A version of the Bible, what do you think?

[Butch5]

It isn't what makes the KJV the one true Bible, it is the material and who it came from that discredits the majority of the other translations. This thread is about "The Message" and when you examine it you find that Jesus had a beginning, that Jesus is "The Message" and not the Son of God, and the translator had a real problem calling Jesus Lord.

OK, I haven't read he message as I personally see no use for a paraphrased Bible. If I want someone's opinion of what the Scriptures mean I can listen to a sermon. But how did this thread expand to include other trnaslations? Do you hold that the KJV is the only reliable translation?

[salesman]

There are those who speak Greek and Hebrew fluently and have not come to a knowledge of the truth. It does not come from a translation it comes from...

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Again, I don't understand. I am not saying that readers don't need the Holy Spirit to bring them to the truth. What I am asking is why should we not translate the scripture into a language that is comprehensible to the average reader? If we should not update the verbiage so that the average reader can understand it, then why do we translate the scripture into Spanish or Russian or English? KJVO seems as limiting in its way as just leaving the scripture in Greek and Hebrew and telling people "if you want the truth, learn a new language!"

[rejoice44]

But how did this thread expand to include other trnaslations?

By people asking questions like yours below.

Do you hold that the KJV is the only reliable translation?

I hold that "The Message" is not a reliable translation.

[SammeyDW]

By people asking questions like yours below.



I hold that "The Message" is not a reliable translation.

The problem is that "The Message" is not a true translation.
But rather a Paraphrase.
Just like "The Living Bible".
Because it is a Paraphrase legally the publishers and not held to the same standards as that of a true translation (example KJV,NIV,NAS,NLT).

[rejoice44]

The problem is that "The Message" is not a true translation.
But rather a Paraphrase.
Just like "The Living Bible".
Because it is a Paraphrase legally the publishers and not held to the same standards as that of a true translation (example KJV,NIV,NAS,NLT).

Well that isn't the story from the publishers. They say, "He (Eugene Peterson) decided to strive for the spirit of the original manuscripts"--"The Message" is designed to be read by contemporary people in the same way as the original Koine Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were savored by people thousands of years ago." "That's why NavPress felt the time was right for a new version." ("The Message")

[SammeyDW]

Well that isn't the story from the publishers. They say, "He (Eugene Peterson) decided to strive for the spirit of the original manuscripts"--"The Message" is designed to be read by contemporary people in the same way as the original Koine Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were savored by people thousands of years ago." "That's why NavPress felt the time was right for a new version." ("The Message")

"The spirit of the original" is very different then word for word, or thought for thought.
Compare "The Message" and "The NASB".
The NASB being contemporary and a true translation.

A paraphrase restates already translated things into other words trying to clarify meaning, bypassing the source.

A True translation goes to the source, and translates that into another language.

The KJV,NIV,NASB, and "The Message" - John 1:1-5

If "The Message" is a true translation (which i don't believe it is) it IMHO is a severely 'dumbed down' one.

[TrustGzus]

Let me understand this. If someone takes out only fifty to ninety per cent of the references to the Deity of Jesus it is alright. How about if he took only ten percent out, would that be alright?

I never said that he didn't allude to the Deity of Christ, for had he not, he wouldn't have had a book to sell. What I said was that he had a problem with it.

The first ten times that "Kurious" occurs in the Bible Peterson translates it as "God", six times, "Lord" once, and omitted three times. None of these nine times does it refer to Jesus.

The next twelve times the word "kurious" occurs in the Bible it relates to Jesus, and Peterson translated it "master" nine times, and omitted it three times.

This pattern is consistent throughout the New Testament. After checking some four hundred plus times out of the six hundred plus times the word occurs only two times was Jesus given the title Lord.

In Psalm 110:1 the verse says, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

In The Message it says, "The word of God to my Lord: Sit alongside me here on my throne until I make your enemies a stool for your feet."

It must be remembered that we have the Hebrew versus the Greek here, and in Psalms there are two distinct Hebrew words for God and Lord.

Then we jump to the New Testament and this verse is recorded three times. (Matthew 22:44, Luke 20:42, and Acts 2:34) "The Message" translates this passage all three times as "God said to my master". When you look at all other translations they all say, "The Lord said unto my Lord". If Peterson could translate it in Psalms as "God to my Lord", why couldn't he translate it the same in the New Testament when Jesus is Identified as the recipient.

