In this book, Goodrick claims that the original autographs of the Bible are inspired, that all copies (i.e. manuscripts) of the autographs are inspired, and that all translations of the Bible are inspired.

The first claim I agree with, but there are so many problems with the other two claims I really don't know where to begin. But let's begin with a few facts.

Some manuscripts have "God" at the beginning of 1Timonthy 3:16, some have "who," and a couple have "which." So the question is, which of these readings is inspired? They are inherently contradictory. But most of all, all textual critics agree that the last reading is an obvious mistake. So did God inspired a scribe to make a mistake?

As for translations being inspired, there are so many differences between them its hard to see how anyone could claim they are all inspired. For instance, in 1Corinthians 7:1, some versions have Paul writing, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," some have "not to get married," others have "not to have sexual relations with a woman," along with a variety of other readings, like "have nothing to do with women." Again, these readings are very clearly different.

So how does Goodrick defend his ideas of inspiration of manuscripts and versions? Answer: by his doctrine of inspiration. Goodrick believes in "conceptual inspiration" while specifically disavowing verbal inspiration (p.78). IOW, Goodrick believes the meaning of the Scriptures is inspired but not their very words. So God inspired the thoughts of the Biblical writers but not their very words.

And if God only inspired the thoughts of the Biblical writers then a translation should strive to translate their thoughts rather than their words. This would lead to a dynamic equivalency method of translation, which a is thought for thought method. This method is opposed to literal or formal methods, which are word for methods.

So it would be logical for a person who believes in verbal inspiration to believe that a literal or formal equivalence method is the best for translating the Bible. And conversely, a person who believes in conceptual inspiration would logically favor dynamic equivalence. However, most people today who advocate a dynamic equivalence method say they believe in verbal inspiration, and thus are rather inconsistent. But at least Goodrick is consistent in this regard.

So the questions then becomes, did God only inspire the thoughts of the Biblical writers, or did He inspire their very words and even the grammatical forms of the words they wrote?

The following quote is taken from my book "Differences Between Bible Versions" (p.16): "That the Biblical authors believed in verbal inspiration is evident. Jesus appealed to the tense of a verb for proof of resurrection and the exact wording of a Psalm to demonstrate His Lordship (Matt 22:31,32, 41-45). Paul pointed out that a word was singular, not plural, to show a prophecy applied to Christ (Gal 3:16; see also Deut 4:2; 1Kings 8:56; Josh 21:43-45; 23:14; Prov 30:5,6; Jer 26:2; John 6:63)."

To look at one of these examples, Paul stated in Galatians 3:16 that since the word "Seed" in Genesis 12:3 is singular, the prophecy was referring to one Person, Christ. But what is notable is that most dynamic equivalency versions have the plural "decedents" rather than the singular "Seed" in Gen 12:3. So if one were only reading such a version, you would think Paul was a liar.

The point is, when a translation tries to render only the supposed "thoughts" of the Bible then important points can and are missed. Moreover, it is not always clear what the intended thoughts or the author's actual words were. For instance, in 1Cor 7:1 above, a comparison of different versions will show that the opinions of the translators as to what Paul was thinking when he wrote "not to touch a woman" vary considerably. I discuss the differences between these versions in much greater detail in my book.

Moreover, the meaning of a passage can change due to textual variants. When Paul wrote 1Tim 3:16, was he thinking of Christ's deity or not? With the reading of "God" he was, but with the reading of "who" he was not. So one of these class of manuscripts do not capture the "thought" of what Paul originally wrote."

The fact remains is, there are very real and clear differences between manuscripts and between Bible versions. And these differences are not just a difference of words but of thoughts and meanings. I give many specific verses of where the meaning changes between manuscripts and versions in my book "Differences Between Bible Versions" (hence the name). So it simply is not and cannot be true that all manuscripts and versions are inspired, even if one ascribes to conceptual inspiration.

To go along with his idea of conceptual inspiration, Goodrick writes, "It is impossible to translate the Bible word for word" (p.71). Since I produced the "Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament," I know first hand that a word for word translation IS possible. Now Goodrick claims such a translation would not be readable, but a common comment I have received in regards to my translation is that it is surprisingly easy to read. And in my book on Bible versions go into details why this is so.

Given these very serious problems, I would not recommend Goodrick's book. It advocates a very faulty theory of inspiration and Bible translation.

