Thread: The Message Bible?

I just read a couple scriptures off the message Bible. I was deeply disturbed by the way its "translated". Can someone just give me some additional information about this translation. I am very ignorant when it comes to manuscripts and translations.

Eugene Peterson wrote it because he felt like, in Bible times, it would have sounded easy and natural in the common language, and he wants to reflect that in an English translation. It does not show proper reverence for the inspired Word if you ask me. Morever, the writers of the Scriptures were extremely intelligent and I don't believe Paul's rhetoric in Romans was originally written at a 5th grade level.

It is more of a paraphrase than anything. It does tend to lend itself to a more post-modern bias.
Bono recommends it.

"The Message" isn't a translation, rather it is a paraphrase.

It appears that it is a paraphrase, not a translation. And per Wikipedia, the guy who did it even had this to say about it himself: "When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message." But it surprises me how many do."

The Message is not a translation but a paraphrase and I would not recommend it. Here are some quotes by its author, Eugene Peterson:

"Eugene's first inspiration to complete the book had been after completing the Beatitudes, he states:
I just kind of let go and became playful."

"Although The Message is used commonly in congregations, Eugene Peterson stated the following to users of his book on a Christianity Today interview:
When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message." But it surprises me how many do."

It is a corruption of the Word of God in my opinion.

I think the Message is about as inspired as footnotes in a study bible.

It is not a translation of the bible. It is a modern day abridgment and paraphrase at best, set to a grade school level.

Do you really want to know what "The Message" is worth? Read Romans 9 and tell me if any meaning is lost while trying to make the text relevant.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Do you really want to know what "The Message" is worth? Read Romans 9 and tell me if any meaning is lost while trying to make the text relevant.

Romans 9 - PassageLookup - The Message - BibleGateway.com

See:

The Message

AMR

The Message is really becoming popular in my church. I don't mind it as far as ease of reading goes, but so much has been lost in the paraphrase, and yet it is still treated as God's Word. When people read from it in Bible studies, it really bothers me.

Rick Warren is a big proponent of the "Message". It truly does fit his theology for it easier to twist something that is already bent.

The Message is not a Bible, it is a bunch of words on paper, some of which in accordance with Christian beliefs.

As a paraphrase, it is not considered a translation of the bible in the strict sense. However, let me suggest that we paraphase or exerpt portions of scripture all the time, in our conversations, emails, and other extemporaneous settings. I doubt that when we do this, we denigrate it to level of meaningless and stupid words.

The Message is not a Bible, it is a bunch of words on paper, some of which in accordance with Christian beliefs.

Let's be fair here. This may be true of something like the Qur'an, but I think it's a little harsh to put the Message in the same category. Peterson's work is a highly colloquialized rendition and interpretation of the bible that differs only in degree to something like the NLT or Good News bible. Would you say that these are not Bibles?

On the other end of the spectrum, some argue that the KJV is completely literal (some consider it almost inspired). However, any time you are translation between languages, a word-for-word translation is not possible - not without destroying the language with its paradigms and conventions. Even Young's Literal Translation is not word for word. It is still bound to English, albeit a very wooden and unconventional form of it. Interpretation and contextualization in the receiving language is always occurring and necessary with any translation of the bible.