A Good useful book..................but, 29 Aug 2008
This is certainly a good introduction to reading and studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to cover in one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as and when you need to some guidance on a particular genre of literature.

When this book was originally publish it was quite dry, but the latest edition has been made more readable.

The recommended commentary list in the back of the book is not the best. For better help on choosing commentaries see my other reviews.

In the original book there was a definite bias towards the NIV as the best translation. This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study. I have no problem about authors having a preference for a particular translation. I just wish they would be more up front about their motives!

Do they have any conection with NIV/TNIV translation commitees? This book is published by Zondervan the publisher of NIV/TNIV.

Perhaps this book should called How to Read the TNIV for all its Worth!

Not for me..., 18 Oct 2007
Personally I really don't get on with this book. Arguably I should have rated it much lower, but I'll concede I'm no theologian and these men know far more than me.

I'm bugged by two points:

1. They consistently argue for good exegesis and how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, which in turn must also have been something his readers could have understood it to mean". The authors do not explain how this squares with what is written in the book of Daniel and his assertation towards the end of Chapter 12 that he heard the explanation given but still did not understand what he had been shown. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the authors would argue that one away with the old "Daniel is just literary fiction" (they do state that Revelation is the only non-pseudonymous apocalypse) - to me this flies in the face of what is written in Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15). Clearly, to me, Jesus attributes authorship of the book of Daniel to the prophet Daniel and states that this portion was yet future in circa 30 AD when these words were spoken. However, then you turn to the Gospels chapter where the authors explain that Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew came along used Mark's with some embellishment (they state this as fact, despite the fact that it is only since modern critical studies have been done that any doubt as to the authorship of Matthew started - opinion among academics is still divided apparently). So, this book - to my mind - at least takes you round in circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did and they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believe in God at all, he doesn't seem to be able to communicate with anyone - so people start making up stories (much is made of Holy Spirit inspiration I'll concede )...

2. The authors are preoccupied with the NIV. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad translation, but I'm certain it isn't perfect.

After reading this book I did a little digging and discovered that the King James Version comes to us via something called the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text (the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches). In the late-nighteenth century Westcott and Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done and the KJV and Textus Receptus fell out of favour. Modern translations tend to use what is called the Majority Text made up of a consensus of existing Greek translations (however many of these are late and none is earlier that the fifth century). The Majority Text is very similar to the Textus Receptus except with regard to Revelation. I was therefore left with the nagging worry that if there was no evidence that the Textus Receptus had been edited in the fourth century and that the Majority Text which was quite recent in comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect and I had better equip myself with a translation of the Textus Receptus so that I knew what the NIV was leaving - don't be fooled by those little notes that say "the best texts say" or "some texts say" - who's to say what's "best" they haven't backed up their decision with an explanation for that decision - for instance whether at this point they're referring to an Alexandrian text such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus(Alexandria was a hotbed for Arianism heresies incidentally).

As a direct result of reading this book I went out an bought a copy of the NKJV, despite the authors exhortations that I should read almost any modern translation but it......







What sort of book is this?, 17 Jan 2003
If there is any book modern people need to be able to read intelligently, it is the Bible. It hads had more impact on the West, and the world, than any other work of literature.

The crucial question when you read a book is: what sort of book is this? What was the author actually trying to say?

McFee and Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask and answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, and hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.

The book is short, clear and practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions and misconceptions which surround any "religious" book and reach a balanced conclusion as to how to respond to it.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone intending to read the Bible, whether or not you have read it before, regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim or any other sort of religious believer, or an interested non-believer.

Excellent, useful, evangelical approach to bible study, 03 Dec 2002
The title says it all; but I would stress that this is not a book to read cover-to-cover. I would suggest instead reading the chapter that is appropriate to the part of the Bible that you are now reading, or want to study; for example, is it a gospel, and epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literature in the Bible, and the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological bias in interpretation, and so on.

Thought-provoking and stuffed with useful information, ideas and advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.

Excellent conservative introduction to biblical reading, 17 Jan 2002
Fee and Stuart do a fine job at introducing scripture's themes and genres for the lay person. Their approach to different passages is very readable and practically orientated. There is a useful appendix recommending good commentaries, also.

A Good useful book..................but, 29 Aug 2008
This is certainly a good introduction to reading and studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to cover in one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as and when you need to some guidance on a particular genre of literature.

When this book was originally publish it was quite dry, but the latest edition has been made more readable.

The recommended commentary list in the back of the book is not the best. For better help on choosing commentaries see my other reviews.

In the original book there was a definite bias towards the NIV as the best translation. This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study. I have no problem about authors having a preference for a particular translation. I just wish they would be more up front about their motives!

Do they have any conection with NIV/TNIV translation commitees? This book is published by Zondervan the publisher of NIV/TNIV.

Perhaps this book should called How to Read the TNIV for all its Worth!

Not for me..., 18 Oct 2007
Personally I really don't get on with this book. Arguably I should have rated it much lower, but I'll concede I'm no theologian and these men know far more than me.

I'm bugged by two points:

1. They consistently argue for good exegesis and how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, which in turn must also have been something his readers could have understood it to mean". The authors do not explain how this squares with what is written in the book of Daniel and his assertation towards the end of Chapter 12 that he heard the explanation given but still did not understand what he had been shown. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the authors would argue that one away with the old "Daniel is just literary fiction" (they do state that Revelation is the only non-pseudonymous apocalypse) - to me this flies in the face of what is written in Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15). Clearly, to me, Jesus attributes authorship of the book of Daniel to the prophet Daniel and states that this portion was yet future in circa 30 AD when these words were spoken. However, then you turn to the Gospels chapter where the authors explain that Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew came along used Mark's with some embellishment (they state this as fact, despite the fact that it is only since modern critical studies have been done that any doubt as to the authorship of Matthew started - opinion among academics is still divided apparently). So, this book - to my mind - at least takes you round in circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did and they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believe in God at all, he doesn't seem to be able to communicate with anyone - so people start making up stories (much is made of Holy Spirit inspiration I'll concede )...

2. The authors are preoccupied with the NIV. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad translation, but I'm certain it isn't perfect.

After reading this book I did a little digging and discovered that the King James Version comes to us via something called the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text (the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches). In the late-nighteenth century Westcott and Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done and the KJV and Textus Receptus fell out of favour. Modern translations tend to use what is called the Majority Text made up of a consensus of existing Greek translations (however many of these are late and none is earlier that the fifth century). The Majority Text is very similar to the Textus Receptus except with regard to Revelation. I was therefore left with the nagging worry that if there was no evidence that the Textus Receptus had been edited in the fourth century and that the Majority Text which was quite recent in comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect and I had better equip myself with a translation of the Textus Receptus so that I knew what the NIV was leaving - don't be fooled by those little notes that say "the best texts say" or "some texts say" - who's to say what's "best" they haven't backed up their decision with an explanation for that decision - for instance whether at this point they're referring to an Alexandrian text such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus(Alexandria was a hotbed for Arianism heresies incidentally).

As a direct result of reading this book I went out an bought a copy of the NKJV, despite the authors exhortations that I should read almost any modern translation but it......







What sort of book is this?, 17 Jan 2003
If there is any book modern people need to be able to read intelligently, it is the Bible. It hads had more impact on the West, and the world, than any other work of literature.

The crucial question when you read a book is: what sort of book is this? What was the author actually trying to say?

McFee and Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask and answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, and hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.

The book is short, clear and practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions and misconceptions which surround any "religious" book and reach a balanced conclusion as to how to respond to it.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone intending to read the Bible, whether or not you have read it before, regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim or any other sort of religious believer, or an interested non-believer.

Excellent, useful, evangelical approach to bible study, 03 Dec 2002
The title says it all; but I would stress that this is not a book to read cover-to-cover. I would suggest instead reading the chapter that is appropriate to the part of the Bible that you are now reading, or want to study; for example, is it a gospel, and epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literature in the Bible, and the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological bias in interpretation, and so on.