It is amazing how complex many Christians make the doctrine of verbal inspiration to be ! Goodrick approaches this matter in a simple, common-sense approach that should blow away all the fog and confusion brought into the subject. I think the first reviewer missed the whole point, when Goodrick says that the 'meaning' of the original autographs are inspired, he does not deny verbal inspiration - what he means is that the words by themselves have no meaning, they only take up meaning in sentences - so we have to take in the context of the words. Goodrick gives us confidence that all translations (even the most erroneous) "contain the word of God, Nay is the word of God" (a quote from the KJV translators). What struck me the most from this book is the assertion that most pollution comes from amateurs who interpret Greek and Hebrew based on wrong exegesis, many times modern teachers will 'analyze' the wording and come up with new 'hidden' revelations that are actually misunderstood grammatical structures ! I highly recommed this book to anyone interested in Bible translation and interpretation.

The hero's extraordinary voyage through the far west and far east could have been brought to life with imaginative editing. Alas, what could have been an exciting historical read was a disappointment.

Sometimes boring, sometimes gripping,overall very interesting and informative. A thorough mix of personal and historical data that is a treat for a history buff, and surely a study for a behavioral psychologist. A good book for inclusion in any military library.

-This book is a good review of many basic racing tactics for all aspects of sailboat racing. I would have to recommend this book for your collection.

-Overall this book is a good overview of many simple tactics, used in all aspects of sailing.

Rather than test the claims of the church growth movement the author tests the dated claims of only two church growth advocates. An attack on marketing the church rather than a serious critique. And this coming from one whose webpage uses marketing to encouraging purchases so his church can make money?

Having spent 20 years in the marketing business before becoming an ordained minister, I think the book pounds a decisive (hopefully) final nail in the coffin lid of the co-called Church Growth Movement. Zwonitzer clearly knows his stuff. Like a well-schooled marketing manager the author prefers evidence instead of anecdote, and he relentlessly exposes the dog-eared clichés and unproductive stratagems of a failed system. There's no "bait and switch" here. The book delivers what the cover promises, which is more than a careful observer can say for the CG gurus.

A fair book that seems to have been written back when scuba was in it's infancy. Not a real species specific book but if your looking for a general book on this topic it's worth the 9 bucks.

Published in England. Nicely done. Lots of illustrations. Text is very interesting. The only problem is: it is too short. You can read it completely in under 10 minutes. They should have included more kings and queens and more detail on the ones they did include. Its billed as being a children's book, but the names of some of the kings and queens were difficult for me and I have a master's degree.

I am a man with schizoaffective dissorder and it's similar to what the author of this book has. I liked it mainly because it is his voice and from his point of view. Most of the books about schizophrenia out there are from a third person or a affected female. The first part of the book is the best. Very real in his discription. I'm on Zyprexa and I wish the author would take something also because he still seems somewhat lost. I wish the author luck and it has inspired me to write down things that I experianced. It's a good read, probably not the best, but I belive it shows an authentic view of a schizophrenic.

I would rate Me, Mop, And The Moondance Kid with 3 out of 5 stars. I liked this book because it had a good theme. It was also interesting, creative, exciting, and always kept me on the edge of my seat. I never wanted to put the book down. There are many other books similar to this book. You need to get this book and read it as soon as you can. If you enjoy reading books that have some mystery in them and are exciting this would be perfect for you. This book is about three kids named Mop, T.J., and The Moondance Kid. They all grew up together as orphans, but just recently T.J. and Moondance were adopted by the Jacksons. The academy that Mop is still at is closing down so if she doesn't get adopted before the Dominican Academy closes down she will have to move. In order to spend more time with Marla, who she wants to be adopted by, she joins the Elks. The Elks is a little league baseball team that T.J., Moondance, and some other kids play on, and guess who the coach is. Marla! Besides that problem they have to worry about beating the Eagles in the play-offs. Will Mop get adopted? Will the Elks beat the Eagles in the play-offs? To find out go and check out Me, Mop, and The Moondance Kid.

I used this book for an undergraduate renal/endocrine physiology class. For this material, it was excellent, but I still found myself referring back to my Guyton text fairly often. For comprehensive coverage of systems physiology, I would suggest Guyton.

In addition, I think we got one of the first printings of this book a few years ago, and the binding everyone's book fell apart completely after only three months of use. I hope they've solved that problem.

Hall brings considerable knowledge and wide reading to bear on this theoretical and historical exploration of the impact of nationalism on modern international relations. However, the text should have been copy-edited; Columbia University Press apparently decided it couldn't be bothered. As a result the book is a more difficult read than it had to be.