Thank you to Thomas Nelson for my copy of this new version of the New Testament. I was interested in seeing how it would compare to the many already on the market. I must report that I like the way this is handled. The language is easy to understand and furthermore, there are little boxes of additional informational material inserted throughout the text that amplify. Background material on the writer and times that enable the reader to easily relate to the topic at hand. Dialog is perhaps the easiest to understand as it's laid out in script-type format, which makes it quite clear as to who is speaking.

However, the additional little boxes of informational material are what would make me hesitate to recommend this version to a new student of the Bible. He or she might become confused and think that what is not scripture is part of God's Word. Although, I think that most people would have no difficulty discerning the difference, I would hate to be a participant in muddying up God's Word. Therefore, I will give it a thumbs up to Bible scholars, but thumbs down as a "first" Bible for anyone else. ( )

First I want to thank Thomas Nelson Publishing for sending me a copy of this work to review. I already had bought a copy from the band of the brother of the guy who started this project endeavor.

I am going to give this Bible paraphrase a rating of a solid two stars. I can't rate it as a solid four or five but let me be clear I would have loved to have done so if only it had not made one major error in its translation and interpretation philosophy. The issue I have with this work is not a translation issue per se but the underlying interpretation issue on how Jesus is viewed within the text. Before we get to the cons let us tackle the pros.Let's cover some basics first. I see this as a cross between a paraphrase and a translation/interpretation of the ancient manuscripts.

Pros: This interpretation/translation according to the VOICE website and preface attempts to create a translation that is holistic, beautiful, sensitive, and balanced. On these four goals I will judge this work.

Think of the VOICE as a multi-contributor version of Eugene Peterson's the MESSAGE. It is elegant in that it reads like a personal letter in most of the books of the NT. It embraces the literary aspect of the NT and attempts to present the ancient scripture in a fresh way for contemporary audiences. It does not say so in either the preface or website much info about the translation/interpretation team assembled for this project. It does seem as if they where trying to communicate to a post modern audience. Very similar to the vein of Eugene Peterson's The MESSAGE (which I will review at another time), the VOICE offers those who have never read the Bible or have in the past had trouble reading the Bible a new way to read the Bible in a less than formal translation method. This is not an attempt to be a literal or essentially literal translation such as the KJV, NASB, NIV, or the ESV. It's goal is to present the text in a beautiful way.

Literally it accomplishes the goal of beauty. It really is pleasurable to read. I read through the book of Hebrews and was pleasantly surprised how well the book flows for both private and public reading. Hebrews use of OT themes and theological motifs were briefly explained in the VOICE with its "mini-commentary" which is boxed and flows with the text. The mini commentary explains a very brief background of cultural settings, a theological point, or something specific about the letter in a brief paragraph written in a way in which it could be read with the text to help the reader grasp something they may not have been able to understand without it.

The Cons: As I said earlier as much as I wish I could love this translation when I got to the gospels I really got depressed with how they treated the term Christ. This book was ranking up to a 4.5 or 5 until I realized that they translated (and I use that term in its loosest sense) the title Christ as Liberating King throughout the Gospels and New Testament. In my opinion they chose this term as a interpretative view of who Jesus is not what the Scripture proclaims about him. Nowhere in the footnotes, mini-commentary, or preface does it explain how they came up with using the phrase Liberating King over the term Christ.

Some may not see why this would be such a pivotal issue. The problem is objectively Christ does not mean Liberating King. This is not a simple semantics issue. This is a deep theological issue. It never has and it never will mean Liberating King. Christ is the English version of the Greek word for Messiah (the Jewish term for Jesus). Messiah does not objectively mean Liberating King. It means "the Anointed". It is a reference to Jesus as the Anointed One of God. Jesus is God's Anointed One who does several things for his people in that role. Primarily, He is the anointed Lamb of God that was sacrificed for his people. This is why the title Christ explains who Jesus is. The name Jesus explains that he is our King who saves. Yes, he is the liberator of his people but to reduce his title to simply to the liberating King can easily lead to theological misinterpretation of who Jesus is primarily meant to be understood as. He is the sacrificial Son that was foreshadowed to Abraham in the near sacrifice of Isaac. He is the final sacrificial lamb given by God for the sins of Israel as foreshadowed in the Law given to Moses. He is the long awaited great King of his people from the tribe of David. This is the fuller concept of Messiah. The mistranslating of Christ simply to the Liberating King misses the fullness of what the NT authors and I believe the Holy Spirit who inspired them in both the Old and New Testament to call him the Christ. The original audiences would have searched out what Christ meant to the Jews but even the Roman world have known that the term Christ used meant that which "is covered in oil." To interpret Christ as the Liberating King at best misses the richness of what was originally meant by God.

At worst it opens the door for liberation theology recasting Jesus primarily as the liberator of the oppressed peoples of the Earth. So in this regard the VOICE fails in its attempt to be holistic to the author's original intent. It is not sensitive to the author's world view. It fails also to be balanced to the theology presented in the original manuscripts in its re-interpretation of what it means for Jesus to be the Christ.

Summary: As literature it is a excellent read. As it fails on three out of four of its own goals I have to give it only a two. A person can read through this translation and the Spirit of God can speak to them. Yet I believe because it so misses the mark on who Jesus is meant to be understood through the biblical concept of Christ that this translation/interpretation of scripture fails. I suggest using the ESV, NKJV, or NASB as a NT Bible translation. In those translations of the Bible you will get a better view of Jesus as the Christ. If in a future revision they translate Christ as the Anointed One I think they will have made a wonderful new addition to the world of biblical literature. Until this issue of the Liberating King is addressed though I would steer towards another translation. ( )