the Message Bible

[Drew H.]

Hello everybody! I was wondering what you guys feel about the Message translation.

[Porter Doran]

Oh I hate it. I remember running across a passage of Paul's in which he provides a list of three clauses, each giving a different angle on what he was describing (that is, in a real Bible each gives), but in The Message all three clauses were (perhaps not identical but) the same. Laughably bad English, is The Message -- and a despite to the true message of the Gospels and apostles.

[Rob A]

It's not bad as an introduction for someone who has never read the Bible before. It has a knack for breaking down tough concepts into easier to understand language for an inquirer or for a newbie to the faith.

But for anyone with any real experience as a Christian, it won't do for real Scripture study or exegesis.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Rob A

It has a knack for breaking down tough concepts into easier to understand language for an inquirer or for a newbie to the faith.

It eliminates the authors' concepts and replaces them with Evangelicalist dogma. This is indeed very useful for someone new to that faith.

[Keith]

I also hate it. It's shit. Conservative clap-trap. At least it's honest about what Evangelicals are actually reading when they claim to be reading the bible 'literally'. Bleugh!

That said, there isn't a Bible that does justice to most of the more radical and up-to-date in interpretation. There just isn't.

[Andy Alexis-Baker]

Well for one thing Eugene Peterson, the translator, is not a "conservative" in a political sense. He is a pacifist:

[William Stafford] is a pacifist, a Christian who spent the four years of World War II in camps for conscientious objectors in Arkansas and CAlifornia. The way he used words eventually made me a pacifist. But my conversation started not with his views on violence and war, but with the way he used words in the making of poems.

-Tell It Slant, 272

Expounding on Psalm 46 he writes:

God is engaged in worldwide disarmament. All the ways in which men and women attempt to forcibly impose their wills on neighbors and enemies are thrown into the trash heap. Violence does not work. It has never worked. It will never work. Weapons are not functional.

The history of violence is a history of failures. There has never been a won war. There has never been a victorious battle. The use of force destroys the very reality that is exercised in its behalf, whether honor, truth or justice. Living in the kind of world in which we do and being the sinners we are, we sometimes cannot avoid violence. But even when it is inevitable it is not right. God does not engage in it.

A steady, sustained look at God's works sees that our frantic, foolish arms build-up (whether personal or national, whether psychological or material) is being subjected to systematic and determined disarmament. Violent action is the antithesis of creative action. When we no longer have the will or the patience to be creative, we attempt to express our will be coercion. The lazy and the immature account for most of the violence in the world. But however prevalent violence is, the person at prayer sees that that is not the way most of the world, the world of God's action, works. But it takes energy and maturity to see it and sustain the vision.

Attention, all! See the marvels of God!
He plants flowers and trees all over the earth,
Bans war from pole to pole,
breaks all the weapons of war across his knee.
Psalm 46:8–9

-Living the Message, 35

Regarding the poor he states:

Our attitude toward the poor is still one of the surest tests of the health of our freedom. The moment freedom is used to avoid acts of mercy or help or compassion, it is exposed as a fraud. A free person who finds ways to enhance the lives of the poor demonstrates the truest and most mature freedom. A free person who diminishes the lives of the poor by dealing out ridicule or withholding gifts is himself diminished, is herself diminished.

We are free to resist the pressures to conform to an established formula for being rightly related to God; we are free to resist established precedents for working in God's name; we are not free to dismiss poor people from our awareness, to turn a deaf ear to voices that ask for help to harbor even the slightest contempt for the failures and rejects of our society.
-Living the Message, 191–92

Also, regarding the passages that "conservatives" use to exclude gays, read his translation of Romans 1:26–27. I doubt conservative evangelicals would be happy with it.

Or take a look at how he translates 1 Peter 3:1, 7 in comparison to other translations which use the word "submit" when talking about wives' relationships to husbands. Peterson:

"The same goes for you wives: Be good wives to your husbands, responsive to their needs . . .

The same goes for you husbands: Be good husbands to your wives. Honor them, delight in them. As women they lack some of your advantages. But in the new life of God's grace, you're equals. Treat your wives, then, as equals . . .

I could go on and on. The Message translation is not a "conservative" propaganda piece by any stretch. Eugene Peterson, the translator, is a good person (I know somebody who knows him well). The Message is not that bad and is certainly not a tool for people like Bush, Cheney or Palin to use for their ambitions. (He does translate "antichrist" as "anarchist" which is annoying, but hardly something I would dismiss the book over.) In fact, I think evangelicals should be encouraged to read Peterson, not only his Message bible, but more of his books (he is quite popular as an author, and I am glad for it).

The Message is not really a "translation" but more of a rendition, paraphrase or something. So it depends, Drew, on what you are looking for in a Bible.

[Porter Doran]

For those requiring really "easy" reading (or simply wanting a change), I prefer the Contemporary English Version, which for some reason never took off. It is more elegant and accurate than its competition while being just as elementary (I think the translators aimed at fourth-grade level). Its James and Hebrews are particularly brilliant (its I John, on the other hand, is execrable).

For persons of average reading ability, the New American Standard Bible is my choice.

But my favorite by far of all modern translations is Richmond Lattimore's New Testament. The reader should be comfortable with, say, Aldous Huxley - level English to appreciate it. For the first time since King James, a Scripture is literature. (I similarly appreciate Robert Alter's work on the Hebrew scriptures, but he has not gotten far.)

[Climb The Rock]

With many people who read the Bible regularly, there is always many different versions lying around. If The Message leads you to read it daily, I say go for it. If you're looking for an everyday Bible, then I'd do some research as to what you're comfortable with. Personally, I like the NIV. That's me though. I have copies of The Message, NKJV, ESV, and other lying around though to compare and contrast.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Andy Alexis-Baker

The Message is not really a "translation" but more of a rendition, paraphrase or something.

Or how about "commentary"?

He does translate "antichrist" as "anarchist" ...

Good lord.

[glasshaus]

It's marketed as a paraphrase of the Bible. Not a translation. It's sold with the Bibles in my (only) local Christian bookstore, but it's under a different heading.
-Claven

[Rob A]

I'm partial to the phrasology of the TNIV- gender inclusive language for humanity and a fairly good dynamic equivalence to the original languages. It's great for public reading of Scripture in the gathered community, which is an important thing for me.