I have come to appreciate Paraphrased Bibles a little more in the past little while. They do clarify alot of texts, and they are fun to read. However, they are also very dogmatic. You have to really ask yourself...."Is that what the original writer really meant. The foreword of this Bible will tell you that it is written in the language of the people, street language, just like it was written back in Bible times. But I think the real reason for these types of translations is to push the theology and bias of the translator. For instance, with this translation we are to believe that the first century christians believed that Jesus Christ was God and part of a trinity, which was not a belief of the early christians.
John 1:1, "The Word was first,
   the Word present to God,
   God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
      in readiness for God from day one."
That has to be the most confusing rendering of that scripture that I have ever read. For a paraphrase, it clarifies absolutely nothing.
To be sure that we do not think of the Son as subordinate, John 14:28 has been changed from "The Father is greater than I am" to "the Father is the goal and purpose of my life."
To tell us that John 1:1 is not confusing, John 1:18 says in The Message, "No one has ever seen God, not so much of a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day".
Oh good, no more Mystery of the Trinity. This should give us more time for the "Mystery of Sex" which is the heading for 1 Corinthians 5.
And to clarify another vague "trinity proof" text, John 8:58 has been changed to "I am who I am long before Abraham was anything."(Italics theirs)

Also, we are to believe from the foreword that people in Bible times never used God's personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh, which this translation never mentions once. It doesn't even capitalize titles like LORD or GOD where the Divine Name should appear like other Bible translations.

Other interesting scriptures from The Message:
John 10:22, "They were celebrating Hanukkah just then in Jerusalem."
Acts 8:20, "Peter said,'To hell with your money!"
Matthew 9:34, "The Pharisees were left sputtering, 'Hocus Pocus.It's nothing but Hocus Pocus."
Matthew 4:9, "They're yours-lock stock and barrel."
Matthew 4:10, "Beat it, Satan!"
1 Corinthians 6:9,10, "Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens of God's kingdom."
Acts 15:28,29, "avoid serving food offensive to Jewish Christians (blood for instance); and guard the morality of sex and marriage."

There are however some good points about The Message. I do like the references to quoted scriptures, like, "The Devil goaded him by quoting Psalm 91: 'He has placed you in the care of angels." Matthew 4

I cannot recommend The Message, even though it is quite readable. It has taken to many liberties with the text, and, if I may quote the translator out of context in his Introduction to Hebrews, he says, "we become impatiently self-important along the way and decide to improve matters with our own 2 cents worth. We add on, we supplement, we embellish. But instead of improving on the purity and simplicity of Jesus, we dilute the purity, clutter the simplicity. We become fussily religious, or anxiously religious. We get in the way."-Eugene H.Peterson

"This is great literature and great religious literature, this collection of ancient writings we call the Bible, and any translator has a deep sense of responsibility as he undertakes to transmit it to modern readers.  He desires his transcript to be faithful to the meaning of the original, so far as he can reach that meaning, and also to do some justice to its literary qualities.  But he is well aware that his aim often exceeds his grasp.  Translation may be a fascinating task, yet no discipline is more humbling.  You may be translating oracles, but soon you learn the risk and folly of posing as an oracle yourself.  If your readers are dissatisfied at any point, they may be sure that the translator is still more dissatisfied, if not there, then elsewhere -- all the more so, because, in the nature of the case, he has always to appear dogmatic in print."
 ... James Moffatt (1870-1944)

Author Robert Martin who wrote a book on dynamic equivalence states, "The dynamic equivalence translator tends to be relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a formal equivalence [Literal] translator generally does only as a matter of necessity, the dynamic equivalence translator often does as a matter of choice."