Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the original languages knows that there are certain translation points.

Christ for example, is not a name.  It is a title like king or prince.  Christ is the Greek word meaning "anointed" it is the equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah which also means "anointed."  

Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah.  In English both words mean anointed.  Therefore "The Anointed" is the English translation of The Christ or The Messiah.  It may be an unfamiliar translation.  It is not incorrect.

Angel is also a Greek word.  It is a translation of the Hebrew word Malak which means messenger.  Therefore both the Hebrew word Malak and the Greek word Angel mean, in English, "Messenger."  Again, it is unfamiliar but not incorrect.

Apostle is another Greek work.  It means "one who is sent" or "ambassador" or "emissary"  All of which are suitable English translation of the Greek word Apostle.  Here also the translation is unfamiliar but it is not incorrect.

Logos is a Greek word that most translators have rendered into English as "Word"  Greek does have definite (the) articles and indefinite (a) articles.  Only the definite article is represented by an actual word.  Indefinite articles are always implied.  In English if we meant a specific word we would say "the word" and in Greek that would be "ho logos"  In English we meant a word in general we would say "a word" whereas the Greeks would simply say "logos."

There is some thought (I don't know if it started with James Strong of if it proceeds him) that whenever the definite article appears with the Greek word logos it alters the meaning to "the expression" in which case it may point more to sound than speech.  I'm guessing that is the rationale behind the translation of logos in John 1 as it is accomplanied by the definite article.

I think that this is a poor translation as John's Gospel also places a definite article in front of logos in John 2:  22 and that would render the verse (if they maintained the translation rubric) "the voice that Jesus had spoken" which is not a very clear or sensible statement.

Most of the concern with "the Voice" is based on misleading statements made by people who do not have any knowledge of the original languages.  That and journalists writing hooks designed to get people to read their article. 

I don't have a copy of the voice, nor is it on my list of books to buy, I have a shelf full of Bibles in various translations.

Stephen, thank you for mentioning The Voice here, and revjohn, thank you for your analysis of some of the issues involved.

I downloaded a preview of The Voice on my kindle not too long ago, and enjoyed reading through it. I might eventually purchase a copy.

Rich blessings.

note: courtesy of Rob at 'its your call' , i didnt write that.

i think the purpose of the thread is to bring awareness of some issue and such is not somethign to play 'fast and loose' with.

obviously if the translation purposly alters the intent of the meaning of the regular words, and does so knowingly for palatability reason or political correctness it is not good.

obviously such is not to relay 'Word' as 'voice' to be simply 'spoken vocals', so to speak.

--------------------------------------------

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1)

¹⁴ The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.  ¹⁵ (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) ¹⁶ Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and^[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known(John 1:14-18)

------------------------------------------

commentary from 'got questions.org"

Question: "What is the anointing? What does it mean to be anointed?"

Answer: The origin of anointing was from a practice of shepherds. Lice and other insects would often get into the wool of sheep, and when they got near the sheep's head, they could burrow into the sheep's ears and kill the sheep. So, ancient shepherds poured oil on the sheep's head. This made the wool slippery, making it impossible for insects to get near the sheep's ears because they would just slide off. From this, anointing became symbolic of blessing, protection, and empowerment.

The New Testament Greek words for “anoint” are chrio, which means “to smear or rub with oil, and by implication to consecrate for office or religious service”; and aleipho, which means “to anoint.” In Bible times, people were anointed with oil to signify God’s blessing or call on that person’s life (Exodus 29:7; Exodus 40:9; 2 Kings 9:6; Ecclesiastes 9:8; James 5:14). A person was anointed for a special purpose—to be a king, to be a prophet, to be an builder, etc. There is nothing wrong with anointing a person with oil today. We just have to make sure that the purpose of anointing is in agreement with Scripture. Anointing should not be viewed as a "magic potion." The oil itself does not have any power. It is only God that can anoint a person for a specific purpose. If we use oil, it is only a symbol of what God is doing.

Another meaning for the word anointed is "chosen one." The Bible says that Jesus Christ was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit to spread the Good News and free those who have been held captive by sin (Luke 4:18-19; Acts 10:38). After Christ left the earth, He left us the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16). Now all Christians are anointed, chosen for a specific purpose in furthering God's Kingdom (1 John 2:20). "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee" (2 Corinthians 1:21-22).

