Review of The Voice

awww, that's one sad review . . .

 

Probably not many do care. And because the don't care, they won't recognize the unsound doctrine. And they won't recognize it because one has to understand doctrine to know when it's unsound. That is what I am finding woefully lacking in discussions at school and at church.

Generally speaking -

We no longer memorize Scripture or understand it's historic context.
We pull verses out of context.
We discuss how we feel about Scripture more than we care/understand what it factually says.

We seem to be pretty good about caring for each other to an extent and that's a good thing, but I'm not sure we are doing it for biblical reasons. It seems more social in nature.

All of these are merely my observations from discussion with people hunting books in the media center and my Bible students.

I guess I'm saying that I don't think average church goers are good enough of a Bible students to recognize poor doctrine (or when a movement has moved to cult status).

 

Thanks for the heads up. I'll like to know who those scholars, writers, pastor, etc, are.

 

Marcia,

I didn't see any names. McLaren seems to be just endorsing.

 

If the individual books as sold by Thomas Nelson are an accurate indication of the primary authors, then we know who worked directly on the Gospels and some other book in the The Voice New Testament (in order of publication)--

The Dust Off Their Feet: Lessons from the First Church (Book of Acts, Sept. 2006) - Chris Seay & Brian D. McLaren (commentay and articles by 9 scholars & pastors)

The Voice of Matthew (Jan. 2007) - Lauren Winner

The Voice of Luke: Not Even Sandals (June 2007) - Brian D. McLaren

The Voice Revealed (John's Gospel, Fall 2007) - Chris Seay

The Voice of Hebrews: The Mystery of Melchizedek (Feb. 2008) - Greg Garrett & David Capes

The Voice of Mark: Let Them Listen (March 2008) - Greg Garrett & Matthew Paul Turner

The Voice of Romans: The Gospel According to Paul (Fall 2008) - Chris Seay, David Capes & Kelly Hall​

 

It seems that the reviewer's primary criticism of The Voice is found in this statement from the website --

The Voice claims that it is "based on the earliest and best manuscripts from the original languages." However, it employs the use of italicized words that the translators admit are not in the original text. They claim that those italicised "words or sentences may contain information that would have been obvious to those originally addressed in the Gospel or letter and are meant to help the reader better understand the text without having to stop and read footnotes." It is primarily through this device that The Voice smuggles false doctrine and teaching into the Biblical text.​

But it seems the reviewer didn't notice the key word "may"; that is, not ALL the italicized words in The Voice text represent thoughts that were "obvious to those originally addressed". Some italicized words might reflect that concept, others might not. But notice that the reviewer nearly demands that every italicized word be held to the 'understood-by-the-original-audience' standard --

... Neither words are supported nor implied in the original text which leads me to ask, by what objective criteria did the translators of The Voice use to determine that these words "would have been obvious to the original readers of this Gospel?" (in referring to Verse 10)

... Again they've added these words in italics but I can see no reason why we should think that the original audience would have assumed these thoughts... (in referring to Verse 11)​

Specifically, the reviewer begins by objecting to two phrases in verse 10. The first one is "He does not call out from a distant place but draws near" (this is not found in the Greek). However, I took it as a transition from the end of verse 9 which claims that the true Light "was coming into the cosmos"; this is commentary that solidifies the concept that God was leaving Heaven in order to communicate 'up-close-and-personal' with humanity. The second phrase is "and speaks clearly" (again, these words are not supported by any underlying Greek text). But is this a doctrine or teaching that runs counter with truth or Scripture? This brings us the reviewer's comments on verse 11 (as in OP).

The reviewer complains about two more italicized phrases. The first one is "Though the Voice utters only truth." Although not supported by the Greek, is that a false statement? The second phrase is "who have heard the Voice before" which seems to indicate that the "the Voice" (Jesus) had come to the "His own people" (the Jews, who had literally heard God's voice before) and they had rejected the Messiah. The reviewer now says that --

...What is even more troubling is that the translators have Jesus speaking to us through an ‘inner calling’. This is neither supported nor implied by the Greek text yet they do not have the words 'inner calling' italicized...​

The objection may center on the treatment of the Greek word παρέλαβον (a form of paralambano, Strong's #3880) which is translated as "received" in the KJV. The term can mean to receive something transmitted. The Jewish leadership rejected Jesus' message both outwardly and inwardly (spiritually). Does the Savior reach our 'heart' (soul): externally or internally? Did Fanny Crosby mean that we should audibly hear that "Jesus is calling, is tenderly calling today"?


I am not endorsing The Voice; it is a very loose translation (perhaps even a paraphrase, depending upon how you define it). However, I am not convinced by the first portion of this particular review that there are "false doctrine and teaching" in The Voice (even though I suspect that there may be). There is more to the review which I may examine later here.