Thought-provoking and stuffed with useful information, ideas and advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.

Excellent conservative introduction to biblical reading, 17 Jan 2002
Fee and Stuart do a fine job at introducing scripture's themes and genres for the lay person. Their approach to different passages is very readable and practically orientated. There is a useful appendix recommending good commentaries, also.

readable, a must read., 16 May 2008
Having read earlierl translations before, this is writen in a refreshingly easy and accesable way. There are no "thee"s or "thow"s the language is modern without being "slang or street."
The power of the "word" is retained and this "translation should be added to the list of books to read before you....if you were afraid of buying or receiving a bible try this one.
A small, two collum edition is available which is hand-bag bumbag sized.easy to dip into. (I keep one in the car.)

A Good useful book..................but, 29 Aug 2008
This is certainly a good introduction to reading and studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to cover in one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as and when you need to some guidance on a particular genre of literature.

When this book was originally publish it was quite dry, but the latest edition has been made more readable.

The recommended commentary list in the back of the book is not the best. For better help on choosing commentaries see my other reviews.

In the original book there was a definite bias towards the NIV as the best translation. This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study. I have no problem about authors having a preference for a particular translation. I just wish they would be more up front about their motives!

Do they have any conection with NIV/TNIV translation commitees? This book is published by Zondervan the publisher of NIV/TNIV.

Perhaps this book should called How to Read the TNIV for all its Worth!

Not for me..., 18 Oct 2007
Personally I really don't get on with this book. Arguably I should have rated it much lower, but I'll concede I'm no theologian and these men know far more than me.

I'm bugged by two points:

1. They consistently argue for good exegesis and how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, which in turn must also have been something his readers could have understood it to mean". The authors do not explain how this squares with what is written in the book of Daniel and his assertation towards the end of Chapter 12 that he heard the explanation given but still did not understand what he had been shown. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the authors would argue that one away with the old "Daniel is just literary fiction" (they do state that Revelation is the only non-pseudonymous apocalypse) - to me this flies in the face of what is written in Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15). Clearly, to me, Jesus attributes authorship of the book of Daniel to the prophet Daniel and states that this portion was yet future in circa 30 AD when these words were spoken. However, then you turn to the Gospels chapter where the authors explain that Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew came along used Mark's with some embellishment (they state this as fact, despite the fact that it is only since modern critical studies have been done that any doubt as to the authorship of Matthew started - opinion among academics is still divided apparently). So, this book - to my mind - at least takes you round in circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did and they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believe in God at all, he doesn't seem to be able to communicate with anyone - so people start making up stories (much is made of Holy Spirit inspiration I'll concede )...

2. The authors are preoccupied with the NIV. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad translation, but I'm certain it isn't perfect.

After reading this book I did a little digging and discovered that the King James Version comes to us via something called the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text (the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches). In the late-nighteenth century Westcott and Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done and the KJV and Textus Receptus fell out of favour. Modern translations tend to use what is called the Majority Text made up of a consensus of existing Greek translations (however many of these are late and none is earlier that the fifth century). The Majority Text is very similar to the Textus Receptus except with regard to Revelation. I was therefore left with the nagging worry that if there was no evidence that the Textus Receptus had been edited in the fourth century and that the Majority Text which was quite recent in comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect and I had better equip myself with a translation of the Textus Receptus so that I knew what the NIV was leaving - don't be fooled by those little notes that say "the best texts say" or "some texts say" - who's to say what's "best" they haven't backed up their decision with an explanation for that decision - for instance whether at this point they're referring to an Alexandrian text such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus(Alexandria was a hotbed for Arianism heresies incidentally).

As a direct result of reading this book I went out an bought a copy of the NKJV, despite the authors exhortations that I should read almost any modern translation but it......







What sort of book is this?, 17 Jan 2003
If there is any book modern people need to be able to read intelligently, it is the Bible. It hads had more impact on the West, and the world, than any other work of literature.

The crucial question when you read a book is: what sort of book is this? What was the author actually trying to say?

McFee and Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask and answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, and hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.

The book is short, clear and practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions and misconceptions which surround any "religious" book and reach a balanced conclusion as to how to respond to it.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone intending to read the Bible, whether or not you have read it before, regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim or any other sort of religious believer, or an interested non-believer.

Excellent, useful, evangelical approach to bible study, 03 Dec 2002
The title says it all; but I would stress that this is not a book to read cover-to-cover. I would suggest instead reading the chapter that is appropriate to the part of the Bible that you are now reading, or want to study; for example, is it a gospel, and epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literature in the Bible, and the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological bias in interpretation, and so on.

Thought-provoking and stuffed with useful information, ideas and advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.

Excellent conservative introduction to biblical reading, 17 Jan 2002
Fee and Stuart do a fine job at introducing scripture's themes and genres for the lay person. Their approach to different passages is very readable and practically orientated. There is a useful appendix recommending good commentaries, also.

readable, a must read., 16 May 2008
Having read earlierl translations before, this is writen in a refreshingly easy and accesable way. There are no "thee"s or "thow"s the language is modern without being "slang or street."
The power of the "word" is retained and this "translation should be added to the list of books to read before you....if you were afraid of buying or receiving a bible try this one.
A small, two collum edition is available which is hand-bag bumbag sized.easy to dip into. (I keep one in the car.)

Excelent, 04 Sep 2008
This is an excellent translation. Its language is simple and dignified.Its a real pleasure to read.

No apologetics, 17 Jan 2008
A good translation of any text simply should try to give the meanings of the original words and sentences, as far as this is possible. But since the Bible is a document of enormous significance in both culture and politics, it's inevitable that some translations try to impose a specific interpretation on it.

For the most part, the NRSV does not do this. As an example, Isaiah 7:14 is a famous passage that has been mistranslated in many Bibles, using the word "virgin" when in fact "young woman" is correct - and this is theologically significant since the Gospel of Matthew quotes the (incorrect) Greek translation of the text, which at that time did read "virgin".

Now, if you see the Bible as infallible and inerrant, you will not like this translation (try instead the New International Version). But if, on the other hand, you want a translation that simply tries to faithfully translate the original text, and makes no effort to resolve apparent contradictions, the NRSV is for you.

My only concern is that it might try too hard in its use of gender-neutral language, however this is a relatively minor quibble.

A Good useful book..................but, 29 Aug 2008
This is certainly a good introduction to reading and studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to cover in one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as and when you need to some guidance on a particular genre of literature.

When this book was originally publish it was quite dry, but the latest edition has been made more readable.

The recommended commentary list in the back of the book is not the best. For better help on choosing commentaries see my other reviews.

In the original book there was a definite bias towards the NIV as the best translation. This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study. I have no problem about authors having a preference for a particular translation. I just wish they would be more up front about their motives!

Do they have any conection with NIV/TNIV translation commitees? This book is published by Zondervan the publisher of NIV/TNIV.

Perhaps this book should called How to Read the TNIV for all its Worth!

Not for me..., 18 Oct 2007
Personally I really don't get on with this book. Arguably I should have rated it much lower, but I'll concede I'm no theologian and these men know far more than me.

I'm bugged by two points:

1. They consistently argue for good exegesis and how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, which in turn must also have been something his readers could have understood it to mean". The authors do not explain how this squares with what is written in the book of Daniel and his assertation towards the end of Chapter 12 that he heard the explanation given but still did not understand what he had been shown. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the authors would argue that one away with the old "Daniel is just literary fiction" (they do state that Revelation is the only non-pseudonymous apocalypse) - to me this flies in the face of what is written in Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15). Clearly, to me, Jesus attributes authorship of the book of Daniel to the prophet Daniel and states that this portion was yet future in circa 30 AD when these words were spoken. However, then you turn to the Gospels chapter where the authors explain that Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew came along used Mark's with some embellishment (they state this as fact, despite the fact that it is only since modern critical studies have been done that any doubt as to the authorship of Matthew started - opinion among academics is still divided apparently). So, this book - to my mind - at least takes you round in circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did and they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believe in God at all, he doesn't seem to be able to communicate with anyone - so people start making up stories (much is made of Holy Spirit inspiration I'll concede )...

