A version of the Bible, what do you think?

[TrustGzus]

A lot of Christians get worked up about the phrase "as above, so below". That parallels Word-Faith theology way more than it parallels Biblical Christianity.

Word-Faith theology teaches that faith is a force and words are the container of the force. There is no special New Age power in the words "as above, so below". This kind of thinking makes Satan more powerful than God. Satan doesn't own any words. Satan doesn't own any days on the calendar. The problem is that many former New Age adherents give Satan too much credit and God too little and they see the New Age in everything. They need to take some logic and theology classes because they still give credit to supposed New Age powers instead of to their new Lord, Jesus.

[TrustGzus]

I thought I'd paste something I wrote about the phrase "as above, so below" from my blog . . .

I haven't read anything "New Age" in The Message. . . . I have noticed that the claims appear to stem from former New Agers. I think former New Agers need to take off their New Age glasses and start looking at the world through Christian worldview glasses. God is in control. Simply because the New Age may have a particular phrase that they use, Satan doesn't own the words now. So if those identical words are in a rendition of the Bible, who cares? People who've never been in the New Age and don't study the New Age will never read into it the New Age connotations that the New Ager reads into it. The non-New Ager sees it purely. God rules, not Satan nor the New Age.

In another blog post, I commented that New Agers use the words hello and goodbye. So should we avoid those words? Who rules -- God or Satan?

[little watchman]

Putting the Hermetic axiom "As above, so below" in the Lord's Prayer is not accidental, common use of language like saying hello and goodbye; it's more like putting the name Allah or Shiva for God. I don't I entirely understand the significance to the axiom, but it is very closely associated with the Hermetic tradition, and why would I want to support false religion? The words may not have any power of themselves, but ideas do.

The Hermetic tradition, like the New Age movement in general, tempts believers by "offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the [omnipresent] mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Quote from Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucians, and the First Freemasons)

Tolerance, positive encouragement, the building up of self by minimizing sin...
This is exactly what I see in The Message. And no, I'm not a former New Ager.

[Oregongrown]

In all I've read so far, I am just not led to read The Message version. I guess in all honesty, I just "feel" more secure with the NKJV and I do believe God, through the Holy Spirit will lead me into all the understanding of His Word.

I appreciate all the input on this and think it is turning out to be a great thread for others to use as well when trying to decide whether or not they want to use The Message. God bless all, denise, a sister in Christ

[rejoice44]

I was in a daily devotion for the last 4 months and the "leader" was reading out of "The Message" version of the bible. I found myself getting upset on occasion because I have been reading NKJV for years. I don't know if the Lord spoke to me or if it is just me but I feel The Message might be an alright version. I read about the man that took the original Greek and wrote the words in "modern" day terms. I think it might be a wonderful thing. I know this could turn into a heated discussion, LOL But I am open to anyone's input.

If you do an in depth study of the Message you will quickly see that it has a bias against the Deity of Christ.

As an example Mark 1:1 in the Message reads, "The good news of Jesus Christ-the Message-begins here."

Most bibles read, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Son of God is replaced with "the Message".

Look at how "the Message" handles the Greek word "kyrios". The KJB (The KJB is used as an example for its complete online concordance that makes it easy to compare words.) The word "kyrios" appears some 748 times in the KJB. It is most often translated Lord. The first time "the Message uses "kyrios" it is translated God in Matthew 1:20. Whenever the word "kyrios" appears in conjunction with Jesus Christ, "the Message consistently translates it Master, but whenever "kyrios" is found not in direct conjunction with Jesus Christ it is most often translated as God or Lord.

Compare John 1:18. "The Message"--"No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God -expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day. Thunder in the desert."

John 1:18 KJB--"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare John 1:2. "The Message"--"in readiness for God from day one."

John 1:2. KJB--"The same was in the beginning with God."

Notice that "the Message" has in "readiness for God", instead of "with God". Notice also that the "Message attributes the first day as the start of the Word. The Word did not have a starting day, nor did Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't believe in the Deity of Christ, then this would be "The Message".

