What do you think of the Message... [Archive]

SapphireGrl

October 20th, 2003, 07:35 PM

Here's a link that does detailed comparisons of "The Message" to scripture.

http://www.doveministries.com/usa/message.htm

Here are some examples:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

(NKJV): "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 homosexuals, nor sodomites, [10] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

(The 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, 10 use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom."

Romans 1:27

(NKJV): "Likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due"

(The Message) "Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either - women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men - all lust, no love."

1 Corinthians 6:17-19

(NKJV): "17But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. [19] Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?"

(The Message) "17Since we want to become spiritually one with the Master, we must not pursue the kind of sex that avoids commitment and intimacy, leaving us more lonely than ever--the kind of sex that can never "become one." 18There is a sense in which sexual sins are different from all others. In sexual sin we violate the sacredness of our own bodies, these bodies that were made for God-given and God-modeled love, for "becoming one" with another. 19Or didn't you realize that your body is a sacred place, the place of the Holy Spirit? Don't you see that you can't live however you please, squandering what God paid such a high price for? The physical part of you is not some piece of property belonging to the spiritual part of you.".

Galatians 5:19-23
(NKJV): 19"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,"
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

(The Message) 19"It is obvious what kind of life develops of trying to get your own way all the time. Repetitive, loveless, cheap sex, a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage, frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness."
20 trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; 21the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community. I could go on.
This isn't the first time I have warned you, you know. If you use your freedom this way, you will not inherit God's kingdom.
22But what happens when we live God's way? He brings gifts into our lives, much the same way that fruit appears in an orchard--things like affection for others, exuberance about life, serenity. We develop a willingness to stick with things, a sense of compassion in the heart, and a conviction that a basic holiness permeates things and people. We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, 23not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely.
Legalism is helpless in bringing this about; it only gets in the way.

1 Peter 3:1
(NKJV): "Likewise you wives be submissive to your own husbands".

(The Message) "Be good wives to your husbands".

There's lots more but you get the idea.

*Edited to correct an error.

antsinmypants

October 20th, 2003, 08:09 PM

The Message and "G-d's Word" translations aren't TRANSLATIONS.

They are paraphrased, and quite badly at that.

It's not always on the ball either.

I'd definitely not reccommend it for a new believer.

blitzkreig

October 20th, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by antsinmypants
The Message and "G-d's Word" translations aren't TRANSLATIONS. They are paraphrased, and quite badly at that. It's not always on the ball either. I'd definitely not reccommend it for a new believer. I think it has applications. It seems to me to be written for those at about the Grade 4 to Grade 7 level... better than one of those kids bibles with pop up pictures but as some have said not really a translation... "think broad brush strokes".

If you are trying to convey a "concept" sometimes it makes it easier than a true translation with lot of "heavy" language... even to those much older...

Crescendo

October 20th, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by blitzkreig
[B}If you are trying to convey a "concept" sometimes it makes it easier than a true translation with lot of "heavy" language... even to those much older... [/B]

Agree with you, bk.
Not a primary source or anything academic but it does have its place as a concept tool. We use it sometimes during a study to share an idea when the 'thees and thous' versions might bog us down.

antsinmypants

October 20th, 2003, 10:32 PM

I dunno.

I was raised on KJV and was able to understand it at an early age (we're talking K-2).

I'm not a "brain child" either. :sigh

The Message and "G-d's Word" (also known as "G-d's word for modern man") -- aren't really even broad strokes at best on the nitty gritty verses. They leave much to the imagination.. whereas the other translations atleast give you an idea where 'we're' going with scripture.

::shrug::

I say it's somewhere between "personal preference" and "literal truths".

:wave

blitzkreig

October 20th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by antsinmypants
I dunno. I was raised on KJV and was able to understand it at an early age (we're talking K-2).

Yes you were raised on it.:nod So was I... my father was sort of a lovable cross between Spurgeon and Archie Bunker :D:

You know to learn a new language at an early age it is a snap... I think my daughter said her first words at 9 months and was talking a blue streak by 15 months. Now try to learn a new language at 21 ;): or my age at 50+... not so easy. :freaked

I think for someone first encountering the concept of God in their teens or even a much older person who makes their first pass through the Bible ... it is just fine.

