Eugene Peterson paraphrase
George Somsel said:
BrianWhalen said:
BrianWhalen said:Since Logos seems to allow 2 installs/license, I am very much
looking at this as a way to have mobile Bibleage. Quickly look
up verses, use my preferred translation instead of listening to the
Eugene Peterson paraphrase when it appears...Now, now, that's not nice. Peterson is actually pretty
good. You simply don't like it because it doesn't sound
very biblical.I'll just say it shouldn't be preached from without great caution
and leave it at that, we should start a new thread if you want to
discuss further.
Have you ever had the opportunity to hear someone read from it and then say "Now that's what the Bible should say...""
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
Comments
-
I have not had the experience you mention, for personal reading, in addition to a more literal translation, I have no problem with it. For evangelizing to a friend, probably good there too, as long as you are careful to not skew truth. However, the penalty for adding to or taking away from God's word is severe, I want no part of that.
I view paraphrases as a whole as good additions, especially for people who have a mental barrier about that ole King James or something like that. I just don't believe they should be THE resource. If you use one in preaching, you take that risk.
Brian Whalen
http://www.mcnazarene.com
0 -
BrianWhalen said:
I have not had the experience you mention, for personal reading, in addition to a more literal translation, I have no problem with it. For evangelizing to a friend, probably good there too, as long as you are careful to not skew truth. However, the penalty for adding to or taking away from God's word is severe, I want no part of that.
I view paraphrases as a whole as good additions, especially for people who have a mental barrier about that ole King James or something like that. I just don't believe they should be THE resource. If you use one in preaching, you take that risk.
In reality the only problem that I have with it is how people take
it. In the traditional paraphrase, the translator is trying to convey
the ideas in the passage using modern idioms, language, and
"phraseology". But in Peterson's work, it reads as a long
sermon on the whole Bible, and even more so that in prior paraphrases
you get the authors opinion on how the Scripture should not only
read, but on how it should be taken.I fear that most members of the Body can not recognize the
distinction.."As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
I really do enjoy some of Peterson's other work, for example The Contemplative Pastor was a very good read, encouraging pastors to focus on souls and important things as opposed to miscellaneous stuff. Right now, I'm an NASB/ESV guy 95% of the time. I have a difficult time with serious study of a thought for thought translation, as opposed to word for word. So, for me, fine for reading, not for preaching or serious study. I do own other paraphrases, the first one I bought was Rob Lacey's Word on the Street. This too is defintely not a literal translation, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Brian Whalen
http://www.mcnazarene.com
0 -
It is a commentary, published as a Bible... It would be like my United Methodist friends taking John Wesle's commentary on the Bible and using it to evangelize or as a devotional.. interesting, but not the Scripture.
The Message is NOT a Bible Translation-Part 1
my 2cents
0 -
Joe Miller said:
It is a commentary, published as a Bible... It would be like my United Methodist friends taking John Wesle's commentary on the Bible and using it to evangelize or as a devotional.. interesting, but not the Scripture.
The Message is NOT a Bible Translation-Part 1
my 2cents
More like ⅛ ¢.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Joe Miller said:
It is a commentary, published as a Bible... It would be like my United Methodist friends taking John Wesle's commentary on the Bible and using it to evangelize or as a devotional.. interesting, but not the Scripture.
The Message is NOT a Bible Translation-Part 1
my 2cents
Great post Joe my thoughts exactly.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
If the Message was good enough for the Apostle Paul, why it would not be good enough for me? [:D] (Kind of KJV joke.) It reminds me many years ago on the one of my first trips to the USA one man trying to convince me that only KJV is the real translation, chosen by God. He offered me even some book writen on that subject. I asked him what shel I do with all our people in Czech, when nobody understand KJV. What are we to do? He had no answer. It was obvious he had never thought outside of the USA box. I found it really funny.
Bohuslav
0 -
Bohuslav Wojnar said:
It reminds me many years ago on the one of my first trips to the USA one man trying to convince me that only KJV is the real translation, chosen by God. He offered me even some book writen on that subject.
If nothing can be trusted but the KJV what does that say about his book?
Years ago I got into a long online discussion with a new age preterist. I would point things out to him like quotes from people like Polycarp or Irenæus that fully supported (confirmed?) the traditional view and his answer was always the same. It's not scripture so it can't be trusted. I found his arguments disorganized and irrational. His solution for that? Go read this book, written and published by some guy who has a preterist web site. Whatever this book is it must be scripture because apparently that dude can be trusted.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
Joe,
It is a commentary indeed and a bad one at that (since it often fails to convey the meaning and the nuances of the text)
For me the message epitomizes everything that is wrong with human centered preaching and teaching. I must conform my thoughts and understanding to Him, not the other way around.
