Amplified or Message

[Droobie]

These are two alternative translations/interpretations of the Bible which have become popular in Christian circles. What are your thoughts?

John 3:16 - King James Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 - New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 - Amplified
For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.

John 3:16 - Message
This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

[Konnie]

I love them both.

[Hez]

I really haven't really read either....I've heard of them, but I don't know every many people with either translation.

[Col]

I haven't read the Amplified, however I love my Message.

[Reader Nilus]

God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, that everyone who has faith in him may not die but have eternal life.
Is how my preferred translation reads at this verse. The New English Bible.
Jeff the Finn

[Crazy Liz]

I've seen these two compared quite a bit lately, but they are actually quite different. The Amplified Bible is a translation that puts in brackets other English words that might also be good translations of a particular Greek or Hebrew word - for linguists, other English words within the semantic domain of the original Greek or Hebrew word. The Amplified Bible can help an individual reader make his/her own judgment among possible interpretations of scripture in light of several possibilities, or gain a fuller understanding of the meaning of scriptuer in its original languages without having studied them.

The Message is a paraphrase - one person's loose interpretation of scripture.

Each has its place, but they are in no way similar or comparable.

[Ajani]

I love my copy of the Message. I only have the NT right now. I really want to get Daniel.

I hear that they are coming out with a version with chapter and verse deliniations. Yay!! :clap:

[filosofer]

And neither one translated the hOUTWS of John 3:16 correctly. It should be "in this way" not "how greatly."

[Edited: LOL I was working on two projects and put the wrong Greek word here! ]

[Bayhawks83]

John 3:16 - King James Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

thats the one i like, i havent read either amplified or message.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I don't like either

[micro]

I dont like either!

[RevKidd]

Personally I would never look at the message as a bonefide interpretation of the Bible unlike the amplified.

The amplified is a translation that does try to convey to the reader a broad aspect of various translations.

The message is just a novel IMHO. If you want to know what the true meaning of scripture is then use a literal word for word translation like the NASB.

[Snowy]

I haven't read either

[RevJP]

Definitely the Amplified. The Lockman foundation has done a wonderful job in translating the original texts to include the 'amplified' meaning of the language compared to our own.

The KJV and most other versions use a 'word to word' translation method which picks the closest english word in meaning, to the original language. In rich languages such as Greek and Hebrew, this method sometimes leaves the translation lacking.

The amplified version includes additional text which in no way adds to the original, but expresses more fully the original meaning than any other translation does. It does not paraphrase which other translations do, neither does it add or subtract from the original text.

Is it an easy translation to read? No, not really, but it is the best for study and learning. On those evenings when you want to sit and read scripture KJV or NKJV or NASB are great.

[The Midge]

Is it an easy translation to read? No, not really, but it is the best for study and learning. On those evenings when you want to sit and read scripture KJV or NKJV or NASB are great.
I voted Message because the Amplified reads like a tounge twister. I would prefer to read a verse from different version to look at various shades of meaning.

Mind you I only use the message to gain a fresh look from a different angle rather than for serious study.

[filosofer]

The Amplified Bible can give good insight but it also causes problems by presenting something out of context. By giving several alternatives for a Greek/Hebrew word in a specific instance, it almost appears that the specific Greek/Hebrew could mean any of those things. Ultimately, the meaning of the word is determined by, and derived from, context, that is, the surrounding words. Thus, to imply that a specific Greek/Hebrew word could mean one of several different words, because there are lexical (dictionary) definitions (or better glosses) available is not helping understanding the meaning of that word in this specific context.

This also leads to interpreting rather than translating in the Amplified Bible

Issues of translating vs. interpreting the text -- two examples:

1 Thessalonians 1:10

AMP: And [how you] look forward to and await the coming of His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead -- Jesus, Who personally rescues and delivers us out of and from the wrath [bringing punishment] which is coming [upon the impenitent] and draws us to Himself .

