The Sacred Sandwich

July21st

44 Comments

Grieving Parents

Posted in: The Illustrated Sandwich

Print This Post Print This Post

44 Comments

  • Comment by Brad — July 21, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

    Or worse…Reading The Message on an iPad. While listening to NPR. At Starbucks. Wearing a vintage sweater vest.

  • Comment by Angus — July 21, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

    Yes, that would kill Mom.

  • Comment by Kendall — July 21, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

    It depends on what they are using it for. I shall remain eloquently silent.

  • Comment by Angus — July 21, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

    Ah, too vague then. Good man.

  • Comment by Kendall — July 21, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

    HI Angus…actually it’s good woman! Happens all the time.

  • Comment by Angus — July 21, 2010 @ 2:43 pm

    Oops! I should have know that when you opted to remain silent. :)

  • Comment by Bereanwarrior — July 21, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

    I NEED this in poster size. Can you post this somewhere in high rez?

  • Comment by El Perro — July 21, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

    So sad!LOL!!!

  • Comment by Carol — July 21, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

    LOL..yeah, exactly what “use” are we referring to? Use, as in lining the bird cage, or use as in faithfully reading and taking notes?

    Not only breaking momma’s heart, but papa looks devastated!

  • Comment by Dominic — July 22, 2010 @ 1:06 am

    I’m breaking my mother’s heart by NOT reading the Jerusalem Bible…

    but then she is breaking my heart by being an RC…

  • Comment by Cory D. Jones — July 22, 2010 @ 1:52 am

    C’mon, can’t we all just agree that “Everyone will be there to see the parade of God’s salvation.” (Message, Luke 3:6) I mean, who doesn’t like parades? Unless you’re on one of those “sin detours”, then you couldn’t come to the parade. (Message, Prov. 12:28) Besides, I always wondered what “helter-skelter” was in Aramaic… (Message, Matt 26:31 and Mark 14:27) Maybe someone at the parade could tell me. Who’s with me, I’m going to the parade!! And there’s something about salvation, but more the parade, yay!!

  • Comment by Brad Grierson — July 22, 2010 @ 7:59 am

    Haha!

  • Pingback by Tweets that mention Grieving Parents - The Sacred Sandwich -- Topsy.com — July 22, 2010 @ 11:42 am

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Durst Jr., DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: @glennbeck Grieving Parents: You broke your mother's heart, kid. http://bit.ly/anhmoQ #tcot [...]

  • Comment by Afee — July 22, 2010 @ 11:56 am

    wow!! As a mother I am grieved by the comments!! I would rather my kids use ‘a’ bible than no bible at all! My God that I serve saves people! So what type of bible they use at this point in their lives would be welcome to me, opposed to no bible at all!
    p.s. I was saved reading and studying a RC St. Joseph American Standard Bible, so when God sees fit to save you HE WILL!!

  • Comment by Angus — July 22, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

    Afee: I highly commend your desire to see people saved and I understand your point of view (having come out of a Mormon offshoot church), but let me quibble with you on one point. The Message is not a bible translation; it is a paraphrased commentary. Because of that, it offers many pitfalls that can hinder a true understanding of God’s truth (or worse, obscure it completely). My “Grieving Parents” poster is a great exaggeration for the sake of humor, of course, but I think there is a danger in using The Message as a primary source for God’s word, especially for nonbelievers or new believers. For example, The Message removes various plain and direct references to sexual sin (including homosexuality) and provides a convenient “out” for those who want to feel okay about their sinful lifestyle. THAT’S what grieves me.

  • Comment by IIIJohn13 — July 23, 2010 @ 9:04 am

    Afee…”I would rather my kids use ‘a’ bible than no bible at all!” is a blanket staement that we shouldn’t be too hasty to use. After all, the Jehovah’s Witness “New World Translation” is “a” bible. “The Message” is causing an awful lot of confusion and mixed messages. (Is that a pun?) It’s trying to “dumb down” the church. It’s somebody’s idea of telling you and thosands of Christians that they are too stupid to comprehend a true translation. I mean, the number one argument I hear is that we all need a Bible that is readable in our language. I lose a bit of patience with this defense. Bibles such as New American Standard and New King James are perfectly readable and are solid translations of the original language. The Message is not. It is some busy body telling you what THEY think it says. I might not know I’m driving down the interstate with my turn signal on but at least I can figure out what Paul said to the Galatians without Eugene Peterson insulting my intelligence.

  • Comment by Karen — July 23, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

    I would not use the message for studying but I do have a copy that I refer to like all my other translations/versions. My main translation is new American Standard with Strongs Greek and Hebrew dictionary and concordance in the back.