Milk then meat :thumb

Once a person gets traction then yes indeed ...

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

or from the Message :

1Co 13:11 When I was an infant at my mother's breast, I gurgled and cooed like any infant. When I grew up, I left those infant ways for good.

filosofer

October 20th, 2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by antsinmypants

The Message and "G-d's Word" (also known as "G-d's word for modern man") -- aren't really even broad strokes at best on the nitty gritty verses. They leave much to the imagination.. whereas the other translations atleast give you an idea where 'we're' going with scripture.

These two are not in the same category. The Message, as I pointed out above, was not meant to be a translation.

The predecessor translation of God's Word was Beck (1963 NT, 1976 OT) was originally revised in 1988 carrying the name New Evangelical Translation (NET). There were two further revisions before being published in 1995. I had reviewed the translation at each stage and sent suggestions to the translators, and I served as pastor in a congregation that tested the translation before publication (specifically in 1993-4). The 1992 edition of NET [no relation to the NET Bible now available at bible.org] was by far the best translation ever done, although it was only the NT at the time. Regarding the final (and major) changes: some improved the translation; others - well, many of us were not happy about the changes.

Regardless of that history, God's Word is still a reputable translation. In fact, I usually recommend to someone who does not know Hebrew or Greek a combination of NAS/NKJV/GW/CEV to get a sense of the original text . It is not a case of saying this translation NAS/NKJV (or fill in your own favorite) is "correct" and we check it according to that "standard." Rather, we see how many different translators from many backgrounds, wrestle with the original language texts and through that we gain a better understanding of the text.

SapphireGrl

October 21st, 2003, 12:03 AM

So what then is the purpose of The Message? It has obvious changes to the meaning of scripture throughout it. How is it a useful tool for Christians when this is the case?

blessedone

October 21st, 2003, 01:35 AM

Sapphiregrl: Thanks for the comparison, it shows that the message is nothing more than a vile perversion of God's Word and good for nothing but the trash heap.

I'm waiting to see an answer to her question though. I would like to know how it's being rationalized as a tool at all.

Rom831

October 21st, 2003, 09:59 AM

I'll say this for it, when I was just getting into God's Word, the Bible intimidated me as much as did Shakespeare. I desired to read it and started to a few times, but often got bogged down. Then The Message came out.

I read it and was thrilled! Loved it! In fact I loved it so much I got a NIV Bible and read it cover to cover. Loved that so much I got a NASB and read.

Now, in hindsight the "translation" is horrible. But, it is very easy reading and not intimidating at all. It should NOT be used for study, but it was the catalyst that really got me into reading the Bible for myself. I'd feel free to read or recommend it WITH GREAT DISCLAIMERS!!!

Bless...ArtS

blitzkreig

October 21st, 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by SapphireGrl
So what then is the purpose of The Message? It has obvious changes to the meaning of scripture throughout it. How is it a useful tool for Christians when this is the case? Think of it as a really really thick Tract. I don't think it that useful for a Christian... but great to give to those just looking for Christ...

Originally posted by Rom831
I'll say this for it, when I was just getting into God's Word, the Bible intimidated me as much as did Shakespeare. I desired to read it and started to a few times, but often got bogged down. Then The Message came out.

I read it and was thrilled! Loved it! In fact I loved it so much I got a NIV Bible and read it cover to cover. Loved that so much I got a NASB and read.

Now, in hindsight the "translation" is horrible. But, it is very easy reading and not intimidating at all. It should NOT be used for study, but it was the catalyst that really got me into reading the Bible for myself. I'd feel free to read or recommend it WITH GREAT DISCLAIMERS!!!

Bless...ArtS Exactly.

SapphireGrl

October 21st, 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Rom831
I'd feel free to read or recommend it WITH GREAT DISCLAIMERS!!!
I still don't understand this. Is it easy to read? Sure! But it changes so much! It does not say the same thing that the Bible does in so many places. So why would you recommend a book that has so many obvious changes and discrepancies just because it's easy to read?