Words inside [ ] indicates "amplified" phrasing, which are added to the text. First, note that the coming wrath is restrict by the added words [upon the impenitent]. The Greek text has

EK THS ORGHS THS ERXOMENHS (from the wrath, the coming).

There is nothing about the restriction of the wrath.

Even more questionable is the last added phrase [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah]. There is nothing in the Greek text that corresponds to this phrase. This is purely commentary, not translation, made to appear as if it is specifically intended by the Greek text. It is misleading to say the least.


1 Thessalonians 2:3

AMP: For our appeal [in preaching] does not [originate] from delusion [i]or error or impure purpose or motive, nor in fraud or deceit.

The main concern here is with the first inserted text [in preaching]. The Greek word is PARAKLHSHS, often translated as exhorted or comforted. But nowhere is the connection made with this word and preaching, unless the word KHROUSW is present in the context. In other words, the AMP Bible has limited this appeal to a preaching context when the text does not allow such a restriction/limitation.

Also in this text, how many items are actually mentioned in the Greek text? From the AMP it would appear at first glance as if there are six items that Paul enumerates. Yet the Greek text has only three. Now the question arises, why the expansion? And then why those particular words for expansion because the six do not exhaust the semantic domains of the three Greek words? the reader is left with a false impression, twice in this verse alone, because the AMP Bible is not translating but interpreting and providing commentary.

------

There are many others that could be cited. But if you do not know Greek (in the cases of the NT), then at least check the NAS, ESV , NKJV, KJV, etc. translations and begin to get a sense of where translating ends and commentary begins.

[JC_FREAK]

I love them both but I am more of a nkjv gal

[Blessed75]

I prefer the Amplified. However, sometimes it can be hard to understand so I'll go back and look at my NIV.......

[Svt4Him]

It surprised me when I started reading the Message how much I enjoyed it, and how accurate it is.

[Neenie]

Well Bono is good friends with Eugene I agree with what Bono says.
Quote There’s a translation of the scriptures that this guy Eugene Peterson has undertaken. It has been a great strength to me. He’s a poet and a scholar, and he’s brought the text back to the tone in which the books were written.

[Knight]

This is like comparing apples and oranges. The Amplified is a translation which attempts to convey every possible wording and translation of the ancient languages in modern english. It was never meant for simple reading. It was meant for intensive study.

The Message is not as much a translation as it is a paraphrase. Personally I do not like it. It seems overly simplistic. Much more than it needs to be and the contemporary language seems forced in some places. Just my opinion there.

It makes little sense to directly compare these two.

[pmarquette]

they work well as a second source to expound upon some of
the archaic passages in the King James .....

If you read a passage in KJV , then read the same with amplified , then
the message [ only New Testament ], helps people grasp what the
original Greek was trying to convey ... there are no word for word
tranlations for some Greek words to English ...

[Eternal_Spirit]

I was going to purchase the Message because I wanted to hear what the Bible says in English that I can understand. I have a NKJV Bible but to be honest, it's hard to read cover to cover because it tends to be very "dry" reading. I feel bad for saying this but sometimes I just get bored reading a standard Bible. You know what I'm talking about. But something like the Message seems like it would be interesting to me. We live in different times now and some of the old language found in Bibles just doesn't make sense to me all the time.

For instance, I picked up an audio version of the NT at the library. I think it's a NIV one. Anyway, it's awesome! After hearing how the Bible is read, it's more like a story now. I was reading the Bible from my NKJV but missing the message. The audio translation really helped me understand "how" to read the Bible. I am learing so much more from listening to the audio which is also dramatized using different character voices. It makes it very interesting.

So, that's why I want to purchase the "Message" on CD. This way I can play it in my car and better understand what the Bible is saying. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing that. Some people cannot sit and read a regular Bible cover to cover. I am one of them. :)

[pmarquette]

So, that's why I want to purchase the "Message" on CD. This way I can play it in my car and better understand what the Bible is saying. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing that. Some people cannot sit and read a regular Bible cover to cover. I am one of them. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
.....................................
There are several " cassette " bibles or as you say " cd " bible , where you hear
a believer : enunciate , stop , start , vary voice ... to punctuate the points .