-----------------------------------------------------------

from wikipedia:

Christ (Greek Χριστός (Khristós) 'anointed') is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), the Messiah, and is used as a title for Jesus in the New Testament.^[3]

Followers of Jesus became known as Christians (as in Acts 11:26) because they believed Jesus to be the messiah (Christos) prophesied in the Hebrew Bible - therefore they often call him Jesus Christ, meaning Jesus the Christos.^[4] The word was originally a title, but later became part of the name "Jesus Christ", yet it is still also used as a title, in the reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning "The Messiah Jesus".^[5] In common usage — even within secular circles — "Christ" is generally treated as synonymous with "Jesus of Nazareth".^[6]

Jesus has never been accepted by most Jews as their Messiah.^[7] Even the Canonical Gospels recount some Rejection of Jesus. Nonetheless, Nicene Christians await the Second Coming of Christ when they believe he will fulfill the rest of the Christian Messianic prophecy.

The area of Christian theology called Christology is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament.^[8]

--------------------

---------------------

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.(John 15:16)

Rob the host of the show 'its your call' wrote that , not me, personally i wouldnt waste my money on that book.

I already have a book.

mc, what do you think if a  translatoin removes, through rewording,  references to Jesus as Christ for 'palatablility' and 'understanding' purposes as it is easy for some people to disbelieve and doubt and listen to the world and science in such things as the divinity of Christ? what if , as well, such as prophecy fulfilment references through rewording and miracles andsame for miracles and such things as supernatural events or references by his words?

becomes most popular Bible in the UCC...?

maich wrote"

Christ for example, is not a name."

yes, and it seems here, some use treat it as such , as it is they dont believe in Jesus as the Christ but seem to use his name alot.... seemingly treating 'Christ' in a way that is not in its meaning, such as in a way that seems to be a last name....although, i think some dont consider it in its purposefull meaning, they just use it as they have been accustomed to without thinkning.,,?

saddening when we see such as some of those who claim to have studied through school or are in 'leadership ' roles, seem to not understand this.

maich wrote"

Apostle is another Greek work.  It means "one who is sent" or "ambassador" or "emissary"  All of which are suitable English translation of the Greek word Apostle.  Here also the translation is unfamiliar but it is not incorrect."

i thougth Apostle was to mean one of the chosen disciples who was with Christ

and Paul became one through his revelatoin in Christ and Christ desire that he help with the Gentiles?

maich wrote:"

Logos is a Greek word that most translators have rendered into English as "Word"  Greek does have definite (the) articles and indefinite (a) articles.  Only the definite article is represented by an actual word.  Indefinite articles are always implied.  In English if we meant a specific word we would say "the word" and in Greek that would be "ho logos"  In English we meant a word in general we would say "a word" whereas the Greeks would simply say "logos."

There is some thought (I don't know if it started with James Strong of if it proceeds him) that whenever the definite article appears with the Greek word logos it alters the meaning to "the expression" in which case it may point more to sound than speech.  I'm guessing that is the rationale behind the translation of logos in John 1 as it is accomplanied by the definite article.

I think that this is a poor translation as John's Gospel also places a definite article in front of logos in John 2:  22 and that would render the verse (if they maintained the translation rubric) "the voice that Jesus had spoken" which is not a very clear or sensible statement."

can you rerwrite this in a way i would understand, i dont even know what a 'pronoun' is....or maybe i do.....im thinking 'the door' and 'the' is a pronoun....

this is a example of my limitations in 'literature'/grammer  terminology and stuff.

I believe Rev John has already addressed  those points in his response, re the differing translations.  As he points out, 'Apostle' means one who is sent out.  'Emissary' means one who is sent out.  'Messiah' and 'Christ' both mean 'Anointed one.'  It is for purposes of comprehemsion, rather than some sort of 'palatability', that the words are changed.  Unless you prefer to hide a timeless message behind time-worn words, there really isn't a problem.

Then Rob is being misleading at best and dishonest at worst.  He does not indicate in his piece that he has even an elementary grasp of the language issues with respect to translation.

The translation is not playing fast and loose.  At least no more fast and loose than other translations.  Reading the Bible in the original languages is probably the only way that you aren't going to get any quickness or looseness in the translation.  As soon as the translating starts meaning gets lost.

The Anointed is an appropriate translation of both Messiah and Christ.  In fact if you look at the definitions for both you find that they both mean "The Anointed."

The same holds true with the translation of messenger for Angel and emissary for Apostle.

Translating "The Voice" for "logos" is defensible though I don't think it is the best choice among all possible choices.

