The Message

I believe it is not just a cool way of looking at the verse but the right way.

Many Christians see the words "Hell will not prevail" and mistakenly think of Hell on the attack and the church on the defense. However a gate is a defensive structure and a gate prevailing would be one that keeps the enemy (the church) out.

 

You bring up a good point, GD. There's a difference between what the Bible says, and what the Bible is saying.

To reiterate, I wouldn't recommend using the Message exclusively, but as a paraphrasic tool alongside a mainline translations (such as the KJV and variations, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc), it has value.

 

So you all are okay with this in The Message?

It's easy to read this as homosexual relations are only wrong if there is lust and no love. It also says they are "confused," something not said in NASB, NIV, King James, etc.

Here's the same passage in the NASB

 

It's easy to read this as homosexual relations are only wrong if there is lust and no love.
</font>[/QUOTE]I agree that the idea of "no love" being important in this passage has no basis in the text.

 

I see it also.

 

Marcia, you're verse-lifting. The context of that verse is not intended to address homosexuality. It is intended to address a specific example of disobedience. There's adequate scripture elsewhere that expressly condemns same-gender fornication.

 

Isn't it interesting how different people have different takes on stuff?

I was given a copy of "The Message" and started reading it once. Frankly, I found it too offensive to read past about 5 pages. It hasn't left my shelf since and has some HUGE dust bunnies growing on it now!

 

I don't think I am. In fact, we are doing Romans now in Sunday School and I've just been over this passage. It is addressing homosexual relations -- how else would you interpret women "exchanging the natural function" for the unnatural and men "in the same way" burning with lust for one another?

The Bible does not say they were "sexually confused;" Peterson says that. The Bible says that were indulging in "degrading passions" and "indecent acts."

This passage is used consistently to show that homosexuality is condemned in the NT.

And The Message does leave it open that they were wrong because there was lust, not love: "all lust, no love." In fact, this is how homosexuals interpret this passage.

 

Marcia,
I thought that you might be interested in this article:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/new_age_and_the_message.html

 

I agree with Tater along with the others that have said use caution as it is a paraphrase. It should never be used to replace a translation.

I also prefer NLT to the Message, and it is a translation.

 

In a previous thread I already laid out my view on "The Message." So this is just a summary of what I've posted previously.

I would avoid the Message. But if you are going to read it never open it without a literal translation right next to it. The narrative sections tend to be somewhat decent in the Message. But the epistles and poetry sections are greatly changed. As a paraphrase Peterson includes in the text his own commentary and preconceived ideas about what something means. He is also not consistent in how he translates.

My main problem is with his translation philosophy. I do not have my copy with me or I would quote from the preface. But the general backbone to his translation philosophy was that he had to make the text come alive for the reader - to breathe new life into the Scriptures. That is a job that does not belong to a man. The only one who can truly make the Bible relevant, come alive, and breathe life into the readers is the Holy Spirit. And although he apparently knows Greek and Hebrew he veers greatly from what the original text actually says and shapes it say what he thinks it says. What would happen if Shakespeare's writing were translated in this way?

There are also places where Peterson's "translation" completely changes the text and greatly affects the theology of the passages.

So if you read it always have a reliable, non-paraphrase, right next to and when there is difference always defer to the more literal translation.

 

The CEV, NCV,GNT, are also translations that are easy to read, they rely heavily on DE but yet again are translations.

 

Paraphrases are ok and I use them occasionally. I do not however use the Message. It's just not that good.

 

Why read a paraphrase that changes what the Bible says? Peterson puts some subjective commentary into some of the passages.
For me personally I just dont need a paraphrase to give me a answer from a "real Bible". It is like wasted time. If portions of a paraphase have been subjectively changed then the conclusions you may draw from using these paraphrases may not at all be what the Holy Spirit wanted you to glean from that particular passage.
Peterson is weak on homosexual passages. That right there is enough for me to just stay away. I don't need his opinion of the bible to be passed off as being what he thinks the Bible is saying . I only need a Bible.
How do these 3rd. world,persecuted christians do it. Only having one bible if that yet God seems to give them enough direction and grace through their one bible or partial bible to endure beatings, mockery etc.... Yet spoiled Johnny Christian in the states who is a millionaire compared to most christian brothern around the world just has to have 5o dozen or so bible versions, paraphrases etc... Just so he or she can cope in this terrible land of plenty and freedom. It never ceases to amaze me how pampered the american christian is yet they still can't wake up from their apathy and self centeredness.

 

My opinion? I had just soon give a child an NIV or even a Living Bible paraphrase than the ridiculous paraphrasing found in the Message.

I know of no place where the Message could be used without legitimate alternatives unless one was lost on a desert island with nothing else.

I am taking the liberty to make public my feelings about a bad attempt at paraphrasing the entire Bible.

We lived through the series of THREE novels that turned into (how many?) of the End Times. I may be wrong, but I have a gut suspicion that it was stretched to many more versions due simply to sales and money. Now we have someone who has essentially turned the entire Bible into a novel.

 

I was in a Christian bookstore the other day. Not much Christian about the stuff that they sell there. So I am looking in the Bible section, and lo and behold, there is a black leather covered, gold trimmed book looking like an expensive Bible. I picked it up and started reading, and to my suprise, it was the Message, impersonating as a real Bible.

 

Christian Bookstore? Is there really such a place anymore?

 

everytime I see the term "christian bookstore" I think of Prov 23:23

"Buy the truth, and sell it not, also wisdom, and instruction and understanding."

the word "buy" is defined as possessing or acquiring in the Hebrew [#7069]

funny how we never see any of the NT writers "selling" their letters or gospels.
[ducking ]

 

not endorsing this site, just passing it along in the interest of content:

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mess_bible.html

[my apologies if it's a repeat ]