The Message

[slyguy]

i need the advice of mature Christians. its been on my heart lately and i've prayed about it. my best friend's birthday is coming up and he is not a christian

i want to get him a Bible, and i want to give him something i know he'll read.
i think the KJV is the best english version, but i'm worried all that archaic usage will turn him off.

i know there are other not-so-difficult versions out there, but i just feel The Message is a good idea for him. (knowing how he'll want to read and such)

granted if he accepts Christ and starts to grow i'd either encourage him to get another version or i'd go out and get him one, KJV, NKJV, whatever.

so basically... is this a good idea? Giving him (a quasi-unbeliever, kinda on-the-fence, i pray to the Lord a soon-to-be-Christian) The Message, then eventually "upgrading" him to something... a bit "more" in content?

thanks,
YBIC
james

[PreTribber]

I just did a search on The Message since I had no clue as to how it read.

http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html

After comparing the verses they show on this site, personally I wouldn't buy this translation for anyone. If you want to give your friend an easier to read translation, I'm sure there are others that are more close to the KJV writings.

:):

[SapphireGrl]

i need the advice of mature Christians. its been on my heart lately and i've prayed about it. my best friend's birthday is coming up and he is not a christian

i want to get him a Bible, and i want to give him something i know he'll read.
i think the KJV is the best english version, but i'm worried all that archaic usage will turn him off.

i know there are other not-so-difficult versions out there, but i just feel The Message is a good idea for him. (knowing how he'll want to read and such)

granted if he accepts Christ and starts to grow i'd either encourage him to get another version or i'd go out and get him one, KJV, NKJV, whatever.

so basically... is this a good idea? Giving him (a quasi-unbeliever, kinda on-the-fence, i pray to the Lord a soon-to-be-Christian) The Message, then eventually "upgrading" him to something... a bit "more" in content?

thanks,
YBIC
james Hi James. :):

There are a lot of people that will tell you that getting him The Message is a great idea and to go for it! I'm not one of those people. Let me show you why.

First, this book is not a bible. Although many places sell it as a bible version, it's not a bible translation, it's just this man's interpretation and opinion of scripture and what he thinks it really means. That is not the same thing as a true bible and therefore because it is not a bible translation, it cannot be trusted to be reliable in it's teachings.

Secondly, it perverts scripture. A lot of people will tell you it's easy to read so it's a great way to introduce people to the faith. Well, that's wrong. This book has so many inaccuracies and changes from scripture that people that don't know what the original text says will be mislead and that is very dangerous. For instance, take a look at these scriptures from the NKJV in comparison with The Message.

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.

Another concern of mine is that many people give this book to unbelievers in the hopes that because it's easy to read, their friends, family, whomever, will be convicted of their sins and come to Christ. Well, how will they be convicted of their sin when The Message has changed scripture to the point where their sin isn't even called sin in the first place? For instance:

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, it tells us that, "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." Well, that's pretty clear to me.

However, look up the same thing in The Message and what do we find? It says in The Message in these same exact verses, "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." What is he talking about?

Scripture says fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, and so on will not enter the kingdom of God. The Message says people that use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, and use and abuse the earth won't enter the kingdom of God. That is NOT what scripture says. Who exactly are these people and what does all this using and abusing encompass anyway? Eugene Peterson never says so how is anyone supposed to know? How is someone committing fornication going to be convicted of their sin after reading this nonsense in The Message? What about the adulterer? Is he going to read The Message's version of this scripture and be convicted? Nope, because The Message doesn't even identify fornication and adultery as sin here! It's absolutely ridiculous.

The Bible talks in Ephesians 5:19-23 about the works of the flesh. Eugene Peterson calls these things,

"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."

Now my question again is what is this man talking about? "Repetitive, loveless, cheap sex?" My bible says adultery and fornication. He says, "trinket gods and magic-show religion." My bible says idolatry and witchcraft. It is hard for me to believe that someone practicing witchcraft is going to read The Message and realize that their witchcraft is the "magic-show religion" this man is talking about. It's hard for me to believe that someone committing adultery or having sex out of marriage with their long-time girlfriend is going to read his version and realize that "repetitive, loveless cheap sex" means adultery and fornication.

