Today, I received an unsolicited email advertisement (OK, it was spam;) for a new Bible translation called "The Voice." The translation is published by Thomas Nelson and was produced by a committee of 120 scholars. It is a modern, dynamic equivalence translation, which means it seeks to best translate each thought in the Bible rather than making a close word for word rendering. That makes it very readable, supposedly on a Middle School reading level. It also has some unique characteristics that make it, well, unique among Bibles. It renders conversations in a dialogue, screenplay style. So that Genesis 3 reads:
"Adam (pointing at the woman): It was she! The woman You gave me as a companion put the fruit in my hands, and I ate it.
“God (to the woman): What have you done?
“Eve: It was the serpent! He tricked me, and I ate.”That's kinda interesting... and it might get a little annoying after awhile. One of the criticism that has been thrown around the internet, "This Bible doesn't have "Jesus Christ" in it. No, it has "Jesus the Anointed," which is a TRANSLATION of the Greek word "Christos." King James and those who followed him transliterated Christos into English. so, contrary to what you may have heard, no the Voice does not remove Jesus Christ from the Bible. In the same way, Psalm 23 begins “The Eternal is my shepherd …” Horrors? Well, "The Lord" really stand in place of YHWH, the covenant name of God, the name Moses was given when God said, "I am that I am." So is "Eternal" not one way translate that? Of course. Is it annoying that it goes out of its way to be different? Of course. Anyway, here is a good feel for how different "The Voice" really is, a video of John 1:1-18 based on "The Voice." And of course, it starts "Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking..."
3 comments:
Readable on a middle school level? You've got to be kidding me! "Immersed in the practice of creating" is more readable than "all things were made through him"? A light that "blazes through murky bottoms" is more readable than a light that "shines in the darkness"? John was "the first to clearly articulate the
source of this Light" is more readable than John came "to bear witness of the Light"? This is the first I've heard of this translation, but I'm not impressed. It definitely wasn't written to be more readable or to be more accurate, so I'm at a loss to figure out WHY it was written (perhaps a group therapy for 120 frustrated "it was a dark and stormy night" writer wanna-bes?). Hard to see it catching on and gaining much traction among folks. At any rate, thanks for sharing the info!
I don't know Alan...I kinda like it and would consider purchasing it. But i like the message too. :)
That's the problem, I think. People who like this will also like the Message, and Peterson has already used up much of the dramatically different translations. So the Voice has to shoot for emphatically, dramatically different. I can see myself using this Bible the same way I use the Message-- when I need an illustration that takes a different approach... and someone to blame it on. ;-)
Post a Comment