Pilgrim said: There is nothing wrong with any man "interpreting" the Bible... it's given to men to do just that; interpret and apply, but rightly. However, there is a chasmic difference between writing a commentary on the Bible's teachings and peddling it as THE Bible. Those who claim that their "interpretation" is a "translation" are guilty of 1) denigrating, diminishing or even denying divine inspiration and/or 2) deceit. All too often in the contemporary "church" the distinction between preaching/teaching the Word and translating the Word is transgressed. It is not the translators responsibility to manipulate the inspired text so as to make more "readable", but rather to be faithful to the text. Let Pastors, Elders, Bible teachers, etc., start with a faithful rendering of the original languages and expound upon it to others.
I agree fully here. The Message is simply how he interprets the Bible for the modern culture. From my understanding in the introduction of The Message, it makes no bones about being a paraphrase. It's the silly marketers and the uneducated who claim it to be an actual Bible. That only means that "Pastors, Elders, Bible teachers, etc." need to start explaining to their congregations and students what The Message really is.
I don't know that this makes The Message unusable, though. I think it is useful, when the proper attitude is held toward it.
