A version of the Bible, what do you think?

[TrustGzus]

Your comment that Matthew 3:3 refers to the Father is simply a claim. You offer no proof to back it up.

You claim The Message denies the eternality of Jesus. The Message teaches the eternality of Jesus in John 1:1 where it affirms Jesus is God. It affirms it in Hebrews 1:8 where the Father calls Jesus God. The Message affirms it in John 8:58 where Jesus is identified as the I am. It claims it in Philippians 2:6 where it even directly claims that Jesus was deity (uses the very word deity in reference to Jesus) but set aside those privileges as a human.

You equate Master with Teacher instead of seeing it as being synonymous with Lord. You haven't offered any proof of this. You simply continue to restate this. There's a big difference between saying Jesus is my master v. Jesus is my teacher. If that's the case, Jesus calls the Father merely a teacher in the KJV when the KJV translators translate kurios as master. I guess they reject the deity of the Father then? Will you be consistent on this point?

When I bring up that if Peterson wanted to be consistent, he should have translated kurios as Master in Matthew 3:3 to be clear and that that possibly Master is his way of differentiating between when kurios refers to the Father or when it refers to the Son, keeping the persons distinct in the Trinity, you propose he could have used Son of God instead of Master. Norman, if he did that, then I wouldn't be surprised if you accused him of mutilating the text there because Son of God in Greek comes from υιου του θεου or other similar phrases instead of κυριος.

You continue to claim Master is a lesser term than Lord, yet just repeat the claim and never back it up. My Merriam-Webster Thesaurus has master has a synonym when I look up lord. Yet it doesn't have teacher in that list. Should I determine word meanings by you or by Merriam Webster?

Norman, what spin can you put on Revelation 1:8?

The Master declares, “I’m A to Z. I’m THE GOD WHO IS, THE GOD WHO WAS, AND THE GOD ABOUT TO ARRIVE. I’m the Sovereign-Strong.”

Peterson, E. H. (2002). The Message : The Bible in contemporary language (Re 1:8). Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress.

It's pretty clear who the Master is. You've complained about that word for many posts. Now in this verse Peterson defines who the Master is. So, I guess every time you read Master, you could substitute it now with A to Z. I’m THE GOD WHO IS, THE GOD WHO WAS, AND THE GOD ABOUT TO ARRIVE. I’m the Sovereign-Strong.

Jehovah's Witness will tell you this is the Father. Peterson, by making the distinction between Father and Son by using two different yet synonymous words (per Merriam Webster) makes it very clear who this is that is speaking.

I've said something similar to what I'm about to say. I'm not here to defend every word choice of Peterson's version. If a TMO group started (The Message only), I'd be all over them with problematic verses. But where Peterson throws a strike, call it a strike. He attributes deity to Jesus. Instead of accepting this, you make it a marketing issue. You have zero proof of this. It's a theory. It's a spin. It's guilty until proven innocent. Is Revelation 1:8 just about selling copies to? How many verses have to claim Jesus is God before it's not about selling copies? The NWT flatly denies the deity of Jesus. They aren't hurting financially. If Peterson didn't believe the deity, he would still have a huge audience. Plenty of people would like a Bible that denies that Jesus is God. Peterson didn't provide that and I don't know another person in the world that tries to use kurios to prove that other than yourself. Kurios is defined in Revelation 1:8.

[John 8:32]

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

Oh yes, in fact we must use the KJV. After all if'n it t'were good 'nuff for them postles (pronounce the 't'), it be good 'nuff for us.

[John 8:32]

Now that I think it over, one must become fluent in Hebrew and Greek if one is to have a chance at salvation. We must read the original manuscripts as they were dictated by the original authors.

[rejoice44]

[QUOTE]

Your comment that Matthew 3:3 refers to the Father is simply a claim. You offer no proof to back it up.

I know it doesn't refer to the Father, but it doesn't explicitly state that it is the Son in any verses that in proximity to 3:3. That is my point.

You claim The Message denies the eternality of Jesus. The Message teaches the eternality of Jesus in John 1:1 where it affirms Jesus is God. It affirms it in Hebrews 1:8 where the Father calls Jesus God. The Message affirms it in John 8:58 where Jesus is identified as the I am. It claims it in Philippians 2:6 where it even directly claims that Jesus was deity (uses the very word deity in reference to Jesus) but set aside those privileges as a human.

It denies the eternal existence of the Word in John 1:4. If he announces the Deity of Christ in three places and denounces it one place, what is that but confusion. You have a point in Philippians 2:6, where unlike the other recent translations, he announces the Deity of Christ. Maybe I am wrong about Peterson, and he is just incompetent, and in that case he has no business doing what he is doing.

You equate Master with Teacher instead of seeing it as being synonymous with Lord. You haven't offered any proof of this. You simply continue to restate this. There's a big difference between saying Jesus is my master v. Jesus is my teacher. If that's the case, Jesus calls the Father merely a teacher in the KJV when the KJV translators translate kurios as master. I guess they reject the deity of the Father then? Will you be consistent on this point?

Master has its base as being accomplished, as in head teacher, where Lord introduces Sovereignty. God has mastery over everything and there is no offense in calling God Master, as long as you don't do it in place of his Sovereignty.

When I bring up that if Peterson wanted to be consistent, he should have translated kurios as Master in Matthew 3:3 to be clear and that that possibly Master is his way of differentiating between when kurios refers to the Father or when it refers to the Son, keeping the persons distinct in the Trinity, you propose he could have used Son of God instead of Master. Norman, if he did that, then I wouldn't be surprised if you accused him of mutilating the text there because Son of God in Greek comes from υιου του θεου or other similar phrases instead of κυριος.

