The "Message" Bible ???

[Ed Edwards]

My wife was in a book store buying some
Christmas presents. I called her.
I talked her into buying me a copy
of THE MESSAGE, New Testament.

As before, my spokesposter is
ScottEmerson. But now i can check up on
you both

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
My wife was in a book store buying some
Christmas presents. I called her.
I talked her into buying me a copy
of THE MESSAGE, New Testament.

As before, my spokesposter is
ScottEmerson. But now i can check up on
you both

Great! I hope you enjoy reading the Bible in a new and fresh way. It's a little different at first, but I think you'll enjoy it (along with your other 233 translations, or however many you have!)

SEC

 

[Ed Edwards]

About two dozen at:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Romans+10%3A9&section=0&version=nkj&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ro&NavGo=10&NavCurrentChapter=10

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Scott:

It's fun to disprove over and over and over again.

S&T:

Funny, I haven't seen any proof from the Greek that I put up. Because you say it is so does not make it that way. I love the term "idiomatic". It has been used often by the Aramaic primacy crowd. They are the ones who believe that ALL Greek texts have been corrupted while being TRANSLATED from the original Aramaic. By explaining away the "errors" using idiomatic principles, they have attempted to change the words of Jesus. It first started with George Lamsa, and now it is expanding with incredible growth.

The "cheerleading" is quite childish, but you referring to them as support constantly, shows your lack of confidence in your presentation. Let's try to work on that.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Funny, I haven't seen any proof from the Greek that I put up.

Because you apparently haven't read Peterson's preface there. Still making a straw man.

Because you say it is so does not make it that way. I love the term "idiomatic". It has been used often by the Aramaic primacy crowd. They are the ones who believe that ALL Greek texts have been corrupted while being TRANSLATED from the original Aramaic. By explaining away the "errors" using idiomatic principles, they have attempted to change the words of Jesus. It first started with George Lamsa, and now it is expanding with incredible growth.

Yawn. Another logical fallacy. Guilt by association doesn't work either.

The "cheerleading" is quite childish, but you referring to them as support constantly, shows your lack of confidence in your presentation. Let's try to work on that.

I'm just waiting for all of the Greek scholars to show up. So far, they seem to be squarely on my side - so why not rely upon their intelligence and experience in the matter? I assure you that I do not lack confidence in the area, as others on this board have pointed out, and the condescending tone only shows that you are unable to prove (or disprove) much. I'm sorry that you are in the minority, especially where scholarship is concerned.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Scott:

I'm just waiting for all of the Greek scholars to show up. So far, they seem to be squarely on my side - so why not rely upon their intelligence and experience in the matter?

S&T:

Ok Scott, then show me "dung face" or even "dung" in ANY other translation. Surely, as Greek scholars, someone by now would have stumbled onto this phenomenal rendering of the original Greek.

Scott:

I assure you that I do not lack confidence in the area, as others on this board have pointed out

S&T:

Stop right there Scott. Please present your arguments as they are from your perspective. No additional validation required.


Scott: further stated:

and the condescending tone only shows that you are unable to prove (or disprove) much. I'm sorry that you are in the minority, especially where scholarship is concerned.

S&T:

It would be a good time to examine your eye for the "beam ". You have been condescending throughout this thread, but I have just ignored it. Maybe it would benefit you to let your head pastor review this thread and get his opinion on your behavior, as well as to see how you publicly represent FBC Ocala.

 

[Ed Edwards]

ScottEmerson: "I'm just waiting for all of the Greek scholars to show up."

Alas, i know no Greek.
I'm no Englash xpert either.
But i usually can read.

I understand the insult "dungface" (Matthew 10:25)
better than "Beelzebub". The idea/message/truth
is that if they are going to call Our Lord Jesus
bad stuff, they may call us bad stuff also.
I don't know the insult "Beelzebub" or what it means.
I do understand "dungface".

BTW, usually people get things confused.
"If they badmouth the master,
then they badmouth the servants."
Is NOT logically the same as:
"They have badmouthed me the servant,
Then I must be a Child of the King".

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
[QB] Scott:

I'm just waiting for all of the Greek scholars to show up. So far, they seem to be squarely on my side - so why not rely upon their intelligence and experience in the matter?

S&T:

Ok Scott, then show me "dung face" or even "dung" in ANY other translation. Surely, as Greek scholars, someone by now would have stumbled onto this phenomenal rendering of the original Greek.

It has been shown in several commentaries already that Beelzebul was known in the time of Christ as the "god of dung." Peterson, translating idiomatically, chose the word "dungface" as it idiomatically means the same thing in 21st century language as it would have meant in His time. If you don't read the preface to the Message, how can you understand his method of translation? That is where it seems that all of your confusion lies. You are holding him to a standard that he himself does not espouse.

Stop right there Scott. Please present your arguments as they are from your perspective. No additional validation required.

Eleven pages, filled with arguments, not only rebutting the claim that the Message is filled with occultic phrases, but also showing how the translations given were accurate.

It would be a good time to examine your eye for the "beam ". You have been condescending throughout this thread, but I have just ignored it. Maybe it would benefit you to let your head pastor review this thread and get his opinion on your behavior, as well as to see how you publicly represent FBC Ocala.

I'm not trying to be condescending at all. I really am troubled at your lack of examining the translation methods of Peterson. I speak with all confidence in saying that our church has supported the Message both in personal study and in speaking behind the pulpit. I am truly sorry that I have offended you, if, indeed, I have. I see no difference in this post than the other ones on the board. Remember, this is a debate forum, as Dr. Bob points out over and over again, and if you think that a line has been crossed, you can report to see if it falls under the standards of the board. I believe that it does.

That being said, I honestly do question your background in the Greek and Hebrew languages. Would you mind sharing with us your experience, both educationally and in personal use, in these areas?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
ScottEmerson: "I'm just waiting for all of the Greek scholars to show up."

Alas, i know no Greek.
I'm no Englash xpert either.
But i usually can read.

I understand the insult "dungface" (Matthew 10:25)
better than "Beelzebub". The idea/message/truth
is that if they are going to call Our Lord Jesus
bad stuff, they may call us bad stuff also.
I don't know the insult "Beelzebub" or what it means.
I do understand "dungface".

BTW, usually people get things confused.
"If they badmouth the master,
then they badmouth the servants."
Is NOT logically the same as:
"They have badmouthed me the servant,
Then I must be a Child of the King".

Thanks, Ed. You seem to understand English quite well! That is the point behind the translation - how can we best understand in 21st century language the meaning behind what was spoken 20 centuries ago.

 

[Ransom]

S&T:
Ok Scott, then show me "dung face" or even "dung" in ANY other translation.

Scott:
It has been shown in several commentaries already that Beelzebul was known in the time of Christ as the "god of dung." Peterson, translating idiomatically, chose the word "dungface" as it idiomatically means the same thing in 21st century language as it would have meant in His time.

The problem, as I see it, is that S&T appears to suffer from some affliction that prevents him from seeing the word "idiomatically."

Or perhaps he is able to actually see the word, but his unfortunate malady renders him unable to understand what it means.

I hope it's not serious! No doubt prayers for speedy recovery from this debilitating disease would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps a Get Well Soon card would be nice too.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Scott stated:

Peterson, translating idiomatically, chose the word "dungface" as it idiomatically means the same thing in 21st century language as it would have meant in His time. If you don't read the preface to the Message, how can you understand his method of translation? That is where it seems that all of your confusion lies. You are holding him to a standard that he himself does not espouse.

S&T:

It does not matter about my standard or Mr Petersons standard.

Proverbs 30

5 Every Word of God is refined, He is a shield to those who seek refuge in Him.
6 Do not add to His Words, that He not reprove you, and you be found a liar.

Scott:

Eleven pages, filled with arguments, not only rebutting the claim that the Message is filled with occultic phrases, but also showing how the translations given were accurate.


S&T:

How much of those elevem pages were proven from the original Greek Scott?


Scott:

I'm not trying to be condescending at all. I really am troubled at your lack of examining the translation methods of Peterson. I speak with all confidence in saying that our church has supported the Message both in personal study and in speaking behind the pulpit. I am truly sorry that I have offended you, if, indeed, I have.

S&T:

No offense taken Scott. I just want to discuss this without all of the other stuff.


Scott:

That being said, I honestly do question your background in the Greek and Hebrew languages.

S&T:

That's fine Scott. I am making my argument about the English translation known as the message. It is your job to show from the original texts the proof of these word and phrase choices. I think some better questions that you should be
asking are does Mr Peterson have a Doctorate in semitic languages [Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac] and Koine Greek. Here is why I say this:

NIV 115 translators

TNIV 115

NKJV 119

ESV 100+

CEV 100 [inc reviewers]

NLT 90

NASB 54

KJV 54

MESSAGE .... Eugene Peterson

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Ransom stated:

The problem, as I see it .....