2. The authors are preoccupied with the NIV. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad translation, but I'm certain it isn't perfect.

After reading this book I did a little digging and discovered that the King James Version comes to us via something called the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text (the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches). In the late-nighteenth century Westcott and Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done and the KJV and Textus Receptus fell out of favour. Modern translations tend to use what is called the Majority Text made up of a consensus of existing Greek translations (however many of these are late and none is earlier that the fifth century). The Majority Text is very similar to the Textus Receptus except with regard to Revelation. I was therefore left with the nagging worry that if there was no evidence that the Textus Receptus had been edited in the fourth century and that the Majority Text which was quite recent in comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect and I had better equip myself with a translation of the Textus Receptus so that I knew what the NIV was leaving - don't be fooled by those little notes that say "the best texts say" or "some texts say" - who's to say what's "best" they haven't backed up their decision with an explanation for that decision - for instance whether at this point they're referring to an Alexandrian text such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus(Alexandria was a hotbed for Arianism heresies incidentally).

As a direct result of reading this book I went out an bought a copy of the NKJV, despite the authors exhortations that I should read almost any modern translation but it......







What sort of book is this?, 17 Jan 2003
If there is any book modern people need to be able to read intelligently, it is the Bible. It hads had more impact on the West, and the world, than any other work of literature.

The crucial question when you read a book is: what sort of book is this? What was the author actually trying to say?

McFee and Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask and answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, and hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.

The book is short, clear and practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions and misconceptions which surround any "religious" book and reach a balanced conclusion as to how to respond to it.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone intending to read the Bible, whether or not you have read it before, regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim or any other sort of religious believer, or an interested non-believer.

Excellent, useful, evangelical approach to bible study, 03 Dec 2002
The title says it all; but I would stress that this is not a book to read cover-to-cover. I would suggest instead reading the chapter that is appropriate to the part of the Bible that you are now reading, or want to study; for example, is it a gospel, and epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literature in the Bible, and the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological bias in interpretation, and so on.

Thought-provoking and stuffed with useful information, ideas and advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.

Excellent conservative introduction to biblical reading, 17 Jan 2002
Fee and Stuart do a fine job at introducing scripture's themes and genres for the lay person. Their approach to different passages is very readable and practically orientated. There is a useful appendix recommending good commentaries, also.

readable, a must read., 16 May 2008
Having read earlierl translations before, this is writen in a refreshingly easy and accesable way. There are no "thee"s or "thow"s the language is modern without being "slang or street."
The power of the "word" is retained and this "translation should be added to the list of books to read before you....if you were afraid of buying or receiving a bible try this one.
A small, two collum edition is available which is hand-bag bumbag sized.easy to dip into. (I keep one in the car.)

Excelent, 04 Sep 2008
This is an excellent translation. Its language is simple and dignified.Its a real pleasure to read.

No apologetics, 17 Jan 2008
A good translation of any text simply should try to give the meanings of the original words and sentences, as far as this is possible. But since the Bible is a document of enormous significance in both culture and politics, it's inevitable that some translations try to impose a specific interpretation on it.

For the most part, the NRSV does not do this. As an example, Isaiah 7:14 is a famous passage that has been mistranslated in many Bibles, using the word "virgin" when in fact "young woman" is correct - and this is theologically significant since the Gospel of Matthew quotes the (incorrect) Greek translation of the text, which at that time did read "virgin".

Now, if you see the Bible as infallible and inerrant, you will not like this translation (try instead the New International Version). But if, on the other hand, you want a translation that simply tries to faithfully translate the original text, and makes no effort to resolve apparent contradictions, the NRSV is for you.

My only concern is that it might try too hard in its use of gender-neutral language, however this is a relatively minor quibble.

The Bible, 05 Apr 2007
Through the ages, the most influential and powerful book of all.

A book in two parts: the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament was for the most part written between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC and is the primary document of Judaism. Written mainly in Hebrew, it was translated into Greek, then into Latin around 400 AD. Creation, Adam and Eve, the fall, the flood, Abraham, the laws of Moses, the Kings and Prophets of Israel....man struggles to enter a relationship with God and abide by certain rules.

The New Testament was written as a result of the life and death of Jesus. First to be written were letters to His followers in the immediate aftermath of His death, expecting His imminent return. After this followed the four Gospels by 90AD, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, teling the story of His life; then the Acts of the Apostles describes how the early Church was established and spread.

Biblical archaeology confirms the existence of many people, places and events mentioned in the Bible. That Jesus Himself actually existed is a documented historical fact. It is the interpretation of the Bible that has divided the world. Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament is fully inspired by God but that in Jesus the Law was fulfilled and superseded by the new covenant - "not of the letter but of the spirit".

Most of the New Testament was also written originally in Greek. In 1611, during the reign of James I, the Bible was translated into English - formerly it had been read in Latin, hence distancing ordinary people from it. Translating it had hitherto been a crime punishable by death. The King James, or Authorised Version of the Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version, are seen as literal translations of Hebrew and Greek which have idioms and concepts not easily rendered in English; whereas translations like the New International Version are seen as more "user friendly". Divisions into chapter and verse are medieval Christian additions.

Much of literature and art cannot be understood without knowing the Bible and this version particularly has resounded down the ages, inspiring the works of many famous authors and artists. The ethical codes it contains summarise the basis of human moral conduct.

If anyone is reading this for the first time and doesn't know where to start, Matthew and the other Gospels are a good place. They are the basic story of Jesus, His life, teachings and death. Followed by the accounts of those who met Him again, alive, after His burial. This is where the familiar sermon on the mount, parables, and miracles are found. At the time Israel was under Roman occupation and Jesus offers such advice as "go the second mile" - it was law that a Roman soldier could order a Jew to carry his pack for a mile. His basic message could be summarised as "do as you would be done by".

After this read the letters, mainly written by Paul, who started out as Saul, initially persecuting Christians. Corinthians is a good letter to start with, I Corinthians 13 might be familiar - just substitute the word "love" for "charity". After Paul had travelled around the Mediterranean he wrote to the new converts to cheer and inspire them, his conviction that Jesus had overthrown the yoke of the exacting Jewish Law profoundly affecting the development of the whole of future Christianity. He also contributed his profound wisdom and insights - "now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face".

Acts tells how the message was spread once the radical decision had been taken that non-Jews could be included in the good news as they saw it. It is important that right from the start they realised the message was a contentious one and many would reject it. In that case they were told, "shake the dust from your shoes and move on". While the Gospels tell us that God expends all the energy He has looking for lost people, it is a glaring truth in the New Testament that in many cases those most blessed with material gifts and worldly status would be most blind and deaf.

The Old Testament has some cracking stories - start with Genesis and then the stories of the Kings and Prophets of Israel. Job is a good one for the old chestnut of "why does God allow suffering". I'm biased towards this translation; but don't get bogged down with all the begattings and smiting and cubits and all those stiff necked people....

It is an interesting linguistic, theological, and human point, that Jesus called God not Father, but "daddy". His relationship of trust with God made Him positive of God's forgiveness for everyone who asks for it. Even the blackest of black hearts has the chance of forgiveness - and it is not we humans who make that decision, but God.

For anther series of books with a creation, fall, Kings and Queens, fight against good and evil and resurrection - also with a God-like figure only visible to some - try the Narnia books. Easier to read I'll have to admit!

