Talk:The Message (Bible)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Message Remix.jpg

Image:The Message Remix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Point of View? I have yet to find one.

The statement in the article about "street language" in Biblical times - where is this documented? That is a major statement, whether made by the article writer OR the writer of the translation - and every reader of this article deserves at least one reference to find out the truth in this. From my own studies and reading, I must say that I don't remember reading a major work from any period in history - especially a work that many proclaim as "non-fiction" - that was written entirely in 'street language' - especially since everyday speech is different for every language - indeed, every person. Though the author might have felt that he was justified (if he made this statement) - I'm quite sure that this is a very controversial piece of work, and "reading between the lines" of this article is impossible. The Wiki article on the author himself talks about the controversy surrounding his work, ESPECIALLY this one. There's a mention of some award, but no mention of anybody questioning the author's motives or viewpoint.

ALSO - I didn't see any other conversation about this - but here's one particular line from "The Message" that is shown in the section comparing passages between the Message, the KJV and the SEV bible:

Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure.''

That is a major departure from what is shown in the other texts - the Bible has no mention of Death Valley (CA) in it that I know of... which makes me wonder if there is a particular Christian sect behind this edition... perhaps a LDS movement church? (I might add, too, that there's an eerie similarity between this bit as translated by Peterson - and the Charles Manson Family - specifically Manson's "Helter Skelter Prophecies" and leading his "family" into Death Valley for the apocolypse....just an observation that others might find interesting.)

Dmodlin71 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "street language" was meant to mean the common spoken language of the day. For the New Testament, that would be Koine Greek. Don't confuse everyday language to mean dignified and elegant speech. Much of the Bible isn't. That term wasn't really that relevant so I removed it from the article replacing it with a *sourced* quote from the author.

In regards to Death Valley, it doesn't have anything to do with Death Valley (CA). This Bible is from a Protestant Christian, not an LDS group, or any Manson Family connection. If your doing research, that should be clear and we shouldn't spread unsubstantiated rumors. Acts17 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a "Criticisms" section. I'm struck by the way this translation is described as "idiomatic" as if that's a neutral description. Perhaps it's the idiom of a 70-year-old man from the West Coast, but I'm not even sure of that. The style is still quite poetic and, I would say, flowery. Dadge (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How about, "According to Michael J. Gorman (Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers, p. 51), some of Peterson's idiomatic renderings are "rather odd". StAnselm (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I would caution stepping into the criticism gambit. It is very common in Christian circles for group A to be unsupportive of group B, or a popular figure or product, that is not apart of group A for example. Basileias (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

[Untitled]

General reminder that the discussion page is for discussion of the article and not the topic. If you want to discuss the merits of the topic there are ample discussion forums more appropriate for it than wikipedia.

Heavensblade23 (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

so where did the discussion move to?

There was a lot of valid content in the earlier discussions regarding the entry, not just opinion, but FACT as to the inappropriate claim that The Message can justifiably be called a "Bible".

If the Discussion was not moved, then I guess we should applaud whoever unilaterally wiped it. George Orwell would be proud of such rewritten history - much like how Eugene Peterson had no problem making up his own "Bible". Ignorance is Strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjohnston (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to create a new lower limit of human IQ, but just give us your definition that what is a Bible and where this definition comes from. Gesalbte (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

God swept away the off-topic (and utterly invalid for the purposes of this page) text. Jibal (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's not go crazy adding examples of differences

The ones that are on the page now are sufficient as well as being immediately familiar to most people. Seregain (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think there's too many. Basileias (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensive Study on The Message

After spending a year researching Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German resources I was finally able to perform a decent comparison of KJV, NIV and NASB (readable English) versions against The Message. Findings are freely available (share with your pastors for their consideration) at http://www.scribd.com/doc/24455467/The-Mess

The document was originally intended for the Web (with 5 cut-to-the-chase studies, not written as a boring novel that would lose the point in the detail), distribued in a printable PDF format. The PDF may be viewed online in order to follow the embedded links for the support references.

--Pkjohnston (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research is not relevant to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Glowing advertisement?

A recent editor accused this article of being a "glowing advertisement." Instead of identifying what that advertisement was he inserted his own POV. Maybe the "glowing advertisement" portions could be identified and then removed? I think that would be a more mature way of addressing an alleged problem. Basileias (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed what I thought was some repetitive information. Basileias (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User Grubbmeister

This user stated this on my discussion page about me and a recent edit:

Took a minute to read here. Looks like you have a knack for argumentively editing. I don't appreciate the neutral point of view (NPOV) I carefully added to the article being labeled my "obvious POV," and brashly reverted with no finesse. You've done this before, and know to make the revert harder to undo, perform additional edits. Your actions appear out of variance for the wikipedia community, but your own POV about this article is obvious, and thus your actions are not surprising. grubbmeister (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My reply:

I was surprised by your accusations and your sweeping condemnation of me. My reasons for what I did I placed on the talk page. What said to me the edit was POV was but not necessarily consistent with the text--arguably making the original text less relevant and less obvious to the reader, contrary to the author's claims or intentions. It was also somewhat critical and un-cited.

Can you give me a reason for these statements? Your actions appear out of variance for the wikipedia community and "Looks like you have a knack for argumentively editing"? I never personally attack editors over edits.

Now back to the original talk page inquiry. What made the article before a "glowing advertisement?" Basileias (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to advertise...