There are several bibles available that are very easy to read, yet don't contain perverted and changed scripture. I suggest you get your friend one of those instead, James, and stay clear of The Message. :):

Also, here are some other threads where the message has been discussed.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113090

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=138237

[Rodney]

I agree with the above posters, I think the message is a bit too paraphrased for my liking. I'd go with the NIV myself, its more readble than the NKJV and I don't think is any less accurate to the original manuscripts than the NKJV.

[Singlesis]

I like the New KJV. It's basically the same beautiful language, without the "thee's" and "thou's"... but rather "you" and "your". A bit easier to read. Just my 2 cents. But I agree, stay away from the Message.

[rekker]

Would anyone have a problem giving a children's bible to a child for a present?

Geez, I don't know...lots of distortions in those books!

Lets remember, the Message is a paraphrase. It's not the Bible. It serves a specific function. If your friend will read a Bible, then get him a Bible. If you think he'll only read The Message, then get him The Message. At least he's getting something.

Or get him both!

If I had to pick, I'd probably get him a Bible that has a more contemporary reading - it is the Bible, after all, which contains the words of life. But I think the ultimate decision is totally between you and God and what he is telling you.

[Crescendo]

I agree with Rekker. The Message is what it is but perhaps its what your friend would read. It would also be an excellent opportunity to show that everything one reads isn't as it seems. You could use the Message as an opening to what the Bible tells us. It will at least lay a foundation for conversations you can build on if you're willing to take on the responsibility for following up with him.

[SapphireGrl]

Lets remember, the Message is a paraphrase. It's not the Bible. It serves a specific function. If your friend will read a Bible, then get him a Bible. If you think he'll only read The Message, then get him The Message. At least he's getting something.

Or get him both! Whenever discussions about The Message come up, there is always this one argument that comes up. "Something is better than nothing!" Never mind the fact that it's inaccurate. Never mind the fact that it contains distortions. Never mind the fact that it's unreliable because so much is changed to fit this one man's opinion.

This attitude makes absolutely no sense. Something is not always better than nothing. If you are going to try to bring someone to the faith, then the bible you recommend needs to be trustworthy and reliable. It needs to have scripture verses that you can trust, not verses that are changed.

Again, what are these new believers learning when scripture no longer says what it's supposed to say in the first place? Absolutely nothing. Giving someone a bible like this can do a great deal of damage because it can lead new believers into serious biblical error. If you don't trust it to do a study from because you know it's inaccurate, then why on earth would you encourage someone that has no clue what true scripture says to try and learn about the faith from something that does not truly reflect God and his Word? It constantly amazes me that people are willing to endorse trash as a good learning tool for the unsaved and baby Christians.

[imfree]

Have you considered the New Living Translation?

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/default2.asp

Just a thought. Blessings. :):

[slyguy]

wow, every one of you have given me well thought out responses, thanks everyone, you've made it all a bit clearer. SapphireGrl makes the most sense however i can understand the points rekker and crescendo make. i think i'll keep looking and praying and research a bit about 'the New Living Translation' (thanks, imfree).

YBIC
james

[blitzkreig]

. my best friend's birthday is coming up and he is not a christian Was he brought up in a Christian home? If not then the KJV is likely not to get read...

The CEV (Contemporary English Version) is pretty good but my favorite is the MKJV (Modern King James Version by Jay P. Green, Sr.). It has a the tempo of the KJV but with none of the hard old fashoned words. It is "Seeker42" aproved as well :heh

But as good as the Bible is... also toss in the book "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. A light read in paperback format which will get your friend thinking...

[Now You See HIM]

Maybe a study bible would be best; here's the one I have (although I'm only using it as an example)...

So That's Why! Bible

The So That's Why! Bible arranges the New King James Version in chronological order, together with hundreds of notes and articles. Bible and companion CD included.

CD also has KJV, Strong's #'s, New Strong's Dictionary, New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps, and Where To Find It in the Bible.

(product description taken from www.rejoicesoftware.com/why_bible.htm)

[rekker]

Whenever discussions about The Message come up, there is always this one argument that comes up. "Something is better than nothing!" Never mind the fact that it's inaccurate. Never mind the fact that it contains distortions. Never mind the fact that it's unreliable because so much is changed to fit this one man's opinion.

This attitude makes absolutely no sense. Something is not always better than nothing. If you are going to try to bring someone to the faith, then the bible you recommend needs to be trustworthy and reliable. It needs to have scripture verses that you can trust, not verses that are changed.