Top Hokum, 01 Apr 2007
This book has inspired a plethora of tv and film adaptations, and it is through these that most readers will be familiar with the plot and characters. Admittedly the majority of these have focussed on the part in the story where the character of Jesus is crucified; but this is a shame as the book has a true epic sweep which encompasses an abundance of sophisticated plotting, laden with metaphorical detail. It is true that some of the characters are, sadly, rather briefly drawn and for this reason lack the emotional depth which could have been so compelling. The character Lot being a case in point (some have suggested that the same criticism could be applied to the 'God' character - but i think this is unfair and that a closer reading of the text reveals a multi-facteted sophisticated characterisation).
Utilising a clever literary joke, the author goes one step better than writing under a simple pseudonym by incororating the pseudonym 'God'into the story itself thereby creating a whole dimension of reality, on which the book is presented as the ultimate treatise.
This being a very long book ('war and peace' resembles a pamphlet in comparison) space here does not permit a fuller account, but suffice it to say that this book definately warrants a quick flick through at the very least... and if there are any film makers out there i always thought that the life of Mash deserved a fuller treatment on the silver screen.

In the beginning?, 14 Jan 2007
A collection of Bronze Age myths from the Middle East, based around the most unpleasant character in fiction. As illustration, we might look at Numbers 16; 32 - 36 in which a man whose only 'crime' is to gather sticks on the sabbath is put painfully to death 'as the LORD commanded'. Sadly this is by no means the only example of the petty jealousy and intolerance of the god of these myths - these pages are full of similar events. The problem here is that these stories are not treated as we treat the myths of ancient Assyria, Egypt, Greece etc; many people outside the Bronze Age actually believe in them and derive a 'moral' stance from them that they impose on more enlightened post-Bronze Age folk such as those of us who inhabit the early 21st Century.
Having said that, this King James translation has a central place in English literature and has lent many phrases to the language: an eye for an eye; the apple of his eye; your sin will find you out etc. Worth reading as literature and for the richness of its language; as a manual for living by it is to be assiduously avoided.

Mediocre Work Of Fiction, 06 Nov 2006
Basically a collection of tales of the fantastic, outdated and with little relevance today. Apparntly this work has inspired some sort of religious following, though how anyone these days can believe in any sort of omnipotent God defies belief.
A few interesting tales, but all very moralistic (as you would expect), and quite insular as well. It is always dangerous to try and control people by trying to force them to live under the tenets of any religion, and these 10 commandments are also a little far fetched.
'Thou shalt not covet graven images?' where did that one come from. But on a rather more serious note, it is quotes like that which make this book rather dangerous. It dismisses all other religions and does not preach any kind of tolerance. No wonder our world is in the state it is.

huzzah!, 14 May 2006
I am an agnostic, but found The Bible a great read. Stories and perhaps true events are symbolic and powerful, I finished breathless and a different man. Even if you are not a christian, The Bible can teach you many valuable lessons and help you understand an entire culture and philsophy.

The best-known and best-loved stories from the Old and New Testaments have been chosen for this retelling of the Bible for young children. Staying close to the traditional text, the stories are presented in such s way that young listeners and readers find them easy to understand and enjoy. The straightfoward text and colourful illustrations introduce children to the mysteries and wonder of the Bible.

This is a colourful and approachable introduction to the key stories and characters of the Bible which children and adults will enjoy reading. (Ages 4 to 8)

A Good useful book..................but, 29 Aug 2008
This is certainly a good introduction to reading and studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to cover in one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as and when you need to some guidance on a particular genre of literature.

When this book was originally publish it was quite dry, but the latest edition has been made more readable.

The recommended commentary list in the back of the book is not the best. For better help on choosing commentaries see my other reviews.

In the original book there was a definite bias towards the NIV as the best translation. This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study. I have no problem about authors having a preference for a particular translation. I just wish they would be more up front about their motives!

Do they have any conection with NIV/TNIV translation commitees? This book is published by Zondervan the publisher of NIV/TNIV.

Perhaps this book should called How to Read the TNIV for all its Worth!

Not for me..., 18 Oct 2007
Personally I really don't get on with this book. Arguably I should have rated it much lower, but I'll concede I'm no theologian and these men know far more than me.

I'm bugged by two points:

1. They consistently argue for good exegesis and how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, which in turn must also have been something his readers could have understood it to mean". The authors do not explain how this squares with what is written in the book of Daniel and his assertation towards the end of Chapter 12 that he heard the explanation given but still did not understand what he had been shown. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the authors would argue that one away with the old "Daniel is just literary fiction" (they do state that Revelation is the only non-pseudonymous apocalypse) - to me this flies in the face of what is written in Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15). Clearly, to me, Jesus attributes authorship of the book of Daniel to the prophet Daniel and states that this portion was yet future in circa 30 AD when these words were spoken. However, then you turn to the Gospels chapter where the authors explain that Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew came along used Mark's with some embellishment (they state this as fact, despite the fact that it is only since modern critical studies have been done that any doubt as to the authorship of Matthew started - opinion among academics is still divided apparently). So, this book - to my mind - at least takes you round in circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did and they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believe in God at all, he doesn't seem to be able to communicate with anyone - so people start making up stories (much is made of Holy Spirit inspiration I'll concede )...

2. The authors are preoccupied with the NIV. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad translation, but I'm certain it isn't perfect.

After reading this book I did a little digging and discovered that the King James Version comes to us via something called the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text (the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches). In the late-nighteenth century Westcott and Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done and the KJV and Textus Receptus fell out of favour. Modern translations tend to use what is called the Majority Text made up of a consensus of existing Greek translations (however many of these are late and none is earlier that the fifth century). The Majority Text is very similar to the Textus Receptus except with regard to Revelation. I was therefore left with the nagging worry that if there was no evidence that the Textus Receptus had been edited in the fourth century and that the Majority Text which was quite recent in comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect and I had better equip myself with a translation of the Textus Receptus so that I knew what the NIV was leaving - don't be fooled by those little notes that say "the best texts say" or "some texts say" - who's to say what's "best" they haven't backed up their decision with an explanation for that decision - for instance whether at this point they're referring to an Alexandrian text such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus(Alexandria was a hotbed for Arianism heresies incidentally).

As a direct result of reading this book I went out an bought a copy of the NKJV, despite the authors exhortations that I should read almost any modern translation but it......







What sort of book is this?, 17 Jan 2003
If there is any book modern people need to be able to read intelligently, it is the Bible. It hads had more impact on the West, and the world, than any other work of literature.

The crucial question when you read a book is: what sort of book is this? What was the author actually trying to say?

McFee and Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask and answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, and hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.

The book is short, clear and practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions and misconceptions which surround any "religious" book and reach a balanced conclusion as to how to respond to it.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone intending to read the Bible, whether or not you have read it before, regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim or any other sort of religious believer, or an interested non-believer.

Excellent, useful, evangelical approach to bible study, 03 Dec 2002
The title says it all; but I would stress that this is not a book to read cover-to-cover. I would suggest instead reading the chapter that is appropriate to the part of the Bible that you are now reading, or want to study; for example, is it a gospel, and epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literature in the Bible, and the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological bias in interpretation, and so on.

Thought-provoking and stuffed with useful information, ideas and advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.

Excellent conservative introduction to biblical reading, 17 Jan 2002
Fee and Stuart do a fine job at introducing scripture's themes and genres for the lay person. Their approach to different passages is very readable and practically orientated. There is a useful appendix recommending good commentaries, also.

readable, a must read., 16 May 2008
Having read earlierl translations before, this is writen in a refreshingly easy and accesable way. There are no "thee"s or "thow"s the language is modern without being "slang or street."
The power of the "word" is retained and this "translation should be added to the list of books to read before you....if you were afraid of buying or receiving a bible try this one.
A small, two collum edition is available which is hand-bag bumbag sized.easy to dip into. (I keep one in the car.)

