Eugene Peterson

Y'know, I never had any real problem with my Bible and still dont today. I dont have to question the translators personal lives, especially since they would have to backslide just to fellowship with most Christians today.

Anyone can make a commentary on the Bible if they wish, and the inception of other versions has done nothing to secure the believer in knowing the word of God, all it has done is caused him to start to question or have to study out the implications of others against the Bible and then prove it to himslef just how far off base they are.

I see it right here on this topic, but why stop there?:type:

 

Yes you are right. I agree.

We shouldn't call something a Bible, when it is not a Bible. That's giving a mere book more credibility than it deserves, and is at risk of blasphemy.

 

IMO, the Message is better read by unbelievers, not Believers. As someone who spent 2 years in jail ministry handing out New Testaments to inmates who were for the most part, illiterate, I can vouch that some unbelievers will never read any Bible, no matter how easy it is to read. Just adding some perspective.

If you insist on having the Message, get it in the parallel NASB/Message version so you can compare a literal translation right alongside it. It will show you how short The Message falls from being adequate for study (as well as showing why it is deemed controversial).

 

Good suggestion! :thumbs:

 

Peterson was the pastor of Christ our King Presbyterian Church in Bel Air, MD., for about 25 years. Then he went on to Regent College, I believe. As far as the MESSage is concerned, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. It is not the Bible. Bible stories-yes. But, the Bible-no.

 

I see The Message used in the same sentence as a bible, also it is called "THE Message Bible", but what I dont see is the attacks against it snipped. Why is the title "Eugene Peterson" instead of the message? Probably for the esthetic value to attract hearers of potential gossip?

 

Why would you say such a statement? How much do you know about their lives? Do you think they were saints?

Have you ever read the book "The Men Behind the KJV" by Gustavus S. Paine, a man that did a fair amount of biographical research into these men's personal lives. Here is one quote near the beginning of the book that I find interesting. It describes part of a discussion between James and the translators.

There were many high church men. People like Andrewes, though a very learned scholar, was an "anglo-Catholic," and his influence was great. Rainolds was a Puritan. He was opposed by the Bishops every step of the way. It is doubtful that many of these bishops were even saved.

So, given the information in a book which has done thorough research into the lives of these men, why would you say: "I don't have to question the lives the translators personal lives." Maybe you do.

 

Nope, for the translation provides nothing to show their lives to be brought into question. Now that isn't the case with some authors who write books about other people and provide negative aspects which I do hope they are true and not just carrying out their vengence on others.

 

I agree. "The translation provides nothing to show their lives to be brought into question."

So why do you bring this red herring into the conversation at all.
Why would a person's lifestyle affect his translation? The lifestyle of the translator's, as you say, did not affect the KJV. Why question others?

 

Back to the Message:

In far too many places it fits right in with where I live--a heavily New Age and white magic practioner area.

So much of the Message makes that sound just peachy keen, and politically correct to boot.

 

Are we off on another tangent DHK?

I said i was not worried about the translators, their work speaks volumes.

 

No, I am trying to bring you back to the topic, not necessarily the title of the thread. The topic is the translation that Peterson made: The Message. As GreekGeek said: "I have nothing against the man..."
And why should he? Why should you? Perhaps your KJV translators, some of them no doubt unregenerate, you should be more concerned about than Peterson. But Peterson is not the subject.

The subject is "The Message," his translation. It is a paraphrase vs. a literal translation like the KJV. Why not stick to the topic at hand.

 

Yes, the topic at hand changes with every wave of the sea. THE KJV translators have all since died. I, neither you can pass judgement on them. The latest wave is to tear at the sands of a version of the bible at your free will. Doesnt that qualifying factor exist within it, the Gospel?

 

We have a good translation in the KJV. Leave it at that.
However one cannot change history good or bad. Just because we may have a good translation in the KJV does not automatically mean that the translators all were morally good and upright men. They weren't. You can't make that leap of faith. Stick with what you know. The issue is the translations not the character of the men who wrote them. Whether dead or alive, history still remains. It is history that speaks for the dead.

 

Well, at least some one here admits it and then doesn't go off into a tangent on "errors" and why other versions are "better".

I just don't understand why the title is one thing and the discussion is about a version? Then why is it NOT attacking a bible when all the while it is called "The Message Bible"?

Many here claim that the only qualifying factor for any version is the Gospel message, pun intended.

The Gospel is found within the pages of The Message Bible, yet it is attacked and no one comes to the forefront with all their little snippets!

 

Here is the OP:

As far as I can tell most of the comments have been directed toward the translation itself, "The Message." And most of them, have been negative. In other words most would say that The Message is more of a paraphrase, not a literal translation such as the KJV, and would not use it as their primary Bible--perhaps only as a point of comparison. Maybe you could also agree with that, or maybe you would just stick to your KJV without comparing it to any other translations, I don't know. It's just a simple discussion on the value or usefulness of this one translation of the Bible.

 

Here is the church he pastored for three decades:

Christ Our King Presbyterian Church, Bel Air Md

 

I glad their pastor wears makeup!!!

 

Kind of interesting that the senior pastor is a woman.