Again, what are these new believers learning when scripture no longer says what it's supposed to say in the first place? Absolutely nothing. Giving someone a bible like this can do a great deal of damage because it can lead new believers into serious biblical error. If you don't trust it to do a study from because you know it's inaccurate, then why on earth would you encourage someone that has no clue what true scripture says to try and learn about the faith from something that does not truly reflect God and his Word? It constantly amazes me that people are willing to endorse trash as a good learning tool for the unsaved and baby Christians.


So you wouldn't give a children's bible to a child?

I'm not sure if I made this clear, but I do not think the Message is the Bible nor do I think it should replace the Bible. But I do think it has its place in getting people interested in reading the Bible who have lost interest in the things of God.

I do not understand why you should fear the Message so deeply. Surely none of us would condemn a pastor for telling Bible stories from the pulpit, or putting difficult verses into the vernacular so we can understand them better. Surely none of us would condemn our parents for telling us what the Bible said in their own words while we were children.

According to Eugene Peterson, this is exactly what he is doing with his book. Granted, it has its limitations. It shouldn't be used for serious study, and it shouldn't be used to develop doctrine. It is a supplement to God's Word, which is why I suggested that I would probably chose to give a Bible to someone, not just the Message. But neither do I think that just giving The Message to someone is quite the evil thing that you make it out to be.

If it's okay to give someone a book about Godly relationships, why isn't it okay to give them a book that paraphrases the Biblical narrative? Would you oppose Slyguy if he wanted to give a copy of C.S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' to his unbelieving friend? Why would you oppose him giving his friend a copy of The Message, as long as it was done with the understanding that it is not The Bible?

And if you're worried about new Christians falling into erroneous teaching, you should make sure they don't go to any churches - I hear they have been known to teach false doctrine from time to time.

[SapphireGrl]

So you wouldn't give a children's bible to a child?Sure I would, as long as it didn't change the meaning of scripture and what scripture is saying. I had a children's bible that broke the gospel down into an easy way of understanding God's words, but scripture wasn't changed into a new meaning. That isn't the case with The Message.

I'm not sure if I made this clear, but I do not think the Message is the Bible nor do I think it should replace the Bible. But I do think it has its place in getting people interested in reading the Bible who have lost interest in the things of God.Why would something that has changed so much scripture have any place in getting people interested in reading the bible? You can't trust it, it's inaccurate, and doesn't stay true to scripture. Why would you recommend something so unreliable and untrustworthy to people that don't know any better and have no clue that much of what they are reading bears absolutely no resemblance to what scripture actually says?

I do not understand why you should fear the Message so deeply.I don't fear it, I dislike it because of it's distortions and inaccuracies.

Surely none of us would condemn a pastor for telling Bible stories from the pulpit, or putting difficult verses into the vernacular so we can understand them better. Surely none of us would condemn our parents for telling us what the Bible said in their own words while we were children.Eugene Peterson did not just put scripture into the vernacular. I have absolutely no problem with people making scripture easier to read so that more people can understand it. What I object to, and all other Christians should be objecting to, is when scripture is changed so much that it no longer resembles it's orgininal meaning. That is not making things easier to understand. That's changing the meaning altogether and it's wrong and misleading.

According to Eugene Peterson, this is exactly what he is doing with his book.What he said he's doing and what he actually did are two different things. The evidence is in the posts above.

Granted, it has its limitations. It shouldn't be used for serious study, and it shouldn't be used to develop doctrine.It shouldn't be used for anything because too much of God's words and meanings have been changed.

[ It is a supplement to God's Word, which is why I suggested that I would probably chose to give a Bible to someone, not just the Message. But neither do I think that just giving The Message to someone is quite the evil thing that you make it out to be.No, it's not a supplement to God's Word. God's Word and Eugene Peterson's words say two totally different things in too many places. His book does not complement the bible. And yes, it is wrong to give this book to other people when it's so untrustworthy. There are so many bibles out there that put scripture in basic english, yet don't change any of it's meaning. Yet people continue to recommend The Message even after having seen for themselves all the liberties and changes that Eugene Peterson took with his book. It's utterly ridiculous.