In fact one could argue that the words "Christ," "angel," and "Apostle" aren't even proper translations but transliterations instead and as such they don't properly belong to any translation.

One cannot make that argument for "the Word".

Then you thought wrong.  

Apostle means "one who is sent."  When we read it in the context of scripture we understand that Peter, Paul and the rest are "sent by Jesus."  We capitalize the word Apostle to indicate that the apostle is special and not just anyone who has been sent by anyone.  We do the same thing in John 1:  1 with Word.  It isn't just any word it is a special Word.

I'll try.

Greek grammar is very different from English grammar.  Some words always use a definite article.  Some words rarely use a definite article.  In Strong's Concordance under his entry for the Greek word logos James Strong states that when logos appears with the definite article it is possible that a direct translation is not automatic.

So, when we se ho (definite article) logos  we are not limited to translate the phrase into English as "the word."  According to Strong "ho logos may mean "the Divine expression."  Strong also lists as a root for logos the Greek word lego which is a verb meaning, "to say"

It would appear that the translation team believes that there is a solid rationale for translating ho logos as "The Voice."  I haven't seen their argument to be able to offer a critique of it.  I will note that the Greek language has a very clear word for voice "phone" (pronounced foe-nay) that is not even remotely close to logos in form.

Stephenbooth ....... I do recommend reading it ... all of it.....

I suggest starting there..... and then perhaps mix in just a bit of basic study.

Of course one could always listen and learn a bit from those that have studied and contemplated the scriptures for years .......

Just a few thoughts for you....

Rita

To what you've ably said, John, I'd like to add that Aramaic is, like Arabic, a poetic language in the sense that words carry necessary allusions and layers of meaning.

And we don't easily see or "get" the associations that existed in the minds of Jesus, his followers or his listeners. In an oral tradition, those associations and allusions can be more important than the literal meaning that's given in a translation. Communication is a dynamic of the moment and oral tradition is very difficult to fully render or access outside of its parent culture.

Recent Biblical scholarship has done a lot to address these issues but, if we really want to get close to Jesus now and in the future, there'll be a whole lot of revision going on…

I've taken a quick peek at the translation team for "The Voice."  The only name that leapt out at me was Tremper Longman III. 

Anybody who lables Professor Longman a "liberal" does so only from a seriously delusional vantage point.  Longman graduated with an M.Div from Westminster Theological Seminary and after completing his M. Phil and Ph.D at Yale he went and taught at Westminster for 18 years.

Aside from a translation team "The Voice" also included a writing team which was tasked with producing a text that was extremely readable (this is always a personal preference thing).  The first name that leapt out at me from that list was Brian McLaren who is one of the leading lights in the Emerging Church movement.

McLaren describes his theological outlook as "generous."  His writing ability is part of the reason why his books move off of the shelfs as quickly as they do and that is what Nelson Publishing hired him for.

I've taken a look at several different books from the Voice (which can be done for free on their webpage). 

http://hearthevoice.com/

Translation wise, I think they have done a job worthy of being called a translation.

Readability wise, I find it awkward.

I'm not the target audience though so who cares what I think about it right?  The question will be whether those who currently have a difficult time trying to slog through the King James will find this translation to be more accessible.

Reading King James, to me, is like reading Shakespeare. I enjoy the poetic quality of it, but when I have to constantly look up words and their meanings in order to understand the context, it can be a difficult slog  sometimes. I have a copy of KJV, and I often look up verses  online to make sure I have a good understanding of what's written.

What is the name of the Bible that has several translations side by side? I know about the online version, but I was told there is a paper version that has columns with different translations, and I have forgotten what it's called. Or am I mistaken? It would be nice to have it right there in a book version rather than on the computer.

I'm currently listening to a recent Tapestry podcast of Canadian actor Kenneth Welsh reading Mark's gospel (the whole thing) from the King James Version and it is very, very Shakespearean. The reading was done in Beaches Presbyterian Church in Toronto. His reading is wonderful but definitely plays as much to the Bible as literature than the Bible as spiritual fodder (though the two are not really separable in the end).

http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2012/04/22/the-gospel-according-to-mark/

Mendalla

PS. Tapestry fans may wish to know that Tom Allen subs for Mary Hynes on this episode because she lost her husband the previous week to streptococcal pneumonia.

I believe you're thinking of what is called a 'parallel bible', with several versions printed in columns on the same page spread?