# The Message Bible



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 21, 2007)

I received a question from a friend and wanted to get expert information on the question:


> Have any of you heard of the Message Bible? I went to a Bible study this last Friday and a couple of the attendees read verses from this version that were totally different than any other translation (to the point of being almost a completely different Gospel). I'm troubled by it and would like to find a good resource that has done some background on this so-called version of the Bible. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 21, 2007)

I'll have to search for reference material but it's total garbage and is changed to the point of being a different gospel, your friend judged well.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 21, 2007)

While that article exposed it for what it is, I thought the writer was a little soft on it, but that's just me.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 21, 2007)

Psalm 1:1-6 Psalm 1:1 How well God must like you-- you don't hang out at Sin Saloon, you don't slink along Dead-End Road, you don't go to Smart-Mouth College. 2 Instead you thrill to GOD's Word, you chew on Scripture day and night. 3 You're a tree replanted in Eden, bearing fresh fruit every month, Never dropping a leaf, always in blossom. 4 You're not at all like the wicked, who are mere windblown dust-- 5 Without defense in court, unfit company for innocent people. 6 GOD charts the road you take. The road they take is Skid Row.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 21, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Psalm 1:1-6 Psalm 1:1 How well God must like you-- you don't hang out at Sin Saloon, you don't slink along Dead-End Road, you don't go to Smart-Mouth College. 2 Instead you thrill to GOD's Word, you chew on Scripture day and night. 3 You're a tree replanted in Eden, bearing fresh fruit every month, Never dropping a leaf, always in blossom. 4 You're not at all like the wicked, who are mere windblown dust-- 5 Without defense in court, unfit company for innocent people. 6 GOD charts the road you take. The road they take is Skid Row.



If there werent' so many people being taken in by this hogwash, this would REALLY be funny. It sounds almost like a Saturday Night Live parody.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 21, 2007)

Some people have told me I must have gone to smart mouth college....am I on skid row?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2007)

Outside of the silly translation, If I recall, the original version did not have addresses; To me this was confusing.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 21, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> Outside of the silly translation, If I recall, the original version did not have addresses; To me this was confusing.



I think I recall reading somewhere that in the newest (2002 or 3?) version they added verse numbers (for what reason I don't know, since the Message is truly a different message).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 21, 2007)

joshua said:


> Rich, I'm no expert, but here's something from a Reformed Confessional (self-proclaimed) fella by the name of Michael Marlowe.



A strangely soft critique given what the author of The Message has done but this sentence sums it up for me:



> In the process of making his interesting homiletic point he neglects the main point of the passage.



It is one thing for preachers to regularly mishandle the Word of God. I've heard it pretty regularly - pick a verse and then give a homily on that verse even if the text never intended that application. The Message turns a man's eisegesis into the Word of God itself!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 21, 2007)

No biggie Josh, I think it was just surprising he didn't rip into it. Then again if approaching someone who used and enjoyed it taking a little easy may be the best route to take at first.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 21, 2007)

Me no likey "The Message". 

I guess they think everyone is stupid and if its not at 3rd grade level then we'll just completely miss the point of the passage.

Too bad they end up not bringing clarity but confusion. Its an abominable translation.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 22, 2007)

Lousy translation. Absolutely lousy.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 11, 2007)

*"The Message"*

I hear this version being used more and more in non-denom and evangelical circles in general and am wondering about its genesis. Does anyone have more info?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2007)

Kevin,

Moved your question to the thread that's only a couple weeks old.


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 11, 2007)

*No Message Here, this should be called 'The Massage'*

Eugene Peterson, an evangelical PCUSA pastor, created this paraphrase in very much street language. It's an abomination-filled attempt to make the Bible relevant. It is scary how badly and even brusquely it translates the Word. There is nothing sacred or timeless about it whatsoever. It's trying to make the Word relevant in a most annoying way. I say this because my demographic is the group being pandered towards: the teenage to 20-something trendy kids who are burned out of their parents' churches (though obviously I have a very different response than many of my peers). Besides the tawdry cheap language used, the theology is often atrocious and should cause even the least doctrinal evangelicals to shun it. Look at Romans if you want to weep at how the Bible can be mangled.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2007)

Precisely Scott. There is an irony to this as well because as soon as a few years pass you need to update the entire Scriptures to keep up with the evolution of slang.

I remember taking some courses in Black Literature in College to fulfill a humanities requirement. The prof was pretty liberal and gave us a test one week that was supposed to prove that the SAT was culturally conditioned with all those pesky dictionary words that inner city people aren't exposed to. 

The test was like a verbal SAT with a bunch of slang words from the inner city to see how well we knew our street slang. As the students were taking the test a bunch of them started to laugh. I was one of the few non-minorities in the class and wasn't the one laughing. This was in 1987 and the reason they were laughing is because the slang was from the 1960's and had words like "jive turkey". The "inner city" kids did as poorly as the few of us white suburbanites.