If it's okay to give someone a book about Godly relationships, why isn't it okay to give them a book that paraphrases the Biblical narrative?Do these books about Godly relations change scripture? Do they change the meaning of scripture? Do they mislead the sheep and the unsaved that may be searching? Does it deviate from scripture over and over again and go off into one person's opinion when that opinion contradicts scripture? Because if it does, you need to throw it in the trash just like The Message.

Would you oppose Slyguy if he wanted to give a copy of C.S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' to his unbelieving friend? Why would you oppose him giving his friend a copy of The Message, as long as it was done with the understanding that it is not The Bible?Does "Mere Chrisitianity" call itself a reinterpretation of The Bible, simply put into a more readable form? And I oppose anyone giving someone a copy of The Message, never mind the reason, because it's too inaccurate. Rekker, it's inaccurate! It' can't be trusted! It changes scripture! Why do you keep arguing in favor of a book that changes scripture?

And if you're worried about new Christians falling into erroneous teaching, you should make sure they don't go to any churches - I hear they have been known to teach false doctrine from time to time.That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is a difference in unknowingly listening to false doctrine put forth by man and purposely recommending inaccurate, so-called biblical literature to others.

If someone is in a church that is teaching a false doctrine, those that are in that church have the proof of correction within their grasps. It's called the Bible. All they have to do is open it up and read. Be a Berean, as Paul called us to be, and search the scriptures to be sure that what you're being told is correct. Be sure that the doctrine lines up with scripture. There is no excuse for falling into false doctrine and not identifying it as such when you have the answer sitting right in front of you in the Bible. There is no excuse for justifying the use of inaccurate, misleading, untrustworthy, full-of-error books for the unsaved and fellow Christians when there are much more accurate and trustworthy literature and books available that don't change the meaning of scripture into some new meaning.

Personally, I don't understand why people that love The Message fight so hard for it in the face of the obvious evidence against it. No one made up the quotes above that compare it to the Bible. Everything posted is directly from The Message, yet there is a deliberate turning away from it in order to justify this book. I just don't understand it. There are so many easy-to-read bibles out there, so many books that introduce people to the faith in a basic and understandable way that don't change scripture or deviate from it in any way. Yet people still fight to hold on to a book that has been shown again and again to be so untrustworty and unreliable in telling us what the Bible actually says about Christian living, sin, God, and so on. I just don't understand it at all.

[nanato3]

Excellent article on End Time Chat with a lot of reasons why no one should get tangled up with the Message......nana

[LeahIA]

I have a copy of The Message. It clearly states on the back that is a a paraphrasing translation. It wouldn't be one you'd want to give someone who did not know antyhing about what he would be reading, JMHO.

It has an endorsement by Bono on the back cover.

[DMac]

How about a Parallel Bible with two translations side by side. I have the parallel King James and the New International Version. The NIV is easy to read and you can always look across the page to compare it to the King James version.

[blitzkreig]

It has an endorsement by Bono on the back cover. :faint

[Goliath]

I`ve given to freinds as a gift the Bible I use and study from.I use the MacArthur NKJV study bible.Its great because you dont have to be a theologian to understand Gods word. The top half portion is the scripture and the bottom half simply explains it all. I believe you can get it online from AMAZON and most christian bookstores carry it. It is such a valuable resource for me. God Bless you for your love in Christ. :):

[antitox]

The one that I read when I came back to the Lord was The Living Bible. I'm still partial to that paraphrased version.

[SapphireGrl]

I have a copy of The Message. It clearly states on the back that is a a paraphrasing translation. It wouldn't be one you'd want to give someone who did not know antyhing about what he would be reading, JMHO.

It has an endorsement by Bono on the back cover.It being a paraphrase is not what disturbs me. Paraphrases don't bother me as long as they stay true to scripture and still say what God intended it to say. The Message doesn't do that. Eugene Peterson takes scripture and paraphrases it to the point that it no longer resembles scripture and the meaning that God intended is no longer there in many, many places. That's a huge, huge problem.

[imfree]

The one that I read when I came back to the Lord was The Living Bible. I'm still partial to that paraphrased version.

I had fogotten about that one! Right after I was saved that was the first bible I read. I was so hungry for truth I think I devoured that book in about 2-3 months. I learned so very much from the Living Bible. :):

[rekker]

Sure I would, as long as it didn't change the meaning of scripture and what scripture is saying. I had a children's bible that broke the gospel down into an easy way of understanding God's words, but scripture wasn't changed into a new meaning. That isn't the case with The Message.