S&T:

The problems occur when you think it is necessary to run interference for Scott E. He is bright and fully capable of addressing me. Why don't you let him. Once again, your sarcasm is not the Canadian way.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Proverbs 30

5 Every Word of God is refined, He is a shield to those who seek refuge in Him.
6 Do not add to His Words, that He not reprove you, and you be found a liar.

Translating idiom for idiom is not adding to His words. It is seeking to find the best way to represent the meaning of the text. Again, by this standard, all translations are adding words, as He didn't originally choose to use words in English. My question is - why are you capitalizing the word "Word?"

How much of those elevem pages were proven from the original Greek Scott?

Many of them. Again, you're still missing the idiomatic nature of the Message.

No offense taken Scott. I just want to discuss this without all of the other stuff.

Then you need to read Peterson's preface and understand how he came about his method of translation.

That's fine Scott. I am making my argument about the English translation known as the message. It is your job to show from the original texts the proof of these word and phrase choices. I think some better questions that you should be
asking are does Mr Peterson have a Doctorate in semitic languages [Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac] and Koine Greek. Here is why I say this:

NIV 115 translators

TNIV 115

NKJV 119

ESV 100+

CEV 100 [inc reviewers]

NLT 90

NASB 54

KJV 54

MESSAGE .... Eugene Peterson [/QB]

John Wycliffe alone translated his New Testament into English, and further back, Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, so we can see that acting alone doesn't mean the translation is unworthy nor it will not last the test of time. As for Peterson's credentials, he has seminary degrees as well as extensive personal study over the last 40 years or so. That seems like a lot to me. He does have a master's degree in the subject, and, again, the Greek and Hebrew scholars have been reticent to offer negative criticism about his tranlations. Look at all the information that has come out against the TNIV - if the Message was anywhere as you say it is, why have those same conservative scholars not come out similarly against the Message?

I'm still interested in your experience in the languages. You stated earlier in another thread I think that you have experience in them. What kind?

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Scott inquired:

My question is - why are you capitalizing the word "Word?"

S&T:

I have a better question. Why does Peterson insist on capitalizing the term "the Message" and then when he uses his "guess" mystical names for the Holy Spirit such as "the invisible spirit", he does not.

Message - This Christian life is a great mystery, far exceeding our understanding, but some things are clear enough: He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible spirit, was seen by angels. He was proclaimed among all kinds of peoples, believed in all over the world, taken up into heavenly glory.

Message - All this time, the good news - the Message of the kingdom- will be preached all over the world, a witness staked out in every country.

Let's take a look at how it is rendered in the NASB:

Matthew 24

14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

The English word choice gospel was derived from the Greek "euaggelion". What are the translation rules being utilized here?


Scott stated:

He does have a master's degree in the subject, and, again, the Greek and Hebrew scholars have been reticent to offer negative criticism about his tranlations. Look at all the information that has come out against the TNIV - if the Message was anywhere as you say it is, why have those same conservative scholars not come out similarly against the Message?

S&T posted this excerpt earlier:

In addition to good sales, Peterson's work has enjoyed gentle treatment from other biblical scholars.

Vern Poythress, a New Testament professor at Westminister Theological Seminary in Glenside, Pa., says he and fellow conservatives may quibble with many of Peterson's renderings but have leveled few attacks because "The Message" isn't a Bible and isn't presented as such.

and:

He says Peterson's work "is at the far end of the spectrum, not only in paraphrasing but cultural updating."


Scott inquired:

I'm still interested in your experience in the languages. You stated earlier in another thread I think that you have experience in them. What kind?


S&T:

The internet is an interesting place to promote concepts, as you are dealing purely in a one-dimensional text format with no facial or body expression. There are many in Christendom these days who are being called "Dr", who upon close examination do not posess earned degrees. There are also many others in the world of religiosity that are sporting various degrees that upon close examination, one will find that they, in fact, were issued from diploma mills.

In light of that, let me state up front that I do not posess a Doctorate in biblical languages. I do, however posess the ability to discuss the texts in the original languages that they were written. You may judge my ability based on presentation. I am ready to present my case at the time when you can prove the choices of phrases and words in presentation form from the original texts.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Message - This Christian life is a great mystery, far exceeding our understanding, but some things are clear enough: He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible spirit, was seen by angels. He was proclaimed among all kinds of peoples, believed in all over the world, taken up into heavenly glory.

The Greek pneuma has as a definition in both Strongs and Thayers of "a spirit which is devoid of all matter," so invisible spirit is a valid translation.

