Talk:The Message (Bible)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Twentieth-century Greek had two forms, demotiki and katharevousa, the latter being the formal/literary. Was this true of first- to second-century Greek? Vicki Rosenzweig 14:06, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
sorry, 'the message' was also one of the first rap songs to get a lot of airplay in the US in the 1980s.
"crafted to present its tone... Now, does that mean "crafted" as in "lovingly crafted to enhance the tasteful interior" or does that mean "crafted of wood-grain plastic that will last a lifetime"? Not merely "written" but crafted The heart sinks!
"The Message" is not God's message, instead it's man's corruption of His message.
God's Word does not need man's paraphrasing.
Translation, into different languages and into more contemporary words (You instead of Ye) is a good thing. Rewriting it for man's sake is like saying God obviously can't get his point across, that His Word is not timeless and that we can do better. Obviously God must be old-fashioned and not "hip" with the lingo of today's culture. Instead it is today's culture that has strayed away from eternal truths and the true authentic "Message". Christians are called to be separate from such worldliness.
We were warned of false prophets and messengers. Do NOT pass this book on to unbelievers or new Children In Christ that have recently accepted Jesus and His teachings. These new lambs, thirsty for the TRUTH, will not only be confused by The Message, it will poison them, rather than refresh them.
I cannot stress enough the value of the external link associated with this topic: What kind of message is The Message? http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html
--Pkjohnston 21:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you place such high respect on God's word - I do too. God's Word though does need to be translated into different languages. On this, I hope you will agree. And translations can vary from extremely literal to extremely free, and both have their proper place, I also hope you will agree. The role of any translator is not to translate because "God can't get his point across", but because as Christians we believe that the "word of God" is something which is genuinely about "eternal truths" than it is about the specific words chosen to express them. Yes, God has chosen very specific things to express, but it is for Christians to take those truths and express them in a way which communicates the power of God's words and does not treat God's words like some magic charm. God's word is truly and most wonderfully "inspired by God", but not in the same way that for example the Koran is supposed to be inspired by God, and therefore translation is a perfectly valid treatment of God's word, and by extension, any translation may be considered as better or worse according to generally accepted translation principles, such as how well it conveys the meaning of the original.
- I fully accept that todays culture "has strayed away from eternal truths" and that "Christians are called to be seperate from such worldliness". However, I do not accept that this translation is straying away from eternal truths. In fact, it is illuminating eternal truths in a way that many people are seeing them and understanding them for the first time.
- In helping unbelievers or new Christians to understand God's word, I would be much happier giving them a translation which is very easy to understand than one such as the King James Version or the New International Version which is much harder to understand. Didn't Paul say that some are only ready for milk but others are ready for meat? By all means, train people to understand deeper and deeper what each verse of Scripture says, and to get closer and closer to the original texts so that they understand the full richness of each text. But let us not despise the way in which such freer type of translation helps people to understand God's word. You would not force a new believer to read directly from the Greek or Hebrew would you? No! Why not? Because you know that God's word is something where understanding is vitally more important than a half-understood chanting.
- The external link which you give discusses many examples of comparing the NIV with The Message. Supposedly the Message deletes all sorts of things when compared with the NIV. But this does a great injustice to the whole task of Bible translation. What is the role of the translator? It is to try and understand with all his skill the text in the original language, and to try and convey as best as possible that text in the language of the hearer. How to do a good translation is a large and complex subject, but it is far too simplistic to say for example that the message "deletes" things. It is not half as literal a translation as the NIV, that is sure. But the translator can run the gamut of extremely literal (e.g. interlinear, word-for-word), through fairly literal (e.g. NIV), through fairly free (e.g. GNB), through to very free (e.g. The Message). Each type has it's place in helping people understand God's word.
- Brusselsshrek 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Good thing we agree on Bible translation as making God's Word available to all peoples. As I said, it is also okay to use wording to replace Olde English "Ye". However, I cannot stress enough that The Message is not of God. Period. Because it puts new-age, feel-good, politically and socially acceptable words into His mouth. This is NOT the Word that he wishes to impart to us and [more importantly] to our children and children's children.
Comparative case in point: Matthew 11:28-30
Contents |
[edit] KJV:
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
[edit] NIV:
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
[edit] The Message
28"Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest.
29Walk with me and work with me--watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you.
30Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly."