The message is wordy .... Jn 3.16 for God so loved v's God in his unconditional love of all men , not just the submissive but sinners who might cease sinning .... ok ?

The bottom line for " understanding " in a spiritual gift given by baptism and confirmation , that we might have spiritual eyes and ears - Ezekiel 36.16,26

[aTnAgReAl]

I've not tried the Amplified version so I can't say what I think about that version, but I do own the Message and I love to read it as a companion to my Bible. I don't ever read it on its own though because it is a very loose translation.

[DMX]

It shouldn't be a case of either or. Every Christian can benefit from both, as though somewhat similar, they serve different purposes.

[charligirl]

I've seen these two compared quite a bit lately, but they are actually quite different. The Amplified Bible is a translation that puts in brackets other English words that might also be good translations of a particular Greek or Hebrew word - for linguists, other English words within the semantic domain of the original Greek or Hebrew word. The Amplified Bible can help an individual reader make his/her own judgment among possible interpretations of scripture in light of several possibilities, or gain a fuller understanding of the meaning of scriptuer in its original languages without having studied them.

The Message is a paraphrase - one person's loose interpretation of scripture.

Each has its place, but they are in no way similar or comparable.
I agree!! :)

[Ric]

These are two alternative translations/interpretations of the Bible which have become popular in Christian circles. What are your thoughts?

John 3:16 - King James Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 - New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 - Amplified
For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.

John 3:16 - Message
This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

I like the AMP over the Message any day of the week. If I were to read a Bible like the Message (a paraphrase) it would be the NLT.

[Pastor_Benjamin]

Both of these particular bibles were designed to be used in conjunction with the king james version of the bible to help you get a deeped understanding of what you are reading. Those who are farther along might not need one of these translations, but for new believers they are both excellent study tools.

God bless,

Pastor Bruce Benjamin
New Beginning Outreach Ministries (DOC)

[Rising Tree]

It sounds like the Amplified version goes for literal, accurate translation whereas the Message translates the original text into 21st century English. Right?

[Ric]

It sounds like the Amplified version goes for literal, accurate translation whereas the Message translates the original text into 21st century English. Right?
Almost right on target!

Actually the AMP is just that, a literal. accurate translation (here's the difference) with added words to help you understand what is being said.
http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/amplified/ < --- Link

And the Message is a paraphrase of Scripture laid out in novel form, it reads like a story book.
Message (http://www.navpress.com/BibleProducts/History_andFAQs.asp?mscsid=C8WVSBGPUN958MVS04U3HFQNJ03FF80A#05) < --- Link

[Rising Tree]

Then I'll take Message in a heartbeat. :) The individual passages of the Bible were designed to be very contemporary, and it's great to see a version revive this tradition.

[Jesusfrk4life77]

i dont read either! Im a NKJV person! of course...if i hadda choose it would prolly be message! One Love, One God, One Way!
Souled Out 4 Jesus,
Alexis M

[Ghost23]

i usually like seeing the difference in all the versions because not all of them are very clear. sometimes the words i dont understand or its too vague for me so i go to something like the amplified or NLT or something like that. that way i can see the verse from different viewpoints if you will.

[Ric]

i usually like seeing the difference in all the versions because not all of them are very clear. sometimes the words i dont understand or its too vague for me so i go to something like the amplified or NLT or something like that. that way i can see the verse from different viewpoints if you will.
I agree! I even read the original Greek and Hebrew texts. :)

[Ric]

i dont read either! Im a NKJV person! of course...if i hadda choose it would prolly be message! One Love, One God, One Way!
Souled Out 4 Jesus,
Alexis M
There are "KJV only" people, now we have a "NKJV Onlyist"! :D :P ^_^

[Glorianna]

The Message is good, but I've never read the Amplified Version. I still like my NIV the best though!