Excelent, 04 Sep 2008
This is an excellent translation. Its language is simple and dignified.Its a real pleasure to read.

No apologetics, 17 Jan 2008
A good translation of any text simply should try to give the meanings of the original words and sentences, as far as this is possible. But since the Bible is a document of enormous significance in both culture and politics, it's inevitable that some translations try to impose a specific interpretation on it.

For the most part, the NRSV does not do this. As an example, Isaiah 7:14 is a famous passage that has been mistranslated in many Bibles, using the word "virgin" when in fact "young woman" is correct - and this is theologically significant since the Gospel of Matthew quotes the (incorrect) Greek translation of the text, which at that time did read "virgin".

Now, if you see the Bible as infallible and inerrant, you will not like this translation (try instead the New International Version). But if, on the other hand, you want a translation that simply tries to faithfully translate the original text, and makes no effort to resolve apparent contradictions, the NRSV is for you.

My only concern is that it might try too hard in its use of gender-neutral language, however this is a relatively minor quibble.

The Bible, 05 Apr 2007
Through the ages, the most influential and powerful book of all.

A book in two parts: the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament was for the most part written between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC and is the primary document of Judaism. Written mainly in Hebrew, it was translated into Greek, then into Latin around 400 AD. Creation, Adam and Eve, the fall, the flood, Abraham, the laws of Moses, the Kings and Prophets of Israel....man struggles to enter a relationship with God and abide by certain rules.

The New Testament was written as a result of the life and death of Jesus. First to be written were letters to His followers in the immediate aftermath of His death, expecting His imminent return. After this followed the four Gospels by 90AD, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, teling the story of His life; then the Acts of the Apostles describes how the early Church was established and spread.

Biblical archaeology confirms the existence of many people, places and events mentioned in the Bible. That Jesus Himself actually existed is a documented historical fact. It is the interpretation of the Bible that has divided the world. Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament is fully inspired by God but that in Jesus the Law was fulfilled and superseded by the new covenant - "not of the letter but of the spirit".

Most of the New Testament was also written originally in Greek. In 1611, during the reign of James I, the Bible was translated into English - formerly it had been read in Latin, hence distancing ordinary people from it. Translating it had hitherto been a crime punishable by death. The King James, or Authorised Version of the Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version, are seen as literal translations of Hebrew and Greek which have idioms and concepts not easily rendered in English; whereas translations like the New International Version are seen as more "user friendly". Divisions into chapter and verse are medieval Christian additions.

Much of literature and art cannot be understood without knowing the Bible and this version particularly has resounded down the ages, inspiring the works of many famous authors and artists. The ethical codes it contains summarise the basis of human moral conduct.

If anyone is reading this for the first time and doesn't know where to start, Matthew and the other Gospels are a good place. They are the basic story of Jesus, His life, teachings and death. Followed by the accounts of those who met Him again, alive, after His burial. This is where the familiar sermon on the mount, parables, and miracles are found. At the time Israel was under Roman occupation and Jesus offers such advice as "go the second mile" - it was law that a Roman soldier could order a Jew to carry his pack for a mile. His basic message could be summarised as "do as you would be done by".

After this read the letters, mainly written by Paul, who started out as Saul, initially persecuting Christians. Corinthians is a good letter to start with, I Corinthians 13 might be familiar - just substitute the word "love" for "charity". After Paul had travelled around the Mediterranean he wrote to the new converts to cheer and inspire them, his conviction that Jesus had overthrown the yoke of the exacting Jewish Law profoundly affecting the development of the whole of future Christianity. He also contributed his profound wisdom and insights - "now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face".

Acts tells how the message was spread once the radical decision had been taken that non-Jews could be included in the good news as they saw it. It is important that right from the start they realised the message was a contentious one and many would reject it. In that case they were told, "shake the dust from your shoes and move on". While the Gospels tell us that God expends all the energy He has looking for lost people, it is a glaring truth in the New Testament that in many cases those most blessed with material gifts and worldly status would be most blind and deaf.

The Old Testament has some cracking stories - start with Genesis and then the stories of the Kings and Prophets of Israel. Job is a good one for the old chestnut of "why does God allow suffering". I'm biased towards this translation; but don't get bogged down with all the begattings and smiting and cubits and all those stiff necked people....

It is an interesting linguistic, theological, and human point, that Jesus called God not Father, but "daddy". His relationship of trust with God made Him positive of God's forgiveness for everyone who asks for it. Even the blackest of black hearts has the chance of forgiveness - and it is not we humans who make that decision, but God.

For anther series of books with a creation, fall, Kings and Queens, fight against good and evil and resurrection - also with a God-like figure only visible to some - try the Narnia books. Easier to read I'll have to admit!

Top Hokum, 01 Apr 2007
This book has inspired a plethora of tv and film adaptations, and it is through these that most readers will be familiar with the plot and characters. Admittedly the majority of these have focussed on the part in the story where the character of Jesus is crucified; but this is a shame as the book has a true epic sweep which encompasses an abundance of sophisticated plotting, laden with metaphorical detail. It is true that some of the characters are, sadly, rather briefly drawn and for this reason lack the emotional depth which could have been so compelling. The character Lot being a case in point (some have suggested that the same criticism could be applied to the 'God' character - but i think this is unfair and that a closer reading of the text reveals a multi-facteted sophisticated characterisation).
Utilising a clever literary joke, the author goes one step better than writing under a simple pseudonym by incororating the pseudonym 'God'into the story itself thereby creating a whole dimension of reality, on which the book is presented as the ultimate treatise.
This being a very long book ('war and peace' resembles a pamphlet in comparison) space here does not permit a fuller account, but suffice it to say that this book definately warrants a quick flick through at the very least... and if there are any film makers out there i always thought that the life of Mash deserved a fuller treatment on the silver screen.

In the beginning?, 14 Jan 2007
A collection of Bronze Age myths from the Middle East, based around the most unpleasant character in fiction. As illustration, we might look at Numbers 16; 32 - 36 in which a man whose only 'crime' is to gather sticks on the sabbath is put painfully to death 'as the LORD commanded'. Sadly this is by no means the only example of the petty jealousy and intolerance of the god of these myths - these pages are full of similar events. The problem here is that these stories are not treated as we treat the myths of ancient Assyria, Egypt, Greece etc; many people outside the Bronze Age actually believe in them and derive a 'moral' stance from them that they impose on more enlightened post-Bronze Age folk such as those of us who inhabit the early 21st Century.
Having said that, this King James translation has a central place in English literature and has lent many phrases to the language: an eye for an eye; the apple of his eye; your sin will find you out etc. Worth reading as literature and for the richness of its language; as a manual for living by it is to be assiduously avoided.

Mediocre Work Of Fiction, 06 Nov 2006
Basically a collection of tales of the fantastic, outdated and with little relevance today. Apparntly this work has inspired some sort of religious following, though how anyone these days can believe in any sort of omnipotent God defies belief.
A few interesting tales, but all very moralistic (as you would expect), and quite insular as well. It is always dangerous to try and control people by trying to force them to live under the tenets of any religion, and these 10 commandments are also a little far fetched.
'Thou shalt not covet graven images?' where did that one come from. But on a rather more serious note, it is quotes like that which make this book rather dangerous. It dismisses all other religions and does not preach any kind of tolerance. No wonder our world is in the state it is.

huzzah!, 14 May 2006
I am an agnostic, but found The Bible a great read. Stories and perhaps true events are symbolic and powerful, I finished breathless and a different man. Even if you are not a christian, The Bible can teach you many valuable lessons and help you understand an entire culture and philsophy.

