The Message - New Age influence

[Szdfan]

On the whole, The Message seems like one man's sermons on the text, freely reading his views in and simplifying at the same time, but it doesn't feel new age to me.

I think this is a good description. To me, "The Message" feels like a conversation with Peterson and I appreciate the conversational aspect to it, but I would never use it as a source for exegesis or interpretation.

[Heirbyadoption]

On the whole, The Message seems like one man's sermons on the text, freely reading his views in and simplifying at the same time, but it doesn't feel new age to me.

I think this is a good description. To me, "The Message" feels like a conversation with Peterson and I appreciate the conversational aspect to it, but I would never use it as a source for exegesis or interpretation.

While I heartily agree with you on the bolded, I have not found that to be the case with many of my acquaintances who use the Message on a regular basis... Hence some of my personal trepidation regarding its use, regardless of the OP here.

[Szdfan]

On the whole, The Message seems like one man's sermons on the text, freely reading his views in and simplifying at the same time, but it doesn't feel new age to me.

I think this is a good description. To me, "The Message" feels like a conversation with Peterson and I appreciate the conversational aspect to it, but I would never use it as a source for exegesis or interpretation.

While I heartily agree with you on the bolded, I have not found that to be the case with many of my acquaintances who use the Message on a regular basis... Hence some of my personal trepidation regarding its use, regardless of the OP here.

Sure. I don't think that's Peterson or the Message's fault, though. People are responsible for the tools they choose to use.

[Heirbyadoption]

I think this is a good description. To me, "The Message" feels like a conversation with Peterson and I appreciate the conversational aspect to it, but I would never use it as a source for exegesis or interpretation.

While I heartily agree with you on the bolded, I have not found that to be the case with many of my acquaintances who use the Message on a regular basis... Hence some of my personal trepidation regarding its use, regardless of the OP here.

Sure. I don't think that's Peterson or the Message's fault, though. People are responsible for the tools they choose to use.

"People are responsible for the tools they choose to use." The exact argument has been made by drug dealers for centuries, methinks...

I suppose a metaphor more accurate to this context would be that makers of faulty equipment are often liable for damages, or at the least are sued, when someone gets injured using their poor equipment. Even if those folks DID choose to use the equipment. After all, the equipment is valued and sold as reliable, not faulty. Yet the very existence presence of faulty equipment, and more importantly, its manufacture, is ultimately a more foundational problem than the fact that some chose to use it. There's a reason quality control folks focus on improving manufacturing standards rather than simply penalizing the voluntary users of said faulty equipment.

[Josh]

On the whole, The Message seems like one man's sermons on the text, freely reading his views in and simplifying at the same time, but it doesn't feel new age to me.

I think this is a good description. To me, "The Message" feels like a conversation with Peterson and I appreciate the conversational aspect to it, but I would never use it as a source for exegesis or interpretation.

While I heartily agree with you on the bolded, I have not found that to be the case with many of my acquaintances who use the Message on a regular basis... Hence some of my personal trepidation regarding its use, regardless of the OP here.

Indeed, I have experience pastors who preach out of it and seem very comfortable using it much like an Amplified Bible is similarly mis-used.

[Szdfan]

While I heartily agree with you on the bolded, I have not found that to be the case with many of my acquaintances who use the Message on a regular basis... Hence some of my personal trepidation regarding its use, regardless of the OP here.

Sure. I don't think that's Peterson or the Message's fault, though. People are responsible for the tools they choose to use.

"People are responsible for the tools they choose to use." The exact argument has been made by drug dealers for centuries, methinks...

I suppose a metaphor more accurate to this context would be that makers of faulty equipment are often liable for damages, or at the least are sued, when someone gets injured using their poor equipment. Even if those folks DID choose to use the equipment. After all, the equipment is valued and sold as reliable, not faulty. Yet the very existence presence of faulty equipment, and more importantly, its manufacture, is ultimately a more foundational problem than the fact that some chose to use it. There's a reason quality control folks focus on improving manufacturing standards rather than simply penalizing the voluntary users of said faulty equipment.

Neither analogy works for me. Books aren’t drugs or faulty equipment. Biblical interpretation isn’t like taking drugs or operating heavy machinery. Someone can have all the “correct” resources and still end up with bad theology.

Ideally, we should all be reading Greek and Hebrew and not relying on translations, but that’s not realistic.

[ken_sylvania]

I suppose verse 21 is the basis for believing Jesus got his clothes from Gohn Brothers.

Who are you mocking here?

[Bootstrap]

I suppose verse 21 is the basis for believing Jesus got his clothes from Gohn Brothers.

Who are you mocking here?

Nobody, I was making a joke about the way The Message translated the verse and a meaning the translator did not intend.

And the person who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and make myself plain to him.”

I'm pretty sure neither the translator nor plain Mennonites would actually misunderstand the verse that way. Why did you interpret that as mocking?

[Bootstrap]

Neither analogy works for me. Books aren’t drugs or faulty equipment. Biblical interpretation isn’t like taking drugs or operating heavy machinery. Someone can have all the “correct” resources and still end up with bad theology.

Ideally, we should all be reading Greek and Hebrew and not relying on translations, but that’s not realistic.

And reading translations is fine.

Reading Greek and Hebrew still isn't enough if you don't get the culture and an overview of the Bible. Given a choice, I think most people would be better off watching Bible Project videos rather than try to learn biblical languages, and people who learn biblical languages still need to get this other background, which is more accessible to more people.

Any one Bible translation is not enough. Adding The Message to the mix may be a little like reading a commentary, showing one possible reading of these verses. I generally think most people are better off reading 3 translations that are significantly different. And really, I would much rather see someone read The Message than not read the Bible regularly, if that's the translation that grabs them, and it keeps them engaged, I just hope they recognize what kind of translation it is and what the limitations are.

Translators have resources that outline translation choices, here's an excerpt from Translator's Notes Display, used by SIL - I would love to see something like this available to the general public. I don't think most people have ever translated anything, and they don't know how to think about the choices a translator faces while working on a translation.

[Soloist]

I think even if the only Bible you have is the message, your better off reading it then not. God can still work through flawed translations. Some inspiring Chinese testimonies come from people who don't have more then a few scraps of the Bible.