When you combine this with Peterson replacing "Son of God" with "The Message" in Mark 1:1 and then in John 1:4 Peterson implies that Jesus came into existence, which would question how could he be eternal and have created all things as stated in John 1:10.



I said Peterson had an aversion to the Deity of Christ, and that becomes obvious to anyone who does a serious study of his work.

Do you think the New World Translation presents clearly the deity of Jesus more clearly than The Message? Could you provide a list of what you find as the first 10 uses of kurios in The Message?

[rejoice44]

Do you think the New World Translation presents clearly the deity of Jesus more clearly than The Message? Could you provide a list of what you find as the first 10 uses of kurios in The Message?

Never read a verse of the New Word Translation.

Matthew 1:20,22,24,---2:13,15,19,---3:3---4:7,10---5:33.

In going over these you might have a problem with 3:3 but the connection is not direct, the case could be made that it is referring to the Father and not the Son.

Compare Matthew 6:24 with 7:21 Where the Greek word "kurios" is doubled.

Matthew 6:24 "You can't serve two God's[kurios] at once." (The Message) Not about Jesus, therefore interpreted "God's".

Matthew 7:21 "--saying Master[kurios] Master[kurios],' for instance--isn't going to get you anywhere with me. (The Message) It is definitely about Jesus and "The Message" inserts master.

[TrustGzus]

Never read a verse of the New Word Translation.

Matthew 1:20,22,24,---2:13,15,19,---3:3---4:7,10---5:33.

In going over these you might have a problem with 3:3 but the connection is not direct, the case could be made that it is referring to the Father and not the Son.

Compare Matthew 6:24 with 7:21 Where the Greek word "kurios" is doubled.

Matthew 6:24 "You can't serve two God's[kurios] at once." (The Message) Not about Jesus, therefore interpreted "God's".

Matthew 7:21 "--saying Master[kurios] Master[kurios],' for instance--isn't going to get you anywhere with me. (The Message) It is definitely about Jesus and "The Message" inserts master.

I asked about the first 10 usages specifically because of Matthew 3:3. I don't see a way to make any kind of reasonable case for trying to make that the Father.

About the NWT. The reason I asked that is because they flat out reject the deity of Jesus. They aren't shy about saying so. Yet, they translate kurios as Lord way more than Peterson. The verses that I mention in which The Message is clear on Jesus' deity (even more so than the KJV in some cases) the NWT blatantly butchers. Yet counter cult experts don't try to convince JW's by appealing to kurios. Why? If your view is correct, why do they not use this tactic in hundreds of verses?

If you read the NWT and compare that with The Message, then you will truly see a verison with an aversion to the deity of Jesus.

[rejoice44]

I asked about the first 10 usages specifically because of Matthew 3:3. I don't see a way to make any kind of reasonable case for trying to make that the Father.

We know this is speaking of Jesus, but for a novice to the Bible there is no mention of Jesus for ten verses after that verse and none prior to it in that chapter. Compare that with where Jesus is the known subject in the verse, such as Matthew 7:21,22,--8:2,6,8,21,25--9:28--. All have Jesus as the subject, and all have "Kurios" translated master, except Matt. 8:8 which is not translated at all. You can then go to Matthew 11:25 where the Father is the subject of "Kurios", and Peterson than translates "Kurios" as Lord. This is a consistent pattern through out the New Testament.

About the NWT. The reason I asked that is because they flat out reject the deity of Jesus. They aren't shy about saying so. Yet, they translate kurios as Lord way more than Peterson. The verses that I mention in which The Message is clear on Jesus' deity (even more so than the KJV in some cases) the NWT blatantly butchers. Yet counter cult experts don't try to convince JW's by appealing to kurios. Why? If your view is correct, why do they not use this tactic in hundreds of verses?

If you read the NWT and compare that with The Message, then you will truly see a verison with an aversion to the deity of Jesus.

The NWT has nothing to do with Peterson's translation. Peterson's translation has to stand on its own merits. I would say this is more of a testimony of the number of corrupt translations that add to the tower of Babel.

[John 8:32]

Again, I don't understand. I am not saying that readers don't need the Holy Spirit to bring them to the truth. What I am asking is why should we not translate the scripture into a language that is comprehensible to the average reader? If we should not update the verbiage so that the average reader can understand it, then why do we translate the scripture into Spanish or Russian or English? KJVO seems as limiting in its way as just leaving the scripture in Greek and Hebrew and telling people "if you want the truth, learn a new language!"