Why not recommend a bible that is easy to read yet stays true to scripture and does not compromise or change it? How is it helping anyone to deliberately recommend this mistranslation to anyone?

Blitzkreig, who is getting convicted of sin if the The Message doesn't even call their sin sin in the first place? How does that help an unsaved person if The Message isn't even showing them that some of the actions they may be engaged in are sinful? How does that show them that they need the Lord? How do they know they need to repent if their sin isn't even called sin in the first place?

This is why I am so baffled that Christians recommend this book.

blitzkreig

October 21st, 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by SapphireGrl
Blitzkreig, who is getting convicted of sin if the The Message doesn't even call their sin sin in the first place? How does that help an unsaved person if The Message isn't even showing them that some of the actions they may be engaged in are sinful? How does that show them that they need the Lord? How do they know they need to repent if their sin isn't even called sin in the first place? And how will they seek God if they find it too difficult to read? Where I come from the Message is either down right free or close to it... some churches give them out like they do Tracts.

I think everyone knows somebody who has told them at one time or another that they started reading the Bible and just couldn't understand a thing... so they stopped.

I think there are hundreds or maybe even thousands who have come to faith and been convicted of their sins from that "Left Behind" series... and that is certainly not as complete as the Message. Did they move on from there and get a real Bible?... yes.

We do all have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who does all the heavy lifting when it comes to Salvation AND Sanctification.

I have maybe 12 or so hard copy bibles (some are LARGE PRINT :): ) and maybe another dozen in soft copy... so some are duplicated in the count. So you can tell that I don't think it should be a person's only Bible.

As I say it is written at about the Grade 4 or maybe Grade 5 level.

Chrystalwuzhere

October 21st, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by blitzkreig

So you can tell that I don't think it should be a person's only Bible.

As I say it is written at about the Grade 4 or maybe Grade 5 level.

But when the gospel contained within it is perverted, it shouldn't be endorsed, or accepted at all...much less recommended to a seeker, or new believer.

SapphireGrl

October 21st, 2003, 03:57 PM

Thank you, Chrys. Exactly.

Blitz, you said,
And how will they seek God if they find it too difficult to read? Where I come from the Message is either down right free or close to it... some churches give them out like they do Tracts.

I think everyone knows somebody who has told them at one time or another that they started reading the Bible and just couldn't understand a thing... so they stopped.
To this I say the same thing I did in my earlier post. Why give them a perverted translation of the bible just because it's easy to read? What does it matter if it's easy to read when the Word has been changed? :confused

Why not give them a bible that stays true to God's Word yet is still easy to read. Those do exist in great numbers. The Message is not the only easy to read "bible" out there. It's not even really a bible! So why is it that you and others are willing to endorse this and pass it along to others when it perverts and flat-out changes the meaning of the Word in a number of places?

BusyMom

October 21st, 2003, 04:11 PM

Thank you Sapphiregrl and Chrystalwuzhere for standing firm against this book. For those of you who think it is OK, please read the examples that Sapphiregl gave at the beginning of this thread. Can you not see the not-so-veiled New Age philosophy in these passages???

In my humble opinion, this "bible" will lead many into the arms of the oh-so-tolerant One World Religion.

col311

October 22nd, 2003, 03:51 PM

Its a paraphrase.

Ajani

October 22nd, 2003, 04:21 PM

discovergrace

October 22nd, 2003, 05:14 PM

called the ANSWER.
I just got this bible and it is so easy to read. it makes it enjoyable.
Have you guys any advice on this bible?
I usually go by the NIV but I had never heard of the new century version til a week or so ago when this came in the mail.

it does talk about men with men etc instead of homosexuals. but i think that means the same thing...no?

SapphireGrl

October 22nd, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Ajani
I think that sometimes some of its critics miss this point. It is a great read, and I love it.
Even though it's inaccurate? Are you saying these two passages say the same thing?

Romans 1:27

NKJV: "Likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due"

The Message "Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either - women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men - all lust, no love."

What about this one? Are these two saying the same thing?