Peterson was already paraphrasing because "kurios" does not equate to God. So if he wanted to be consistent he would have paraphrased "kurios" as "God" for the Father, which he did, and "Son of God" for the Son. Maybe, just maybe he has no problem with the Deity of Christ, and he would therefore just be incompetent, and has no business writing a book that he calls a version of the Bible.

[rejoice44]

Oh yes, in fact we must use the KJV. After all if'n it t'were good 'nuff for them postles (pronounce the 't'), it be good 'nuff for us.

That was rather sarcastic, I asked a legitimate question. Do we need a bible, if all we need to know the Holy Spirit will tell us?

[John 8:32]

That was rather sarcastic, I asked a legitimate question. Do we need a bible, if all we need to know the Holy Spirit will tell us?

Sorry, I thought you were joking there. Yes, it was intended as such to go along with the jest. My apologies, I did not recognize it as a legitimate question.

Yes, we still need the Bible, we are led to understand God's Word (the Bible) by the Holy Spirit, but God does expect us to regularly study His Word. I prefer the KJV and NKJV and use them about equally as much, although I have many translations and use them all. One I prefer to read to get a fresh look occaisionally is J.B. Phillips.
Anyhoo, regular study is required...

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[TrustGzus]

Norman,

This most recent post may be the most I've seen you and I line up with each other about The Message. I have a question about one thing you wrote.

Peterson was already paraphrasing because "kurios" does not equate to God. So if he wanted to be consistent he would have paraphrased "kurios" as "God" for the Father, which he did, and "Son of God" for the Son. Maybe, just maybe he has no problem with the Deity of Christ, and he would therefore just be incompetent, and has no business writing a book that he calls a version of the Bible.

In the first sentence of this paragraph, when you said "kurios" does not equate to God, are you expressing your own view about kurios that it doesn't equate to God or what you think Peterson's opinion of kurios is?

[rejoice44]

Norman, I have a question about one thing you wrote. In the first sentence of this paragraph, when you said "kurios" does not equate to God, are you expressing your own view about kurios that it doesn't equate to God or what you think Peterson's opinion of kurios is?

I was merely stating that "kurios" is never translated as God, at least in most of the translations that I have checked. While "kurios" is applied to God, God is not the definition of "kurios".

[Butch5]

By people asking questions like yours below.



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

I understand that. My question is, do you hold that the KJV is the only reliable translation?

[BibleGirl02]

I am not sure this is the right section to put this question but the moderators will move it if it's not First I am very glad to be back in touch on this forum. Many things have happened to me but the best thing? I have grown so much closer to the Lord and been much, more active in my walk with Him.

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.

One of the verses in the bible that comes to my mind is this one:

I Corinthians 2:14-16): 14) “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15) But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16) For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

Maybe people trying to make the bible more understandable are wrong in that the Holy Spirit is to teach us.

What do you think? your sister in Christ, denise

Hey there Oregongrown. I would say that it was definitely the Lord speaking to you about "The Message" Bible because it is not a good Bible at all. It is a paraphrase and if you ask me, it is totally inaccurate in numerous places. I prefer a more literal translation anyway. I have never really been a fan of paraphrased versions of the Bible because to me, they're not really the Bible. The NKJV is a much better option than "The Message" Bible.

That said, I am a Catholic and so I prefer a Catholic Bible. However, my favorite translation of the Bible is known as the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition. It is meant to be a good Bible for both Catholics and Protestants. But the main reason why I like it is because it is very accurate. Catholic Answers, one of my favorite sites, also endorses it. Catholic Answers is an apologetics site and therefore they know quite a bit about things like Bible versions since Catholics use the Bible heavily in apologetics and even in evangelism. Catholic Answers, of course, says that the best Bible translation to get is the one that you will read bu they do suggest the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition. One good thing about the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (which many will abbreviate it as (RSV-CE) is that it is approved by the Catholic Church for use by Catholics. That said, it also comes in a form published by Ignatius Press where it is called The Ignatius Bible. It is a great study Bible to use. So yeah, I love the RSV-CE and honestly, I would suggest that you give it a try as well since it is designed for use both by Catholics and by Protestants.

[rejoice44]

I understand that. My question is, do you hold that the KJV is the only reliable translation?

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rejoice44]

I understand that. My question is, do you hold that the KJV is the only reliable translation?

I thought I should clarify the previous answer. While I cannot say that the KJV is the only reliable translation, there is none that I trust more. I am not familiar with all translations. I do not trust the new translations that I have observed because they come from what most assuredly are corrupt manuscripts from corrupt men.

[david]

That was rather sarcastic, I asked a legitimate question. Do we need a bible, if all we need to know the Holy Spirit will tell us?

Paul said that the Word is near you in your mouth and in your heart, and that we don't need to ascend to heaven to get the Word nor do we need to go to the depths of the earth to acquire it. If you are stranded on an island without a Bible, the best you can do is work with what you got. In all circumstances you have to make do with the best of your ability.
But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. Luke 12:48

The Lord looks on your heart, not outward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7). He doesn't judge by how many commandments you keep, but rather by what you do with what commandments were entrusted to you. He looks at your intent.

Let's say you were given the commandment to read the Bible daily.
Cease to hear instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge. Proverbs 19:27

What are you going to do with this commandment? Are you going to read the Bible daily? If you stop reading it, would that not be going against the Word? But let's say you became stranded on an island without a Bible. What are you going to do with the commandment to read the bible? Can you still do it? No, but as long as you were able to, you should have done it. This way to walk is to walk by the Word that's written on your heart, the Word that's inside of you as the Spirit.