[Oregongrown]

Yes, I am not liking the way the message is written. The more I see of it the less I like it. I will stick with my NKJV. I still believe that the Holy Spirit is to teach me and He will. I think God gives me those "uncomfortable" feelings as red-flags. I know when the Holy Spirit is convicting me but this is a little different. It's just an uneasy feeling, like, something just doesn't sound right. It happens in churches as well or when someone claiming to be a christian is talking. I don't call that being judgemental of me either. Some might think so but I call it God guiding me

God bless you, denise, ysic

If you do an in depth study of the Message you will quickly see that it has a bias against the Deity of Christ.

As an example Mark 1:1 in the Message reads, "The good news of Jesus Christ-the Message-begins here."

Most bibles read, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Son of God is replaced with "the Message".

Look at how "the Message" handles the Greek word "kyrios". The KJB (The KJB is used as an example for its complete online concordance that makes it easy to compare words.) The word "kyrios" appears some 748 times in the KJB. It is most often translated Lord. The first time "the Message uses "kyrios" it is translated God in Matthew 1:20. Whenever the word "kyrios" appears in conjunction with Jesus Christ, "the Message consistently translates it Master, but whenever "kyrios" is found not in direct conjunction with Jesus Christ it is most often translated as God or Lord.

Compare John 1:18. "The Message"--"No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God -expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day. Thunder in the desert."

John 1:18 KJB--"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare John 1:2. "The Message"--"in readiness for God from day one."

John 1:2. KJB--"The same was in the beginning with God."

Notice that "the Message" has in "readiness for God", instead of "with God". Notice also that the "Message attributes the first day as the start of the Word. The Word did not have a starting day, nor did Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't believe in the Deity of Christ, then this would be "The Message".

[Oregongrown]

I have been comparing some verses from my bible(I usually use the NKJV, it's my favorite)and the Message. I don't like the way it reads in many of the comparisons. That's enough right there to lay it down. I won't purchase one. I wouldn't give one as a gift and I don't recommend it. I will trust in the Lord and His Holy Spirit to guide me when reading difficult verses God bless you, denise, a sister in Christ

My sister, I am so happy to hear that you have not bought into the KJV-only camp. That puts you way ahead of where you would have been had you spent a great deal of time trying to understand God's truths using the KJV.

Some of the most poorly read Christian brothers and sisters I know have spend their time with KJV bibles - and they won't bother trying to read and understand them. It is too difficult. Since they heard early in their walk that the KJV was the only good transation, they have stalled their growth accordingly.

I have spend time overseas in other countries and have met some very nice Christians from other countries. They have their bibles translated from the NIV, mostly, and they understand God's Word very well using that method.

Personally, I refer to the ESV, NASB, and YLT. While I have other translations, most of my studies come from those three.

[Oregongrown]

I am feeling that the Message, among other bibles, may have taken away some of God's Word. This is just a feeling maybe gut instinct, but I really feel that some versions are dangerous, especially to new christians. Will they get God's Truth through these "new and improved" versions? That is my concern. God bless you, denise, your sister in Christ

You should use the version that allows you to understand Gods word better and builds you faith. I'm sure that is what the translators had in mind when they made their translations of the bible. Different translations suit people differently, I use more than one translation, so I can understand the word better. The Holy spirit can teach and reveal things no matter what translation is used.

[Oregongrown]

Thank you much cindylou and you are right I answered some of the posts but I am figuring out this hybrid mode of viewing posts. So I apologize for not answering your post right away I have felt safe with the NKJV for years now so I will stick with it unless God leads me into another version. I can safely say, I do not feel led to read The Message. I have read enough of it to know that I am in agreement with those that say it takes away some of the Deity of Christ. The truth is, a lot of how it's translated is supposed to be in "modern terms" or phrases but I don't like or talk that way myself so it is no attraction for me. Bottom line is, God is still in control and He will reveal what is right and what is wrong God bless your Saturday!! A sister in Christ, denise

Well...personally I will only use KJV but only because I know for sure what text and manuscript it was translated from, it is really important to me that I can trust what I'm reading. I'm not a KJV only person. I don't know about that version, but I would look into it further that way instead of feel like it's an alright version, you can know that it is. That's not something I would want to be in doubt about IMO. Good luck!

[TrustGzus]

Tolerance, positive encouragement, the building up of self by minimizing sin...
This is exactly what I see in The Message. And no, I'm not a former New Ager.