Point is KJVO or NIVO or RSVO or all translations, the understanding comes from God. I am firmly convinced God can reveal His truth through any translation.

[rejoice44]

Point is KJVO or NIVO or RSVO or all translations, the understanding comes from God. I am firmly convinced God can reveal His truth through any translation.

Do we need the Bible at all? What do you think?

[TrustGzus]

We know this is speaking of Jesus, but for a novice to the Bible there is no mention of Jesus for ten verses after that verse and none prior to it in that chapter.

Norman, we both know Matthew 3:3 is speaking of Jesus. Does this not support my view rather than your view that Peterson supposedly has an aversion to the deity of Jesus? If he has said aversion, why didn't he simply translate this as prepare the Master's arrival? You think Master demonstrates this aversion, this would clearly support your case. Yet in all three synoptics he doesn't do this. He translate it as God.

The point of the novice is a distraction from the point. Novices miss boatloads of points. And is the KJV or any other more formal translation clearer on the deity of Jesus in Matthew 3:3? In fact is Lord more clear than God? Not at all. With that in mind, we could say The Message is more clear on the deity of Jesus at Matthew 3:3 than the KJV or any other translation that I use.

Compare that with where Jesus is the known subject in the verse, such as Matthew 7:21,22,--8:2,6,8,21,25--9:28--. All have Jesus as the subject, and all have "Kurios" translated master, except Matt. 8:8 which is not translated at all. You can then go to Matthew 11:25 where the Father is the subject of "Kurios", and Peterson than translates "Kurios" as Lord. This is a consistent pattern through out the New Testament.

Norman, let's use legal type language. Peterson is accused of having committed a translational crime against the deity of Jesus by translating kurios as Master when referring to Jesus rather than translating it as Lord. Using legal type language we need to consider two ideas: innocent till proven guilty and beyond reasonable doubt.

In regard to innocent till proven guilty, you've far from established this. Repeatedly, I've asked you to demonstrate how Master is something weaker or lesser than Lord. I don't see any real difference in saying Jesus is my master v. Jesus is my lord. Reasserting won't prove the point.

Second, what is taken as an aversion to deity, could be a strong assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarianism teaches that there is one God and three distinct persons who are called God. By almost always referring to Jesus as Master, perhaps Peterson is helping to keep that distinctness of the Father and Son intact. Not wanting the novice you mentioned earlier to be confused as to whether kurios refers to the Father or the Son, Peterson makes this clear by using Master (in most cases) for the Son. This is actually quite plausible and fits the evidence we're both looking at. Not only does it hinder proof beyond a reasonable doubt by offering an alternate explanation to Peterson's accused translational crime, it also gives him the benefit of the doubt.

The NWT has nothing to do with Peterson's translation. Peterson's translation has to stand on its own merits. I would say this is more of a testimony of the number of corrupt translations that add to the tower of Babel.

The NWT is very important if you want to be consistent in your arguments. The biggest argument against Peterson is the "hundreds" of times he avoids the deity of Jesus by how he handles kurios.

I give several examples where The Message is quite clear on Jesus' deity. John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Hebrews 1:8. You say he has an aversion to the deity of Jesus. I say pick up a NWT and look at how they mutilate these verses. They blatantly will tell us that they reject the idea that Jesus is God and how they handle these verses makes it clear.

Yet how do the JW's handle kurios? They call Jesus lord many, many times in their New Testament. This demonstrates that they don't see this as proof of deity. Also, as I stated, counter cult experts who deal with JWs don't use kurios as a key piece of evidence. I'm not aware that they ever use it.

The point is that translating kurios as Lord really only convinces the already convinced. Of course, if you're already convinced, then it doesn't really convince, it just adds support. This isn't really surprising since the New Testament uses kurios multiple times to refer to people who are not God. It sometimes is even used towards inanimate objects.

If kurios proves Jesus' deity, the JW's would all believe in the deity of Jesus because their Bible lines up with your argument. Yet, they still reject this doctrine. It is a much more formal Bible than The Message and handles kurios much more the way you claim it should, yet they stand solidly against the deity of Jesus.

[rejoice44]

"The spirit of the original" is very different then word for word, or thought for thought.
Compare "The Message" and "The NASB".
The NASB being contemporary and a true translation.

A paraphrase restates already translated things into other words trying to clarify meaning, bypassing the source.

A True translation goes to the source, and translates that into another language.