[Starcrystal]

King James is still the best overall translation. Some of it could be done better. NKJV is OK. I don't like the newer translations, even the NIV.... there are references to the blood of Christ deleted, as well as parts of Mark 16. The wording sometimes detracts from the original.
Someone should do an original meaning Greek/Hebrew translation, word for word.... no italics. (I'll admit, some of the italics in KJV should never have been placed there.) I've even sometimes crossed them out in places where its obvious it changes the meaning of the verse. (Italics were not inspired...they were inserted by the translators of the KJV,... for those who didn't know)

[TomUK]

They both have their advantages, and equal disadvantages. To read a beautiful but fairly straighforward to read translation, it has to be NKJV. It is easily the best bible you can get.

[jeffs_girl_2004]

I like the Amplified.

[Ric]

King James is still the best overall translation. Some of it could be done better. NKJV is OK. I don't like the newer translations, even the NIV.... there are references to the blood of Christ deleted, as well as parts of Mark 16. The wording sometimes detracts from the original.
Someone should do an original meaning Greek/Hebrew translation, word for word.... no italics. (I'll admit, some of the italics in KJV should never have been placed there.) I've even sometimes crossed them out in places where its obvious it changes the meaning of the verse. (Italics were not inspired...they were inserted by the translators of the KJV,... for those who didn't know)
A good Bible I like to read from is a "Interlinear Bible". :) This Bible is a "word for word" Bible! It has the Hebrew or Greek written beside the English. Mine is number coded to Strong's.

[Doreen]

I love to read the Amplified bible as it explains things better for me and I can really get into it better

[Chriswoods83]

I am a fan of the NKJV NAS and NIV, I use NAS and NKJV for my studying because it is a word for word translation, it allows me to look up the greek and hebrew words up myself. But I use NIV for reading because it is a phrase by phrase translation

[jeshohaia]

They scare me. Studying the Hebrew Lexicon and cross referencing it with my NKJV is just fine. I dont need brackets every where. That would distract to much from what the text says.

Am I wrong? It leaves the interpritation up to the common man. I dont know. I might check it out. But I love the literal translation from the original texts the most.

How do you know that those are what the Hebrew and Greek sources translated to? What about singular and plural references and how one word previously writen can be translated one way and change the possiabilities of another word later on?

If you are not a Bible scholar you should never even attempt to read these. Thats why there are Lexicons and sources to read from. If you want a good old testament translation look at the JPS Tanakh. It has their translation of the oldest known sources and then has foot notes as to what it also means (look at Genisis 1:1-3 in the JPS Tanakh and all of your versions of the Bible. Completly different) But the JPS says that the Hebrew word for Breath also means Spirit and Wind. Who needs captions and such in line? Distracting.

[wildthing]

Love em both. Use em both. It which "Translation" that would suit the moment the best. Kjv language at times is cumbersome many that I have spoken with don't give a rip about 15 century English but when Message is used they will listen. What really comes down to is use the version that speaks to you. This is almost like asking which service do you go to? Contempary or Tradition. You go to the one that speaks to your heart.

[Roxa]

I have not read either one

[TheMainException]

I totally love the message, but really, it can sometimes be confusing, so it's good to have more than one version. All the versions confuse me sometimes, so I just flip over to another version and then I know the answer.

[signwonder]

The Holy Spirit is our teacher and thus will reveal to us what the word of God is saying when we read it. Man can mess up the pure word of God by adding his own understanding and opinion to any translation. Because of this we definately need the Holy Spirits help in reading any and all translations of the Bible. If we commit ourselves to God He is faithful to keep all that we commit to Him. He can keep our minds from accepting anything wrong, misleading or false that may have crept into a Bible translation. Learning to lean on God is a necessity not just a song.

[Raithlin]

Personally, NKJV, but I do enjoy the Amplified version for in-depth interpretation (besides greek transliteration, etc.)

[Moros]

I dislike those translations.

[Neal]

Not particular to ones that don't stay true to the original language. So I guess from these, I'd have to lean towards Amplified, though I wouldn't choose that over the other ones available today.