Message - All this time, the good news - the Message of the kingdom- will be preached all over the world, a witness staked out in every country.

Let's take a look at how it is rendered in the NASB:

Matthew 24

14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

The English word choice gospel was derived from the Greek "euaggelion". What are the translation rules being utilized here?

The Message is the good tidings that will be to all people. I'll refer you back to Peterson's preface.

Vern Poythress, a New Testament professor at Westminister Theological Seminary in Glenside, Pa., says he and fellow conservatives may quibble with many of Peterson's renderings but have leveled few attacks because "The Message" isn't a Bible and isn't presented as such.

and:

He says Peterson's work "is at the far end of the spectrum, not only in paraphrasing but cultural updating."

And interestingly enough, we have no direct quote from Polythress abou saying that the Message isn't a Bible. I looked in several places to find it, and it's not there. Do you not find it interesting that no Greek scholars have gone on record showing specific instances of occultic practices or translation mistakes, especially with what we see from the TNIV?

The internet is an interesting place to promote concepts, as you are dealing purely in a one-dimensional text format with no facial or body expression. There are many in Christendom these days who are being called "Dr", who upon close examination do not posess earned degrees. There are also many others in the world of religiosity that are sporting various degrees that upon close examination, one will find that they, in fact, were issued from diploma mills.

New York Theological Seminary and John Hopkins are in no way diploma mills. What are you trying to imply?

In light of that, let me state up front that I do not posess a Doctorate in biblical languages. I do, however posess the ability to discuss the texts in the original languages that they were written.

Which means, what, exactly? That you know where to find the resources? Could you translate a chapter of the Greek New Testament if it was placed in front of you?

You may judge my ability based on presentation.

Which is why I'm asking the question. I do not see, based upon the ultra-literalness of your disagreements in translation, that you have working knowledge of the language.

I am ready to present my case at the time when you can prove the choices of phrases and words in presentation form from the original texts.

And if you refuse to read Peterson's preface, then it will be hard to do so. Peterson translated idiom-for-idiom, not word-for-word. If you'd like to debate whether this is a worthy manner of translation, then go ahead. However, unless you understand his method, then things such as the verses you have a problem with earlire in this post will be quite futile. Peterson is aiming to show the intricacies in the koine Greek by translating it in the way that he does. He does not intend to make a word-for-word translation, and says so upfront in his preface, which it appears you have never read.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:

Message - This Christian life is a great mystery, far exceeding our understanding, but some things are clear enough: He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible spirit, was seen by angels. He was proclaimed among all kinds of peoples, believed in all over the world, taken up into heavenly glory.

Scott:

The Greek pneuma has as a definition in both Strongs and Thayers of "a spirit which is devoid of all matter," so invisible spirit is a valid translation.

S&T:

You must have missed my question Scott. Why was "invisable spirit" not capitalized while "the Message" was as it is throughout his book. Does Peterson really believe that his paraphrase is the true word so it should be capitalized, while using lower case letters when he uses a "term" that refers to The Spirit of God? To answer your question earlier why the translator capitalized the word "Word", I can only surmise that since Jesus is the Word made manifest, he felt it proper to capitalize the "Word".


S&T quoted from an article:

Vern Poythress, a New Testament professor at Westminister Theological Seminary in Glenside, Pa., says he and fellow conservatives may quibble with many of Peterson's renderings but have leveled few attacks because "The Message" isn't a Bible and isn't presented as such.

and:

He says Peterson's work "is at the far end of the spectrum, not only in paraphrasing but cultural updating."


Scott replied:

And interestingly enough, we have no direct quote from Polythress abou saying that the Message isn't a Bible. I looked in several places to find it, and it's not there. Do you not find it interesting that no Greek scholars have gone on record showing specific instances of occultic practices or translation mistakes, especially with what we see from the TNIV?

S&T:

I did not write the article, I only quoted it. I may check further.


Scott:

New York Theological Seminary and John Hopkins are in no way diploma mills. What are you trying to imply?

S&T:

I am not implying anything. I was making a observation about situations I have seen over the years.


S&T stated earlier:

In light of that, let me state up front that I do not posess a Doctorate in biblical languages. I do, however posess the ability to discuss the texts in the original languages that they were written.

Scott responded:

Which means, what, exactly? That you know where to find the resources? Could you translate a chapter of the Greek New Testament if it was placed in front of you?