1 Peter 3:1

NKJV: "Likewise you wives be submissive to your own husbands".

The Message: "Be good wives to your husbands".

Not hardly.

It's a great gateway for people who feel intimidated by the bible in it's traditional incarnation.
Even though it changes and perverts the Word? Just recommend it anyway just because it's easy to read? Is that the litmus test here? How easy it is to read? Are we to just ignore the glaring errors and mistranslations just because it's easy to read???

Ok, all those who believe that a bible translation should be accurate, please raise your hands! Because that is obviously not important to a number of Christians and I am completely baffled.

So can someone please explain to me this willingness to endorse and heap praise on a translation that flat-out changes and perverts the Word of God to more touch-feely nonsense? Again, if it is changed to the point that it does not in anyway even resemble what is in scripture, why are you approving this book? Why are you endorsing this book? Why are you willing to put your stamp of approval on a translation of a bible that does such a pathetic job of it that it doesn't even resemble the bible in many, MANY places? It does not even call sin sin in a number of places. Is that ok with you? Do you think that's ok with God?

Joshua's Gen

October 22nd, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by pigdog
bible translation? I've been doing the purpose filled life, and I enjoy the Message references. Anyone read the Message who cares to critique?

I think it's a joke.

I mean, I literally laughed when I read the Psalms in that. :tape

Chrystalwuzhere

October 22nd, 2003, 05:35 PM

It is a joke. The Message is only this man's opinion as to what the Bible says... and it's not doctrinally sound.

I don't understand how folks can flat-out ignore the comparisons noted above. I mean, it's right there in black and white!

blitzkreig

October 22nd, 2003, 05:38 PM

It's not even really a bible! So why is it that you and others are willing to endorse this and pass it along to others when it perverts and flat-out changes the meaning of the Word in a number of places? No it isn't really a Bible... it is a book. I don't "endorse" it either... I just said it has it's place.

Do you think we should condemn Tracts because they don't give the whole precise story?

If my Church started using it from the pulpit I would get up-in-arms... but due to it's "popularity" I think it better than "nothing at all".

I wouldn't spend a nickle buying one but have it on soft-copy because it was free... and I do quote from it sometimes when I am addressing folks who seem to have problems understanding a concept as it does convey concepts quite well.

We are having a problem where I come from because there is a movement afoot to take the Gideon Bibles out of Hospitals. Same old story about publicly funded places favouring a specific Religion. So I counter that with pointing people to the Scriptures (any Christian Book really) every chance that I can.

No it's not everyones cup of tea.

Chrystalwuzhere

October 22nd, 2003, 05:40 PM

I just said it has it's place.

But how can something that changes God's word have it's place?

John Tyson

October 22nd, 2003, 05:40 PM

Grace and peace to you all.

Let me ask a simple question. If someone is going to quote you, would you like for them to use your exact words as closely as possible, or would you rather someone paraphrase your words in an effort to say what they think you meant to say?

Now I know that we can't use the exact words that the Bible was written in as most of us don't understand Hebrew or Greek. So a direct translation from say Greek to English is the closest we can come. So I'll ask again, if someone was quoting you in French something you said in English, would you rather it be as close to a direct translation or a French paraphrased translation of what they thought you meant to say?

Problem. Some use the Message as scripture. Note in "The Purpose Driven Life" Rick Warren says: "The Bible says..." and then quotes from the Message. That is not what the Bible says--that is what Eugene Peterson says he thinks the Bible says--big difference. Now there is a place for commentary on scripture as all know that commentary is the opinion of the commentator. That is different from paraphrasing where some may not understand that is the opinion of the paraphraser. In my opinion, there are so many very good direct translations there is no need to use a paraphrased translation.

To answer my own question above, I know I want to be quoted as directly as possible. I believe most of us would also. I've a notion that God also wants to be quoted as directly and closely to His Own words as possible? If God wanted His words restated as in the Message, I suspect He would have said it that way to begin with.

God bless,
John

Chrystalwuzhere

October 22nd, 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by John Tyson

To answer my own question above, I know I want to be quoted as directly as possible. I believe most of us would also. I've a notion that God also wants to be quoted as directly and closely to His Own words as possible? If God wanted His words restated as in the Message, I suspect He would have said it that way to begin with.