English is my second language, as such I have no sympathy for those that are too lazy to read a translation, even one using dynamic equivalency like the NIV and the NET in their own language.(as opposed to relying on the watered down commentary found in the message)
I have too much respect for the Bible to replace it with my own commentary
So what if some do not want to put in the effort to read and understand a legitimate translation?
This is more likely a symptom of a deeper spiritual problem that will not be solved by merely updating the language
Just like you do not cure alcoholism but prescribing more alcohol, you do not solve the “dumbing down” of Christianity (which is a reflection of what is happening in the larger society) by prescribing a dumbed down commentary masquerading as a translation
The least common denominator is not the way to go
That is why to the message I say away you go J
Alain
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
Joe,
It is a commentary indeed and a bad one at that (since it often fails to convey the meaning and the nuances of the text)
For me the message epitomizes everything that is wrong with human centered preaching and teaching. I must conform my thoughts and understanding to Him, not the other way around.
English is my second language, as such I have no sympathy for those that are too lazy to read a translation, even one using dynamic equivalency like the NIV and the NET in their own language.(as opposed to relying on the watered down commentary found in the message)
I have too much respect for the Bible to replace it with my own commentary
So what if some do not want to put in the effort to read and understand a legitimate translation?
This is more likely a symptom of a deeper spiritual problem that will not be solved by merely updating the language
Just like you do not cure alcoholism but prescribing more alcohol, you do not solve the “dumbing down” of Christianity (which is a reflection of what is happening in the larger society) by prescribing a dumbed down commentary masquerading as a translation
The least common denominator is not the way to go
That is why to the message I say away you go J
Alain
Well said Alain, are you some college Prof/scholar or something? You seem to know what your are talking about and capture my thoughts well. You write well and your post make more sense to me and i shall be looking out for more of them. Do have a website?
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Ted Hans said:
Well said Alain, are you some college Prof/scholar or something? You seem to know what your are talking about and capture my thoughts well. You write well and your post make more sense to me and i shall be looking out for more of them. Do have a website?
Ted
No, he teaches at Liberty.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Bohuslav Wojnar said:
...It was obvious he had never thought outside of the USA box. I found it really funny.
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->I though that all worldwide theological thought must conform to US
standards. There can't be anyone out there but us, can there? [:)]"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Ted,
I do not have a website I am just a lowly seminary student at DTS preparing for his comprehensive exams.
I am told by those who cut me a paycheck that I am some sort of professor in their online program but I do not necessarily believe them [:)]
Scholar? Not me! That was my goal when I started seminary, now, the only thing I know for certain is the inadequacy of my knowledge and skills and the vanity of the whole pursuit even though I try to excel at what I do (the Lord has been busy working on me in that respect, this is not false modesty)
There is indeed one thing George and I can readily agree on, Alain is no scholar [:P]
Alain
0 -
George Somsel said:
No, he teaches at Liberty.
Thanks George - i have found his views on the high view of scripture to be similar to mine.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
Ted,
I do not have a website I am just a lowly seminary student at DTS preparing for his comprehensive exams.
I am told by those who cut me a paycheck that I am some sort of professor in their online program but I do not necessarily believe them
Scholar? Not me! That was my goal when I started seminary, now, the only thing I know for certain is the inadequacy of my knowledge and skills and the vanity of the whole pursuit even though I try to excel at what I do (the Lord has been busy working on me in that respect, this is not false modesty)
There is indeed one thing George and I can readily agree on, Alain is no scholar
Alain
Thanks Alain for responding i have appreciated your post and look forward to more. I was beginning to think i was the only one who shared such a view.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Ted Hans said:Joe Miller said:
It is a commentary, published as a Bible... It would be like my United Methodist friends taking John Wesle's commentary on the Bible and using it to evangelize or as a devotional.. interesting, but not the Scripture.
The Message is NOT a Bible Translation-Part 1
my 2cents
Great post Joe my thoughts exactly.
Ted
Ted, George, etc... glad you dug the post.
I also agree that as a commentary, it is very poor. If you look at the verse by verse comparison in my post, you will notice that Peterson inserts much of his own theology and distorts many biblical concepts.
0 -
Paul made tents, and I make websites. As a bi-vocational church planter, I can take care of that for you if you want a website designed [;)]Alain Maashe said:I do not have a website I am just a lowly seminary student at DTS preparing for his comprehensive exams.
0 -
Hi Joe how are you getting on with Karl Barth. Hope you are are enjoying him[;)]Joe Miller said:
Paul made tents, and I make websites. As a bi-vocational church planter, I can take care of that for you if you want a website designedAlain Maashe said:I do not have a website I am just a lowly seminary student at DTS preparing for his comprehensive exams.
http://www.morethancake.org/designs
Regards
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Joe Miller said:Ted Hans said:Joe Miller said:
It is a commentary, published as a Bible... It would be like my United Methodist friends taking John Wesle's commentary on the Bible and using it to evangelize or as a devotional.. interesting, but not the Scripture.
