Preaching from "The Message" bible

[Jeffrey]

I guess what I mean is that sometimes passages can have multiple meanings.

What do you mean by this? Multiple meanings?
Seems like the original author would have had one intended meaning. Perhaps multiple applications? Just curious. There are various schools of thoughts concerning Biblical interpretation. I tend to line-up more with the group that believes in finding the original, intended meaning first, then making an application. Others claim there are various meanings that can be pulled, and it's these who get mighty creative with the Text, without any safeguarding of their subjective (read "private") interpretation.

Just a thought concerning hermeneutic. Perhaps another thread.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I just commented to the church on Sunday that sometimes we are so familiar with hearing the exact words the KJV uses when we read certain passages, having heard them over and over again, that it is hard to actually get the message. It's become a cliche that lost its meaning, and we can rattle off the words, and all we hear are those old familiar words. In such instances, a another translation causes us to stop and actually GET what the message is, instead of hearing familiar words.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm not a fan of the KJV either, except for the nostalgia I get. I find so many people feeling confident of understanding Old English, but yet sermon-after-sermon of poor demonstration to support their claims. It's tricky.

KJV sounds cool. So points for style.

For a long time I stayed away from the KJV because I had wanted to view the scriptures through a new lens. Well, not to long ago a dear saint in our church gave our pastor her old KJV because she couldn't read the print. She wanted someone to have it that needed it and he passed it on to me. After being away from the KJV for so long I read the scriptures and wept now that I see them more clearly. It was like reuniting with a long lost friend.

We have a great treasure in the word of God and are so blessed to have so many versions available.

[deltaguitar]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;849833]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I guess what I mean is that sometimes passages can have multiple meanings. QUOTE]

What do you mean by this? Multiple meanings?
Seems like the original author would have had one intended meaning. Perhaps multiple applications? Just curious. There are various schools of thoughts concerning Biblical interpretation. I tend to line-up more with the group that believes in finding the original, intended meaning first, then making an application. Others claim there are various meanings that can be pulled, and it's these who get mighty creative with the Text, without any safeguarding of their subjective (read "private") interpretation.

Just a thought concerning hermeneutic. Perhaps another thread.

My point being is that words mean things. With a literal translation you are supposed to be closer to what was really said and not man's interpretation of what was said, such as in the Message.

I am not a fan subjective of truth or that their is no real truth if that is what you are getting at.

All I am saying is that passages can sometimes say way more than what we initially see. When it comes to proper interpretation of the Bible I think I am conservative as it comes.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What do you mean by this? Multiple meanings?
Seems like the original author would have had one intended meaning. Perhaps multiple applications? Just curious. There are various schools of thoughts concerning Biblical interpretation. I tend to line-up more with the group that believes in finding the original, intended meaning first, then making an application. Others claim there are various meanings that can be pulled, and it's these who get mighty creative with the Text, without any safeguarding of their subjective (read "private") interpretation.

Just a thought concerning hermeneutic. Perhaps another thread.

I think he means that we can have a certain idea about a passage, something we always thought it meant.... but reading it in a different version can help us to see that maybe it didn't mean what we thought it meant. It can give clarity to certain passages.

[Jeffrey]

[QUOTE=deltaguitar;849860]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

My point being is that words mean things. With a literal translation you are supposed to be closer to what was really said and not man's interpretation of what was said, such as in the Message.

I am not a fan subjective of truth or that their is no real truth if that is what you are getting at.

All I am saying is that passages can sometimes say way more than what we initially see. When it comes to proper interpretation of the Bible I think I am conservative as it comes.

I gotcha. But I don't believe that to be the case of the so-called "literal translation." There are certain inherent challenges of interpreting a word from Greek-to-English, word-by-word, without being concerned to what the message the author was conveying. This is why translators have debates over why they used one word instead of another. In other words "literal translation" sounds like you are getting the "literal, original word" but that's not the case. It's just one method of interpretation that tries to give translate word-for-word, instead of thought-for-thought. Good reading on this topic that will help to understand. This is why I don't mind the NIV, because it's a good medium. But I like using multiple translations.

(I completely agree with that last part!)

[n david]

I'd like to get a parallel bible with the KJV and either Amplified or The Message version together.

[Apocrypha]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What do you mean by this? Multiple meanings?
Seems like the original author would have had one intended meaning. Perhaps multiple applications? Just curious. There are various schools of thoughts concerning Biblical interpretation. I tend to line-up more with the group that believes in finding the original, intended meaning first, then making an application. Others claim there are various meanings that can be pulled, and it's these who get mighty creative with the Text, without any safeguarding of their subjective (read "private") interpretation.

Just a thought concerning hermeneutic. Perhaps another thread.

Just read the Prophecy of the Branch in Isaiah. That has multiple meanings. Or the parable of the talents and many of the parables of Jesus... they can be spun multiple ways when he doesn't give the interpretation to his disciples afterwards.

Or when the prophets spoke of "The Day of the Lord" .. as I remember Dr. Norris at IBC teaching with a touch of cynicism "Which one are we talking about" when teaching on that subject in scriptural prophecy class (you'd have to be there to see how he says it).

I also am leery of the claim of word for word translations into English. Our syntax, sentence structure, thought patterns, and cultural understandings are different than the various periods of history that the books were written in.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

Just read the Prophecy of the Branch in Isaiah. That has multiple meanings. Or the parable of the talents and many of the parables of Jesus... they can be spun multiple ways when he doesn't give the interpretation to his disciples afterwards.

Or when the prophets spoke of "The Day of the Lord" .. as I remember Dr. Norris at IBC teaching with a touch of cynicism "Which one are we talking about" when teaching on that subject in scriptural prophecy class (you'd have to be there to see how he says it).

I also am leery of the claim of word for word translations into English. Our syntax, sentence structure, thought patterns, and cultural understandings are different than the various periods of history that the books were written in.

I disagree on that point, Apocrypha. The Messianic Prophecies may have a "fuller meaning," but that should always point toward Christ, and not some other private cause or concern. The talents will take some knowledge of a few contemporary customs, what Jesus said before and after (what was the message), but there is only one meaning, and that's the meaning the author intended. It's our job to discover that, not make up one and call it "multiple meanings." That's very important in the big picture. Subjective interpretation is popular right now, and it's what many OP's use to fenagle all sorts of weird doctrines. The Text can only mean what it originally meant.

I'm also leery of word-for-word. Use it, but the more moderate thought-for-thought versions tend to hit the nail on the head.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

I am planning on using the ESV as our official version in the church I am planting.

But I am also looking at different less 100% literal versions. Does anyone read The Message? It seems very visitor friendly and easy to preach from.

I view The Message as fun to read, but I wouldn't use it as a doctrinal source. JMO

Personally, from a teaching perspective, I think it's best to read a more reliable version, and then have a parallel reading from The Message. (Or any similar version).

I don't have a problem with different versions of the Bible, but The Message is such a casual, broad translation, that I prefer to at least reference a more traditional version.