So it didn't use generic terms like "bad" or "evil" for places where God condemns specific sin?

Why would something that has changed so much scripture have any place in getting people interested in reading the bible? You can't trust it, it's inaccurate, and doesn't stay true to scripture. Why would you recommend something so unreliable and untrustworthy to people that don't know any better and have no clue that much of what they are reading bears absolutely no resemblance to what scripture actually says?

I don't fear it, I dislike it because of it's distortions and inaccuracies.

Eugene Peterson did not just put scripture into the vernacular. I have absolutely no problem with people making scripture easier to read so that more people can understand it. What I object to, and all other Christians should be objecting to, is when scripture is changed so much that it no longer resembles it's orgininal meaning. That is not making things easier to understand. That's changing the meaning altogether and it's wrong and misleading.

We're batting around this idea of "changing the meaning." Isn't it up for debate whether the meaning of things has been changed? For instance, you may think the removal of the word "sin" changes the meaning, whereas I might find the new phrase much more helpful, since the word "sin" carries with it all sorts of unhelpful associations with many people today, and it doesn't accurately describe the human condition. Whether you agree or not is beside the point - I'm simply saying that whether the "meaning" has been changed depends upon your point of view.



No, it's not a supplement to God's Word. God's Word and Eugene Peterson's words say two totally different things in too many places. His book does not complement the bible. And yes, it is wrong to give this book to other people when it's so untrustworthy. There are so many bibles out there that put scripture in basic english, yet don't change any of it's meaning. Yet people continue to recommend The Message even after having seen for themselves all the liberties and changes that Eugene Peterson took with his book. It's utterly ridiculous.

I guess I haven't seen enough of these "liberties" and "changes" to give me a sense that the integrity of the Biblical message has been compromised. Perhaps you can point me towards the parts that clearly change the meaning of God's Word in a way that changes our fundamental doctrines? You did quote some passages above, but those don't change the principles upon which our faith is built...though I will admit his rewording of particular sins is curious, even troubling).


Do these books about Godly relations change scripture? Do they change the meaning of scripture? Do they mislead the sheep and the unsaved that may be searching? Does it deviate from scripture over and over again and go off into one person's opinion when that opinion contradicts scripture? Because if it does, you need to throw it in the trash just like The Message.

Doesn't it depend upon your particular view of Scripture? I read a book once that said music with a syncopated rythm is evil, and it had lots of Biblical "evidence" to back it up. Lots of people buy into this idea, believing it to be true to the Scripture. Lots of others say that it deviates from Scripture, and that it is just someone's opinion. Who is right?



Does "Mere Chrisitianity" call itself a reinterpretation of The Bible, simply put into a more readable form?

No, it doesn't. But Lewis summarizes Biblical truths in his own words in a systematic theological argument that he claims is true.

Since its okay to listen to a pastor talk about what he believes the Bible is saying, why isn't it okay to read what a pastor writes about what he believes the Bible is saying?



If someone is in a church that is teaching a false doctrine, those that are in that church have the proof of correction within their grasps. It's called the Bible.

Oh come on! Is it really that simple? If it was, why are there so many factions and denominations with different understandings of what the Bible says? Am I to assume that none of them, except for one, is teaching the truth?

I guess this is a bit of a side issue, but it suprises me that you make this statement because the rest of your post has been pretty thoughtful and compelling.

[SapphireGrl]

So it didn't use generic terms like "bad" or "evil" for places where God condemns specific sin?Using generic terms has nothing to do with it. There are too many areas where God calls out specific sins and addresses them specifically. Eugene Peterson's version doesn't do that. Look at the quotes above in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Look at his version of Galations 5:19-23. It does not say what the Bible says. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:17-19. Again, it does not say the same thing that scripture says.

We're batting around this idea of "changing the meaning." Isn't it up for debate whether the meaning of things has been changed? For instance, you may think the removal of the word "sin" changes the meaning, whereas I might find the new phrase much more helpful, since the word "sin" carries with it all sorts of unhelpful associations with many people today, and it doesn't accurately describe the human condition.How exactly does the word "sin" carry all sorts of unhelpful associations? How does it not accurately describe the human condition? God calls it sin. If the word is good enough for Him and clear enough for Him, it's good enough and clear enough for you and me.

