I read some citations of the MSG Bible for the first time and I felt like those verses were not very accurate as I have read in my native language (Tamil) or the New Living Translation version (I use NLT as the primary translation for reading English Bible).

So I did a quick Google search for "The Message Bible criticism" (it was a search suggestion, by the way) and found tonnes of articles that said that The Message Bible should not be regarded as a proper Bible translation.

Why is it so? And how is it available to the general public if it is not a proper translation? I am reaching out to the Scholars for an explanation.


  • The Message is a fine translation... if you speak 90s American slang fluently. Which you probably don't, even if you were an American teen in the 90s, it's just so dated now. It is a true translation (much more so than any revision of a previous translation like the NRSV) with the unusual characteristic that it prioritises authorial intent by sometimes changing metaphors (ie, if Paul was angry at those he was writing at it will make sure to translate his words such that his anger comes across vividly.)
    – curiousdannii
    May 12 '20 at 15:19
  • An unusual experimental translation which is certainly worth reading, but which shouldn't be anyone's primary translation. If English isn't your first language I'd give it a miss entirely.
    – curiousdannii
    May 12 '20 at 15:20

I wouldn't put my faith on any version of the Bible but for study I would consult different versions of the Bible, including the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.