God bless,
John

I agree. God is clear on how He feels and thinks on things.

And besides, if you're gonna paraphrase someone, make sure you're actually saying what they really mean...and don't change the meaning of what it was they were saying.

I don't want to hear what someone thinks God says... I want to know exactly what God says, and means.

blitzkreig

October 22nd, 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Chrystalwuzhere
But how can something that changes God's word have it's place? That old movie "The 10 Commandments" with Charlton Heston wasn't exactly scriptural... but I usually watch it once or twice a year. The upcoming movie "The Passion" that is coming out next year... likely has some dialogue or scenes not contained in the Scripture but I will likely go to see it too.

Joshua's Gen

October 22nd, 2003, 05:45 PM

Maybe think about it like this?

If so many people are apt to keep holy the name of of God..
for it's a holy thing indeed, for lack of better wording..

like, saying 'G-d', and refusing to utter or pronounce the tetragrammaton (YHWH), etc.. refusing to take His name in vain by saying G-d d*mn and so forth..

then why don't we, as God does, keep His word uplifted with the same reverence and respect?

I mean, look; God does! - Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

God magnifies and esteems His word above EVEN His own name!
That's saying something.

Just my thoughts for now..

blitzkreig

October 22nd, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Chrystalwuzhere
I agree. God is clear on how He feels and thinks on things.

And besides, if you're gonna paraphrase someone, make sure you're actually saying what they really mean...and don't change the meaning of what it was they were saying.

I don't want to hear what someone thinks God says... I want to know exactly what God says, and means. Oh I do agree. I would never use it for any kind of study. I think it would be very wrong to use from the pulpit or actual teaching... but I think that about a number of the "translations" that are out there.

Chrystalwuzhere

October 22nd, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by blitzkreig
That old movie "The 10 Commandments" with Charlton Heston wasn't exactly scriptural... but I usually watch it once or twice a year. The upcoming movie "The Passion" that is coming out next year... likely has some dialogue or scenes not contained in the Scripture but I will likely go to see it too.

People aren't using them as their Bible either. I'm not saying you use The Message as your bible, but some do.

I don't watch those movies as a doctrinal authority, or use them as scripture.

We should reject anything, whether it be a commentary, or a Bible that perverts the word of God.

Agreeably disagreeing here.

John Tyson

October 22nd, 2003, 05:53 PM

Grace and peace to you all.

Originally posted by blitzkreig
That old movie "The 10 Commandments" with Charlton Heston wasn't exactly scriptural... but I usually watch it once or twice a year. The upcoming movie "The Passion" that is coming out next year... likely has some dialogue or scenes not contained in the Scripture but I will likely go to see it too.

I suspect most viewers know the difference between a movie script and scripture verses.

Which is more profitable, a direct translation or a paraphrased translation?

God bless,
John

SapphireGrl

October 22nd, 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by blitzkreig
No it isn't really a Bible... it is a book. I don't "endorse" it either... I just said it has it's place.

Do you think we should condemn Tracts because they don't give the whole precise story?
I would hope that you would condemn any tool or tract that changes the meaning of the Holy Word of God or removes words from it.

If my Church started using it from the pulpit I would get up-in-arms... but due to it's "popularity" I think it better than "nothing at all".
One of the problems is this. The willingness to accept and even promote a mistranslation of God's Word just because it's better than nothing at all. It's never acceptable to pass along a book that has changed God's Word.

and I do quote from it sometimes when I am addressing folks who seem to have problems understanding a concept as it does convey concepts quite well.
Why quote it if you know it's full of error? Why use it if you know it's in error? Why are you willing to use a translation that is so full of error just because of it's simplicity?

We are having a problem where I come from because there is a movement afoot to take the Gideon Bibles out of Hospitals. Same old story about publicly funded places favouring a specific Religion. So I counter that with pointing people to the Scriptures (any Christian Book really) every chance that I can.

