The Message - thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LikeDismas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LikeDismas

Guest
Longtime reader, first time poster.

I was curious if anyone had opinions regarding “The Message” translation of the Bible by Eugene Peterson. I have a copy of the New Testament and, despite my reservations about contemporary translations, have actually enjoyed much of it.

Am I alone in the Catholic world for feeling this way?
 
LikeDismas said:
Longtime reader, first time poster.

I was curious if anyone had opinions regarding “The Message” translation of the Bible by Eugene Peterson. I have a copy of the New Testament and, despite my reservations about contemporary translations, have actually enjoyed much of it.

Am I alone in the Catholic world for feeling this way?
Click to expand...
I think as long as the basic message (no pun intended) of the verses has not changed, there isn’t a problem. I’ve read reviews both pro and con. My daughter has a copy, but I don’t think she gotten into it yet.
 
LikeDismas said:
I was curious if anyone had opinions regarding “The Message” translation of the Bible by Eugene Peterson. I have a copy of the New Testament and, despite my reservations about contemporary translations, have actually enjoyed much of it.
Click to expand...
I have rather strong opinions about it. I used to attend a protestant church that made much use of version. It isn’t really a “translation”, it’s a “paraphrase”. The bottom line is that Peterson doesn’t create an objective or scholarly work. He basically interprets the Bible to mean what he wants it to mean. Having compared simple verses from the Message with their counterpart in the NIV I was shocked and disgusted at the difference. The Message doesn’t say what the Bible says, it says what Eugene Peterson think the Bible means. In short, it’s an abomination that mutilates the words of the authors.
 
Verita said:
I have rather strong opinions about it. I used to attend a protestant church that made much use of version. It isn’t really a “translation”, it’s a “paraphrase”. The bottom line is that Peterson doesn’t create an objective or scholarly work. He basically interprets the Bible to mean what he wants it to mean. Having compared simple verses from the Message with their counterpart in the NIV I was shocked and disgusted at the difference. The Message doesn’t say what the Bible says, it says what Eugene Peterson think the Bible means. In short, it’s an abomination that mutilates the words of the authors.
Click to expand...
The Message is not a paraphrase. It is a dynamic equivalence translation. Paraphrases are a translation of a translation. The Message was translated from the original languages, not from a pre-existing English Bible version.
 
I understand that the Message might come from the original languages, but it takes far more liberties than any paraphrase I’ve ever seen.
 
lak611 said:
The Message is not a paraphrase. It is a dynamic equivalence translation. Paraphrases are a translation of a translation. The Message was translated from the original languages, not from a pre-existing English Bible version.
Click to expand...
What is the source for your definition of “paraphrase”? I did a google search trying to locate it but had no luck.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of “paraphrase”:
1 : a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form
2 : the use or process of paraphrasing in studying or teaching composition

According to that definition, The Message would be a paraphrase.

Nita
 
Nita said:
What is the source for your definition of “paraphrase”? I did a google search trying to locate it but had no luck.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of “paraphrase”:
1 : a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form
2 : the use or process of paraphrasing in studying or teaching composition

According to that definition, The Message would be a paraphrase.

Nita
Click to expand...
Actually, according to that definition, any translation of the Bible into English would be a paraphrase because it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, so publishing it in English would be a restatement of the text in another form.
 
lak611 said:
Actually, according to that definition, any translation of the Bible into English would be a paraphrase because it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, so publishing it in English would be a restatement of the text in another form.
Click to expand...
No. A literal translation (which does take into account grammatical differences between languages) is not a “restatement” given in “another form”.

Nita
 
It is too far from the original text to be useful for study as a bible, at least for me. I think it can resemble a commentary. Other times, it seems like a translation. I don’t know if this helps, but here is a section in comparison with the NIV.
The Message:
Say the welcoming word to God—“Jesus is my Master”—embracing, body and soul, God’s work of doing in us what he did in raising Jesus from the dead. That’s it. You’re not “doing” anything; you’re simply calling out to God, trusting him to do it for you. That’s salvation. With your whole being you embrace God setting things right, and then you say it, right out loud: “God has set everything right between him and me!”
Click to expand...
NIV:
9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Click to expand...
The bold seems to be a comment interspersed into the text. However, I do understand the power of hearing it from a new perspective, and The Message is starkly different.
 
Pug said:
It is too far from the original text to be useful for study as a bible, at least for me. I think it can resemble a commentary. Other times, it seems like a translation. I don’t know if this helps, but here is a section in comparison with the NIV.
Click to expand...
I have The Message, but I also have many formal equivalence translations. I agree that The Message should not be one’s primary study Bible, but it is useful to compare to other more literal translations.
 
lak611 said:
I have The Message, but I also have many formal equivalence translations. I agree that The Message should not be one’s primary study Bible, but it is useful to compare to other more literal translations.
Click to expand...
I can see that it would work well for the purpose you give. It can give you a different look at it. I’ve used the Good News Bible that way at times, but I think the Message could serve that purpose better for some people.

