dr. Day" and Professor Night. I hate it when they try to squeeze in their feminism. Give 'im a break, guys. He didn't call it "The Message" for nothing.

 

Do you mean the Mess Age? :laugh:

 

That is certainly beyond the liberty of different versions of the Bible. It sounds like a fairy tale with Mother Nature and Father Time.

 

I have an old copy of The Massage(not a typo) that doesn't read that way, but overall it's close to the jabroney False Witless' NWT. 'Tis still a groddy "bible" that I wouldn't recommend at all!

 

In my Sunday School class almost every week we have a young lady who always reads to us what the Message says on the topic of the Sunday School lesson (Lifeway). I don't say anything but thanks for sharing. So far I haven't had her say anything that is far out from the Message and I hope I never do.

What would you do if a Christian in your class kept sharing what the Message said? I'm thinking about declaring to the class what the Message really is (Paraphrase) and not to be used other than checking to see What Eugene Peterson has to say on Scripture. What would you do?

 

It goes beyond a paraphrase;it's quite free most of the time. But there are sections in Revelation and Psalms where Eugene gets more literal,believe it or not. Even he has to be in certain bounds in some sections of Holy Writ.

Peterson has said that his personal favorite translation is the NRSV.

The reputable Evangelical/Reformed pastor/scholar Dr. James Boice liked some of Dr.Peterson's books.

 

Like SC Lewis, eh?

 

MSG is bad for your diet.

 

Wow!

Gosh Roby...finally something you and I actually agree about!:thumbsup: The Message is a MESS!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

OF COURSE I agree when you're right!

However, there's an older MV I find to be as bad, or worse-the old "Living Bible". In 1 Samuel 20:30 it has Saul calling Jonathan a "SOB". (No acronym used in the text!) When I set out to read that whole version and came across that, you can't imagine my shock! Now, if it was some cult-specific version, I coulda understood it, but right then I doubted the salvation of anyone involved with making that book!

'Tis my understanding that the new LB has removed that blackguarding, but I'm not gonna waste any $$ on it.

 

Their is a considerable distance between the old Living Bible and the NLT.

The 96 moved itself a lot more to the left on the scale (you know where the ASV is on the extreme left). The 2004 was a complete revsion moving even more leftward. And then there was further tightening with the 2007 update. It is still a largely dynamic version,but a conservative one.It's at the spot where many mistakenly place the NIV. You certainly would not be wasting your money on the NLTse.

 

Knew About That

Yep....I started off using the old LB when I was in High School going to Young Life meetings. Then I moved to the JB Phillips translation cause that's what everybody else was doing. I wasn't even aware that a new LB is out. Is that what the NLT is?

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

NO!!!!! The NLT is not an updated LB! Sorry Greg, didn't mean to YELL at you! :laugh:

The LB is a paraphrase (blech) written by Kenneth Taylor.

The NLT is a translation done by a boatload of scholars.

 

oops....Sorry

Sorry bout that...Roby got me twisted around (unintentionally)when he mentioned something about a "new" LB. I knew it was a paraphrase. The one I had came with an ugly puke-green cover. As for the NLT...well...I was easily confused because I just don't spend much time looking at MV's and I'm not familiar with it except for a few comparative readings I have seen. I wasn't really impressed with what I saw.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Sorry if I got anyone corn-fused! After seeing the "cussing" in that older edition, I was completely turned off to that translation & haven't bothered to obtain a newer one.

 

The "problem" you found is in the text itself. If I remember correctly, the newer versions of the King James (1769?) translate that passage as, "Thou son of a perverse, rebellious woman!" which is essentially the same thing as SOB - actually I think it is tamer than the God-inspired text.

I think it is strange that Christians get upset when the translators/paraphrasers try to be as accurate as possible with the text. The Bible is not always "family friendly" and features some extremely violent scenes, fairly graphic sexual images and details (especially if you are familiar with the Hebrew euphemisms), and some coarse language. The translators frequently cover that up so that Christians won't get upset, but that's rather disrespectful of God's word in my opinion.

 

The euphemistic language is called bowdlerizing the text. That's named after Thomas Bowdler (1754-1824) who tried to eliminate some offensive words and phrases from Shakespear's plays;making it fit for family reading.

Noah Webster did this to a certain extent with his very mild updating of the 1769 KJV.