No it's not everyones cup of tea.
It shouldn't be anyone's cup of tea. Doesn't anyone get it?? It is not ok to use and recommend to others, particularly the unsaved or new Christians, a translation of the bible that is so full of error. You do them no favors when you give them a book that has so many changes to the Word in it. I think that people are forgetting that God's Word is HOLY and is NEVER to be changed. And if it is, we are to have NOTHING to do with it. But instead people are ignoring that just because it's easy to read. Sure, it's easy to read, but so is the book or mormon and I wouldn't recommend that to anyone either!

People have to stop compromising on the integrity of God's Word. The Message is without integrity. It has so many changes and so many mistranslations that it is completely untrustworthy. I had to do a serious passage to passage comparison in order to grasp just how often The Message changes scripture. Does anyone believe for one minute that an unsaved person is going to sit down and do that and realize that the book they're using is really in error and that they need to go and get a real bible? Does anyone believe that a new Christian will do that? That they will even know to do so?

People have got to realize that there are some things that you just cannot compromise on and keeping God's Word Holy and True is one of them.

Jael

October 22nd, 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by discovergrace
called the ANSWER.
I just got this bible and it is so easy to read. it makes it enjoyable.
Have you guys any advice on this bible?
I usually go by the NIV but I had never heard of the new century version til a week or so ago when this came in the mail.

it does talk about men with men etc instead of homosexuals. but i think that means the same thing...no?

I'm sorry to say I have some concerns with the New Century Version as well...I had never heard of it until someone on RR started a thread about a new teen devotional Bible called Revolve. I bought Revolve so I could evaluate it, and found that it used this New Century Version. While I liked the devotional material in Revolve, when I started researching the Bible version, I found some problems with it...here is the post where I explained my difficulties with the NCV

Okay, after some brief research, I do have at least one major problem with the NCV translation Resolve is using. The translators made a serious effort to use gender-neutral pronouns, even when they had to change the meaning to do so.

For example,

KJV

Jhn 15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

NCV

Jhn 15:5 I am the vine, and you are the branches. If any remain in me and I remain in them, they produce much fruit. But without me they can do nothing.

I am no textual scholar, but the critique I read indicates that the translators changed pronouns that were clearly singular in the Greek ("He", "Him", "Ye") to be plural, so as to avoid a gender-specific pronoun by using "them" instead. That I don't like.

Another example is Psalm 34:20

KJV

Psa 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

There's a reason why the Spirit inspired David to write this using a singular, male pronoun - it is prophetic of Jesus (as the gospel writers make clear later). But to avoid using the gender-specific "He", the NCV renders it:

NCV

Psalm 34:20 He will protect their very bones; not one of them will be broken.

I can't post them all here, but the following website documents lots of examples.

http://www.no-tniv.com/genderneutral.html

So, while I like the devotional material very much, and I am not offended by the magazine packaging, I can't recommend the NCV Bible translation used by Revolve. If they would produce this same publication using the NKJV, I'd be able to recommend it without reservation as a teen devotional.

You can use the following cites to compare the NCV with other translations:

http://authenticwalk.com/bibletoolbox/

Jael

October 22nd, 2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by SapphireGrl
People have got to realize that there are some things that you just cannot compromise on and keeping God's Word Holy and True is one of them.

You are fighting the good fight Sapphire...it doesn't matter how easy a Bible is to read, if it perverts the meaning of God's word. In fact, a distorted Bible can do untold harm, because people put their trust in it and can be led into all kinds of error.

blitzkreig

October 22nd, 2003, 06:46 PM

OK already... I will stop using the Message. I will not recommend the Message to anyone. Those that I do see using the Message I will tell that I have changed my ways and they should too... :clap

(what do folks think about the Good News Bible – Second Edition © 1992 by American Bible Society... I'm almost afraid to ask :doh )

Chrystalwuzhere

October 22nd, 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by blitzkreig

OK already... I will stop using the Message. I will not recommend the Message to anyone. Those that I do see using the Message I will tell that I have changed my ways and they should too... :clap

*giggle* http://luvjc.net/emoticons/angry/0032.gif

SapphireGrl

October 22nd, 2003, 07:07 PM

:faint

That's awesome, Blitz! Good for you! :clap

I really want people to understand that the point of being so vehement against this translation isn't because I want to be right, or because I don't like different bible translations. I personally am so vehement against this book because I believe that it is dangerous and that it deceives. In just a few examples alone, I've shown how different Eugene Peterson's words are from God's own Word.

