Eugene Peterson paraphrase

Daniel DeVilder said:

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. 

What spectrum is that?  What part of my post compelled you to put me on a spectrum?  Listing Ted's name instead of mine is a good example of the problems we create when any of us post without taking the time to think first (I know I have been guilty of it too in my years on the net so you are not alone in this mistake brother).  I would suggest brother you return to the posts I made.  I only made ONE comment to Mr. Somsel.  There is no "heat" in my words, You are reading into the post with your own emotion and flawed assumptions.  I merely let Mr. Somsel know that I was not interested in his name calling and would no longer participate with him in that kind of discourse.  Nor am I interested in the debate that has ensued about water baptism or different translations... that was his issue, not mine.  If you read carefully Mr. Devider, you will see I pulled out BEFORE it devolved... so I see little validity in your admonition.

I also wonder given the substance of your initial reply, did you bother to read my blog post in question, or is this another case of you just making assumptions with only partial knowledge?  

Have I made a single statemnt about not liking paraphrastic translations or saying only literal one are good? Here or on my blog? Show me?

Have I made any statements preferring one "mode" of baptism or even suggested people should participate in water baptism? Show me?

This are all issue Mr. Somsel, you, and others have inserted into this discussion.  The fact that you engage me on these issues in your first post tells me you spent little or no time trying to understand the blog posts i linked to.  I find it unneessary to defend myself against your opinions of a topic I have not brought up.  If you care to actually read and respond to the substance of my blog posts regarding the integrity of Peterson's "commentary", please do so.  Otherweise, please do not mischaracterize me or my posts with your preconceived notions and theological bias.  i would appreciate it.[H]

 

To all concerned,

My blog series gives FOUR REASONS why The Message does not qualify as a translation, but as a commentary.

My blog series gives EIGHT SPECIFIC CATEGORIES of examples from the text where I feel the Message demonstrates itself not to be a translation.

Within these categories, I give THIRTY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES from the Bible text. 

 My blog post #2 gives 4 examples of how I see Peterson distorting the text to implant a theology of baptismal regeneration.  I find it most interesting that no one has actually asked "why" I wrote this, there has just been assumptions made and accusations built on theological  assumption.  I would suggest in the future when you have a concern about meaning, it is best to ask for clarification instead of posting wrong-headed assumptions.

My 3 blog posts on the Message never argues for one particular view of baptism.  I frankly don't care if one sprinkles, dunks, or ignores water baptism (this is not my concern in this series).  

So please stay on topic.  The NT uses the term baptism to refer to both water and the work of the Holy Spirit.  Peterson inserts the word "water" into the text where there is no Greek word used for water.  His insertion of this term is based on a theological assumption, not on his understanding of Greek.  His insertion of "water" into the text is misleading, that is my only point.  Can anyone show me in Romans 6, or any of the other 3 verses I reference, where Peterson translated "water" from the Greek?  Of course you can't!

I recognize this is hard for some to understand and still harder for some to stay focused on the topic because they would rather argue about their particular theological tradition, but that debate misses the point of the post about the text of the Bible itself.  How disappointing... I would hope for a better study habits [8-|] and the ability to focus and stay on topic.[:(]

Sir.T said:

Thanks Dan for your kind response, in fairness to Joe i think his post was not responded to constructively & he was provoked by the other side namely ........

Oh dear George might be reading this. George resist temptation & don't get drawn into another argument by responding to my post Your silence is greatly desired, mercy George for you do have a sharp pen.

Ted

You said the magic words "Shut up" (or the equivalent) so here I am.  Who's being drawn into an argument.  I don't argue with people who are manifestly wrong for any length of time.  They are perfectly at liberty to be wrong all they want.

Daniel DeVilder said:

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. 

Whoa, easy. I actually plucked this out of Joe's post but tracked back to make sure it was accurate.

I checked the thread and the only John I can find posting to it is me. I can assure you that I never offered any opinion one way or another about Eugene Peterson. I don't even know who he is.

 

Are there people here that think this is a translation?  C'mon now, isn't the translation vs paraphrase difference being taught?

BrianWhalen said:

Are there people here that think this is a translation?  C'mon now, isn't the translation vs paraphrase difference being taught?

Apparently not since many seem to think this is a paraphrase.  A paraphrase is not made from the original language.  This is, and it is therefore a translation.

George Somsel said:

A paraphrase is not made from the original language. 

Not to be argumentative, but says who?

In fact, who says that a paraphrase and translation are mutually exclusive? The Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek says:

George Somsel said:

Not to be argumentative, but to argue the matter, huh?

George,

What about my question?

I'm sorry the manner of asking it distracted you, I'll try to be more direct.  I try to temper statements on the internet since non-verbal sentiment is missing from the medium.  Plus, I DON'T want to be argumentative, which is argument for the sake of arguing. I would like to know why you say what you said for my own edification and understanding.

George Somsel said:

Asked and answered.  Read my previous reply.

Sorry, I thought that you were saying Wayne Leman was responsible for your understanding of people not saying what they mean. [:P]

And more words:

George Somsel   Replied: Wed, Jun 24 2009 12:28 AM
"The lunatic fringe of Christianity..."

Everybody here envisions a different culprit when we read this label.
I personally see a big crowd including:
William Barclay - who discounts the supernatural miracles of Christ
Karl Barth - "praying to the saints" ??????
The guy who says the KJV can be used to correct the originals.
Anybody who has a "New revelation" that contradicts the Bible
(like SDA, JWs, Mormon's, most TV evangelists, my friend "Buster"...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel DeVilder   Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 10:10 AM
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....."
".....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."

My first response almost was "So when can we expect the Milk-Toast Concensus Translation to come out?" But I considered what I actually DO rather than what I say.
That is, although I know the Word of God is alive & powerful,
I do have Barclay's Daily Study Bible,
I read Barth,
KJV is my preference,
I even own SDA commentaries, Mormon texts and still like Buster.

Just remember who's words you are reading!
------------------------------------------------------

My friend "Buster" told me one day the Holy Spirit spoke to him in an audible voice while he was taking a shower. He was told to divorce his wife.

I told him while I wasn't going to dispute that he had heard a voice saying that, I did contend it was not the Holy Spirit talking.

It wasn't Balam's donkey or Karl Barth's dead dog but I KNEW the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict the written word of God.

"Buster" divorced his wife anyway. One of those lunatic fringe things - Like feeling the need to publish one's paraphase of the Almighty God's living word, believing one can improve upon God.

I said KJV is my preference. Geneva Bible is a close second.
I read English at 2000 words a minute. My Greek & Hebrew reading skills aren't quite that fast.
I'm sticking with English for now. [8-|]
I'm not working on any translating. But I have heard of an American translating the KJV single-handedly into Spanish saying it will be more inspired than the Reina-Valera which predates the AV.

By originals you mean NA27 & the BHS? Why abandon older manuscripts?
I have the Qur'an in English, probably translated by the "lunatic fringe" of Islam.

Hello, do you guys know which paraphrase is good? I want to find a good paraphrase that the author(s) really know the word and make an accurate "exposition". Are there such kind of paraphrase?

Thanks.

MJ. Smith said:

It occurs to me that while I bemoan the lack of rhetorical, logical and philosophical works in Logos, I ought to add linguistics to the list

Wow. I am looking forward to seeing that they will appears!