| Poster | Thread | Angyl
Member
Joined: 2005/1/26
Posts: 153
| | Re: | | Gonna hafta agree with Krispy here. I too believe the T.R. is the inspired word of God, but I will go one step further than he and say that I believe the KJV is the inspired ENGLISH TRANSLATION, of that word. 8-) |
|  2005/1/26 13:07 | Profile |
| | Re: | | There are differing definitions of what "inspired translation" means. Some take it to mean that you can correct the Greek with the KJV. I do not believe that. If you mean that it is an accurate translation because God guided the translators... then I would agree with that. But there was no new revelation in the KJV.
(Angyl... do I know you from somewhere else?)
Krispy |
| | 2005/1/26 13:21 | | Angyl
Member
Joined: 2005/1/26
Posts: 153
| | Re: | | I guess what I mean by that is to say that I believe that the KJV is what God WANTED us to get out of the greek originally.
When some people come along and say "it says 'this' in the greek but 'that' in the K.J.V. (implying some difference), I don't jive with it. That's THEIR translation...THEIR word...not the one God intended for us to have, IMO.
And yes, Krispy, you know me from R.R. The old fundamentalist crowd there, remember? |
| | 2005/1/26 13:38 | Profile |
| | Re: | | AH... Angyl... I thought that was you.
I agree with your assertion about inspiration... that is how I feel.
Peter Ruckman and others take "inspired translation" over the edge of the cliff. I dont go there. I believe that "sect" of fundamentalism is flirting with cultism.
Good to see you again! |
| | 2005/1/26 13:55 | | phebebird
Member
Joined: 2004/11/23
Posts: 91
San Pedro, California
| | Re: | | This thread is interesting to me as I have become somewhat upset as our pastor seems to think that The Message is a TRANSLATION of the Bible. Often he reads a passage that sounds only vaguely like the verse in my Bible and then, sure enough, it came out of The Message. I don't think The Message is heretical, but it is a PARAPHRASE, not a translation from the Greek. The two should not be confused. A paraphrase is always going to have a spin on it from the paraphraser. The Message can be read like a novel, but not used to really study the Bible.
I like the NIV myself. I also really like the KJV. I don't think there is such a thing as an "inspired translation" of the Bible. This is because I don't think God would give an inspired translation to one language and not another. Do you think that there is an "inspired" translation of the Chinese Bible? Of the Mongolian Bible? And what about the Bible that someone is translating for the first time into some tribal language? How would they know if that is the "inspired" translation or not. It is easy for those of us who have grown up with the KJV to hold it up as THE Bible, but the level of difficulty it poses to some readers really should be taken into consideration. That is why the NKJV and NIV are also good. Keep in mind that English has changed relatively little over the years since the KJV was written. In some countries, the older translations of the Bible are truly unintelligible to today's readers. For example, the older translation of the Chinese Bible really is not understandable to your average Chinese today, because of changes in the script and in the vocabulary. Would we hold them to the same standard?
_________________
Phebe
|
| | 2005/1/28 20:21 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
This thread is interesting to me as I have become somewhat upset as our pastor seems to think that The Message is a TRANSLATION of the Bible. Often he reads a passage that sounds only vaguely like the verse in my Bible and then, sure enough, it came out of The Message. I don't think The Message is heretical, but it is a PARAPHRASE, not a translation from the Greek. The two should not be confused. A paraphrase is always going to have a spin on it from the paraphraser. The Message can be read like a novel, but not used to really study the Bible.
This is all to do with philosophies of translation. If your French teacher asks you what the phrase 'respondez s'il vous plait' means and you answer 'reply if it you pleases' he will say your answer is wrong. He will say you have not translated the phrase only the words.
Translators all have their own philosophy of translation. The possibilities stretch from extreme 'dynamic equivalence' which is The Message end of the spectrum to 'literal equivalence' which is at the other end. A thoroughly 'literal equivalence' would be unintelligible. "in this way for loved the God the world so that the son his the only-born he_gave in order that all the believing_ones into him not should_be_destroyed but have life age-lasting" is John 3:16 using extreme 'literal dynamic' philosophy.
All translations are somewhere on this line between 'dynamic equivalence' and 'literal equivalence'. God inspired the actual words, but He also inspired the sense of the words, so a translator has the task of communicating both micro-inspiration (every word) and macro-inspiration (the whole book or letter). Linguists don't usually use the word 'paraphrase'. They speak rather of 'literal' or 'freer' translation. In its philosophy of translation the KJV, coming mostly from William Tyndale, is closer to 'literal equivalence' than The Message.
Let me confess... I am not supposed to like The Message; it is contrary to what I think a translation ought to be but I find again and again that, while I could never use The Message as my devotional or study Bible, it scores 'direct hits' on aspects of truth hidden from many 'better' translations. Actually, The Message [u]is[/u] a translation from the Greek; it's just that it is a dynamic equivalence or free translation. Amy Carmichael believed that all versions revealed unique facets of truth; I think she was right.
The KJV has another philosophy at work which is subtle but unhelpful. The translators based their work on Tyndale but constantly altered biblical concepts to support monarchy and official appointments. This means that the KJV is really a hostile witness when we come to trying to understand the nature of spiritual authority in the scripture. The KJV was a political exercise in bringing conformity to a diverse Christian belief in the kingdom. King James was a clever but unlikeable character, and his first act in the translating of the KJV was to removed the 'extreme' Catholics and Anabaptist elements from the translation committee. At its very inception the KJV was designed as a compromise.
