Eugene Peterson paraphrase

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...""

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Brian Whalen

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.

Paul Golder

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..

Brian Whalen

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.

J.R. Miller

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

Rob Suggs

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.

Friedrich

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.

Friedrich

hey, where is the "quote" of the reply? I see it when I compose, but I click "post" and I only see my comment.

Floyd Johnson

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

Bohuslav Wojnar

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.

George Somsel

"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.

Friedrich

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.

Ted Hans

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

John McComb

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.

Friedrich

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.

Ted, my sincerest apologies, and am grateful for your inquiry--both content and manner. I was not very careful and was referring to one of Joe Miller's responses.

Listen, I have made my share of dismissive comments, and have been guilty of saying things about others in more of a party spirit than I care to admit. Also, after many painful episodes, I have come to realize that email and forums are a playground for misunderstanding and rants. (ever get Monday morning emails from somebody in the church that just "made" your day?)

We have a range of theological views here, and we need to expect comments to be made in touchy areas. Let's all work hard to speak with grace, and choose words that are not incindiary. AND DON'T NAME A DUDE IN YOUR REPLY UNLESS YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE IT WAS HIM.

My bad Ted.

Dan