It is so dangerous to change the Word of God and then present it as being just another easy-to-read version. We absolutely have to be uncompromising when it comes to people that change the Word because once they've done it, it no longer has the same meaning. We're not supposed to live according to what Eugene Peterson thinks and his interpretation, we're supposed to live according to what God thinks. And if anyone comes along and starts changing things, we need to call them on it. :nod

Jael

October 22nd, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by blitzkreig
OK already... I will stop using the Message.

:lol @ Blitz...

Willo

February 9th, 2004, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by SapphireGrl

What about this one? Are these two saying the same thing?

1 Peter 3:1

NKJV: "Likewise you wives be submissive to your own husbands".

The Message: "Be good wives to your husbands".

Not hardly.

Want some more fun, in the orignal greek, there is no wordused in this passage for submit.

Angyl

February 9th, 2004, 09:17 AM

The original greek of WHICH document??

Our pastor just preached on this last night. Found it fascinating and very eye-opening to learn how the KJV was translated and how pretty much EVERY Bible since has been translated differently and is copyrighted to put $$ in someone's pocket whenever they are sold.

Hyssop

February 9th, 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Angyl
The original greek of WHICH document??

Our pastor just preached on this last night. Found it fascinating and very eye-opening to learn how the KJV was translated and how pretty much EVERY Bible since has been translated differently and is copyrighted to put $$ in someone's pocket whenever they are sold.

Really!? I didn't know that. Wish I could have been there. Did he say how many different documents they have translated from?

How many are there?? (Is that a stupid Q?)

The Message creeps me out (personally)

Rebecki

February 9th, 2004, 12:38 PM

Anyway, even Eugene Peterson (the translator/author) says that The Message is not his primary Bible, and was not intended to be a translation, but a paraphrase or even better a reflection of the text. And he does not recommend it as a church/pew Bible. It is not meant for that.

Romans 1:27

(NKJV): "Likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due"

(The Message) "Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either - women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men - all lust, no love."

If Eugene Peterson is a Christian then how in the world could he translate/paraphrase the above quoted Scriptures into the garbage that he wrote. God’s Word says it’s shameful and deserving of penalty of their own error. Peterson says it’s “all lust, no love.” The homosexual community can take that and run with it. “But God’s Word says that it’s wrong with “no love” but… we love each other, so it’s okay.” Romans 1:27 doesn’t say ANYTHING about not knowing “how to be human,” or women not knowing “how to be women,” or men not knowing “how to be men.” In fact, it doesn’t even mention women at all! Nor does it say anything about being “sexually confused.” It PLAINLY states that men left their natural desires and burned in their lust for their own sex, men with men. It is sickening how a Christian could take God’s word and pervert it so badly in the name of paraphrase.

I think there are hundreds or maybe even thousands who have come to faith and been convicted of their sins from that "Left Behind" series... and that is certainly not as complete as the Message.

That old movie "The 10 Commandments" with Charlton Heston wasn't exactly scriptural... but I usually watch it once or twice a year. The upcoming movie "The Passion" that is coming out next year... likely has some dialogue or scenes not contained in the Scripture but I will likely go to see it too.

The movie analogies won’t work because fiction can't compare to scripture. None of which was written to parallel the bible, but rather written as fiction and as an evangelical tool to get people to think/or be stimulated to consider God (Left Behind), or to tell a story (The 10 Commandments, which I highly doubt was made as an evangelical tool), or to make a statement about their faith (Mel Gibson with his movie). The Passion is the only one that I would even consider as being close to Scripture here, and I would only take a non-believer/new believer with me if I had ample opportunity afterward to explain the fallacies and inaccuracies in the movie.