Whether you agree or not is beside the point - I'm simply saying that whether the "meaning" has been changed depends upon your point of view.That's not true at all. In 1 Corinthians 6:18 it says, "18Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body." That means exactly what it says. There's nothing to debate here and no new interpretation. Eugene Peterson interprets this to mean avoid sex that doesn't involve commitment and intimacy. That isn't what the Bible says.

I guess I haven't seen enough of these "liberties" and "changes" to give me a sense that the integrity of the Biblical message has been compromised. Perhaps you can point me towards the parts that clearly change the meaning of God's Word in a way that changes our fundamental doctrines? You did quote some passages above, but those don't change the principles upon which our faith is built...though I will admit his rewording of particular sins is curious, even troubling).So inaccuracy and reinterpretations are ok in a bible translation or paraphrase as long as it doesn't change the core doctrine? This statement above is so absolutely disturbing and here's why.

Psalm 138:2 says, "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 glorifies his word above even His name! That is how important His Word is to him! He didn't say that it's only the parts that address the core fundamentals of the faith that He magnifies above all else. He magnifies ALL of it above His own name. His Word is Holy and it is absolutely unacceptable that men would come along and make changes to it the way Eugene Peterson did. What makes it even worse is that even in the face of all the evidence that shows change after change after change after change, so many people are willing to accept a book that changes and bastardizes his holy Word. God is not willing to accept any new interpretations and changes to His word. You shouldn't be willing to accept it either, no matter the reason. There isn't a reason good enough on this earth to accept this.

Doesn't it depend upon your particular view of Scripture?No, it doesn't. The bible says what it says. People can disagree with it all they want but just because you have a new interpretation or view of scripture doesn't give you the authority to make scripture say what you think it ought to say when you write a paraphrase.

No, it doesn't. But Lewis summarizes Biblical truths in his own words in a systematic theological argument that he claims is true.

Since its okay to listen to a pastor talk about what he believes the Bible is saying, why isn't it okay to read what a pastor writes about what he believes the Bible is saying? I never said it's not ok to read what a pastor writes about what he believes the bible is saying. The problem is that's not what Eugene Peterson did. He calls his book a paraphrase of the Bible. A Bible paraphrase is supposed to be nothing more than the bible put into a readable and easy to understand form. There should be ZERO changes to actual scripture, it's meaning, and what God is saying in his Word. That's not the case in The Message. The Message contains a whole lot of personal opinions on what Eugene Peterson thinks God is probably saying and he gets it wrong over and over and over again, which has been pointed out here several times.

Oh come on! Is it really that simple? If it was, why are there so many factions and denominations with different understandings of what the Bible says? Am I to assume that none of them, except for one, is teaching the truth?There being different denominations and different understandings has nothing to do with it. People are going to come to their own conclusions. That's not the debate, Rekker. The debate is are they coming to these false conclusions by using a faulty Bible version or paraphrase.

I guess this is a bit of a side issue, but it suprises me that you make this statement because the rest of your post has been pretty thoughtful and compelling.I don't see what's surprising about my statement at all. False doctrine and different denominations have nothing to do with this. The fact remains that there are false doctrines taught throughout all denominations of the faith. Different denominations do not equal false doctrine. There is no excuse for getting caught up in false doctrine if you are being a Berean and actually searching the scriptures to verify that what you are being taught is true and not a false teaching being propagated by the pastor of the church. What more do you need to verify that you are not being taught false doctrines than a Bible? And I mean a real bible, not some inaccurrate paraphrase based on someone else's opinion of scripture and what they think it means.

[Gray Fox]

Just look at the way the Message version does the Lord's prayer.

Matthew 6
9With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
10Set the world right;
Do what's best--
as above, so below.
11Keep us alive with three square meals.
12Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
13Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.


In my opinion, this is a irreverent, disrespectful and flippant representation of the Word of God. One day soon the judgments of Rev. 22:18,19 will come down some people.

[Milton]

How in the world is that disrespectful? Because he doesn't say Thee and Thou???

The meaning is the same. Not everyone uses the same words to say the same thing.

I think you're equivalating (is that a word?) "formal" with "respectful." But is saying "daddy" any less respectful than saying "father?"