The Message is NOT a Bible Translation-Part 1
my 2cents
Great post Joe my thoughts exactly.
Ted
Ted, George, etc... glad you dug the post.
I also agree that as a commentary, it is very poor. If you look at the verse by verse comparison in my post, you will notice that Peterson inserts much of his own theology and distorts many biblical concepts.
I don't know how much original languages training you have had, but, with the little that I have looked at Peterson, he appears to be reasonably accurate even if he is a bit unconventional. Of course, being unconventional is the whole idea behind his translation. As Wayne Leman, who was a SIL translator and who runs a Bible Translation list, says, we must avoid "biblish" if we are to be understood by the average Joe or Jo. I haven't delved into it enough to comment on any theological perspective it has, but I didn't note anything in what I read. Some live by 6,000 translations, but I prefer to go to the original and therefore don't get too excited by what a particular translation might have.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I don't know how much original languages training you have had, but, with the little that I have looked at Peterson, he appears to be reasonably accurate even if he is a bit unconventional. Of course, being unconventional is the whole idea behind his translation. As Wayne Leman, who was a SIL translator and who runs a Bible Translation list, says, we must avoid "biblish" if we are to be understood by the average Joe or Jo. I haven't delved into it enough to comment on any theological perspective it has, but I didn't note anything in what I read. Some live by 6,000 translations, but I prefer to go to the original and therefore don't get too excited by what a particular translation might have.
Hi George, have you had the opportunity to read the various post on Joe Miller's blog, four in total on Eugene Peterson? He compares the NET,NIV with the Message Bible & the Message did miss the point on a lot of verses. I do believe Joe was fair in his analysis & gave proof for his conclusion. Check the post on his website, that is if you have not done soTedDell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Ted Hans said:Hi George, have you had the opportunity to read the various post on Joe Miller's blog, four in total on Eugene Peterson? He compares the NET,NIV with the Message Bible & the Message did miss the point on a lot of verses. I do believe Joe was fair in his analysis & gave proof for his conclusion. Check the post on his website, that is if you have not done soTed
I read as much of the blog as I felt I could tolerate. It would seem that Joe has a problem with Peterson's speaking of something as God's work rather than specifically mentioning the HS. I'm wondering what he thinks the work of the HS is if it is not the work of God? Indeed, Peterson's Message is not the usual word-for-word translation of the scriptures. I think, however, that one must ask whether he makes the passages comprehensible to the modern reader. I could also criticize the ESV which seems to be much beloved in Fundamentalist circles today. I note that it has reverted to the old, wornout translation in Is 7:14 of "virgin." Apparently the committee was wary of receiving any returns of their translation riddled with bullet holes as happened when the RSV was issued with its very accurate translation of "young woman." The lunatic fringe of Christianity seems to have lost all of the Christian graces when they engage in such behavior. Here we have people who probably couldn't distinguish one Hebrew word from another who nevertheless pronounce that the RSV was wrong here. On the contrary, the RSV got it right. In Is 7:14 it is "young woman" though in Matthew it is most definitely "virgin." Or perhaps we have an instance of the confusion of elevated spirits with the action of the HS. It makes me think of the song, "I'm so excited, I just can't hide it. I'm about to lose control and I think I like it." The action of the HS is not to be confused with feeling good although I have heard people say that they could "feel" the presence of the HS when they were probably no more than feeling good. I will remind you of the words of Karl Barth
If the question what God can do forces theology to be humble, the question what is commanded of us forces it to concrete obedience. God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to Him if He really does.
Barth, K., Bromiley, G. W., & Torrance, T. F. (2004). Church dogmatics, Volume I The doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. Translation of Die kirchliche Dogmatik.; Each pt. also has special t.p.; Includes indexes. (2d ed.) (55). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Sometimes the word of God comes to us in the retort of one of our fellows which brings us up short. Our first reaction is to begin to be outraged, but then we realize that what they said was absolutely true. At that point we must say, "Thanks be to God."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Here we have people who probably couldn't distinguish one Hebrew word from another who nevertheless pronounce that the RSV was wrong here. On the contrary, the RSV got it right.
I agree with you Georg on all you said. I like when translation is just a good translation and theology is left to preaching and teaching. It has to be both ways however. In our, very good by the way, Czech Ecumenical Translation there are some examples of the opposite direction. Like speaking in tongues (or various languages) is translated speaking in the extasis, or trans. Well, it is just a mistification. When we say about the New World Translation that it is biased, we have to make sure our translations are not biased too. All of us we have our pet doctrines (well, not all of us, many of us). Some realize it, some not. And to say frankly, it is on both sides of the doctrinal spectrum of Christianity.