Nevertheless, for all its weaknesses, I still read and preach from my KJV although I frequently 're-translate' to bring out points which would otherwise be lost. And yes, where necessary, I will 'correct' the KJV from the original words of Paul which were God-breathed. The KJV is good and has been wonderfully owned of God, but it is not God-breathed.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/1/29 3:53 | Profile |
| | Re: philosophies or deliberate deception??? | | It is amazing to many that "The Message" is even sold in "so called" christian bookstores. But then again, anyone with a discerning spirit should realize that most "christian" book stores are businesses only and provide patrons with as much or more error than truth.
We as believers know that it is the Holy Spirit Who leads us and guides us into all truth. I just cannot imagine the Holy Spirit wooing anyone to attempt to discover truth from "The Message".
Let me give you a couple references, and you decide for yourself.
KJV Matthew 24:4-5 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take Heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name,saying, I am the Christ; And shall deceive many."
The Message rendering of the same text is as follows:
"Jesus said, 'watch out for doomsday deceivers. Many leaders are going to show up with forged identies, claiming "I am the Messiah". They will decieve alot of people."
Jesus did not say anyting about "doomsday deceievers". What about those who come in "peace and love"? Most decievers today shy away from end time prophecies and feed their "flocks" feel good fodder. I mean we have to be "sensative to our seekers" don't we?
Ok, ok, let's move on to the Lord's prayer. I'm almost certain that most of you who might read this are well aware of at least the KJV text of this passage.
But what does "The Message" present?
As follows: " Our Father in heaven, reveal who you are, set the world right. Do what's best, as above, so below. Keep us alive with 3 square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the devil, You are in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes, yes, yes."
One very alarming thing that stands out in "The Message's" rendering is the phrase "as above, so below". One need only do a search on these words online to get an eye full of this New Age term. Peterson uses it again in Collosians 1:16. I might add that Rick Warren uses it on page one of his book "The Purpose Driven Life".
In my humble opinion, anyone who owns "The Message" is open to spiritual peril.
What do I read? I have a parallel bible. On the left side of the page is the KJV, and on the righ is the Amplified Bible. I read the Amplified Bible and use the KJV for reference because there is so much research and resource based on the KJV.Does reading this "version" make me right? Of course not. But it satisfies my spirit like no other version I have read.
The Holy Spirit leads and guides into all truth. God is all about Truth and will not lead His children into open error. Pray about what you read. Not just bibles, but any and everything. When there is a "check" in your spirit, turn away. It's not of God. "The Message" makes my skin crawl. I have absolutely no desire to read a single word from it's pages, much less spend God's money to own it.
Do all translations have an element of truth? Of course they do. That has been satan's ploy from the beginning. All deception has an element of truth, otherwise those deceived would not be so.
Written in love,
Lahry |
| | 2005/1/29 12:43 | | inotof
Member
Joined: 2005/1/7
Posts: 267
Morehead, KY
| | Re: | | On the subject of the message, i have to admit, i have a bit of a problem with it as well. I manage a Christian bookstore, however we are a lot more picky and discerning of what product we carry--that is why we are small, we carry quality titles not the latest "craze" or "slef help trend"--not to get carried away on that particualr tanget---The biggest problem for me is the quotes on the back of this "bible" endorsing it. One quote inparticuar is from Bono the front man for a secular rock group U2. does anyone else see a problem with someone in secular media reading this "bible" and remain unconvicted, unchallenged enough to turn around and advocate it? I'm not saying that sinners can't read the Bible or that they should not--the point is that this rock star read it--and it did not produce a change yet to help promote it they have used his name--a name heavily recognized in rock and roll media--to sell the "word". Gimme a break.
_________________
David
|
| | 2005/1/29 13:01 | Profile |
| | Re: inotof | | First of all, I'm so glad that I chose to say "most christian bookstores" in my post. You are certainly part of the exception and I thank God for you. May the Holy Spirit continue to keep you and guide you, and lead you into all truth. Your signature witnesses to me most of all.
Christian hugs,
Lahry |
| | 2005/1/29 13:21 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
"The Message" makes my skin crawl. I have absolutely no desire to read a single word from it's pages, much less spend God's money to own it.
As it happens you can get it without paying anything as a module on the e-sword bible programme. How do you know so much about it without reading it?
Quote:
In my humble opinion, anyone who owns "The Message" is open to spiritual peril.
It's an interesting opinion at any rate, and you are free to have it. I wonder if you have studied the history of Bible translation?
I use the KJV as my foundation for all my Bible study; as I have often said on these pages it is a temporary expedient... just until I can get something better. :-)
Take a look at these two translations;
"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.
(Joh 3:16 MSG)
"in this way for loved the God the world so that the son his the only-born he_gave in order that all the believing_ones into him not should_be_destroyed but have life age-lasting" (Joh 3:16 absolutely literal translation - Ron Bailey!)
If you found a man breathing his last breaths, which version would you quote to him? In fact The Message has caught something missing from every other version I know; the fact that eternal life is not just longer but better. The life of the ages; is not just quantitively better, it is qualitively better. Eternal life is not just longer; it is God's life... that brings our spiritual death to an end and makes us whole again.
BTW this is almost a novel experience for me. I have spent my life on the other side of this argument! ;-)
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/1/29 13:57 | Profile |
|