    Let’s not condemn someone for reading the message though. Let’s explain why it would be to their benefit to have an reliable text. A new believer wouldn’t know that the message is fallable.

  • Comment by Chris Bloom — July 23, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

    My nephew came to repentance — out of a Mormon background — with only a Message for a Bible (and a solid church, of course). It CAN be done … but that didn’t stop me from buying him an ESV first chance I got. ;)

  • Comment by Carol — July 23, 2010 @ 8:05 pm

    It’s NOT the Bible that “saved” those souls. So don’t give any one translation some high support because someone had read it at the time the Lord brought them in to the fold. Give God the glory and not some weak attempt at God’s Word.

  • Comment by Rinda — July 25, 2010 @ 6:58 am

    I use the NKJV mostly because I had a difficult time trying to visualize Jesus speaking to me in Old English. As a youth minister I used the Message bible only as reference and I have noticed that a lot of verses do not even come close to my other bible translations, but on occasion there’s one that I can use to drive the message home.
    1 Corinthians 14:9 NLT
    And it’s the same for you. If you talk to people in a language they don’t understand, how will they know what you mean? You might as well be talking to an empty room.

  • Comment by Ray McIntyre — July 25, 2010 @ 8:13 pm

    The best Bible is one that you use. The Message is great for folks who have a limited education or for whom English is a second language.

  • Comment by SamWise — July 25, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

    Some early “Message” Hymnody

    “If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
    And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
    Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
    Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?”

    If You Could Hie to Kolob, 284 – William W. Phelps

    Great singing, easy to read, completely relevant nonsense and heresy!

  • Comment by Cory D. Jones — July 26, 2010 @ 1:29 am

    First, Carol – Thank you for pointing out what I was thinking. The Bible doesn’t save anyone. God saves at whatever time He appoints, whether one is reading the Bible or Sports Illustrated. Second, to those defending The Message… There are a lot of buildings with “Church” on the sign out front, but far from all of them preach the gospel and can be considered true churches. And so it is with the Message. It may have “Bible” in the title, but that doesn’t make it a true Bible. Angus explained it well enough in his post, so I won’t re-hashed the pre-hashed as to reasons behind this. Even though I won’t use it, I won’t go as far as to condemn it completely. BUT, if you choose to use it, as others have said, use it inconjunction with other resources to “rightly divide the Word of Truth.”

  • Comment by Dominic — July 26, 2010 @ 3:30 am

    We should all learn New Testament Greek and then everything would be all right…

    Oh, no, silly me, even that wouldn’t make some people happy!

  • Comment by Alan — July 26, 2010 @ 11:24 am

    Quite apart from the startling fact that the author of “The Message DOESN’T believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ for our sins, in the middle of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, instead of; “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”, he has this phrase; “As above so below”, which is a shorthand version of the following:-
    “That which is above is the same as that which is below”.
    I urge any of you out there who see nothing wrong with this ‘bible’, to google search that phrase. You will find it is what occultists & New Agers consider to be the foundational incantation of all magic.

    Given Peterson’s New Age friends, I find that a little too ‘convenient’ to be an accident.

    As for those who claim to find the KJV too hard to understand, especially for teens, my daughter asked for a KJV for her 16th birthday. When asked by the shop assistant whether or not she might prefer something easier to understand, she replied that it is easier to understand than Shakespeare, whereas the 1996 movie Romeo & Juliet, starring Leonardo DiCaprio & Claire Danes was a favourite with teens, who had no trouble understanding the dialogue, which was pure Shakespearean English. Without debating the ‘KJV-only’ argument, the fact is that there are more than a few poor translations out there, but the Message is far and away the most debased version of the bible that I have come across.
    The following URL has a comparison between the Message and the NIV, which show just HOW debased the Message is:- http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html

    I certainly wouldn’t allow any child of mine to read it thinking it was the Word of God.
    God Bless you all,
    Alan.

  • Comment by Joe — July 26, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

    The message is a watered down biblically inspired paraphrase. It is just barely better than a picture bible.

    Several people on this post have written things even more troubling though – “it isn’t the word of God that saves you…” and “Give God the glory and not some weak attempt at God’s word.” Such statements are more heretical than the most blatant errors in the message.

    “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The Word took on flesh and became God incarnate – Jesus Christ, the One who did save anyone who ever will be saved. We only come to salvation by grace through faith in the Word – spoken, read, preached, or otherwise communicated. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. Not from meditation or some bolt from the blue while reading sports illustrated! Only faith in the Jesus of the word will amount to anything. Quasi-mystical subjectivism never brought anyone to life, much less life eternal!

