What makes a good translation of the Bible? The answer, according to Kenneth Barker, is "balance" in at least five areas: a balanced and well represented committee, a balanced textual basis, a balanced translation philosophy, a balanced solution to difficulties, and finally, a balanced selection of available resources. As far as Barker is concerned, the NIV adequately meets all these criteria.

For those looking for a well-written, basic introduction to the NIV, this book admirably serves its purpose. Others who prefer a rigorous critical approach would be advised to look elsewhere. A weakness in Barker's argument, as I see it, is his use "balance" as criterion for a good translation. I agree that the NIV is balanced, but is that a GOOD thing? Is the Bible a balanced book? Many of its ideas and philosophies are sometimes extreme, even shocking. Its language and characters are seldom "balanced". If neutralising imbalances inherent in the original languages for the sake of ecumenism is the purpose of translation, and if subsuming these imbalances under a risk-free English style can be regarded as an advance, then Barker's opinions regarding the NIV hold weight. If however, the purpose of translation is to render what is THERE, with stark offences in tact, then Barker's criterion of "balance" may be somewhat overstated.

What makes a good translation of the Bible? The answer, according to Kenneth Barker, is "balance" in at least five areas: a balanced and well represented committee, a balanced textual basis, a balanced translation philosophy, a balanced solution to difficulties, and finally, a balanced selection of available resources. As far as Barker is concerned, the NIV adequately meets all these criteria.

For those looking for a well-written, basic introduction to the NIV, this book admirably serves its purpose. Others who prefer a rigorous critical approach would be advised to look elsewhere. A weakness in Barker's argument, as I see it, is his use "balance" as criterion for a good translation. I agree that the NIV is balanced, but is that a GOOD thing? Is the Bible a balanced book? Many of its ideas and philosophies are sometimes extreme, even shocking. Its language and characters are seldom "balanced". If neutralising imbalances inherent in the original languages for the sake of ecumenism is the purpose of translation, and if subsuming these imbalances under a risk-free English style can be regarded as an advance, then Barker's opinions regarding the NIV hold weight. If however, the purpose of translation is to render what is THERE, with stark offences in tact, then Barker's criterion of "balance" may be somewhat overstated.

Galbraith is a very clear writer. He rarely uses technical jargon or mathematics. But unlike some other popular writers, it isn't because he is able to explain complex phenomena without them. He doesn't appear to understand them. This book reads like a fairy tale or child's letter to Santa Claus. Mr. Galbraith doesn't seem to understand economics well enough to pass economics 101. But he does have an excellent command of the English language.

This book is on my short shelf of most important books of this era, in that Galbraith takes the work of his earlier economic analyses over many books, and gives an all-humanity based outline to consider for the 21st century.

Those who dismiss this book as non-economic I fear are stuck within narrow definitions, as opposed to the more human-based origins of the word economics (from oikonomia, home management). It is this narrow definition that is prone to the boom-bust cycles Galbraith discusses in earlier historical works on the history of modern economics, and is part ofthe current recessional problem.

This book is a cry for human-based economics, and would be a good book study or resource for businesses, community organizations, or churches around North America.

I have two reasons for putting a high value of this book, First, I truly appreciate Mr. Galbraith's style. Its sentence is compact, logic is clear, and expression is eloquent...in short, his style is incredibly excellent. Second, it's useful. Reading this compact book,you can understand 'liberal's good society.'I believe nobody can misunderstand Mr. Galbraith's opinion. If you are a 'liberal', to read this book must be a pleasure. And, if you belong to 'conservative', missing opportunity to know your enemy is not clever.

The only reason that there is a "reading war" is that:1) the American public finally realized that whole language was making our children illiterate; and 2) a handful of researchers who were not afraid to buck the whole language crusade did the research that shows how destructive whole language is--despite all of the smarmy talk. This book is best seen as the last gasp of a dying fad.

