Talk:The Message (Bible)

message: :Image:The Message Remix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Message Remix.jpg

message: General reminder that the discussion page is for discussion of the article and not the topic.  If you want to discuss the merits of the topic there are ample discussion forums more appropriate for it than wikipedia.
Heavensblade23 (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled] 

message: There was a lot of valid content in the earlier discussions regarding the entry, not just opinion, but FACT as to the inappropriate claim that The Message can justifiably be called a "Bible".
If the Discussion was not moved, then I guess we should applaud whoever unilaterally wiped it. George Orwell would be proud of such rewritten history - much like how Eugene Peterson had no problem making up his own "Bible". Ignorance is Strength.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjohnston (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to create a new lower limit of human IQ, but just give us your definition that what is a Bible and where this definition comes from. Gesalbte (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

text: God swept away the off-topic (and utterly invalid for the purposes of this page) text. Jibal (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  so where did the discussion move to? 

message: The ones that are on the page now are sufficient as well as being immediately familiar to most people. Seregain (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think there's too many. Basileias (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not go crazy adding examples of differences 

message: After spending a year researching Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German resources I was finally able to perform a decent comparison of KJV, NIV and NASB (readable English) versions against The Message. Findings are freely available (share with your pastors for their consideration) at http://www.scribd.com/doc/24455467/The-Mess
The document was originally intended for the Web (with 5 cut-to-the-chase studies, not written as a boring novel that would lose the point in the detail), distribued in a printable PDF format. The PDF may be viewed online in order to follow the embedded links for the support references.
--Pkjohnston (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research is not relevant to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive Study on The Message 

message: A recent editor accused this article of being a "glowing advertisement." Instead of identifying what that advertisement was he inserted his own POV. Maybe the "glowing advertisement" portions could be identified and then removed? I think that would be a more mature way of addressing an alleged problem. Basileias (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed what I thought was some repetitive information. Basileias (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glowing advertisement? 

message: This user stated this on my discussion page about me and a recent edit:
Took a minute to read here.  Looks like you have a knack for argumentively editing.  I don't appreciate the neutral point of view (NPOV) I carefully added to the article being labeled my "obvious POV," and brashly reverted with no finesse.  You've done this before, and know to make the revert harder to undo, perform additional edits.  Your actions appear out of variance for the wikipedia community, but your own POV about this article is obvious, and thus your actions are not surprising.
grubbmeister (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  User [[User:Grubbmeister|Grubbmeister]] 

message: I've edited the text to say that The Message is not a paraphrase, because it isn't a restatement of another English text but instead a highly idiomatic translation from the original languages. Accuracy matters. --Curiousdannii (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a translation because its the Gk. New Testament and Hebrew Tanakh translated into English. Dictionary definition of paraphrase, "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording." To a degree, all Christian Bible translations contain paraphrase. Basileias (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Unless you are fluent in the original language, you can't determine whether it's a paraphrase. But this is all moot--it's not up to editors to decide whether something is a paraphrase or translation, but rather we must cite what reliable sources say. Jibal (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Editors' impressions aren't relevant to Wikipedia. We should only be referring to reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

text: In English, "the Bible" is available in a number of different translations, and you do need to state which one you're quoting from unless it's understood (e.g., various denominations and churches have an official or preferred translation). Jibal (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a paraphrase 

message: User LancelotSG is performing an addition using the following references.
*http://cbanews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/12/BibleTranslations201312.pdf
*http://gfbchurch.com/tracts/TheMessage2.pdf
From those he is claiming they state "It seems that The Message has lost its popularity in circulation for the year 2013," "In addition The Message has also drawn criticism for being a poor paraphrased translation" and "The Message also uses coarse language in its paraphrased translation" with the additional of Ezekiel 16:24 displayed from various translations (Ezekiel 16:24).
None of these are a reliable third party news source. Gfbchurch.com is a church website and does not represent an established authority on the topics. I have reverted citing why in the wiki policy only to have my removal reversed. Any more reverts of my removals due to sources not complying with wiki policy, I will start to consider vandalism. I am assuming the editor is new. Basileias (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: LancelotSG Edits

message: I thought it would be fairly simple to find sources for the "tenth most popular" line in the lead. Popular is a subjective term, but sales numbers are well documented, and readership numbers are compiled. I found this source from the Association for Christian Retail: 
* 
This says that The Message was the eighth best selling English-language Bible translation for April 2015. (It's ranked 9th by both units sold and dollar amount, but it's below Reina-Valera, which is a Spanish-language translation.) Unfortunatly, it's not that simple. The books sales numbers aren't similar across different time periods, and The Message isn't listed for any of the other months I sampled. Placing this in the lead would therefore be kind of misleading. Lacking a source which expressly explains what "popular" means in this context, I'm removing the quote pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: My King James version of the Lords Prayer is different to the one quoted here.  I believe this is an error but, given the sensitivity, I do not want to butt in like a goat.
Am I wrong? Please tell me if so, otherwise I will replace the text with that from my, now very old, King James bible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverSurfer477 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  King James "trespass"?