Whoa! Since when did our Lord say that religion was the problem {keeping within the context of this passage}? Jesus didn't say 'get away with me' as though it was some camp-out, weekend retreat, but said "Come to me". Recovering your life is not finding rest for your soul. "I'll show you how to take a real rest"??? He didn't say that, but through Him we can 'find rest'. Show is not Find. He NEVER said "Learn the unforced rhythms of grace". {Whatever new-age nonsense that is}. He never, EVER said that He won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on us - in fact he states in other passages that we might die in His name and for His sake. That's heavy and that's ill-fitting. He promised that his yoke is easy and burden light. His ways and expectations are not difficult, nor unrealistic. How other's take it might be the problem. And He didn't say in these verses that we'd live freely. In fact, in Ephesians 6:6 we are to be like slaves of Christ {yes, I know that there is great relief and freedom in that, but that's another sermon for another time}.
KJV-John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Now THAT'S where He promises freedom! And that also is why we must discern between that which is of God and that which is written to be pleasers of men. The Message is NOT milk for the new lambs in Christ, it is soda-pop for the "I just want to find my inner child" crowd. The Message totally lacks sound doctrine. It is a distortion and corruption of God's Word. It is, in today's speak, "an alternative lifestyle". God help us and forgive us.
--Pkjohnston 22:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Message is an obvious difference between doctrinal truth and doctrinal mistruth and even outright deception. The NKJV or KJV is a good rendering of the Word but when you obviously 'dumb down' and change the meaning and context of God's word you directly disobey God's word. "Do not add to His words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a LIAR." Proverbs 30:6 NKJV Emphasis added. When you change 'doctrines of demons' and 'seducing spirits' to 'demonic illusions' and 'proffessional liars' you change the spiritual to the finite and mortal. The Message is spreading false truth and outright doctrinal perversion.
-Anonymous
To all you naysayers out there, get real. When you all start reading Hebrew then you can gripe about how The Message has 'corrupted His word' and so forth. As time goes on, language evolves. What, is KJV and the NIV supposed to last forever, huh? King James Version was written for KING JAMES, several hundreds of years ago, the 1600's to be exact. The NIV was written in the 1970's. Needless to say, times have changed. Its not a matter of whether The Message is 'politically correct' or anything, it just simply puts the Bible, God's inspired Word, into a new text that relates better to the people of this era.
-k
[edit] Paraphrase/Translation
Peterson himself does not consider "The Message" to be a paraphrase, but rather a translation. I've editted the original page to reflect this, but added in a need for citation while I search for an interview or article where he says this. "The Message" may be considered by many/most to be a paraphrase, but the author and publisher do not consider it to be one.
The article begins by calling it a "paraphrase," which I've changed to "translation" since I think calling it a "translation" is more neutral (it is a translation of the original language into English, regardless of whether or not it is also a paraphrase). However, we should try to come up with a more neutral term that avoids the translation/paraphrase distinction, which is a potentially contentious distinction. --Cshbell 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I found a citation, but it's not on a searchable medium; it was a statement made to staff and faculty at a meeting with the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship on 25 January, 2006. Cshbell 03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lost in Translation
Excellent discussion. I think Cshbell hit it on the nose. Translation versus Paraphrase. Translating makes a text availble in another language. Paraphrasing is putting something in your own words.
Authors like to muddy the waters by providing for free-form, rather than literal, translations. This allows one to claim that their version of the Bible is a Translation and not a personal Paraphrase.
"According to dynamic-equivalence advocates literal translations, which are, for the most part, the traditional and older ones, have not allowed adequately for cultural and social factors which affect readers of a translation. The formal-equivalence advocate responds that the translator of a free translation has not shown sufficient respect for the inspired text."1
My translation to that: And never the twain shall meet.
1 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: THE LINK BETWEEN EXEGESIS AND EXPOSITORY PREACHING Robert L. Thomas [1]
--06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Pkjohnston
[edit] You've got chocolate on my peanut butter!
This discussion reminds me of the old Reeses Peanut Butter Cup commercials where a person with a chocolate bar runs into a person with a jar of peanut butter and then argue as to whether the result is chocolate or peanut butter.
Since I don't have access to your citation (as you point out) it is possible that Peterson might have said far more than that which I am aware.
That being said, Peterson does speak of translating when he refers to the purpose of The Message. He worked from the Greek text on the New Testament rather than other English translations. However, it is important to consider his purpose.