The Prof was nice enough (very effeminate) but the students even kind of chuckled about him because he used to wear the 70's polyester suits that had the bell bottom slacks and the really wide lapels. We still had some respect for him because he had been through some pretty nasty struggles in the 50's and 60's. I actually enjoyed reading some literature and poetry I'd never have been exposed to otherwise.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Feb 11, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> The deeper issue here is the question, "What passes as a Translation."
> 
> Traduttore, Traditore!
> 
> ...


You're an educated man with a growing understanding of grace, the problem is by and large this "Message" is being used as the primary source of evangelism.


----------



## beej6 (Feb 11, 2007)

'The Message' is not a translation, it's a paraphrase. It's in the same category, though less jarring, than for example 'The Word on the Street.' I agree with others that the 'contemporary' phrasing removes the timeless, holy factor from the Word. Its only value for a Bible student is it will always give you a different reading than whatever sound translation you are using - sometimes that's helpful as a study aid. It certainly is no use as a primary version for serious study.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Feb 11, 2007)

Could any of you who have found the Message to be a bit helpful show us an example where the Message serves to add a little additional light in understanding a verse?


----------



## SRoper (Feb 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Precisely Scott. There is an irony to this as well because as soon as a few years pass you need to update the entire Scriptures to keep up with the evolution of slang.



I was just thinking about this today. Every ten years you need a new Message.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 11, 2007)

Part of an interview between Michael Horton and Eugene Peterson was aired during the most recent broadcast of the White Horse Inn. His critique of some of the problems in American Evangelicalism seemed spot on and it seemed strange to me as Horton was introducing him to hear that he was also behind the Message bible. Did anyone else hear the broadcast? Thoughts?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Part of an interview between Michael Horton and Eugene Peterson was aired during the most recent broadcast of the White Horse Inn. His critique of some of the problems in American Evangelicalism seemed spot on and it seemed strange to me as Horton was introducing him to hear that he was also behind the Message bible. Did anyone else hear the broadcast? Thoughts?



Yeah, I heard the same thing and I was scratching my head. Isn't that precisely what Peterson did with his translation? It was so bizarre I was thinking: "This can't be the same guy who wrote the Message...."


----------



## KMK (Feb 11, 2007)

On top of that he was featured in Modern Reformation Magazine. Are there two Eugene Petersons?

I do not have the info any more but there is a strong link between Purpose-Driven and The Message. I think they are in cahoots to a certain degree.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2007)

KMK said:


> On top of that he was featured in Modern Reformation Magazine. Are there two Eugene Petersons?
> 
> I do not have the info any more but there is a strong link between Purpose-Driven and The Message. I think they are in cahoots to a certain degree.



Same guy. He was introduced as the author of the Message.

Something to keep in mind is that MR and WHI interview guys they don't agree with and they don't engage in debate with them but merely ask them to express what they believe. I've never seen anyone taken head on in MR - it's not the pupose of the interview.

It's possible Dr. Horton was merely being courteous to him and not bringing up the Message. Insofar as the author critiqued the Christian culture at large he was getting his thoughts. I've seen him interview and read liberals who do the same thing who would disagree sharply in other areas.


----------



## bwsmith (Feb 11, 2007)

I love the message, and find it helpful and refreshing.
This might help . . . _The goal of The Message is to engage people in the reading process and help them understand what they read. This is not a study Bible, but rather "a reading Bible." The verse numbers, which are not in the original documents, have been left out of the print version to facilitate easy and enjoyable reading. The original books of the Bible were not written in formal language. The Message tries to recapture the Word in the words we use today._​http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65

Dr. Peterson however, does not present The Message as a translation, comparable to the NASB does he? Navpress, which publishes it calls it a paraphrase. Candidly, Dr. Peterson’s rendering is quite exact as to the nature of our problems:
_We're all sin-infected, sin-contaminated.
Our best efforts are grease-stained rags.
We dry up like autumn leaves — 
sin-dried, we're blown off by the wind. _​
Grease stained rags might be more understandable to 21st century readers, than “filthy rags” a synonym for stained menstrual cloths. The point is neither cloth can be reused and is good only for burning -- and Dr. Peterson has held nothing back describing those who trust their works, has he? 

Dr. Peterson is quite a scholar of Hebrew, btw. Maybe I am sentimental – cuz MD is my home – but after graduate study at Johns Hopkins University, he returned to New York Theological Seminary where he taught biblical languages and English Bible. He is both a pastor and a full-time writer, poet, and professor emeritus of spiritual theology at Regent College.

I can understand an aesthetic aversion to replacing “In the Beginning,” with “First.” However, if you goal is reaching people who simply shy away from Scripture, for whatever reasons – Dr. Peterson’s rendering of Gen 1:1-2 in contemporary English isn’t as egregious as those who clearly loathe his work. Frankly – having read the classic translations enough times, it’s not a disagreeable jolt to think of this word picture. 
_First this: God created the Heavens and Earth — all you see, all you don't see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God's Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss. _​


----------

