Anyone heard of a version of the Bible called "The Message"

[dirtdigginlady]

The pastor of the church we have been two the last two Sundays uses it along with the NIV in his sermons. I have never heard of it. It sounds just like most of us common people talk.

 

[Greg from Mi.]

that is what it is. the bible if it was written today with our talk
Nothing I'd read all the time as my only bible but interesting to refer to
Greg

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Just another paraphrase. Sort of like the "Living Bible". Not a litteral word for word translation (like the NAS) but more of a "thought per thought" translation. Also expands out like the Amplified version (if you are familiar with that). Nothing wrong with trying to use modern vernacular, as languages evolve over time (in much the same way we don't speak shakespearan english anymore ), so long as it remains accurate to the original's intent/thought.

From what I've read in it, it seems to take a great deal of paraphrasing liberty though, almost to the point where, when you're hearing someone else read from it, while you're reading in your NIV or KJV or whatever, that it's almost hard to follow where they're at, unless you're mentally looking for the thought-per-thought items. Because subconsciously, you're probably used to the word-for-word changes (synonyms, or simple verbs before or after changes, etc...). If you've ever had someone read from the LB while you're looking at your NIV, KJV or NAS, then you'll know what I mean.

I work with Bi-lingual (spanish/english) employees, and sometime I have to call in my foreman to translate something to a laborer for me. And sometimes I see him struggle/think to try to tell the guy what I'm saying, or him have to struggle/think to tell me what the person is telling me. And often time, it's not a word-for-word translation, since their adjectives are not in the same order as ours, our a word has no exact translation (or could be one of several in english), etc... So too is it the same when going from ancient languages to English I suppose.

 

[SeniorSeeker]

My Thoughts Exactly...

Just another paraphrase. Sort of like the "Living Bible". Not a litteral word for word translation (like the NAS) but more of a "thought per thought" translation. Also expands out like the Amplified version (if you are familiar with that). Nothing wrong with trying to use modern vernacular, as languages evolve over time (in much the same way we don't speak shakespearan english anymore ), so long as it remains accurate to the original's intent/thought.

From what I've read in it, it seems to take a great deal of paraphrasing liberty though, almost to the point where, when you're hearing someone else read from it, while you're reading in your NIV or KJV or whatever, that it's almost hard to follow where they're at, unless you're mentally looking for the thought-per-thought items. Because subconsciously, you're probably used to the word-for-word changes (synonyms, or simple verbs before or after changes, etc...). If you've ever had someone read from the LB while you're looking at your NIV, KJV or NAS, then you'll know what I mean.

I work with Bi-lingual (spanish/english) employees, and sometime I have to call in my foreman to translate something to a laborer for me. And sometimes I see him struggle/think to try to tell the guy what I'm saying, or him have to struggle/think to tell me what the person is telling me. And often time, it's not a word-for-word translation, since their adjectives are not in the same order as ours, our a word has no exact translation (or could be one of several in english), etc... So too is it the same when going from ancient languages to English I suppose.

 

[dirtdigginlady]

along in the NIV. I kept getting lost and finally decided I'd be better off just listening as it took too much brain power to try and keep up. lol Since I posted the question, I have done some research on it. It seems it was never meant to be used as the divine word of God from the translator.

 

[TURNMASTER]

It is more contempory than I prefer, as is the NLT. I perfer the NIV and NKJ. I do use the Amplified and refer to NASB and NLT some times. Having more than one translation can help to clearify what a verse says. I took a copy of the NLT to Guatemala with me last week and I found that for my general reading it has to light of a "feel", for me. The only reason I took it was weight considerations, soft bound red letter vs. a hard bound study.

It can be difficult to get a 100% direct translation from the original languages to english. This is why we see so many different translations. I do not look at any of them as being inferior, but as some of them complementing the better versions. They all seem to convey the basic word. My opinion is that one should pick one and use it as his or her main bible, it helps if it is a version that is being used in your church and comunity. That way every one is on the same page, so to speak.

Jeff

 

[dirtdigginlady]

not that I at all think it is a better translation. I don't. I just like it lol. I did much Bible studying (totally by myself) as a child and teen and that is what I had and I guess it is what I learned and I just like it. I don't at all mind the language, the thees and thous etc. I can't really explain why. I just like it. However, churches don't use it anymore so that makes it difficult in church.

 

[TURNMASTER]

My church still uses King James Cavelry Baptist. The nice thing about King James is that we know what most of its shortcommings are, if not all of them.

 

[Mike from MI "Iron Brigade"]

it is a paraphrase. Made to sound like we talk today for the most part. I can see how it could help some to understand, but I am not a big fan and will stick with my Bible,

 

[7centsworth]

I agree with Mike.