Comments on: Point of Clarification on Bible Versions

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:16:37 +0000

Denny (or anyone else wishing to comment):

What are your thoughts on the HCSB, which seems to be gaining support from the SBC via LifeWay? I can’t find much about the translation outside of what the authors have written. Is this a translation of form or dynamic equivalence? Have trustworthy scholars found the translation to be misleading, or is it too fresh to have received such an examination?

Thanks,
Jeremy

By: Don F

Don F — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:52:33 +0000

Jessica,

Like others have stated, I think the NLT is great for kids. I use it some myself, but mostly as a supplement to NASB, ESV, and NIV. You might also take a look at the NIRV, it is a kid freinldy version of the NIV. I have used it some in my work with childern’s ministry.

By: Jim Skaggs

Jim Skaggs — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:06:14 +0000

I asked about J.B. Phillips. No opinions? His translation was a favorite of my father’s, and was my first introduction to an effort at modern English. I suppose it has the defects of a one-man translation?

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:44:05 +0000

Thanks Denny,
It reads like my first year Greek course…
and yes that is the basic methodology behind the eclectic position,… I gather you would take the whole of the position rather than finding opne argument of greater significnace than another.
Thank you for supplying the pdf file.
Every Blessing,
Steve

By: mike

mike — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:22:02 +0000

I understand it’s aim, I just have a hard time replacing the text. There are points in the message where baseball referances replace argricultural metaphores. I have no issue with metaphores that are easier and more modern except when they replace the text. It’s very much a large book of sermon illustrations, which is fantastic, but it’s not marketed as such. Instead, many pastors use it as the text!

Lastly, the message tends to cater to an ever growing intelectual laziness in Christianity. With the general “message” displayed AS THE TEXT it promotes lite reading, not study. In fact, if your first Bible is the Message, you’re almost prevented from study.

So when you come to a dificult passage or you’re interested in just breezing the text for general story line, and you want the opinion of another Christian, Go for it!

By: Bryan L

Bryan L — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:14:25 +0000

Sure Jesica, I’ll comment on it.

I like it for what it is: A way to hear the Bible fresh as if it were written to us today in common language. Sure it’s a bit more than just a paraphrase after all Peterson is drawing out the implication of the text so that we can hear it loud and clear instead of having to guess. And this definitely involves many, many interpretive moves on his part (which all translations bring a measure of interpretation to the text anyway).

It’s nice for reading alongside another translation. It’s almost like a commentary or a sermon built right into the text. Anyway I guess it needs to be asked if it succeeds at what it sets out to do: communicate the message(s) of the Bible. From the parts I’ve read I think it succeeds for the most part.

Thats just my opinion.

Blessings,
Bryan L

By: Jesica

Jesica — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:25:21 +0000

Is anyone going to venture a comment about “The Message” for me?

Thanks!

By: Denny Burk

Denny Burk — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:50:11 +0000

I believe that the original words of the NT are preserved in the manuscript tradition, but no single manuscript copy preserves it perfectly. Thus, we examine the available copies, compare them, and deduce what the original text must have been. The best way to do that is through the established methods of textual criticism–those which have led to the eclectic texts of Westcott-Hort, Tischendorf, and Nestle-Aland.

If you are interested in learning more, read my notes on Metzger & Ehrman: http://www.dennyburk.com/Teach/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/notes-on-textual-criticism.PDF.

Thanks,
Denny

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:11:06 +0000

A friend wrote his PhD on the preeminence of Codex Bezae, (C.K.Barrett was one examiner)and he asked me before he died to revise it for publication. I partially did, but held off because I wasn’t too sure of his argumentation (he used some grammatical constructions (“ie” words) to organise his material around the concept of later additions to the texts,(he felt that the later codexes betrayed more additions than Bezae).
I am very familiar with Bruce Metzger’s work, (I heard him lecture 25 years ago).
So again, my question… what rguments hold most water for you?
Steve

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:03:04 +0000

I have 3 of those and a NA26 for free on E-sword.. I use it most by preference..
But .. in the final analysis, what arguments hold most water with you for using it?
Steve