Bohuslav
0 -
I agree there is a certain degree of arrogance in publishing ones commentary as a translation. I think there is also a bit of duplicity when Peterson publishes a book like "Working the Angles" and then publishes "The Message" which violates the standard with which he judges other pastors. SEE HERETed Hans said:I have too much respect for the Bible to replace it with my own commentary
0 -
Hi Ted, thanks for asking. First, I should say that reading Barth in Logos is wonderful!!! (thank you mysterious benefactor!)Ted Hans said:Hi Joe how are you getting on with Karl Barth. Hope you are are enjoying him
Regards
Ted
He takes a lot more energy than I had imagined, but I am enjoying him quite a bit. I don't get to blog every week on him as I had hoped, but I do get in at lest one or two posts a month. Trying to summarize him into a short post is a fun challange though. It forces me to really try and think through what he is saying so I can do him some justice [;)]
If you are inclined, I am always open to some input on my summaries.
0 -
George Somsel said:
I read as much of the blog as I felt I could tolerate. It would seem that Joe has a problem with Peterson's speaking of something as God's work rather than specifically mentioning the HS. I'm wondering what he thinks the work of the HS is if it is not the work of God? Indeed, Peterson's Message is not the usual word-for-word translation of the scriptures. I think, however, that one must ask whether he makes the passages comprehensible to the modern reader. I could also criticize the ESV which seems to be much beloved in Fundamentalist circles today. I note that it has reverted to the old, wornout translation in Is 7:14 of "virgin." Apparently the committee was wary of receiving any returns of their translation riddled with bullet holes as happened when the RSV was issued with its very accurate translation of "young woman." The lunatic fringe of Christianity seems to have lost all of the Christian graces when they engage in such behavior. Here we have people who probably couldn't distinguish one Hebrew word from another who nevertheless pronounce that the RSV was wrong here. On the contrary, the RSV got it right. In Is 7:14 it is "young woman" though in Matthew it is most definitely "virgin." Or perhaps we have an instance of the confusion of elevated spirits with the action of the HS. It makes me think of the song, "I'm so excited, I just can't hide it. I'm about to lose control and I think I like it." The action of the HS is not to be confused with feeling good although I have heard people say that they could "feel" the presence of the HS when they were probably no more than feeling good. I will remind you of the words of Karl Barth
If the question what God can do forces theology to be humble, the question what is commanded of us forces it to concrete obedience. God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to Him if He really does.
Barth, K., Bromiley, G. W., & Torrance, T. F. (2004). Church dogmatics, Volume I The doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. Translation of Die kirchliche Dogmatik.; Each pt. also has special t.p.; Includes indexes. (2d ed.) (55). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Sometimes the word of God comes to us in the retort of one of our fellows which brings us up short. Our first reaction is to begin to be outraged, but then we realize that what they said was absolutely true. At that point we must say, "Thanks be to God."
Thanks George on your take on Eugene Peterson & on Isaiah 7:14. I do take an evangelical line on Isaiah 7:14 but that is not to say that i am not aware of the controversy or the point you are making even though i do disagree.TedDell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Yes George, changing the Scripture and reducing the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force instead of a person of the trinity does bother me. Had you demonstrated the appropriate intellectual curiosity and read fully the 8 comparisons I offered, you would see the issue with the Message is more than just about the Holy Spirit. Romans 6 is one quick example of several where Peterson inserts his theology of Baptismal Regeneration. He is entitled to his theological opinion on that topic, but inserting his tradition and calling it a "translation" is misleading at best. I would suggest that your limited understanding of Greek, which you mentioned in your post, is part of the problem you have in fully understanding the topic.George Somsel said:I read as much of the blog as I felt I could tolerate. It would seem that Joe has a problem with Peterson's speaking of something as God's work rather than specifically mentioning the HS.
As to the rest of your confused rant, it has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Your trademark name calling and innuendo do little to meaningfully engage the topic at hand lacks any substantial thought. Most of what you post Mr. Somsel reflects a bitterness designed to create fights, and I have no interest in such trivial things. You may have the last word, but I will not engage with your further.
I pray you find peace friend.
II Tim 2:22-26
But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. 24 And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, 25 correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth 26 and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.
0 -
Joe Miller said:
I agree there is a certain degree of arrogance in publishing ones commentary as a translation. I think there is also a bit of duplicity when Peterson publishes a book like "Working the Angles" and then publishes "The Message" which violates the standard with which he judges other pastors. SEE HERETed Hans said:I have too much respect for the Bible to replace it with my own commentary
Are you pursuing some sort of vendetta against this man? It seems that you pursue him like the hound of hell. How would you like it if I were to do the same to you? Drop it !
