Re: A version of the Bible, what do you think?
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?
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.
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.
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.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown
Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson