What do you think of "The Message"?

I can think of no worse a translation (or transliteration of a translation), than The Message. Another corrupt translation is the New World Translation (the Jehovah's Witnesses Translation).

How can you have an inaccurate interpretation?

You can have an inaccurate translation as in the JW's NWT but never an inaccurate interpretation!

The message is Eugine Peterson's thoughts, in English, on what was the intended meaning of what the writers of the bible where saying in their street language at that time.

If we were to still speak the street Greek spoken by the NT writers we would have a perfect understanding of the meanings conveyed in all the writings. But the language has been dead for too many years to be 100% sure of the intentions of some of the verses in the NT.

Eugine Peterson has no intention of his book being an accurate translation of the writings but just how he understands the meaning would be understood.

I love the rendering of many of the NT verses, like John 3:16 and while I have disagreed with some of his understandings, I believe it is one of the best ways to understand the gist of what was intended by the writers.

It's inaccurate for those who have another interpretation. It's good, but also, I don't always like it. I prefer the NASB and KJV or NKJV.

Translation at same time language is easy, however translation of now 50 year ago language becomes incredibly complex.

First the word needs to be understood - its actual meaning but also its usage in meaning.

let me give you an example:

He has a cross to carry <-> He has a chip on his shoulder.

A cross in roman times was the shape of a sword handle, to pick up your cross meant go get your weapons, if you have a cross to carry you were angry, hence you might be thinking WTF.

But its an accurate modern - old translation, you need to remember the Roman word for cross was not cross - A roman crucifixion is described first drive a steak into the ground, nail hands above head, nail feet it was a single post! Sometimes if you were really bad, they would put you on a T BAR - you died slower usually from dehydration and in pain. But they were NOT called crosses, as they did NOT CROSS.

a CRUX - A sword named by its handle shape.

It was not till 10th century the word CROSS existed to describe the ancient torture device used for crucifiction.

Therefore when jesus mentions CROSS - he is using the wrong word. He can only be referring to a sword.

It is one person's interpretation.

There are spots where it is very good, and others . . .

I'm not a big fan.

While it's easy to understand, i'm not so sure that it really captures entire meanings.

(just my opinion)

I agree..my sister Maud.. said that her dad can't come into work today because he has to see his silly sister...on the phone to his boss

when father asked ..did you tell my boss that I can't come into work today because I have to see my solicitor