Customer Reviews
A Good useful book..................but - By: pspicewarrior, 29 Aug 2008 
This is certainly a good introduction to reading & studying the Bible. It is not the sort of book you would read from cover to coverin one go; but rather a book that you would delve into as & 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 listin 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 This has been replaced by the TNIV as the best translation for Bible study.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 - By: Mr. Ec Normington, 25 Jul 2008 
This book is an excellent guide to how & how not to use your Bible. It is a useful resource for the preacher, giving many helpful hints into expository & 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 helpin the answering of these questions (concerning Biblical meaning & relevance) as this one does.'
Not for me... - By: K. Blackham, 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 & these men know far more than me.
I'm bugged by two points:
1. They consistently argue for good exegesis & how we should always seek the author's original intent - "the primary meaning is what the author intended it to mean, whichin 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 writtenin the book of Daniel & 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 fliesin the face of what is writtenin Matthew when Jesus said "So when you see standingin 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 & states that this portion was yet futurein 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 roundin circles. No one who claimed to have written a Biblical book actually did & they were all written centuries after the fact. Personally I find this kind of rhetoric really damaging to my faith, why believein 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 & 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 & Hort claimed that the fourth century church had heavily edited this text (there is no evidence for this), nevertheless the damage was done & the KJV & 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 & 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 editedin the fourth century & that the Majority Text which was quite recentin comparison had such differences it might possibly be the Majority Text that was incorrect & 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 & 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? - By: , 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, & 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 & Stuart help anyone (believer or not) reading the many books which make up the Bible to ask & answer this question. This helps the reader actually do justice to what the writers were saying to their original audience, & hence stand a chance of making sense of what (if anything) they have to say to us now.
The book is short, clear & practical. It helps someone reading the Bible to get away from the preconceptions & misconceptions which surround any "religious" book & 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 - By: Mr. P. Craig, 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, & epistle, a psalm, Revelation, or something else? Each chapter points out key characteristics of the different forms of literaturein the Bible, & the authors highlight issues such as different translations, ideological biasin interpretation, & so on.
Thought-provoking & stuffed with useful information, ideas & advice, this is something well worth having on your bookshelf.