The first time I managed to get the through the whole book of Acts in a brief period of time, I did it by using the GNB. That way I had a sort of overview, which I just wasn’t going to get with the RSV or the like. Once I had an over-arching frame of the book, I went back and read it in my main translation. In my opinion, The Message would not be an ideal choice for the function I describe here.

As always, it depends on what purpose you have in mind and what versions you have at hand.
 
Nita said:
What is the source for your definition of “paraphrase”? I did a google search trying to locate it but had no luck.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of “paraphrase”:
1 : a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form
2 : the use or process of paraphrasing in studying or teaching composition

According to that definition, The Message would be a paraphrase.

Nita
Click to expand...
lak611 said:
Actually, according to that definition, any translation of the Bible into English would be a paraphrase because it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, so publishing it in English would be a restatement of the text in another form.
Click to expand...
lak611 - With respect, you are mistaken. According to what you’ve written, anything translated from one language into another would be a paraphrase which is of course untrue. A translation is not a restatement, it is a translation, defined as a rendering from one language into another. A paraphrase is a restatement. It is not “a translation of a translation”. It can be a restatement of any source text and for that matter need not be made from a foreign language.

As far as the suitability of The Message, a couple of lines from the review linked below will serve as a warning:Peterson’s purpose in this is to present something new and provocative at every turn, something vivid and unusual, in order to stir up the dull minds of people who have become bored with their familiar Bibles.*

The reader who mistakes this cavalier treatment of the text for a reliable translation is in danger of being misled at many points.

bible-researcher.com/themessage.html
*
 
The Message is an interesting Bible. I have one and I think it’s easier to read than many other Bibles. It’s mostly accurate, but some parts are odd.
 
As far as I understand, this version is for children?
Certainly not for adults, and not for serious scripture study. A quick look at John 1 confirmed this for me.

Anyway, if it gets children interested in the story of scripture, good.

Maybe we could make a Sony Playstation game of the Gospel? Jesus could go around rebuking Pharisees, and give health points to the afflicted?
 
When I was still going to a Baptist Church, we went through “The 40 days of Purpose”, which included a bunch of different translations and paraphrases. I bought “The Message” because I thought it was interesting.

After I started reading it, I was disappointed in the liberties that I saw - Mr. Petersen seemed to change the entire meanings of verses in an attempt to “make it fresh.” Drastic changes at times… I got rid of my copy.

After this, I did a fair bit of study on different translations. Did you realize that even the well-respected NIV version was written with a pre-trib, pre-millenialist viewpoint? (protestant terminology - referring to their interpretation of the end times…) In other words, you’re getting some doctrinal bias in whatever you read.

I also read that the “Darby” translation is considered to be one of the more accurate translations available (I have a copy), but the translator (Darby, I presume…who did not believe in the divinity of Christ) tried to translate references to Christ in the “least divine” way possible. He died before completing his work, and someone else finished it for him. This translation is still widely available today.

I just recently converted from Baptist to Catholic because of doctrinal differences that I found while reading my Bible. I wonder if I would have found these doctrinal differences if I had been reading a more “liberal” translation (or paraphrase) like Eugene Petersen’s?

My philosophy: be very careful with translating the Bible. If you’re going to change the words of the Bible to make it “clearer” you’d better make sure you’re right, or you’re responsible for leading many astray. Seems to me that there’s a passage in Rev. 22 that has something to say about adding or subtracting from the words of prophecy!
 
tomch said:
When I was still going to a Baptist Church, we went through “The 40 days of Purpose”, which included a bunch of different translations and paraphrases. I bought “The Message” because I thought it was interesting.

After I started reading it, I was disappointed in the liberties that I saw - Mr. Petersen seemed to change the entire meanings of verses in an attempt to “make it fresh.” Drastic changes at times… I got rid of my copy.

I just recently converted from Baptist to Catholic because of doctrinal differences that I found while reading my Bible. I wonder if I would have found these doctrinal differences if I had been reading a more “liberal” translation (or paraphrase) like Eugene Petersen’s?

My philosophy: be very careful with translating the Bible. If you’re going to change the words of the Bible to make it “clearer” you’d better make sure you’re right, or you’re responsible for leading many astray. Seems to me that there’s a passage in Rev. 22 that has something to say about adding or subtracting from the words of prophecy!
Click to expand...
I bought The Message recently. I agree that there are parts that are not translated well at all. Other parts are translated very well. I agree that one has to be careful with any translation and compare it to several others. I also think it is important to have at least one solid formal equivalence translation, not just dynamic equivalence translations. That being said, I would not use just an NIV or NAB either. I would also use a Douay-Rheims, KJV or RSV. By the way, I attend a Catholic Bible study at my parish (Little Rock Scripture Study), and the commentary videos for some of the studies use The Message as a comparison at times.
 
Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

I personally like the KJV’s “The LORD is my shepard, I shall not want.” more than the DRB’s, " The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top