    It is precisely because of this that accurate translations are deadly serious and desperately needed.

  • Comment by Cory D. Jones — July 27, 2010 @ 4:07 am

    Joe: Wow. Thank you for you kind words towards myself (and Carol). But, you know, I was thinking, I prefer not to have words put in my mouth and then be called a heretic for the words I apparently said. Your quote of my words, “it isn’t the word of God that saves you.” What I actually said, “The Bible doesn’t save anyone.” There’s a very distinct difference. Do NOT misquote me, and then belittle me for what you think I said. Your “quasi-mystical subjectivism” counter-point argument was FAR from the point of my (and Carol’s) post. But, if I was in fact unclear in my previous post, before you call down brimstone upon my head, please allow me to clarify.

    Yes, you are correct in saying that the “Word took on flesh and became God incarnate.” That would make “Word” and “Jesus” interchangable. However, you substituted “word of God” for “Bible” in my quote. So in your words, Bible=Word of God and Word of God=Jesus, therefore Bible=Jesus. (Commutitive property from algebra, nice rendition.) The problem is, you can’t generalize that interchangability over everything. Jesus saves, true statement. The Bible saves, not a true statement. My point (and I can’t speak for Carol here, but I believe we were thinking along the same lines) is that the Bible, in and of itself, is merely a book. It is made up of leather, paper, bindings, ink, and some glue, but at no point in time does it gain any magical saving power. The Bible, the book itself, has no more salvation-granting authority than any other book, newspaper, or periodical. The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, or the Bible (again, the book itself) cannot save anyone. My orginal statement, expanded. (Please hear me clearly, what I’m not saying is that we should treat them all alike.) The act of granting salvation (by grace) is God’s, and God’s alone. The Bible has no power to provide grace. True, more people are probably drawn while reading the Bible than SI, but that’s God’s choice, not by any power of the specific reading material. (By the way, are you saying God can’t save someone with a “bolt from the blue while reading Sports Illustrated”? I hope you will not deny God that right, if that be His good will and pleasure. It’s always a bolt through the darkness, and God can use whatever methods He sees fit to draw someone.) My point was certainly NOT that faith in Jesus (the Word) doesn’t save. My point was that the Bible (no matter the translation) doesn’t save.

    Be very careful you do not worship the Bible of God, rather, worship the God of the Bible.

  • Comment by Mr. Steve — July 29, 2010 @ 12:19 am

    Ha ha, that was a great post! (For those who still remember what the actual post was, that is.)
    After reading (OK, skimming) the comments, I must say that it seems awfully reckless to throw discernment out the window for the sake of “readability”. The Message may be easier to read than the KJV (and what isn’t?), but that hardly qualifies it as a legitimate alternative. As our dear Angus points out, The Message is beyond sloppy scholarship; it’s a horribly bad paraphrase that intentionally alters the meaning of key passages of the original text.
    I have just three words for those who desire a Bible written in an easy-to-read modern language: English Standard Version.

  • Comment by Alan — July 30, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

    Cory, The Bible, or word of God, claims for itself, the absolute authority in all things. It is to be for the Christian the standard against which all things are measured, including our own experiences and heartfelt beliefs. This same Bible says quite unequivocally that:-
    “… faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Rom. 10:17. In the preceding verses, Paul makes it quite clear that those who haven’t heard, can’t believe, because how can you believe something you haven’t heard? The problem with many churches these days is that they don’t teach the gospel, but something quite different to what the Apostles preached. One of the main reasons for this is the proliferation of poor translations in use today.
    That said, the original point was that The Message is not just a bit ‘off-track’, but definitely a very dangerous book. Peterson’s statements denying the substitutionary atonement show exactly where his heart is (Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Matt 12:34). So why would anyone allow this person who denies the very foundation of the gospel, to influence their friends or (worse) children with his ‘anti-bible’?

  • Comment by Robert — July 31, 2010 @ 8:20 am

    I’d like to see proof that Peterson doesn’t believe in substitutionary atonement. A link, please.

    I googled and all I found was that he gave a literary endorsement to a book (The Shack) where the author (not directly in the book but in interviews) denied substitutionary atonement. Proof, please.

    IMHO, the Message is a hit-and-miss, quirky, commentative “translation” that I dig in occasionally for gold nuggets (and I find one every once in a while) but often just come up with gravel. Never anything so bad as some folks here seem to think.

  • Comment by Frank Turk — July 31, 2010 @ 8:28 am

    Um.

    We all get that this post is humor, right?

  • Comment by Don — July 31, 2010 @ 9:13 am

    Humor (or the fundy equivalent: Humour) yes… but with a point.