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
peace be still
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I recently preached Psalm 1. Its beginning in an accurate translation is fabulous, suggesting the process of walking, standing, and sitting in the way of wickedness. (Ps. 1:1) That preaches beautifully, as we show our listeners the spiritual restlessness of moving toward sin until we are settled in it--as against being "like a tree planted by streams of water." If you do the original language work, you see that the tree is actually "transplanted" by the kinds of irrigation canals the Israelites had to build to port water to their crops. That, too, is a very visual, highly symbolic teaching.
But Peterson, who is a very gifted wordsmith, gives us this for the first verse:
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.Peterson, E. H. (2002). The Message : The Bible in contemporary language (Ps 1:1). Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress.You gain a certain amount in attention-grabbing shock value, but you lose a wealth of genuine meaning in the metaphor of moving toward the way of sin, which is more than a collection of bad destinations. As for the transplanted tree, which has been brought to root near the life-giving streams of living water, Peterson gives us "a tree planted in Eden," which sounds good but is not quite what the text is saying. The inspired truth, I find, is always more exciting than the spins we can put on it. I don't want to be critical of Peterson. His method worked far better with the informal language of the New Testament than the formal poetry of the Old. But I use The Message less and less.
0 -
George said
"I could also criticize the ESV which seems to be much beloved in Fundamentalist circles today. I note that it has reverted to the old, worn out translation in Is 7:14 of "virgin." Apparently the committee was wary of receiving any returns of their translation riddled with bullet holes as happened when the RSV was issued with its very accurate translation of "young woman." The lunatic fringe of Christianity seems to have lost all of the Christian graces when they engage in such behavior. Here we have people who probably couldn't distinguish one Hebrew word from another who nevertheless pronounce that the RSV was wrong here."
Speaking of grace, those in the so-called lunatic fringe of Christianity are apparently not the only in need of grace. Even the enlightened minds among us need a refill of grace especially when it comes to being gracious to and respectful of others, might be a case of Proverbs 15:1 (now, that would make the enlightened wise also, glory!)
George said
"Here we have people who probably couldn't distinguish one Hebrew word from another who nevertheless pronounce that the RSV was wrong here. "
George, I agree with you in principle, one should not dismiss the rendering of almah by the RSV without looking at the Hebrew text and do lexical studies. This is not to say that that “virgin” is necessarily wrong . People should know what they are talking about before criticizing
However, I was disappointed to see that you do not apply the same principle to yourself
You obviously have not (sufficiently) read nor understood Joe’s Miller’s excellent arguments (you at least admit that you have not read it past what you “could tolerate”) and from the observations you made, you missed his point entirely. Equally regrettable is the fact that you are only marginally familiar with the Message itself (from your own admission).
What happened to making sure that we know what we are talking about?
May I be so bold as to ask for consistency? (But I forget my place… in the fringe)
Disclaimer: if anyone detects even an infinitesimal trace of mild sarcasm in the above post, let me remind you that English is not my first language and whatever you might have noticed could possibly be blamed on a case of “lost in translation” kind of issue J
0 -
Ted Hans said:
Hi Joe how are you getting on with Karl Barth. Hope you are are enjoying him
Regards
Ted
Hi Ted, I did reply earlier, but it must have ben lost in the suffle. I wrote this a few posts back...
--------
Hi Ted, thanks for asking. First, I should say that reading Barth in Logos is wonderful!!! (thank you mysterious benefactor!)
He takes a lot more energy than I had imagined, but I am enjoying him quite a bit. I don't get to blog every week on him as I had hoped, but I do get in at lest one or two posts a month. Trying to summarize him into a short post is a fun challange though. It forces me to really try and think through what he is saying so I can do him some justice
If you are inclined, I am always open to some input on my summaries.
0 -
Joe Miller said:
Yes George, changing the Scripture and reducing the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force instead of a person of the trinity does bother me. Had you demonstrated the appropriate intellectual curiosity and read fully the 8 comparisons I offered, you would see the issue with the Message is more than just about the Holy Spirit. Romans 6 is one quick example of several where Peterson inserts his theology of Baptismal Regeneration. He is entitled to his theological opinion on that topic, but inserting his tradition and calling it a "translation" is misleading at best. I would suggest that your limited understanding of Greek, which you mentioned in your post, is part of the problem you have in fully understanding the topic.George Somsel said:I read as much of the blog as I felt I could tolerate. It would seem that Joe has a problem with Peterson's speaking of something as God's work rather than specifically mentioning the HS.
As to the rest of your confused rant, it has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Your trademark name calling and innuendo do little to meaningfully engage the topic at hand lacks any substantial thought. Most of what you post Mr. Somsel reflects a bitterness designed to create fights, and I have no interest in such trivial things. You may have the last word, but I will not engage with your further.
