Comments on: Recommendation and Review: The Books of the Bible (TNIV)

By: John

John — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:01:31 +0000

Thanks for your review of the Books of the Bible. I love reading without verse and chapter divisions, and without these to stop me, I generally read longer passages and am able to follow the entire thought patterns much better. I have used the TNIV translation since it came out, and even though it seems many in my denomation (Southern Baptist) have a bone to pick with it, I find it to be a good and accurate translation of scripture. I have been very blest from reading it.

By: elders wife

elders wife — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:15:25 +0000

Thank you, Michael Spencer, for shaking me loose from the constraints of the traditional ordering and numbers systems. I got my copy of The Books of the Bible this week, and it is like a breathe of fresh air.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:29:07 +0000

Chris,

Have you read the Books of the Bible? I wasn’t sure if you were making your comments from your personal experience of reading it, or if it was your impression from the description.

I think the main point of reordering the books is to:

1. Show the interconnection of various books to help readers see the historical and theological connections
2. Show that their is no “correct” order of the book s of the Bible. The Bible we have today was ordered that way for a reason, but that doesn’t mean that it needs to be that way. The NT ordering of the Books of the Bible makes a lot of sense to me: You have the “Pauline section” – Luke and Acts (Luke being a companion of Paul), and then the Pauline epistles in (arguably) chronological order. Then there is the “Hebrew section” – the Gospel of Matthew (focused on the Jews), the book of James (written to dispersed Jews), and Hebrews. Then there is the “Petrine” section: Mark (traditionally believed to be a student of Peter), 1 and 2 Peter, and then Jude (which has many similarities with 2 Peter). Lastly there is the “Johannine” section: Gospel of John, 1-3 John, and the Book of Revelation.

I am still getting used to flipping around in this Bible because I am used to the traditional ordering, but I personally like the ordering of the books, and find it refreshing.

By: Justin Donathan

Justin Donathan — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:38:10 +0000

This is great! I’ve been looking for something like this for some time. Thanks for pointing it out. I followed your lead and noted it on my blog as well.

By: Brendt

Brendt — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:33:17 +0000

Warning: Most pre-caffeine comments are silly.

Did Bill Murray get his doctorates before or after Groundhog Day?

By: Anna A

Anna A — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:42:54 +0000

Even though it is NOT a Bible, but just the stories retold as in a novel, I can recommend Walter Wangerin’s “Book of God”. Even the Resurrection of Jesus is handled well. (Many novelizations of Bible stories tend to not make it real, etc.

When I read it, I was most impressed by how many small details made it in.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:50:00 +0000

Now that’s a Bible I could actually get interested in! No cross-indexed Magick Book Grimoire of Chapter-and-Verse verbal-component spells and putdowns, but the holy books as they were originally organized, grouped by subject and theme, with forewords to put each book in context.

By: Mike Swalm

Mike Swalm — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:36:22 +0000

Love it love it love it. I ordered a “Books of the Bible” TNIV a few months back, one for me and one for my wife (so i guess i ordered two). It’s been a fantastic personal resource. I still read NRSV for church and planning and sermons, but i love the ease and novelty of TBOTB.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:00:56 +0000

Two things:
1) The TNIV is a marked improvement over its older sibling, NIV. It cleans off the overly evangelical patena that built up on the NIV. It’s still a good “evangelical” translation (whatever that might mean), though.
2) While the idea of rearranging the texts to a) match the authors’ literary divisions; b) group books together according to genre; and c) bring together books that have been separated, all sounds fine and good to a point, it does seem to be a bit presumptuous on the part of the editors who compiled it all. Do they know the literary divisions the authors’ wanted? How do they know this? Do they think they are somehow superior compilers than the original communities that formed the canon? It seems so, for they now have rearranged the text in a “better” way. Yet, there seems to be no thought given to why the texts are arranged the way they are in the first place. Why was Acts separated from Luke? This was not some dumb arbitrary decision.

In the end I think it is gimmicky. It should sell a few copies. And if it will get people to actually read the biblical texts, then great. But, we ought not be persuaded that the rearrangement is a better one. We are a part of a long and rich history that includes the use, distribution, and eventual compilation of these texts we call Scripture. We should not be so quick to circumvent that history.

[I am now stepping down from my soapbox.]

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:21:36 +0000

Can anyone recommend any other “no verses” version of the Bible? I generally dislike the NIV (and assume the TNIV is similar), and would prefer something like the NKJV. I’ve always enjoyed Phillips for general reading, but his translation is a bit chatty for serious reading. Any thoughts are appreciated.