Pretty retellings....., 05 Sep 2008
I was mislead by the title and expected a bible (well, ok, extracts)for children. I did not expect retellings of the stories with inaccuracies thrown in. Correct me if I am wrong, but nowhere, for example, does it specify THREE Kings in the Nativity. Three gifts, yes, but not kings. Or Magi. Nit picking? Probably, but why make up details that are not in the original text?
IF the book had been titles "stories from the Bible" I would not have bought it and would have avoided disappointment.
On the plus side the illustrations are very pretty and 'tis true my children enjoy listening to the stories, even if they are read by a grumpy old pedant like me.

Dumbed down and dull, 01 Nov 2007
I am sorry to have to write such a negative review. But we were given this bible as a present for our young daughter by a well meaning Aunt. While we appreciated the idea and present - this book just has too many mis-interpretations of the original text to feel comfortable with. I do not want my child to be put of Chritianity when she realises that romanticised stories peddled by this book don't wash with the real world. The bible is a complex text whose interpretation needs serious scholarship and I am afraid this book lacks the scholarship to be able to translate the stories into a child-friendly format. The point of many stories is so skewed that it makes you wince. The glossy cover illustration is not really representative of the content. Most stories don't have illustrations - certainly not enough to hold the attention of a child. The illustrated childrens bible looks much better.

lovely childrens bed time story book, 02 Nov 2001
Having travelled to my sisters house and forgot to take any bed time reading books for my 5 year old I found this osborne childrens bible on a book shelf in her house. Emma thoroughly enjoyed the stories because they were so well writen with children in mind. The stories are easy to understand and have nice pictures on each page, also each chapter follows on from the previous one, they have some basic reference to the people in the previous stories (this was done in an easy enough way for Emma to point this out). I offered to buy Emma a new book the next day while we were in town but she asked if we could read some more from the bible book.
I think this book would make a lovely christening/birthday present for a small child.

A Good useful book..................but, 29 Aug 2008
This is certainly a good introduction to reading and studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to cover in one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as and when you need to some guidance on a particular genre of literature.

When this book was originally publish it was quite dry, but the latest edition has been made more readable.

The recommended commentary list in the back of the book is not the best. For better help on choosing commentaries see my other reviews.

In the original book there was a definite bias towards the NIV as the best translation. This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study. I have no problem about authors having a preference for a particular translation. I just wish they would be more up front about their motives!

Do they have any conection with NIV/TNIV translation commitees? This book is published by Zondervan the publisher of NIV/TNIV.

Perhaps this book should called How to Read the TNIV for all its Worth!

Not for me..., 18 Oct 2007
Personally I really don't get on with this book. Arguably I should have rated it much lower, but I'll concede I'm no theologian and these men know far more than me.

I'm bugged by two points:

1. They consistently argue for good exegesis and how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, which in turn must also have been something his readers could have understood it to mean". The authors do not explain how this squares with what is written in the book of Daniel and his assertation towards the end of Chapter 12 that he heard the explanation given but still did not understand what he had been shown. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the authors would argue that one away with the old "Daniel is just literary fiction" (they do state that Revelation is the only non-pseudonymous apocalypse) - to me this flies in the face of what is written in Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15). Clearly, to me, Jesus attributes authorship of the book of Daniel to the prophet Daniel and states that this portion was yet future in circa 30 AD when these words were spoken. However, then you turn to the Gospels chapter where the authors explain that Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew came along used Mark's with some embellishment (they state this as fact, despite the fact that it is only since modern critical studies have been done that any doubt as to the authorship of Matthew started - opinion among academics is still divided apparently). So, this book - to my mind - at least takes you round in circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did and they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believe in God at all, he doesn't seem to be able to communicate with anyone - so people start making up stories (much is made of Holy Spirit inspiration I'll concede )...

2. The authors are preoccupied with the NIV. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad translation, but I'm certain it isn't perfect.

After reading this book I did a little digging and discovered that the King James Version comes to us via something called the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text (the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches). In the late-nighteenth century Westcott and Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done and the KJV and Textus Receptus fell out of favour. Modern translations tend to use what is called the Majority Text made up of a consensus of existing Greek translations (however many of these are late and none is earlier that the fifth century). The Majority Text is very similar to the Textus Receptus except with regard to Revelation. I was therefore left with the nagging worry that if there was no evidence that the Textus Receptus had been edited in the fourth century and that the Majority Text which was quite recent in comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect and I had better equip myself with a translation of the Textus Receptus so that I knew what the NIV was leaving - don't be fooled by those little notes that say "the best texts say" or "some texts say" - who's to say what's "best" they haven't backed up their decision with an explanation for that decision - for instance whether at this point they're referring to an Alexandrian text such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus(Alexandria was a hotbed for Arianism heresies incidentally).

As a direct result of reading this book I went out an bought a copy of the NKJV, despite the authors exhortations that I should read almost any modern translation but it......







What sort of book is this?, 17 Jan 2003
If there is any book modern people need to be able to read intelligently, it is the Bible. It hads had more impact on the West, and the world, than any other work of literature.

The crucial question when you read a book is: what sort of book is this? What was the author actually trying to say?

McFee and Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask and answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, and hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.

The book is short, clear and practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions and misconceptions which surround any "religious" book and reach a balanced conclusion as to how to respond to it.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone intending to read the Bible, whether or not you have read it before, regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim or any other sort of religious believer, or an interested non-believer.

Excellent, useful, evangelical approach to bible study, 03 Dec 2002
The title says it all; but I would stress that this is not a book to read cover-to-cover. I would suggest instead reading the chapter that is appropriate to the part of the Bible that you are now reading, or want to study; for example, is it a gospel, and epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literature in the Bible, and the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological bias in interpretation, and so on.

Thought-provoking and stuffed with useful information, ideas and advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.

Excellent conservative introduction to biblical reading, 17 Jan 2002
Fee and Stuart do a fine job at introducing scripture's themes and genres for the lay person. Their approach to different passages is very readable and practically orientated. There is a useful appendix recommending good commentaries, also.

readable, a must read., 16 May 2008
Having read earlierl translations before, this is writen in a refreshingly easy and accesable way. There are no "thee"s or "thow"s the language is modern without being "slang or street."
The power of the "word" is retained and this "translation should be added to the list of books to read before you....if you were afraid of buying or receiving a bible try this one.
A small, two collum edition is available which is hand-bag bumbag sized.easy to dip into. (I keep one in the car.)

Excelent, 04 Sep 2008
This is an excellent translation. Its language is simple and dignified.Its a real pleasure to read.

No apologetics, 17 Jan 2008
A good translation of any text simply should try to give the meanings of the original words and sentences, as far as this is possible. But since the Bible is a document of enormous significance in both culture and politics, it's inevitable that some translations try to impose a specific interpretation on it.

For the most part, the NRSV does not do this. As an example, Isaiah 7:14 is a famous passage that has been mistranslated in many Bibles, using the word "virgin" when in fact "young woman" is correct - and this is theologically significant since the Gospel of Matthew quotes the (incorrect) Greek translation of the text, which at that time did read "virgin".

Now, if you see the Bible as infallible and inerrant, you will not like this translation (try instead the New International Version). But if, on the other hand, you want a translation that simply tries to faithfully translate the original text, and makes no effort to resolve apparent contradictions, the NRSV is for you.

My only concern is that it might try too hard in its use of gender-neutral language, however this is a relatively minor quibble.

The Bible, 05 Apr 2007
Through the ages, the most influential and powerful book of all.

A book in two parts: the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament was for the most part written between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC and is the primary document of Judaism. Written mainly in Hebrew, it was translated into Greek, then into Latin around 400 AD. Creation, Adam and Eve, the fall, the flood, Abraham, the laws of Moses, the Kings and Prophets of Israel....man struggles to enter a relationship with God and abide by certain rules.

The New Testament was written as a result of the life and death of Jesus. First to be written were letters to His followers in the immediate aftermath of His death, expecting His imminent return. After this followed the four Gospels by 90AD, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, teling the story of His life; then the Acts of the Apostles describes how the early Church was established and spread.