I pray you find peace friend.
But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. 24 And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, 25 correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth 26 and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.
From what I recall offhand (I do try to put these things out of my mind), Peterson speaks of God as acting rather than the HS. Is God now impersonal? What really troubles me about your blog and the reason I find it less than tolerable to read is that you are comparing two English language translations to the Message. This is not about whether I like one English translation and choose to judge others by it. It is about whether a translation accurately reflects the ORIGINAL. If you want an NIV or an ESV or an NASB, go out and buy one. That is not what the Message attempts to be. Your quotation here bothers me as well. Why is it that so many are intent on demeaning themselves by calling themselves "slaves"? The word δοῦλος does not always designate a servile person. Persons in high office are frequently referenced as servants and thus call themselves as well. It is a high position. I recall Colin Powell's several times repeated statement "I serve at the pleasure of the President."
I found it necessary to come back to edit this post since I neglected to include one item which was high on my list of matters to bring up. You speak of Peterson as inserting "his theology of baptismal regeneration." I haven't read that much of Peterson, but I would find it extremely surprising if he were to hold to a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. He is, after all, a Presbyterian, and the Presbyterian Church (whichever variety) does not teach that. I will look at the passage you mention specifically, however, I am virtually certain that you are in error and therefore slandering the man. You speak of my being bitter. Yes, I am bitter when one Christian slanders another. Repent.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I found it necessary to come back to edit this post since I neglected to include one item which was high on my list of matters to bring up. You speak of Peterson as inserting "his theology of baptismal regeneration." I haven't read that much of Peterson, but I would find it extremely surprising if he were to hold to a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. He is, after all, a Presbyterian, and the Presbyterian Church (whichever variety) does not teach that. I will look at the passage you mention specifically, however, I am virtually certain that you are in error and therefore slandering the man. You speak of my being bitter. Yes, I am bitter when one Christian slanders another. Repent.
I have just reviewed Rom 6 in Peterson's Message. While it could be interpreted to teach baptismal regeneration, I believe you are overinterpreting it. Baptism is a symbol as well as being an initiation rite. The sybol is precisely dying to sin and rising to new life. It is a symbol of identification as well. It speaks of Israel as being baptised to Moses. Why is it necessary to attempt to prove that you are more orthodox than some other Christian? Do you find him teaching baptismal regeneration elsewhere? I believe that you have unjustly attacked the man.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Alain, you write well enough! What is your first language?Alain Maashe said:Disclaimer: if anyone detects even an infinitesimal trace of mild sarcasm in the above post, let me remind you that English is not my first language and whatever you might have noticed could possibly be blamed on a case of “lost in translation” kind of issue J
0 -
Hi Joe I have been away at church so the late response & i shall be following more of your writing on your blog. I have been going through your post on the church and it is great.
Kind Regards & we need more writing of your type in these days where truth, biblical truth is a vanishing concept.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Thanks brother that means a lot. If you find some broken links, I apologize. I just moved my entire site from blogger to Wordprss and am still making some manual fixes to some stuff that was broken.Ted Hans said:Hi Joe I have been away at church so the late response & i shall be following more of your writing on your blog. I have been going through your post on the church and it is great.
Kind Regards & we need more writing of your type in these days where truth, biblical truth is a vanishing concept.
Ted
0 -
Joe Miller said:
Alain, you write well enough! What is your first language?Alain Maashe said:Disclaimer: if anyone detects even an infinitesimal trace of mild sarcasm in the above post, let me remind you that English is not my first language and whatever you might have noticed could possibly be blamed on a case of “lost in translation” kind of issue J
Joe,
My first language is French. I was just joking about the meaning being lost in translation (but it is such a nice excuse when I want to appear innocent, while not being so innocent)
now my cover is blown
Alain
0 -
I am not a Peterson basher. But this is one time when I DID think his translation was poor. So I didn't use it. I rarely use it, but there are times he captures well what I think the text says, and I use it because it sounds fresh and brings out God's Word.
It is clear that both Ted and John have hard core lines of thinking at different ends of the spectrum. I am a bit dismayed at the tone that the discussion has devolved into.
I always consult more literal versions when doing foundational study. (NASB, ESV, NET--slightly less literal, but not so dynamic as NIV, etc). Always. But even THOSE translations are not void of their own theological leaning. All you have to do is try to translate the enigmatic Romans 9:22 to see that. Sometimes even, and especially, "literalness" is not the utopia we make it out to be. certainly "thought for thought" has its problems too. But it is not "wrong" in and of itself.
As a boy who grew up speaking English and German, I understand quite well the need for "dynamic equivalence."