S&T:

I quess that the better question would be can you? I have stated my opinions based on his English rendering. I have asked specific questions based on the Greek. I you want to prove it as valid, you are welcome to do so from the Greek.


Scott stated:

Which is why I'm asking the question. I do not see, based upon the ultra-literalness of your disagreements in translation, that you have working knowledge of the language.

S&T:

Translated, the above statement means that if someone does not accept an "idiomatic" rendering as God's word, then they obviously do not know anything.

Scott:
Peterson is aiming to show the intricacies in the koine Greek by translating it in the way that he does.

S&T:

I guess we need to further define what those "intricacies" are.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
You must have missed my question Scott. Why was "invisable spirit" not capitalized while "the Message" was as it is throughout his book. Does Peterson really believe that his paraphrase is the true word so it should be capitalized, while using lower case letters when he uses a "term" that refers to The Spirit of God? To answer your question earlier why the translator capitalized the word "Word", I can only surmise that since Jesus is the Word made manifest, he felt it proper to capitalize the "Word".

The Message is filled with references to the Spirit capitalized, used as a title. In the Message that I am looking at now (and the one that is online at biblegateway.com, the verse is written: "This Christian life is a great mystery, far exceeding our understanding, but some things are clear enough: He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible Spirit, was seen by angels. He was proclaimed among all kinds of peoples, believed in all over the world, taken up into heavenly glory. " So I'm not sure why you believe that it is not capitalized.

I did not write the article, I only quoted it. I may check further.

I've checked, but have been unable to find any quote where the guy says such a thing. I thought about e-mailing him, but figured he has better things to do.

{QUOTE]
I quess that the better question would be can you?[/quote]

Yes, actually. Now, back to you. I teach a College Bible Study using predominantly the Greek.

I have stated my opinions based on his English rendering. I have asked specific questions based on the Greek. I you want to prove it as valid, you are welcome to do so from the Greek.

Sigh. So in your avoiding the question, can we just come to the understanding that you really don't understand Greek by itself, but that you know how to use different resources to help you translate it? Twelve pages are filled with proofs showing that Peterson translated the passages correctly.

Translated, the above statement means that if someone does not accept an "idiomatic" rendering as God's word, then they obviously do not know anything.

Wrong again. You haven't provided an argument against idiomatic language. If you had, we would be discussing this. Instead you are bringing random passages and complaining that it deviates from the literal Greek. If you do not accept an idiomatic translation, then make that your argument. You'd probably be more successful than what is happening now.

I guess we need to further define what those "intricacies" are.

The onus is on you not to define which of these you find fault with, but that the translation process itself is faulty. That is why Ed and Ransom have said the things that they have. They do not understand why you haven't addressed that. Neither do I.

 

[Ransom]

Spirit and Truth said:

Once again, your sarcasm is not the Canadian way.

Hey Yankee: You just let us Canadians worry about the "Canadian way," and you try actually answering the arguments that Scott has been making. You keep avoiding them.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Spirit and Truth said:

Once again, your sarcasm is not the Canadian way.

Ransom stated:

Hey Yankee: You just let us Canadians worry about the "Canadian way,"

S&T:

Actually they are. One who contacted me was quite dismayed with the way you have been responding, and assured me that your behavior is not reflective of how most Canadians are. I thanked her for her affirmation of what I had experienced. Now, do you have anything scholarly to add Scotty?

 

[Spirit and Truth]

S&T stated earlier in the thread and was unanswered:

Did the "translator" omit a few important descriptive details?

1 Corinthians 6
8 But you do wrong, and defraud, and these things to brothers!
9 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Message

Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens of God's kingdom.


S&T:

The abusing the earth thing has a nice "gaia" touch.

S&T now adds:

The NASB renders it as this:

1 Cor 6
8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.


An elementary school bible student using an average Greek lexicon could define that some important terms have been "overlooked", or loosely touched upon in this paraphrase:

eidololatres

malakos

kleptes

pleonektes

methusos

loidoros

harpax


Has God recently lowered the bar for what He will and will not accept from us? According to the message "translation",
those who worship false idols, who indulge in homosexuality, stealing, those who covet the things of others, drunkards, revelling, and those who manipulate to get personal gain are all now acceptable? I have a person that I am currently working with to help him change his life to meet Gods standards for righteous living. He will certainly be happy to hear that he doesn't have to give up many of the things that he has enjoyed for years according to this "translation".
He does not know any Greek, but I am sure he will be thrilled to learn of this loosely approached "idiomatic" process. In the "common" language of this book, he is all ready for the kingdom.