It is amazing what some people will do to get their way or sell their material. Ken Goodman has told the story every teacher should know. Not only have laws been mandated in California, these phonics pushers are now headed toward Texas. The lies these people are telling is unbelievable and thank goodness Ken Goodman is watching out for us. It is through the information he has put together in this book that allows us to know what is going on behind the politicians' closed doors. Isn't it amazing what politicians are willing to do to get votes. Maybe they should try reading all the research for themselves before they go off screaming for laws that will mandate how teachers must teach reading. Do we really want politicians telling us how we must teach?

This collection of essays reveals the extent to which certain political groups have attacked public education and good teaching under the guise of "accountability" and "literacy." This is a must read for those interested in knowing more about the anti-teacher and anti-public school hysteria that has taken place over the past 10 years in the U.S.

The narratives of the Bible stories were the only reason I gave the book two stars. The strong point of the author is his excellent command of the English language. This book is a perfect example of shoddy liberal scholarship repackaged for the masses. The statements Mr. Davis makes are at times just simply not true. For example, he states that there is "no archaeological evidence of those tumbled walls at Jericho". How absurd! This city was unearthed in the 1930s by Garstang and the walls are there with the rest of the city for anyone to view. Even a viewer of the show "Archaeology" on the Science channel would know this - the show described the construction of the walls in detail. I can understand that footnotes in a book meant for popular consumption would be undesirable, but the bibliography he provides is a pitiful thing. The liberal views expressed are based on zero evidence. These are the opinions a group of scholars whose only basis for their views is that they don't believe in the supernatural, and are on the main atheistic in their worldview. I would recommend "Biblical Archaeology" by J.P.Free and "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction" by G. Archer for anyone wanting either a more scholarly or conservative survey. "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell is also a very fine work. Having read the author's three previous works, this volume was disappointing indeed. I would not recommend it.

I've always been leery of books with names like "Personal Hygiene
for the Complete Idiot" or "Home Schooling for
Dummies." Is it good marketing technique to choose a title that
forces the reader into an embarrassing self-classification? With his
popular "Don't Know Much About... " series, Mr. Davis
introduced a presumably unintentional double meaning that could be
construed as reflecting on the author as well. .... In my own case,
having just finished reading the Old and New Testaments straight
through but lacking historical background, I readily admitted
ignorance in the hope of reducing it. I wasn't disappointed.

Davis
tries to give the reader a sense of when, where, and by whom the 39
Old Testament and 27 New Testament "books" were written. In
doing this he has no choice but to reveal how factually thin the
information base available to Bible scholars really is. Since
uncertainty usually breeds controversy, the shrillness of the more
acid criticisms directed at the author by self-styled Bible buffs is
not surprising. Perhaps the scholarly types are also annoyed by
Davis's effort to keep the tone light, and to emphasize anomalies
bound to surprise readers who have absorbed only the second-hand
biblical bromides that permeate popular culture. For example, Eve's
snake-induced snack was not named as an apple, only as
"fruit"; there are two semi-contradictory versions of
Genesis; there weren't enough people to provide Cain with a wife;
Moses probably didn't cross the Red Sea, and Jesus may not have been
an only child. Davis also maintains interest by highlighting the
Bible's copious sex and violence content. I would characterize the
author's overall tone as bemused but respectful.

There are a couple
of places in the book where I question Mr. Davis's reasoning. On
pages 116 and 118 he supports the view that bad people such as the
medieval crusaders, who committed atrocities in the name of religion,
were merely blasphemers pretending to be followers of God. The
implication seems to be that a religious person can't be evil, because
if he is evil, then he's not truly religious. Logically speaking, you
can't get more speciously circular than that. Shall we argue that
when Jehovah orders the slaughter of promised-land citizens down to
the last man, woman, and guiltless child (Deuteronomy 20:16), he's
just taking a little time out to blaspheme himself?

The author takes
another puzzling position on page 126, saying

"....Many
passages in the Bible condone slavery, one reason it was justified by
American Christian slaveholders. We can only consider slavery an
inhumane and immoral institution, a very clear case of something that
was acceptable in the time of Moses but is now considered
reprehensible."