  • Comment by Bereanwarrior — July 31, 2010 @ 10:04 am

    Frank – Even though I find this post hillarious, I must admit that sometimes the comments left now and then push the buttons that cause me to rise up in defense of the truth. I realize that Angus intends to provoke thought through witty satire without it turning into such intense debate, but I see in the Bible where the Holiness of God and the authority of His Word are never to compromised even for the sake of humor. When liberal minded people post a drive by and/or challenge the clear teaching of Scripture, it is very hard to just let it go without rebuttal. I love this site (as well as TeamPyro), and I check in daily because I know I will most likely get a chuckle from it. Still, it wrenches my heart to see people post comments that fly in the face of the clear teaching from Scripture.

  • Comment by Cory D. Jones — August 2, 2010 @ 8:59 am

    Alan – I don’t disagree that the message in churches today is FAR from what the apostles preached, however that’s happened over 100s of years, and we can’t attribute that directly to the Message. I do not deny that the Bible is the word of God, nor that it is sound teaching, a measuring stick, everything you pointed out. My point is that someone can come to salvation in Christ without having laid eyes on the pages of a Bible. It’s not the Bible that saves. Yes, they cannot come to salvation without HEARING the teaching IN the Bible, but the book itself has no power. Paul does state that “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” However, the full meaning of that verse and surrounding verses is much deeper than “How can you believe something you haven’t heard?” That’s not the point Paul is trying to make.

    I do see where my SI comment could have been confusing, so allow me to clarify. Reading SI, and SI alone, won’t bring anyone to repentance, however God may use it as a tool to produce that light bulb moment for someone who has had the seed planted (via the message of salvation from the Bible). No, there is no salvation in the general message of SI, whereas there is salvation in the message of the Bible. But the Bible itself cannot grant that salvation.

    I understand the point of the original post, and fully agree with it; see my original parody of verses. Also notice that I have never referred to it as “The Message Bible”, as I don’t think it lives up to that title. I do not use the Message, and no one in my family will use it either. I have and will continue to express my disapproval when people around me use it, but I will not deny God his rightful power to bring people to salvation through it, if He so chooses. I trust that you do not deny Him this right either.

  • Comment by mike — August 2, 2010 @ 10:01 am

    Gosh, I thought we got over this translation thing years ago..

  • Comment by Alan — August 2, 2010 @ 5:20 pm

    Hi Cory, I agree with your post above, God can indeed meet someone and bring them to salvation knowledge in whatever way He chooses.
    I did misunderstand your intent and I apologise for that. Please don’t think that I was flaming you, that is never my intention either, but to contend for the faith (as per Jude v3).
    The thing that concerns me with people’s defence of “The Message” is that while it may seem ok to say; “There is some truth there, so it’s better than nothing”, it ignores the poison that is there alongside it. We all agree that it is better to eat some kind of food than to starve ourselves to death, however, how many would eat rat poison on the basis that it’s 99% good, healthy food with only 1% poison in it? Jesus’ teach of the disciples about the danger of leaven should be enough to warn us to be very careful in our handling of the truth.
    As for Robert’s post above re Peterson’s views on substitutionary atonement, the very fact that he endorses and stands by not only the Shack, but the writings and teachings of Marcus Borg, Brian MacLaren, Alan Jones, et. al, who all deny the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. 2 John v 10-11 tells us to not even bid heretics ‘God speed’, because we will be held as guilty of their heresy as well. I think Peterson’s endorsement of The Shack, is far more than wishing the author ‘God speed’, but obviously an agreement with the writings and therefore the beliefs of the author.
    The far more troubling thing is your statement that you find nothing much of concern in The Message. Try googling the phrase; “As above, so below”, which Peterson substitutes for; “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” There is at least one other bible translation that has similar wording to The Message, but that only means it should be viewed with the same caution.
    Reading the Message to come up with a rare nugget, is like watching lots of quite disgusting TV shows because you sometimes get a decent bit of acting. The Bible says we should concentrate on those things that are good and avoid the garbage. Magical incantations in place of the central part of the Lord’s prayer certainly qualifies the Message for that label.

  • Comment by Cory D. Jones — August 3, 2010 @ 1:30 am

    Alan – No worries. Thanks for all the good information on the phrases used in the Message. Quite interesting.

  • Comment by Committed Christian — August 6, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

    LOL! I got to share this!

  • Comment by LuLu — August 11, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

    To Robert: Sorry I am so “late to the chase”,but you wanted a link for more info. on Peterson’s “beliefs” re: the atonement. Here is a link that gives a brilliant,side-by-side, “Scripture-by-Scripture”,analysis of “The Message” and accurate Biblical translations: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/themessage.htm?zoom_highlight=Peterson+messag+bibl. Sola Scriptura!

