The Voice

I would love to see this in Logos!

There's too many biased versions in the Logos software already. Why can't they instead include a less biased version: 1989 Revised English Bible, that is also used more and more complete?

Why can't they instead include a less biased version: 1989 Revised English Bible

Presumably because it's published by Oxford University Press. Logos hasn't been able to contract anything from OUP for years. I don't know if they refuse to work with Logos anymore, or if they simply make demands that Logos can't meet, but something is clearly wrong between them. And I'm pretty sure it's not for Logos' lack of trying. Many of the most asked for books are published by OUP, so Logos has some very good incentives for trying their very best.

There's too many biased versions in the Logos software

Every version is "biased." There is no such thing as an "unbiased" translation. Calling one translation as more "accurate" reveals ones personal biases. NOTE: the "biases" may be more doctrinal (i.e. one prefers translations that are perceived to agree with doctrinal positions) or philosophical (i.e. one prefers translations that use preferred translation methods).

For the uninformed (like me):

http://www.thomasnelson.com/the-voice-new-testament-1.html

and why it's a little different:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-english-translation-of-bible-omits-jesus-christ-apostle-73325/

and why it's a little different:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-english-translation-of-bible-omits-jesus-christ-apostle-73325/

The money-quote:  

"Unfortunately, not since the release of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures in 1950 has there been a bible published that so blatantly mangles and distorts God's Word in order to support a peculiar and aberrant theological agenda," reads a review on ET's site.

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" translation.

Correct.  I've heard on theologian say it this way: "Every translation is in fact a commentary."

That may be pushing the edges, but it gets the point across.

The Voice does not take out Jesus Christ but translates Christ as "The Annointed One" which is what it means. Here is a link that further explains: http://www.christianpost.com/news/theologians-ok-with-bible-translation-replacing-jesus-christ-angel-73556/

This all started when CNN and USA Today published articles with a very provocative but inaccurate title.

Wasn't my intent to imply criticism in the above refs; just hadn't heard of it before. And indeed I frequently make the conversion of 'Christ' and 'annointed'.

I will say, though 'messiah' and 'Christ' are not likely equivalents in the NT when written (emphasis on 'likely'). Though indeed language-wise they're equivalents and probably for today's theologians they're the same also.

@alabama24 & Doc B: Yeah I know those things. I know many things about Bibles. I can imagine some things OUP and Logos might disagree.

Revised English Bible is in Pre-Pub. Go ahead and order so we can download!
http://www.logos.com/product/24537/the-revised-english-bible-with-the-apocrypha 

Several threads criticizing a new translation. That is nothing new. I have enjoyed reading my paperback copy. The answer to "they removed Christ" is simple. They made a conscious  choice not to transliterate anything. They do not transliterate "baptism" before Acts chapter 2 either. But after that they use baptism to differentiate between the ritual cleansing and the ordinance/sacrament of Christian baptism.They italicize anything used to "amplify" the text. Does not the KJV even use this same translation technique? There are plenty of footnotes documenting many translation choices. There is a half page explaining why they translated the beginning of John the way they did. They do not hide the fact that it is a dynamic equivalence and not a formal equivalence translation.

I wonder is those being so critical have even read much from the translation? This thread went from a question posted as a request to have this added to Logos to attacking the translation and hijacking the thread to promote the REB.

I am about as theologically conservative a Baptist as they come and I am re-asking the question: Are there any plans to include "The Voice" by Thomas Nelson publishing house?

I will buy it if it is added.

At one time in the forums the users agreed that we wouldn't disparage others' suggestions. We would add comments that we also wanted it or provide links to reviews or add additional suggestions to the thread.

Given the recent problems with tone of posts in the forums, I would suggest that at least until things have settled down, we go back to something similar to that agreement. It may help get the tone of the forums back to normal - both its best and its warts.

Just my thought - not even as strong as a request.

PS. I think I would also buy the translation.

Any idea when or if this translation will be included? What may be holding this addition up? 

Any idea when or if this translation will be included? What may be holding this addition up? 

Welcome to the forums. Logos rarely tells us of a resource until they have negotiated rights to it and it appears in pre-pub.

Appreciate it, Thx. 

PLEASE make the Voice Translation available

For those of you who do not know THE VOICE BIBLE is available on VYRSO:

https://vyrso.com/product/51584/the-voice-bible-step-into-the-story-of-scripture 

Amen to this post!

For general information: this edition is not Typed as a Bible, it has no Bible index, and its text is not tagged as Bible Text. Please save the litanies about Vyrso and low quality expectations: I know all about that, and take full responsibility for my purchase. Just providing a little public service announcement. Perhaps I imagined that for 50% more than Logos sells actual (typed) Bibles, this might be different.

Every version is "biased." There is no such thing as an "unbiased" translation. Calling one translation as more "accurate" reveals ones personal biases. NOTE: the "biases" may be more doctrinal (i.e. one prefers translations that are perceived to agree with doctrinal positions) or philosophical (i.e. one prefers translations that use preferred translation methods).

I would agree with you 100%, but to also say that - speaking from the philosophical line of argumentation - many would contend, that the more literal-leaning translations could arguably be considered more "accurate" on their surface than those that are dynamically "equivalent," as the margin of error could be much less significant in the literal-leaning realm where subjectivism is thought not to play as prominent a role in the translation process. Im not saying thats a reality, but some could at least make a cursory case for such a thought, as do many scholars, like Walter Kaiser (who chaired the NIV translation team). 

Given the recent problems with tone of posts in the forums, I would suggest that at least until things have settled down, we go back to something similar to that agreement. It may help get the tone of the forums back to normal - both its best and its warts.

Amen MJ. There have been times I have avoided the forums for months due to criticism, divisiveness, cruelty, etc. Those types of posts really bother me (NOT that thats the case here in this thread - you just reminded me of several cruel things folks have said to me on here). I guess I'm still a little naive...I tend to think that people won't act like that in a forum about BIBLE STUDY. But, then again, we are just humans, living in a fallen world! 

But I think here's some good advice to follow: 

https://youtu.be/I71cY9Ysy5U

If you check out the distinction's original intent literal translations are intended for an audience that understand the culture of the original text; dynamic translations are for those to which the original cultural milieu is "foreign"  ... one of those tidbits one finds when reading textbooks on translation theory.