There's nothing wrong with this comment in
itself, but it ignores a huge underlying issue. Consider the
fundamental premise of the Bible. A single being, Jehovah, created
the entire universe and populated a small part of it with intelligent
humans crafted in his own image. He interacted extensively with a
preferred group of these humans, talking to some of them directly,
teaching, making rules, in fact micro-managing them relentlessly (see
any part of Leviticus or Numbers). The people of Biblical times were
fully as intelligent as we, and fully as capable of understanding
moral principles.

The underlying issue, then, is that to accomplish
what he is said to have done, Jehovah must have been a master of all
disciplines known to us, and must have been knowledgeable in every
conceivable area. Humans have all sorts of excuses for being
ignorant, but Jehovah has none, and had none in the time of Moses. So
why didn't Jehovah rule and teach unequivocally against slavery?
After all, he issued a formidable roster of laws, many of them fixated
on ceremonial trivia and imposing draconian penalties for minor
infractions (again, see Leviticus). This is a small part of a much
larger question: Are Jehovah's character, actions and words, taken at
face value from Scripture, consistent with the knowledge and abilities
claimed for him? I would have been very interested in Mr. Davis's
opinion.

In the end, the parts of the book most directly helpful to
me were the factual aids provided by the author to broaden a reader's
perspective. These included:

An eight-installment timeline
("Milestones") relating biblical events to well-known
people, places and cultural developments outside the scope of the
Scriptures.

A discussion of various versions of the Bible with
guidelines on their interpretive strengths and weaknesses (Davis
prefers the New Oxford Annotated edition).

A table of 35
New-Testament miracles, showing in which of the four Gospels each
event is mentioned. This creates an interesting ranking topped by the
ultra-certified, four-Gospel miracle of feeding five thousand people
from five loaves of bread and two fish.

If you are already an expert
in the Scriptures, the title alone should vector you away from this
book. But for the rest of us, I recommend it.

It's telling that some of the reviewers of this book feel that Davis is condemning the Bible and other reviewers feel that he has a sympathetic view towards the Bible. That's because this is not a religious book per se. It isn't written with the aim to present a particular view. Instead, this is simply a fairly balanced look at what the Bible actually says. What the reader wishes to believe is a decision left to the reader. This attempt at being an objective view of the scriptures is unique amongst most books on religious matters, which often have a particular point of view.

Kenneth Davis writes well, and the book is an easy read. Certainly much easier to wade through than the Bible. So if you've not familiar with the Bible, this would serve as a good starting point. You can then go to the Bible on the points that are of greatest interest.

My only real complaints with the book are that 1) the book doesn't always give specific verse numbers with its presentations, making the reader do a little unnecessary work in tracking down the passage. And 2) it doesn't go into enough detail on some of the more interesting topics. Perhaps it could have been divided into a version for each testament.

I'd give it 4 1/2 stars were that choice available.

In this book by Kenneth Leech we get a somewhat facile equation of Christianity with political progressivism. In Leech's world-view, all sin is social, & we need not fret about individual holiness as long as there is one poor person in the world. Leech expresses disdain for figures like Billy Graham, for no good reason that this reader can see (Graham has mellowed over the years); and we learn further that to be a member of the Conservative Party is, in Leech's view, to be a sinner that is beyond the pale of forgiveness. While we should hesitate to mock Leech's solicitude for the downtrodden (if it be more than merely rhetorical), we lament the theological shallowness of a work that will only be of profit to those readers who share the author's politics.

I was astonished by the negative reviews of this book, which I have come to think of as "classic" Leech and one of the best things available for Lenten study. This is highly accessible and deeply moving writing on pain, suffering, and the cross. I recommend it highly.

We Preach Christ Crucified is a thoughtful and thought provoking look at the essential scandal at the center of the Christian faith--the cross of Christ. I found it a very rewarding read in Lent.