[Doreen]

I love reading the Amplified Bible the best as it makes things clearer for me with the extra words in brackets to help explain stuff. :amen:

[Zoomer]

I do not think either is good.

[Lithium Hobo]

They all look the same to me. However, one should be careful with translating the bible so much. Things become lost and distorted when translated too many times.

[Spoken•For]

I personally like the Amplified version better. :)

[Raheelah]

Amplified but am not particually choosey :) ;) :D :cool: :P :wave: :thumbsup: :amen: :clap: :hug: :preach: :prayer: :groupray: :bow: :angel:

[fairyshyone]

I haven't read either.

[ysl_75]

I will prefer message because I can understand better.

[tqpix]

I haven't read either translations, but my favorite are the KJV and the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) by Jay P. Green and published by Sovereign Grace Publishers. John 3:16 in the LITV:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[AvgJoe]

Haven't read either one.

[2Timothy2]

Neither one, and I've read both.

[ralrachaan]

Haven't read either, but Amplified looks very nice from the sample scripture.

[Saruman]

haven't read either

[DanielJamesSimon]

Neither.

[GodFlute2]

I think I've read Message, but not the other one.

[crusader4peace]

i think message.

[Big Mouth Nana]

I like Amplified, as it makes every possible interpretaion possible in brackets.

[lgintrnj]

Ill stay with the the King James version thank you.

[Qidron]

I enjoy both at different times. I especially like and use the Amplified for study. The Message is great for just reading...it's even funny.

[HollyHobbie]

Ill stay with the the King James version thank you. I prefer the King Jimmy version (LoL ! ) but will sometimes use the NIV because thats the version my church uses !

I personally think that the Amplified Version and the Message bible are good to use for refference, but other than that I don't use them.

Love In Christ
Holly Hobbie
Laura:thumbsup:

[mark53]

Why do so many people like the KJV which is not a version of English that is spoken any more? It uses words that were even "made up" to sound as if it was written some time earlier!

It has numerous mistakes, like Matt 26:27 "drink ye all of it" which means drink everything that is in the cup! If the cup is big than one could easily get drunk! When the Greek would be better translated "drink from it, all (of you)" !

Also being called the "majority text" has its disadvantages as this means that when they work out which manuscripts to use they use those which they have the majority of, not necessarily the earliest ones. To give an example have what I have written here in this post copied out (by pen on paper) a thousand times and gather them up. Where there are variants which ever has the majority use those and then this becomes what I actually typed here!

[AceHarddrive]

I prefer the KJV of 1611 (Authorized Version). I LOVE the old-timey spellings:

Joh 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

Yes, it may be a little hard to read. But with patience, it can be managed. I just don't like the fact that so many things have been changed just to make it "readable," "politically correct" or "gender neutral."

To me it's like acquiring a recipe that has been in someone else's family for generations. It's wonderful just as it is. But you decide to make it even "better" (in your mind) by substituting this-or-that ingredient, adding other ingredients or even deciding certain ingredients are unnecessary and removing them completely from the recipe. You might even decide to fiddle with the amount of the ingredients. What you wind up with is a completely new recipe. It may seem better to you and perhaps others, but it's still a completely different recipe. You may like it, but this new recipe leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Can I get an Amen? :amen: Thank you.
~Tim :thumbsup:

[mark53]

I prefer the KJV of 1611 (Authorized Version). I LOVE the old-timey spellings:

Yes, it may be a little hard to read. But with patience, it can be managed. I just don't like the fact that so many things have been changed just to make it "readable," "politically correct" or "gender neutral."
. [/analogy]

Can I get an Amen? :amen: Thank you.
~Tim :thumbsup:

That is the problem with ALL languages. They change. (except for Latin and other dead languages!) I too, find that translation interesting, especially when one sees the words that were made up for this translation to give it its old time appeal! The bigegst problem it had in its time was that id did not have available many of the hebrew and especially Greek manuscripts and so then used the Latin manuscripts!