It is clear this topic is an emotionally charged one depending on your spectrum of theology. Take care my brothers to excercise love and gentleness. Even God's word tells us to do so to those who are in error. It does little good to be pseudo gentle and then be condescendingly dismissive, either. It's okay to stick to your guns, but be alert about the defensive posturing that is often a tool of the Enemy to divide us.
To stir up more controversy: as a kid, I read "The Way." Shock. Gasp. I didn't agree with his theology, but I tell you what: I READ the Bible (yes, I call "the way" the Bible, even with its faults). I got the scope of God's plan, his people. I would not have if I'd been forced to read a 400 year old tranlslation of the Bible. And to this day, I promise you, my theology is not heretical after having read The Way. In fact, I was helped spiritually by reading it.
Conversely, I love how KJV sticks to the "Walk" imagery of Ephesians (walk in sins, good works, etc). It really pulls things together in a way that I think is softend (though it has the "same" meaning) in NIV's "to live."
Each brings something to the table. Find out what it is, use it with all humility and with a relentless heart for the truth and love of God.
"Baptismal Regeneration" is also a label that is often misused and mischaracterizes those who do insiste on immersion as an initial step of salvation. It probably accurately describes SOME people, but it is a term that is imo a straw man. It stereotypes in sweeping generalizations those who practice water immersion. I myself am really in neither camp ("faith only" or "water regenerationists"). Both seem to talk AT each other rather than listen to each other. Oh great, this could be a whole new thread.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
hey, where is the "quote" of the reply? I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
hey, where is the "quote" of the reply? I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.
Did you highlight the part of the post you wanted to quote and then press "Quote"?
Blessings,
Floyd
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
hey, where is the "quote" of the reply? I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.
Do you click blue Quote word?
By the way, I really like your previous post. I like your approach. Have a great day.
Bohuslav
0 -
Floyd Johnson said:
Did you highlight the part of the post you wanted to quote and then press "Quote"?
Blessings,
Floyd
DUDE, you are THE MAN (I assume "Floyd" is "man") Thanks. That cleared up two questions.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Floyd Johnson said:Daniel DeVilder said:
hey, where is the "quote" of the reply? I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.
Did you highlight the part of the post you wanted to quote and then press "Quote"?
Blessings,
Floyd
If you do not highlight any text, just press "Quote" it puts whole thing into the reply (as you see here).
Bohuslav
0 -
Bohuslav Wojnar said:
Do you click blue Quote word?
By the way, I really like your previous post. I like your approach. Have a great day.
Thanks, and YOU are da Man, too!
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Bohuslav Wojnar said:Daniel DeVilder said:
hey, where is the "quote" of the reply? I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.
Do you click blue Quote word?
By the way, I really like your previous post. I like your approach. Have a great day.
Amen - thank you for both your comments!
Yours because His,
Floyd
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
"Baptismal Regeneration" is also a label that is often misused and mischaracterizes those who do insiste on immersion as an initial step of salvation. It probably accurately describes SOME people, but it is a term that is imo a straw man. It stereotypes in sweeping generalizations those who practice water immersion. I myself am really in neither camp ("faith only" or "water regenerationists"). Both seem to talk AT each other rather than listen to each other. Oh great, this could be a whole new thread.
Eh, sprinkle a little water over the head and that's fine. You certainly can't argue for immersion with regard to Israel's being baptised unto Moses. Without looking up any of these passages, I seem to recall that they walked over on DRY land so they didn't even get their tootsies wet. I don't wish to start a discussion of the mode of baptism but rather to call attention to the fact that it is an initiation rite. Before it you were with THAT group over there, but now you are a member of THIS group. I seriously doubt that Peterson believes in baptismal regeneration. As an Episcopalian, I think there might be some High Church Episcopalians who hold that view, but most do not. What you are most likely to find are people who like the Catholics think that you must be baptised in order to be a part of the Kingdom. They don't say that baptism regenerates but rather that you need to do it.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Eh, sprinkle a little water over the head and that's fine. You certainly can't argue for immersion with regard to Israel's being baptised unto Moses. Without looking up any of these passages, I seem to recall that they walked over on DRY land so they didn't even get their tootsies wet. I don't wish to start a discussion of the mode of baptism but rather to call attention to the fact that it is an initiation rite.
I come from a heritage that insists on "full immersion" and yes, I am sure due to that in part, it is hard for me to break free to be open to any other mode--if I am the one who is discipling another, and we come to this question: "what must I do?". However, the various OT passages that talk about "sprinkling" and the imagery of sprinkling blood on the altar for cleansing give me pause to be entirely dogmatic about immersion. Still, it would seem that the NT mode and word is immersion, as is the thrust of the imagery in Rom 6. (I see Romans 6, however, as not being a proof text for immersion, but rather a point blank challenge to LIVE the "baptized life", ie, DO NOT SIN any longer). Hence, I am most comfortable with an obedience of full immersion, which is closer in proximity to what early Christians seemed to teach and practice. That is all.