Why was The Message written? The best answer to that question comes from Eugene Peterson himself: "While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become 'old hat.'"
So, what is it? A translation or a paraphrase?
From the publisher's "History & FAQ" on The Message
5. Is The Message® a translation or a paraphrase? Since Eugene Peterson worked with the text strictly from Greek and Hebrew to English, he did what a translator does by choosing contemporary English words that best express the meaning of the original language. As all translators do, he used interpretative skill in choosing those English words. However, he "paraphrased" the original by selecting language that communicates the style and flavor of the original in Bible times?rather than trying to achieve word-for-word correspondence. The Message®, then, is a paraphrase from the original languages. Translation is generally thought of as bringing the meaning from one language to another, whereas a paraphrase is usually a rewording of a document within the same language. Yet in one sense all translation involves paraphrasing. There is no clearly distinct line that can be drawn between the two. Sometimes, it takes five English words to bring across the meaning of a single Greek word; other times only one English word is required to communicate five Greek words. When Eugene began his work on The Message®, he looked at how scholars had translated Homer from Greek to English. Some had tried to match word for word; others attempted to recreate the poetry of Homer in English. The Message® leans toward the latter. Eugene's intent was to recapture the tone, to bring out the subtleties and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages while keeping a sense of firsthand experience for contemporary readers. He often asked himself, "If Paul were the pastor of my church, how would he say this?" or "If Jesus were here teaching, what would it sound like?" So is it a translation or a paraphrase? It is probably most accurately called a "translation of tone" or a "paraphrase from the original languages." It is a bridging of the gap between the original languages and English, and between centuries of time and language change, to bring to us the New Testament as it originally sounded.
As a pastor that has studied both Greek and Hebrew and uses them on a weekly basis I would love for my congregation to all learn these languages (and maybe I ought to learn the proto-Hebrew and other languages in which the Old Testament was originally written). But, obviously this is not practical and would be bad stewardship of people's time, gifts, and calling.
Unlike early Christians that received written correspondence fresh from the Apostle Paul's pen in familiar everyday language, we have a greater challenge separating the Word of God long ago recorded in unfamiliar languages into our modern thoughts and experiences.
Not only does the Greek and Hebrew have verb tenses and voices that are not translatable word-for-word into English but there are also very different grammatical structures.
Any translation is far more than changing ye's into you's. Every translation decision is inevitably affected by the translator's theology.
Ultimately, it is important to use the right tools for the job. Using translations tilting towards dynamic equivalence (like the NIV) for close examination of word usage and grammar rather than those translations leaning towards formal equivalence(like KJV, NASB, RSV) would not be the best choice. That does not make the NIV any less the Word of God than the others.
I don't use The Message for study or preaching but it has opened my eyes to some wonderful insights into scripture that I had missed in my decades as a Bible student.
I must agree with the publisher's assessment:
The Message is a "translation of tone" or a "paraphrase from the original languages." It is a bridging of the gap between the original languages and English, and between centuries of time and language change, to bring to us the New Testament as it originally sounded.
In the context of a publication such as Wikipedia I do not think it would be appropriate to say that The Message is not the Word of God or that it is a corruption. IMHO it would be appropriate to discuss it's weaknesses and strengths rather than make theological pronouncements.
I've edited the opening paragraph to reflect that The Message is a 1) paraphrase of the original languages 2) translation of tone
The Message, written by Eugene H. Peterson and first published in 1993, is a paraphrase of the original languages of the Holy Bible and "crafted to present its tone, rhythm, events, and ideas in everyday language."
Paul
--Pogne 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] got meat?
No, The Message is not milk for the new believer, but what wonderful spicy meat for those regularly in The Word! My enjoyment of The Message deepens even more when I come across passages like this one, where Paul of Tarsis seems to be undergoing something of the same critique as the translator in question:
Quoting from The Message: 2 Corinthians 11:4-6 It seems that if someone shows up preaching quite another Jesus than we preached—different spirit, different message—you put up with him quite nicely. But if you put up with these big-shot "apostles," why can't you put up with simple me? I'm as good as they are. It's true that I don't have their voice, haven't mastered that smooth eloquence that impresses you so much. But when I do open my mouth, I at least know what I'm talking about. We haven't kept anything back. We let you in on everything.
((do i need to footnote that quote?))
Soltera 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