[jul7246]

I like to stick to KJV as a standard. . .havent read either

[KarenJoy]

I like both as supplements in bible study but would not use them as main study material or for public reading of Bible passages in the main church service

[deetersdee]

I read King James or New King James only. I think something gets lost every time man attempts to improve God's Word. They make it a word of their own. The Word of God was already translated in the most appropriate way. The only difference with the New King James version is that it takes out the Old English and makes it easier for new believers to understand. There is a New King James version that has footnotes to explain words that are harder to understand.

psst-- God's Spirit is able to translate just fine.

[destinyhope]

i love them both

[mark53]

I read King James or New King James only. I think something gets lost every time man attempts to improve God's Word. They make it a word of their own. The Word of God was already translated in the most appropriate way. The only difference with the New King James version is that it takes out the Old English and makes it easier for new believers to understand. There is a New King James version that has footnotes to explain words that are harder to understand.

psst-- God's Spirit is able to translate just fine.

What is the original God's Word? The current KJV which is a modification of the 1611 one? The KJV translators used a small amount of manuscripts that was available and what they didn't have used the Latin Vulgate! The original writings have been lost and all we have is copies of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. This is a hard job to put together as there are many variants as scribes changed and added things either deliberately or accidently. Then there is the translating itself. If you have learned a second language you know there is no such things as one word in one language exactly equals the same in English. There are many other issues in translating as well which i won't go into - unless you ask.

[GrinningDwarf]

One option was left out...neither!

I'm surprised how many people even consider the Amplified Bible to be a translation! From A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix:


This expanded translation shows an even more marked tendency to "add to" the biblical text while "expanding" upon it more than did Wuest's translation. Based upon the critical text, the editors attempt to give a full expression to the various shades of thought and meaning of the original text by the use of brackets, dashes, and italics.
as F.F. Bruce has observed,"The work includes several features of a commentary as well as a translation..."


I've tried to use it, and it's like trying to read book written with the abundent use of a thesaurus! I would not recommend it to anyone trying to really understand the scriptures.

I've read some of The Message, too, and I agree that it is much easier to read. However, it's accuracy to the original leaves something to be desired. Take a look at the sample verse posted at the top of this thread:

John 3:16 - Message
This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

IMHO, this phrasing carries much stronger Arminian implications than does the original...therefore, you are seeing evidence of the translator's theology here in addition to the Word of God.

Do yourselves a favor and stick to the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS, or ESV.

[Spectre01]

I really like my Amplified Bible, although all Bibles rock.

[Stacey]

I've skimmed through the message in bookstores but I think I prefer to stick to the more direct translations just because the farther away you get from the greek and hebrew, the more personal interpretation there is and less facts.

[mark53]

I've skimmed through the message in bookstores but I think I prefer to stick to the more direct translations just because the farther away you get from the greek and hebrew, the more personal interpretation there is and less facts.

The trouble is that all the translations say that theirs is the closest to the original greek and Hebrew, so the best way is to learn these languages and use the others as a help and guide. :thumbsup:

[deetersdee]

What is the original God's Word? The current KJV which is a modification of the 1611 one? The KJV translators used a small amount of manuscripts that was available and what they didn't have used the Latin Vulgate! The original writings have been lost and all we have is copies of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. This is a hard job to put together as there are many variants as scribes changed and added things either deliberately or accidently. Then there is the translating itself. If you have learned a second language you know there is no such things as one word in one language exactly equals the same in English. There are many other issues in translating as well which i won't go into - unless you ask.

I wont ask. I've gotten into this discussion way to many times. My "preferance" is KJ or NKJ. But I do understand what you mean when you speak of different languages. But I also believe the Holy Spirit teaches us and gives wisdom and I believe God's Spirit gave wisdom to those who translated. My point was that when it is translated from English to English then to English again it just adds confusion to which is the "best" version of the bible. Come On Now!! God is not the author of confusion. I'm not sure if these extra traslations are not a way to make a profit of God's Word. Anyone who can not understand the simple English in the NKJV should maybe invest in a children's bible or better yet pray for understanding.