There are some---never mind. Let this not become thread on that. I can expect some more responses, but I don't want to take the time to go down that trail much more. I am thinking I need to go play ball with my 3 year old.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
I am not a Peterson basher. But this is one time when I DID think his translation was poor. So I didn't use it. I rarely use it, but there are times he captures well what I think the text says, and I use it because it sounds fresh and brings out God's Word.
It is clear that both Ted and John have hard core lines of thinking at different ends of the spectrum. I am a bit dismayed at the tone that the discussion has devolved into.
I always consult more literal versions when doing foundational study. (NASB, ESV, NET--slightly less literal, but not so dynamic as NIV, etc). Always. But even THOSE translations are not void of their own theological leaning. All you have to do is try to translate the enigmatic Romans 9:22 to see that. Sometimes even, and especially, "literalness" is not the utopia we make it out to be. certainly "thought for thought" has its problems too. But it is not "wrong" in and of itself.
As a boy who grew up speaking English and German, I understand quite well the need for "dynamic equivalence."
It is clear this topic is an emotionally charged one depending on your spectrum of theology. Take care my brothers to excercise love and gentleness. Even God's word tells us to do so to those who are in error. It does little good to be pseudo gentle and then be condescendingly dismissive, either. It's okay to stick to your guns, but be alert about the defensive posturing that is often a tool of the Enemy to divide us.
To stir up more controversy: as a kid, I read "The Way." Shock. Gasp. I didn't agree with his theology, but I tell you what: I READ the Bible (yes, I call "the way" the Bible, even with its faults). I got the scope of God's plan, his people. I would not have if I'd been forced to read a 400 year old tranlslation of the Bible. And to this day, I promise you, my theology is not heretical after having read The Way. In fact, I was helped spiritually by reading it.
Conversely, I love how KJV sticks to the "Walk" imagery of Ephesians (walk in sins, good works, etc). It really pulls things together in a way that I think is softend (though it has the "same" meaning) in NIV's "to live."
Each brings something to the table. Find out what it is, use it with all humility and with a relentless heart for the truth and love of God.
"Baptismal Regeneration" is also a label that is often misused and mischaracterizes those who do insiste on immersion as an initial step of salvation. It probably accurately describes SOME people, but it is a term that is imo a straw man. It stereotypes in sweeping generalizations those who practice water immersion. I myself am really in neither camp ("faith only" or "water regenerationists"). Both seem to talk AT each other rather than listen to each other. Oh great, this could be a whole new thread.
Hi Daniel,
I am not sure i was disrespectful of any one's position or condescendingly dismissive, was i? I am sure i did express my disagreement on a view point but that was it. I have reviewed my various posts again & i am not sure why i was named in your post. Other parties involved in the conversation, who used far stronger language were left out of your post. Perhaps a quote from me would point me to what you are getting at. I do believe Joe's concern on Peterson is a valid one, just my opinion and should not be viewed as bashing by others (i am not referring to you) who may disagree. It will not surprise others to hear that i am with Joe wholeheartedly in his concern, saying evangelicals are guilty of the same charge as Peterson is not an argument, not to be concerned about serious failures in the Message translation. If Joe had written about short comings in the KJV i am not sure there would be cries of disapproval. Where there are serious short comings as in the Message Bible i think Joe as one called and graced by our Lord should be free to demonstrate them to those who care to hear what his concerns are and why he holds those concerns. They may choose to disagree that is fine with me. No-one should be made to feel that they should be prisoners of their conscience - neither Joe, myself or others involved in the dialogue who may disagree(Again i am not referring to you).
Thanks for your contribution to the conversation & i do realise you have not written in a spirit of controversy. Peace.
Kind Regards
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
George Somsel said:
Eh, sprinkle a little water over the head and that's fine. You certainly can't argue for immersion with regard to Israel's being baptised unto Moses. Without looking up any of these passages, I seem to recall that they walked over on DRY land so they didn't even get their tootsies wet.
They probably got a little soggy trekking across the Red Sea bed.
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
Still, it would seem that the NT mode and word is immersion, as is the thrust of the imagery in Rom 6.
Romans 6? Oh well, never mind. I'm sure there's a very convincing argument in there somewhere.
One has to wonder, though, where exactly it was that Paul was "immersed" when he was baptized in Judas' house. In the hot tub maybe? Perhaps Judas had an indoor well and he was lowered down on a rope.
I wonder why we choose to argue about methodology like this, as if scripture was a book of incantations whereby every gesture and word must be exactly right in order for the magic to work.
Not accusing you of anything here Daniel. Just woolgathering about the general state of Christendom.
Yours in Christ
John
0