I wouldn't assume you are a former new Ager. However, where did you get your ideas of "as above, so below" from? You may not be a former New Ager, but did you get the ideas from reading former New Agers or from someone who read a former New Ager? In other words, would you read the words "as above, so below" and pour the meaning into it that you do without said influences? And now in your mind those words are off limits. Back to my question -- whose more powerful God or Satan? Too many Christians see something take on a Satanic influence and God is omnipotent in the circumstance once that happens. That is not Christian theology. Too many Christians have too small a view of God and too large a view of Satan.

[SammeyDW]

As far as 'modern' languages go ,
I would recommend the NASB or the NLT.
The 'message' is to 'contemporary' for me,
plus it is my opinion that in many places it 'dumbs down'
or even 'muddys the meanings' making it harder to understand correctly and mistakes more likely.

[Sojourner55]

Hi Oregongrown,

I have a paperback New Testament "The Message," I picked up somewhere, but haven't really looked at much. From what I can tell, it's pretty much a newer version of paraphrase Bibles like "The Living Bible," and "Today's English Version" which came out in the Seventies. These of course, are essentially loose, "modern English" versions of the Scriptures--not word-for-word translations from the original Hebrew and Greek. As such, the editors sometimes "take liberties."

Two newer versions you might want to check out are, "The New Living Translation" (NLT), and "The English Standard Version" (ESV). They are easy to read and from what I've seen, seem faithful to the original texts. The Amplified Bible is one of the best for study, because you get all the nuances of meaning included in the verse. But one of the other versions is going to be better for general reading. A good website that has all the versions side by side (as well as commentaries, dictionaries, and every other Bible study tool), is: http://www.biblos.com

[SammeyDW]

Hi Oregongrown,

I have a paperback New Testament "The Message," I picked up somewhere, but haven't really looked at much. From what I can tell, it's pretty much a newer version of paraphrase Bibles like "The Living Bible," and "Today's English Version" which came out in the Seventies. These of course, are essentially loose, "modern English" versions of the Scriptures--not word-for-word translations from the original Hebrew and Greek. As such, the editors sometimes "take liberties."

Two newer versions you might want to check out are, "The New Living Translation" (NLT), and "The English Standard Version" (ESV). They are easy to read and from what I've seen, seem faithful to the original texts. The Amplified Bible is one of the best for study, because you get all the nuances of meaning included in the verse. But one of the other versions is going to be better for general reading. A good website that has all the versions side by side (as well as commentaries, dictionaries, and every other Bible study tool), is: http://www.biblos.com

Another resource you may want to check out is Biblegateway.com
It has almost every version ( and lots of non-english versions also).

Note: The passage lookup, and the Keyword Search modes have a parallel option that is activated using the 'search/lookup in multiple versions' option.

[JRFifty]

King James Version for me. Every other version changes. It is changing the meaning and words.
NIV-Rev 13 to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,
King James version-Rev13 o receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
In or on which is it. If we all use different Bibles we will all be confused and changing meanings.
I think Christians should stick to the King James Bible
Your Brother in Christ yes Biblegateway.com is an excellent resource!

[TrustGzus]

King James Version for me. Every other version changes. It is changing the meaning and words.
NIV-Rev 13 to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,
King James version-Rev13 o receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
In or on which is it. If we all use different Bibles we will all be confused and changing meanings.
I think Christians should stick to the King James Bible
Your Brother in Christ yes Biblegateway.com is an excellent resource!

You only listed KJV and NIV. If you look at other formal translations such as the NASB, ESV, NKJV, Young's Literal, Darby they agree with the NIV. In fact, I looked at every translation I own whether it's formal, function, paraphrase. All of them say on or upon.

The KJV translates this word as upon almost every other time in Revelation 13. Out of 895 occurrences, the KJV translates the word as on 196 times and upon another 159 times. It does translate it as in 120 times. Sometimes in is appropriate. However, on what basis are you concluding that the KJV translators got it correct this time in Revelation 13:16 and all the other translators got it wrong in every other version?

Do you really want to make a choice of superiority of translation over how the Greek word ἐπί is translated in Revelation 13:16?