[deetersdee]

The trouble is that all the translations say that theirs is the closest to the original greek and Hebrew, so the best way is to learn these languages and use the others as a help and guide. :thumbsup:

That is a brilliant idea. :amen:

[gal4God]

I haven't read either

[Followers4christ]

I don't like either of them.I hate how they twist and add words to the Holy scriptures.I perfer the KJV and NIV.God Bless you all

[Stacey]

I've started reading the message out of interest to compare it to other versions. I think it's a good idea for certain people - especially younger people or those new to Christ. I'm a junior high youth leader and one of my girls understands the bible a lot easier with the message. She can't read through the niv straight and understand.

Haven't yet read amplified - It's next on my list. :D

[Stacey]

I don't like either of them.I hate how they twist and add words to the Holy scriptures.I perfer the KJV and NIV.God Bless you all

This is very true - That's why it's important to have the other versions to compare. I dunno, I'm the kind of person that has to experiment or I'm curious I guess - I still really love the KJV and the original greek w/ english actually, the best. It's more accurate and I actually find the KJV easier to read - not necessarily easier to understand - but the english I find easier to read though. I was brought up on it though so perhaps that's why?

I saw a bible at the bookstore with 8 versions - I'm thinking about picking it up when I have the money.

On a side note: I was casually reading through a couple of the psalms just to compare the words to some of my favourite songs and I came across this one pretty huge difference b/w the others and the message. I checked out a couple others online -

Psalm 25:1
KJV: Unto thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul.
NKJV: Tou you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.
NIV: To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.
NLT: To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.
ESV: To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.
ASV: Under three, O Jehova, do I lift up my soul.
Message: My head is high, GOD, held high.
Amplified: Under you, O Lord, do I bring my life.
CEV: I offer you my heart, LORD God...

Thought that was interesting. I know there are many other section different as well... Not sure where they got head from...

[LoverOfMySoul]

These are two alternative translations/interpretations of the Bible which have become popular in Christian circles. What are your thoughts?

John 3:16 - King James Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 - New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 - Amplified
For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.

John 3:16 - Message
This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.


Out of the versions you have quoted right here, I read the KJV, and used the Amplified to study. NIV leaves out too much and the
Message Bible I DO NOT LIKE AT ALL!

your poll did not include neither.

[IndependenceCommand]

The Amplified is good for further understanding the intended meaning of the Hebrew or Greek text; while the Message is another decentish paraphrased version much like the NLT or its predecessor the Living Bible.

[UncleRicky]

I have both the Amplified and the Message in my home. Perhaps they are good for making you take a second look at a passage that has become too farmilliar, but personally, I can't stand either one of them. Why? Because they can be misleading and downright unscriptural. It really bothers me when I see a brother or sister in Christ using the Message as their main "Read".

There are many good modern translations available today. Use one of them instead.

Cheers,
Rick

http://unclerickysperigrinations.blogspot.com/

[Godslilgurlalways]

I haven't read either one if I did it would be amplified:)

[handmaiden97]

I have briefly heard pssages from both....I cant say I have a preference or love either really....to study in I still prefer my NKJ or NAS....but at times I have heard a passage read and it struck me as very poignant and powerful and come to find it was either a message or a Amplified....

One of my guy friends refers to the amplified bible as the womens bible cause it used several words to get a point a cross when in his opinion just one will do

[newyorknewyork]

i love the message its so easy to understand

[furry001]

I have seen passages from both of these and would not use them.

When we translate from another language, we do not put something in which the original does not say - it would belittle the work of the author. Yet when it comes to the bible it seems that it is acceptable to use words and phrases and thoughts that the original languages do not use.

[AngCath]

Read through them both, don't like either one. But, if I had to choose I'd go with the Amplified.

[WannaWitness]

If Amplified and the Message were the only Bible versions left on earth, I would seriously have to go with Amplified.

Anymore, however, I've pretty much been using KJV and NKJV.

[pokeyliz14]

Choosing one i'd go with the message. I work at a christian retailer and I often reccomend the message over the amplified. But I encourage guest to take a look at both and see which one works best for them.