Problem. Some use the Message as scripture. Note in "The Purpose Driven Life" Rick Warren says: "The Bible says..." and then quotes from the Message. That is not what the Bible says--that is what Eugene Peterson says he thinks the Bible says--big difference. Now there is a place for commentary on scripture as all know that commentary is the opinion of the commentator. That is different from paraphrasing where some may not understand that is the opinion of the paraphraser. In my opinion, there are so many very good direct translations there is no need to use a paraphrased translation.

John, you make an excellent point. I have been troubled by the fact that Rick Warren quotes from The Message 99 times. The New Living Translation? 121 times. The Living Bible? 63 times. Compare that with the King James? 13 times. New American Standard? 7 times. My point is that Warren quotes from paraphrases more often than actual translations. Why is that? Isn’t God’s actual word (actual as far as we know, translated by scholars and not just one unaccountable single person) good enough? No, Warren uses paraphrases because they better match what he’s trying to say, rather than what God HAS said. But I digress…

I mean, look; God does! - Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

God magnifies and esteems His word above EVEN His own name!
That's saying something.

Excellent point Joel! :thumb

Blitz!! It’s wonderful to see you have come over from the dark side. :heh ;):

I just had to share my http://a2j4me2.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/twocents.jpg

:D:

Angyl

February 9th, 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Hyssop
Really!? I didn't know that. Wish I could have been there. Did he say how many different documents they have translated from?

How many are there?? (Is that a stupid Q?)

The Message creeps me out (personally)

There was a lot in our pastor's preaching last night but the basic gist of it was this.

In 1611 we got the KJ translated from the "textus receptus" or something like that. Scholars at the time agreed that this was indeed the Word of God and got to putting it into English, their goal being that "Every Plow Boy in England should have a copy of the Bible." There were OLDER manuscrips than the T.R. available at the time but they were so contradictory (even to each other) and found on a dung heap, that the words were tossed out.

For three hundred years the KJ was all there was. PERIOD.
Then around the early 20th century, people started coming up with other translations and copyrighting them (the KJV has NEVER been copyrighted...you could print up a million copies at Kinkos and send them out without paying anyone a dime for it) and getting paid. Pretty much EVERY Bible translation aside from the KJV uses some or all of those rejected texts that are not in the KJV and some of the translation comes from the KJV itself!

So, my pastor said, "Not the same, is different." That's deep isn't it? Two things that are NOT the same are... DIFFERENT. Erego, we can NOT claim that both the NIV and the KJV are the word of God. Either God said "this" in that chapter or he said "that." One is correct and the other is NOT the Word of God, PERIOD.

What I got from the sermon mainly is that people should PICK a version of the Bible and stick with it. They are NOT all the word of God. If I wrote you a letter and someone else made a copy of it, changing only a few words, then you could NOT say that letter was from me. If you didn't know which was which, then it behooves you to CHOOSE one and go with it...not call them both mine cuz I obviously did not write both.

Of course the Pastor pointed out other things like there are thousands (literally) of words in the KJV that are NOT in the NIV. Whole verses just missing with a footnote that the verse was not in the original manuscript they translated the book from.

He also pointed out other things like the fact that people complain that the KJV is too hard to read (5th grade reading level) and other translations out there are easier to understand like the NKJV (6th grade reading level) and the NIV (7th grade reading level). And our pastor wondered. If they aren't making these more than 200+ new translations to actually make the book easier to read...why are they making them? :confused

He also got a chuckle out of me when he asked the congregation if we thought Satan would have any reason to want to change the Bible. :pound

Changing what God said is, in fact the very FIRST thing we ever see Satan doing when he tempts Eve, is it not? :nod

I'm not going to get into a "KJV only" debate here, I've just come to have my eyes open to the practical heresy behind suggesting that the many translations out there are all "the word of God" and "just a little different."

There's only ONE Word of God.
Do your research
MAKE YOUR CHOICE
and stick with it.

Edit to add: When it comes to researching a lot of people will ask "But people are fallible and make mistakes, how do we know ANY of them are the actual word of God?"

People are fallible.

God is not.

We just have to trust that the Almighty who WANTS us to hear his words is quite capable of preserving them, even through faulty human beings such as ourselves.