The study was too big to be posted here as a discussion item. It was preformatted so it can be printed, to allow it to be read offline if desired, but best if read online to take advantage of numerous support links.

It is also entirely free, with no strings attached or follow-on products at all, so there is nothing to "advertise".

People can read it, and then they may have a good leg up to continue digging themselves if they don't believe it - that is the beauty of study and discernment. Pkjohnston (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research is not relevant to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't understand the context of the following entry, which appears as though it's a continuation of the above entry, rather than as a definitely separate, yet perhaps related, response.

Was that document created by you http://www.scribd.com/doc/24455467/The-Mess? And are you claiming "The Message" poses a threat to children?

"The answer is simple - the other paraphrase "bibles" have lost traction - they are no longer taken seriously and pose little threat to our children; whereas The Message has become one of the most heavily promoted and marketed "bibles" of our time. Basileias (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User Grubbmeister

I see this user completely bypassed the talk page again ignoring me. Nice! Basileias (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can editing the quoted and removing this be explained Grubbmeister?

"in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language." Basileias (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a paraphrase

I've edited the text to say that The Message is not a paraphrase, because it isn't a restatement of another English text but instead a highly idiomatic translation from the original languages. Accuracy matters. --Curiousdannii (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think bibical scholars consider it a paraphrase. 77.60.133.140 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is it not a paraphrase? "You call out to God for help and he helps—he’s a good Father that way. But don’t forget, he’s also a responsible Father, and won’t let you get by with sloppy living. Your life is a journey you must travel with a deep consciousness of God. It cost God plenty to get you out of that dead-end, empty-headed life you grew up in." - 1 Peter 1:17-18. How is that a "translation" by any reasonable definition? Carlo (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a translation because its the Gk. New Testament and Hebrew Tanakh translated into English. Dictionary definition of paraphrase, "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording." To a degree, all Christian Bible translations contain paraphrase. Basileias (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are fluent in the original language, you can't determine whether it's a paraphrase. But this is all moot--it's not up to editors to decide whether something is a paraphrase or translation, but rather we must cite what reliable sources say. Jibal (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

My first impression is definitely that of a paraphrase. Of if you prefer, it is in a grey zone between translation, paraphrase and explanation. If seen as a translation, it is very free. If seen as a paraphrase, it is very faithful to the (assumed) meaning of the original text. I agree with what Basileias says about paraphrase, but The Message is paraphrase to a higher degree than other versions. It reflects Peterson's understanding of the text, though of course his aim is to understand the real meaning of the text and not to be personal. In Psalm 23:1-4, it is more of a translation; in Matthew 6:9-13 or Matthew 5:38-48, it is more of paraphrase; in 1 Peter 1:17-18, it is more of a paraphrase as well, or of an explanation. --Zxly (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors' impressions aren't relevant to Wikipedia. We should only be referring to reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Curiousdannii (above) assumes that a paraphrase is necessarily a paraphrase of a text written in the same language. This is not the case. You can make in your own language a paraphrase of a text written in another language. The only difference in the case of a different language is that there is then no hard and fast line between translation and paraphrase. But if "accuracy matters", then, I think, Peterson's work cannot be called simply a "translation". Look: when you quote the Bible (at least in French, my language), it does not matter whether you quote one version or another, you do not need to state what version has been quoted, it is always "the Bible". But if you quote from The Message, it is "The Message", not "The Bible". This is the very reason why Peterson himself said: "When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message."" (I quote from the main article). --Zxly (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In English, "the Bible" is available in a number of different translations, and you do need to state which one you're quoting from unless it's understood (e.g., various denominations and churches have an official or preferred translation). Jibal (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

LancelotSG Edits

User LancelotSG is performing an addition using the following references.

• http://cbanews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/12/BibleTranslations201312.pdf
• http://gfbchurch.com/tracts/TheMessage2.pdf

From those he is claiming they state "It seems that The Message has lost its popularity in circulation for the year 2013," "In addition The Message has also drawn criticism for being a poor paraphrased translation" and "The Message also uses coarse language in its paraphrased translation" with the additional of Ezekiel 16:24 displayed from various translations (Ezekiel 16:24).

None of these are a reliable third party news source. Gfbchurch.com is a church website and does not represent an established authority on the topics. I have reverted citing why in the wiki policy only to have my removal reversed. Any more reverts of my removals due to sources not complying with wiki policy, I will start to consider vandalism. I am assuming the editor is new. Basileias (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Popularity

I thought it would be fairly simple to find sources for the "tenth most popular" line in the lead. Popular is a subjective term, but sales numbers are well documented, and readership numbers are compiled. I found this source from the Association for Christian Retail:

• "APRIL 2015 CBA Best Sellers" (PDF). Association for Christian Retail. Retrieved April 18, 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

This says that The Message was the eighth best selling English-language Bible translation for April 2015. (It's ranked 9th by both units sold and dollar amount, but it's below Reina-Valera, which is a Spanish-language translation.) Unfortunatly, it's not that simple. The books sales numbers aren't similar across different time periods, and The Message isn't listed for any of the other months I sampled. Placing this in the lead would therefore be kind of misleading. Lacking a source which expressly explains what "popular" means in this context, I'm removing the quote pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

King James "trespass"?

My King James version of the Lords Prayer is different to the one quoted here. I believe this is an error but, given the sensitivity, I do not want to butt in like a goat. Am I wrong? Please tell me if so, otherwise I will replace the text with that from my, now very old, King James bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverSurfer477 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)