[rita727]

I've read parts of Amplified, but I love The Message

[Doradmer]

I have both for refrence material.

The Amp is the one I use more and would feel better recommending. The Message is not a translation it is a paraphrase which leaves things out.

[Gukkor]

As far as eloquence is concerned, no other version can even touch the KJV. As far as which one is the best for actual study, I'd definitely say Amplified, since it doesn't try to interpret the message of the Scripture for you, instead merely showing you the options you have and allowing you to make your own call on the matter.

[appleofhiseye]

Definetly Amplified,

I don't like paraphased bibles too much (which is what the message is).
:thumbsup:

[barbaraclarke]

I use both for reading and study

[CavFan]

I've never read the Amplified Bible, but from the different translations of the verse that was provided, I prefer the Message over the Amplified.

[plum]

I own the Message, but I don't care for it very much for most things. The amplified's flow isn't so great, but I love how it just brings out mroe possibilities to the text

[krys4ever]

i love them both

[Godisgr8r]

Haven't read either.

[HiLaReE320]

The Message should not be used as a Bible... Many things in it have been changed from the original translation, like in NIV or KJV. It is dangerous and should not be used... Besides, would God want His Word watered down so much?

[Kazamataz]

I have them both but i find the message is very annoying when your trying to find a verse.

[NeeCee]

I've seen these two compared quite a bit lately, but they are actually quite different. The Amplified Bible is a translation that puts in brackets other English words that might also be good translations of a particular Greek or Hebrew word - for linguists, other English words within the semantic domain of the original Greek or Hebrew word. The Amplified Bible can help an individual reader make his/her own judgment among possible interpretations of scripture in light of several possibilities, or gain a fuller understanding of the meaning of scriptuer in its original languages without having studied them.

The Message is a paraphrase - one person's loose interpretation of scripture.

Each has its place, but they are in no way similar or comparable.
I agree. They cannot be compared. I have recently starting reading the message trans. It's helping with a play I'm writting. More than that, it helped me realize that no matter how a person says something, God know's exactly what they men. "Oh praise you Heavenly Father" "Props to you, You ARE the man".:bow:

[LoverOfMySoul]

As far as eloquence is concerned, no other version can even touch the KJV. As far as which one is the best for actual study, I'd definitely say Amplified, since it doesn't try to interpret the message of the Scripture for you, instead merely showing you the options you have and allowing you to make your own call on the matter.


you left out NEITHER

[NostalgicGranny]

Completed the poll.

[alexier]

To be Honest I love the NIV stidy bible BUT I do have an Amplified BIble and it is very good when I need the odd comment - I also have a Hot Pink Devotional Ladies Bible which really Rocks!

To answer the question though it has to be Amplified for me! :-)

[JPPT1974]

I have both as I love both
Really don't prefer one or the other!

[T3mpt3d]

Something to consider is that the Scriptures were not meant to be read in silence, but to be spoken aloud and to be heard. Not many common people could read during the time of Jesus or even many years after. Then there was only a limited number of copies of the Scriptures and they were reserved for only the most exalted priests to spread the Gospel.

Bible translations have all been meant to be read in silence, which is why they are not very dramatic. The Amplified version sounds like it should not be read in silence, but spoken aloud to the masses, just like the original scriptures were before the Bible was printed.

[DougLDS]

Haven't read either

[JPPT1974]

Bible Scriptures are meant to
Be read in silence. As they should
Be from the heart and soul.

[DefenderOfJesus]

Hey,

I think they are both great and good to get into and for some people better reading!

In His Service
Kev <>< †

[Kirkhaven]

Though I put more trust in the Amplified Bible , I find it way to cumbersome to actually read. For me at least, it acts like a thesaurus. It was put out by the Lockman foundation, the same group who released the NASB (another literal translation which is difficult to read for some).

The Message however, is a paraphrase of the the aramaic and greek texts of the scriptures. The author of it has taken some liberties in translation, but does follow the themes/thoughts of passages quite well.