  • Comment by Cory D. Jones — August 12, 2010 @ 1:56 am

    This is a link off of the page LuLu posted. I found it helpful. http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html

  • Comment by Katie — August 27, 2010 @ 11:59 am

    Upon reading most of these comments I wonder how well people understand the idea of “translation.” If one has studied a foreign language you must have realized that you cannot translate verbatim. Sometimes you must understand the meaning and translate that as best you can. You also must understand the context also. For example take the verse Matthew 19:24 “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” At first glance you may be thinking the literal ‘eye of a needle’-as in the needle with which you sew. But actually the ‘eye of a needle’ was refering to a gateway through a wall surrounding a city. It was so small that a camel had to crawl on its knees to get through. It also can make it difficult to translate from a “dead” language. It is not a spoken language anymore.It’s not “evolving.” In old English the words awful, amusing, and artificial did not mean what they mean today. These words were used of Queen Anne when she complimented-yes, complimented-Sir Wren on his architectural designs. In modern English we would probably use words like awesome, amazing, and artistic. One more point, for those who may be in business (or perhaps international business) the two main languages are Enlish and Chinese. When translating between these two languages French is also used. French is used when translating so you do not lose anything between translating. This is why having a good translation of God’s Word is important. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16,17. How can we be “thoroughly equipped” if it is not exactly as God had said? (please also note I used NIV for the verses; not saying it is best, better, or even worse, it is just one I commonly use. I also encourage you to match it up to the translation you have and note any differences.)God’s blessings.

  • Comment by Karen — August 28, 2010 @ 3:36 am

    Eugene Peterson has a preface on The Message Bible that states the intention and purpose of it. He writes clearly that it is not meant to replace our study Bible.
    What bothers me greatly in our time are the new word for word equivalents that claim to be accurate, but are not really.
    One example is John 1:18. I have been watching that verse in the new Bibles that have come out. And I have to wonder, how did In His Bosom become Near His Side, or something similar to that?
    And I have other verses that I have watched with the same ponder.
    Or watching verses that exalt Jesus, placed in footnotes (like Matt 18:11) just because it is not in their manuscript they are using.
    I have shared this statement: I used to ask which Bible? now I ask, why the change?
    I really think we ARE talking about the beams and splinters in our eyes.
    God bless you all.

  • Comment by Tater2000 — August 30, 2010 @ 10:25 am

    Karen, Thank you for a very excellent point.
    A book I have found very helpful in just understanding the whole “translation”/”paraphrase” issue has been James White’s “KJV Only Controversy”. Aside from the subject he writes about in the book, he has allot of good insight into what makes a Bible a translation as opposed to a paraphrase.
    It’s not always as simple as translating word for word. All Bibles have to do things to syntax and grammar to go from one language to another. All translators have to make decisions. “Will I translate what this sentence SAYS? Will I write what this sentence MEANS? Or will I write an equivalent euphemism in English?”
    I find it EXTREMELY frustrating when I find that some busy body “translator” went to an effort of writing what HE thinks the writer MEANT as opposed to what he actually said. (And the number one reason I’m not a big NIV fan.)
    I like a Bible that just says what the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic says and translates it to English. Sure, I understand the need for adjusting syntax and grammar. Put them in italics like KJV, NKJV and NASB already do.
    If there’s confusion, I want to be the one that does the studying to figure it out. I don’t like some body telling me want they think it says. They could be wrong.
    And, as you say, even Eugene Peterson admits it’s not designed to replace a study Bible so… Why even read “The Message”? The New KJV or New American Standard are perfectly readable and very, very close to the original manuscripts so why would someone need to go to The Message?
    On the other dangerous side, what if a paraphrase is the only Bible they have? Salvation can come, sure. (I, myself read a “Good News For Modern Man” New Testament straight through when I was a baby Christian.) But such a Bible has to be left behind for any serious Bible knowledge. And while I wouldn’t mind too much if a baby Christian was reading a Living Bible or Good News, (or NIV), The Message has far too much of Peterson’s opinion of what a real Bible says and not enough actual devotion to what is inspired by the Holy Spirit in the first place. It is a lame knock-off copy of a Bible. A “toy” Bible. A cheap, fake, Seiko sold in an alley next to a store where Rolexes are free. IMHO

  • Comment by David — December 3, 2011 @ 12:25 pm

    “You have betrayed your family, your school, your city. I don’t even think you should come to my funeral.”

TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Return to the Homepage