Biblical archaeology confirms the existence of many people, places and events mentioned in the Bible. That Jesus Himself actually existed is a documented historical fact. It is the interpretation of the Bible that has divided the world. Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament is fully inspired by God but that in Jesus the Law was fulfilled and superseded by the new covenant - "not of the letter but of the spirit".

Most of the New Testament was also written originally in Greek. In 1611, during the reign of James I, the Bible was translated into English - formerly it had been read in Latin, hence distancing ordinary people from it. Translating it had hitherto been a crime punishable by death. The King James, or Authorised Version of the Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version, are seen as literal translations of Hebrew and Greek which have idioms and concepts not easily rendered in English; whereas translations like the New International Version are seen as more "user friendly". Divisions into chapter and verse are medieval Christian additions.

Much of literature and art cannot be understood without knowing the Bible and this version particularly has resounded down the ages, inspiring the works of many famous authors and artists. The ethical codes it contains summarise the basis of human moral conduct.

If anyone is reading this for the first time and doesn't know where to start, Matthew and the other Gospels are a good place. They are the basic story of Jesus, His life, teachings and death. Followed by the accounts of those who met Him again, alive, after His burial. This is where the familiar sermon on the mount, parables, and miracles are found. At the time Israel was under Roman occupation and Jesus offers such advice as "go the second mile" - it was law that a Roman soldier could order a Jew to carry his pack for a mile. His basic message could be summarised as "do as you would be done by".

After this read the letters, mainly written by Paul, who started out as Saul, initially persecuting Christians. Corinthians is a good letter to start with, I Corinthians 13 might be familiar - just substitute the word "love" for "charity". After Paul had travelled around the Mediterranean he wrote to the new converts to cheer and inspire them, his conviction that Jesus had overthrown the yoke of the exacting Jewish Law profoundly affecting the development of the whole of future Christianity. He also contributed his profound wisdom and insights - "now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face".

Acts tells how the message was spread once the radical decision had been taken that non-Jews could be included in the good news as they saw it. It is important that right from the start they realised the message was a contentious one and many would reject it. In that case they were told, "shake the dust from your shoes and move on". While the Gospels tell us that God expends all the energy He has looking for lost people, it is a glaring truth in the New Testament that in many cases those most blessed with material gifts and worldly status would be most blind and deaf.

The Old Testament has some cracking stories - start with Genesis and then the stories of the Kings and Prophets of Israel. Job is a good one for the old chestnut of "why does God allow suffering". I'm biased towards this translation; but don't get bogged down with all the begattings and smiting and cubits and all those stiff necked people....

It is an interesting linguistic, theological, and human point, that Jesus called God not Father, but "daddy". His relationship of trust with God made Him positive of God's forgiveness for everyone who asks for it. Even the blackest of black hearts has the chance of forgiveness - and it is not we humans who make that decision, but God.

For anther series of books with a creation, fall, Kings and Queens, fight against good and evil and resurrection - also with a God-like figure only visible to some - try the Narnia books. Easier to read I'll have to admit!

Top Hokum, 01 Apr 2007
This book has inspired a plethora of tv and film adaptations, and it is through these that most readers will be familiar with the plot and characters. Admittedly the majority of these have focussed on the part in the story where the character of Jesus is crucified; but this is a shame as the book has a true epic sweep which encompasses an abundance of sophisticated plotting, laden with metaphorical detail. It is true that some of the characters are, sadly, rather briefly drawn and for this reason lack the emotional depth which could have been so compelling. The character Lot being a case in point (some have suggested that the same criticism could be applied to the 'God' character - but i think this is unfair and that a closer reading of the text reveals a multi-facteted sophisticated characterisation).
Utilising a clever literary joke, the author goes one step better than writing under a simple pseudonym by incororating the pseudonym 'God'into the story itself thereby creating a whole dimension of reality, on which the book is presented as the ultimate treatise.
This being a very long book ('war and peace' resembles a pamphlet in comparison) space here does not permit a fuller account, but suffice it to say that this book definately warrants a quick flick through at the very least... and if there are any film makers out there i always thought that the life of Mash deserved a fuller treatment on the silver screen.

In the beginning?, 14 Jan 2007
A collection of Bronze Age myths from the Middle East, based around the most unpleasant character in fiction. As illustration, we might look at Numbers 16; 32 - 36 in which a man whose only 'crime' is to gather sticks on the sabbath is put painfully to death 'as the LORD commanded'. Sadly this is by no means the only example of the petty jealousy and intolerance of the god of these myths - these pages are full of similar events. The problem here is that these stories are not treated as we treat the myths of ancient Assyria, Egypt, Greece etc; many people outside the Bronze Age actually believe in them and derive a 'moral' stance from them that they impose on more enlightened post-Bronze Age folk such as those of us who inhabit the early 21st Century.
Having said that, this King James translation has a central place in English literature and has lent many phrases to the language: an eye for an eye; the apple of his eye; your sin will find you out etc. Worth reading as literature and for the richness of its language; as a manual for living by it is to be assiduously avoided.

Mediocre Work Of Fiction, 06 Nov 2006
Basically a collection of tales of the fantastic, outdated and with little relevance today. Apparntly this work has inspired some sort of religious following, though how anyone these days can believe in any sort of omnipotent God defies belief.
A few interesting tales, but all very moralistic (as you would expect), and quite insular as well. It is always dangerous to try and control people by trying to force them to live under the tenets of any religion, and these 10 commandments are also a little far fetched.
'Thou shalt not covet graven images?' where did that one come from. But on a rather more serious note, it is quotes like that which make this book rather dangerous. It dismisses all other religions and does not preach any kind of tolerance. No wonder our world is in the state it is.

huzzah!, 14 May 2006
I am an agnostic, but found The Bible a great read. Stories and perhaps true events are symbolic and powerful, I finished breathless and a different man. Even if you are not a christian, The Bible can teach you many valuable lessons and help you understand an entire culture and philsophy.

Pretty retellings....., 05 Sep 2008
I was mislead by the title and expected a bible (well, ok, extracts)for children. I did not expect retellings of the stories with inaccuracies thrown in. Correct me if I am wrong, but nowhere, for example, does it specify THREE Kings in the Nativity. Three gifts, yes, but not kings. Or Magi. Nit picking? Probably, but why make up details that are not in the original text?
IF the book had been titles "stories from the Bible" I would not have bought it and would have avoided disappointment.
On the plus side the illustrations are very pretty and 'tis true my children enjoy listening to the stories, even if they are read by a grumpy old pedant like me.

Dumbed down and dull, 01 Nov 2007
I am sorry to have to write such a negative review. But we were given this bible as a present for our young daughter by a well meaning Aunt. While we appreciated the idea and present - this book just has too many mis-interpretations of the original text to feel comfortable with. I do not want my child to be put of Chritianity when she realises that romanticised stories peddled by this book don't wash with the real world. The bible is a complex text whose interpretation needs serious scholarship and I am afraid this book lacks the scholarship to be able to translate the stories into a child-friendly format. The point of many stories is so skewed that it makes you wince. The glossy cover illustration is not really representative of the content. Most stories don't have illustrations - certainly not enough to hold the attention of a child. The illustrated childrens bible looks much better.

lovely childrens bed time story book, 02 Nov 2001
Having travelled to my sisters house and forgot to take any bed time reading books for my 5 year old I found this osborne childrens bible on a book shelf in her house. Emma thoroughly enjoyed the stories because they were so well writen with children in mind. The stories are easy to understand and have nice pictures on each page, also each chapter follows on from the previous one, they have some basic reference to the people in the previous stories (this was done in an easy enough way for Emma to point this out). I offered to buy Emma a new book the next day while we were in town but she asked if we could read some more from the bible book.
I think this book would make a lovely christening/birthday present for a small child.