The KJV,NIV,NASB, and "The Message" - John 1:1-5

If "The Message" is a true translation (which i don't believe it is) it IMHO is a severely 'dumbed down' one.

If you read carefully John 1:4 you will see that "The Message" denies the eternal existence of Christ.

[rejoice44]

Norman, we both know Matthew 3:3 is speaking of Jesus. Does this not support my view rather than your view that Peterson supposedly has an aversion to the deity of Jesus? If he has said aversion, why didn't he simply translate this as prepare the Master's arrival? You think Master demonstrates this aversion, this would clearly support your case. Yet in all three synoptics he doesn't do this. He translate it as God.

The point of the novice is a distraction from the point. Novices miss boatloads of points. And is the KJV or any other more formal translation clearer on the deity of Jesus in Matthew 3:3? In fact is Lord more clear than God? Not at all. With that in mind, we could say The Message is more clear on the deity of Jesus at Matthew 3:3 than the KJV or any other translation that I use.

When ever Peterson translates "kurios" as God, he is always referring to the Father, even in Matthew 3:3. The Greek word "kurios" occurs approximately 72 times in Matthew, can you show how many are direct associations to Jesus as related in that direct context.

Norman, let's use legal type language. Peterson is accused of having committed a translational crime against the deity of Jesus by translating kurios as Master when referring to Jesus rather than translating it as Lord. Using legal type language we need to consider two ideas: innocent till proven guilty and beyond reasonable doubt.

By the preponderance of circumstantial evidence he is guilty. Stating that Jesus came into existence denies his Deity.

Calling Jesus Master (Teacher), rather than Lord more than 200 times. Replacing the title of Jesus with the title of his book show a lack of reverence. We haven't scratched the surface.

In regard to innocent till proven guilty, you've far from established this. Repeatedly, I've asked you to demonstrate how Master is something weaker or lesser than Lord. I don't see any real difference in saying Jesus is my master v. Jesus is my lord. Reasserting won't prove the point.

Peterson sees Jesus as a master teacher bringing a message from God, rather then the sovereign Lord who died to save the world from sin.

Second, what is taken as an aversion to deity, could be a strong assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarianism teaches that there is one God and three distinct persons who are called God. By almost always referring to Jesus as Master, perhaps Peterson is helping to keep that distinctness of the Father and Son intact. Not wanting the novice you mentioned earlier to be confused as to whether kurios refers to the Father or the Son, Peterson makes this clear by using Master (in most cases) for the Son. This is actually quite plausible and fits the evidence we're both looking at. Not only does it hinder proof beyond a reasonable doubt by offering an alternate explanation to Peterson's accused translational crime, it also gives him the benefit of the doubt.

If Peterson wanted to make the distinction between the Father and the Son in translating the Greek word "kurios" he could have inserted Son of God those 200 plus times instead of Master (teacher). He translated "kurios" as God, he could have translated it "Son of God" as well, that would have made more sense

The NWT is very important if you want to be consistent in your arguments. The biggest argument against Peterson is the "hundreds" of times he avoids the deity of Jesus by how he handles kurios.

What do you call it, a Bunny Hopp?

I give several examples where The Message is quite clear on Jesus' deity. John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Hebrews 1:8. You say he has an aversion to the deity of Jesus. I say pick up a NWT and look at how they mutilate these verses. They blatantly will tell us that they reject the idea that Jesus is God and how they handle these verses makes it clear.

If Peterson had removed all references to Jesus's Deity, How many books would he have sold?

Yet how do the JW's handle kurios? They call Jesus lord many, many times in their New Testament. This demonstrates that they don't see this as proof of deity. Also, as I stated, counter cult experts who deal with JWs don't use kurios as a key piece of evidence. I'm not aware that they ever use it.

Some might say this is a Bunny Hop.

The point is that translating kurios as Lord really only convinces the already convinced. Of course, if you're already convinced, then it doesn't really convince, it just adds support. This isn't really surprising since the New Testament uses kurios multiple times to refer to people who are not God. It sometimes is even used towards inanimate objects.

Yes we give men titles of Honor, why give Jesus a lesser title over two hundred times.

If kurios proves Jesus' deity, the JW's would all believe in the deity of Jesus because their Bible lines up with your argument. Yet, they still reject this doctrine. It is a much more formal Bible than The Message and handles kurios much more the way you claim it should, yet they stand solidly against the deity of Jesus.

The actions of the JW's has no bearing, or relevance on Peterson's actions.