Product Description

This volume guides readers in understanding the literary dimensions of the Bible by incorporating techniques for interpreting Scripture, while it also maintains faithfulness to literary genres.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #6435 in Books
• Published on: 2003-11-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 288 pages

From the Back Cover
The primary task of Bible study is to determine what the Scriptures meant at the time they were written and how that meaning applies to us today. This vital guide focuses on the historical contexts of the Bible and explains differences between the Old Testament narratives, the Epistles, Gospels, Parables, Psalms and more. It's a practical approach to Bible study -- one that makes good sense and is easy to understand. This new edition includes, among other changes, a new section on the Song of Songs and an updated list of recommended commentaries and resources.

About the Author
Gordon D. Fee (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is professor of New Testament at Regent College.;Douglas Stuart (Ph.D., Harvard University) is professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Customer Reviews

A Good useful book..................but
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 This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study.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!

Must have for Bible scholars
This book is an excellent guide to how and how not to use your Bible. It is a useful resource for the preacher, giving many helpful hints into expository and experimental teaching.

If you don't believe me, the back caver material is provided by FF Bruce, one of Britain's leading evangelical theologians of the 20th Century. He says 'I do not remember reading any other book which gave so much help in the answering of these questions (concerning Biblical meaning and relevance) as this one does.'

Not for me...
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......