Opens up the bible, 09 Sep 2008
For anyone who's ever scratched their heads trying to make sense of the bible, this is the book for you.

David Pawson's clear, easy to follow, erudite prose opens up the bible. He doesn't pretend the bible is a simple document, but does shine a light on the text to make it easier to get to grips with.

The book is filled with examples and stories, and it also tracks Pawson's own journey in trying to understand scripture.

There's a great explanation of "Song of Songs", which Pawson says he avoided for years because it just seemed to be too carnal: about the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. To find out his refreshing conclusion about the Song of Solomon, buy this book!

It's rare to find a commentary with so much humour in it. I haven't read it in order, but in random chapters as I've read the bible. This may not be the best way to read the book, but it's worked for me.

This is one of those books that has helped me understand God's word better, and also (by extension) His character. I can't offer a better accolade than that.



Evangelical., 05 Jul 2008
A word of caution about the Author, he believes Genesis is historically accurate & that the Devil is real. I can't deny this book offers great insight into understanding scripture & makes some very good observations, but I found I had to skip anything which seeks to challenge science on. I admit I come from a perspective that scripture is largely each authors attempt to comprehend God's creation & similar to Classical Islam that everything new science reveals inhances my wonder at the universe which God has given us.

Very tenuous scholarship for a Cambridge graduate, 16 May 2008
I wanted a book that would provide a relatively user-friendly summary of the Bible, as I already have some rather highbrow, academic theological books, and so purchased Mr Pawson's lengthy tome.

This book, I have to admit, is really easy to read. It uses accessible language, and has an overall warmth of tone.

My standpoint is one who will not dismiss or denigrate a viewpoint until I have at least studied the basics to a level where I can talk intelligibly with a full time adherent of the opinion in question. I get the impression that when it comes to the non-Christian religions, the scholarship in this book is one where the contents page has been read, but not the whole book. For example, Confucianism is tarred with the brush of idolatry. Hmmm.

Science is denigrated as being a path to unbelief and therefore the devil, and then is used later on to justify a religious standpoint. This is not academic, and is like wanting to have one's cake AND eat it. Archaeological and geological dates are portrayed as unreliable when they seem to argue against the opinions in this book, but are also used in other parts where they seem to agree with the idea being discussed by the author at subsequent junctures.

The author's foray into the world of languages also irritated me in my capacity as an amateur philologist of some 20 years experience. There are some poor direct translations of Hebrew, and the use of Chinese characters to argue a point made by the author is embarrassingly inept.

Some of the theological opinions put forward seem to be contradictory. The feel for me is of a conservative, 1950s English yearning for some long gone yesteryear. Because God loves human life, murderers should be put to death. Hmmm.

The lasting impression I have of this book is an overwhelming urge on my part to yell "it's perfectly all right to have a faith - I respect people's faith immensely. Please don't try to prove a faith by inexpert misuse of a subject you profess to distrust."

2 stars because it's easy to read and it makes me laugh out loud or cringe.

unlocking the bible, 17 Mar 2008
wow anyone wanting to know more about the bible this is the book to have the insight knowledge and understanding of this book is incredibl david pawson has certainly got all this and i have only read a few chapters

I never thought the Bible cld be brought to life so well, 26 Oct 2005
The author has an incredible knowledge of the background of biblical times, and an eloquency in layman's terms that really brings the Bible to life. He gives all views in relation to a subject very fairly, and his own bias is rarely seen in a dogmatic way at all. The only area I find unusual is that he almost totally "blanks" regarding the Rapture, and I think this is due to caution in his own mind regarding this doctrine rather than a right-out disbelief. Certainly a priority-buy for anyone wanting to study the Bible more closely and lovingly, and less dutifully!!!

A Good useful book..................but, 29 Aug 2008
This is certainly a good introduction to reading and studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to cover in one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as and when you need to some guidance on a particular genre of literature.

When this book was originally publish it was quite dry, but the latest edition has been made more readable.

The recommended commentary list in the back of the book is not the best. For better help on choosing commentaries see my other reviews.

In the original book there was a definite bias towards the NIV as the best translation. This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study. I have no problem about authors having a preference for a particular translation. I just wish they would be more up front about their motives!

Do they have any conection with NIV/TNIV translation commitees? This book is published by Zondervan the publisher of NIV/TNIV.

Perhaps this book should called How to Read the TNIV for all its Worth!

Not for me..., 18 Oct 2007
Personally I really don't get on with this book. Arguably I should have rated it much lower, but I'll concede I'm no theologian and these men know far more than me.

I'm bugged by two points:

1. They consistently argue for good exegesis and how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, which in turn must also have been something his readers could have understood it to mean". The authors do not explain how this squares with what is written in the book of Daniel and his assertation towards the end of Chapter 12 that he heard the explanation given but still did not understand what he had been shown. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the authors would argue that one away with the old "Daniel is just literary fiction" (they do state that Revelation is the only non-pseudonymous apocalypse) - to me this flies in the face of what is written in Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15). Clearly, to me, Jesus attributes authorship of the book of Daniel to the prophet Daniel and states that this portion was yet future in circa 30 AD when these words were spoken. However, then you turn to the Gospels chapter where the authors explain that Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew came along used Mark's with some embellishment (they state this as fact, despite the fact that it is only since modern critical studies have been done that any doubt as to the authorship of Matthew started - opinion among academics is still divided apparently). So, this book - to my mind - at least takes you round in circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did and they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believe in God at all, he doesn't seem to be able to communicate with anyone - so people start making up stories (much is made of Holy Spirit inspiration I'll concede )...

2. The authors are preoccupied with the NIV. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad translation, but I'm certain it isn't perfect.

After reading this book I did a little digging and discovered that the King James Version comes to us via something called the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text (the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches). In the late-nighteenth century Westcott and Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done and the KJV and Textus Receptus fell out of favour. Modern translations tend to use what is called the Majority Text made up of a consensus of existing Greek translations (however many of these are late and none is earlier that the fifth century). The Majority Text is very similar to the Textus Receptus except with regard to Revelation. I was therefore left with the nagging worry that if there was no evidence that the Textus Receptus had been edited in the fourth century and that the Majority Text which was quite recent in comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect and I had better equip myself with a translation of the Textus Receptus so that I knew what the NIV was leaving - don't be fooled by those little notes that say "the best texts say" or "some texts say" - who's to say what's "best" they haven't backed up their decision with an explanation for that decision - for instance whether at this point they're referring to an Alexandrian text such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus(Alexandria was a hotbed for Arianism heresies incidentally).

As a direct result of reading this book I went out an bought a copy of the NKJV, despite the authors exhortations that I should read almost any modern translation but it......







What sort of book is this?, 17 Jan 2003
If there is any book modern people need to be able to read intelligently, it is the Bible. It hads had more impact on the West, and the world, than any other work of literature.

The crucial question when you read a book is: what sort of book is this? What was the author actually trying to say?

McFee and Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask and answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, and hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.

The book is short, clear and practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions and misconceptions which surround any "religious" book and reach a balanced conclusion as to how to respond to it.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone intending to read the Bible, whether or not you have read it before, regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim or any other sort of religious believer, or an interested non-believer.

Excellent, useful, evangelical approach to bible study, 03 Dec 2002
The title says it all; but I would stress that this is not a book to read cover-to-cover. I would suggest instead reading the chapter that is appropriate to the part of the Bible that you are now reading, or want to study; for example, is it a gospel, and epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literature in the Bible, and the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological bias in interpretation, and so on.

Thought-provoking and stuffed with useful information, ideas and advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.

Excellent conservative introduction to biblical reading, 17 Jan 2002
Fee and Stuart do a fine job at introducing scripture's themes and genres for the lay person. Their approach to different passages is very readable and practically orientated. There is a useful appendix recommending good commentaries, also.

readable, a must read., 16 May 2008
Having read earlierl translations before,