Oliver, Marriage, and “Me and Fee pt. 4”

a)

Oh man, we went to this international school’s version of Oliver the Musical. It was… really interesting. So, I don’t know if you can picture this, but there were a bunch of Korean students in another country with a different language, who are learning English, but are also attempting to do British accents. I understood approximately 57% of the dialogue, and almost none of the lyrics. Luckily, I had watched the Wishbone episode.

Anyways, maybe that’s mean about the Koreans. Hehe.

b)

Here’s an article I read recently arguing for the idea that relationships should only be initiated with the intention of getting married within a year, saying that this is best to guard the hearts of both parties and the boundaries necessary to be above reproach.

Hmm, the article was actually pretty convincing. I think I need to pray and think this over.

c)
Again, this is mostly a good book (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth), but I wanna give a fair critique of it. If you think I fail to do so, post a comment:

My third issue is that Fee doesn’t interact with the ESV despite it being available at the time of the third edition. Fee goes out of his way to promote the TNIV but avoids comparison to the ESV. All comparisons are with the more grammatically awkward New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the rarely used Revised Standard Version (RSV). I just can’t rule out the possibility that he does it to falsely strengthen his case.

The fourth thing is with his argument dealing with weights and measurements:

Take, for example, the first occurrences of talanton and denarius in the New Testament (Matt. 18:23-34, the parable of the unmerciful servant)… So what do we do with these words? In the parable they are intentionally not precise amounts but are purposefully hyperbolic contrasts (see ch. 8). The TNIV, therefore rightly translates “ten thousand talents” as “ten thousand bags of gold” and “a hundred denarii” as “a hundred silver coins” and then explains the words in a footnote. (44-45)

If this is a case of intentional hyperbole (I agree with his interpretation, not that I know that much), then it should be the job of the reader to think through this, read it in context, and figure it out (I don’t think it’s hard to figure out: ten thousand talents means what you’d make if you worked for ten thousand years). And if that fails, it is the responsibility of preachers and teachers to provide interpretation for the Church. The purpose of a translation is to translate, not to provide interpretation when unnecessary. Also, he fails to mention that the ESV also explains the words in a footnote, thereby helping the reader who of course would have no idea what a denarii or a talent is. In many cases, footnotes solve the “problem areas” that Fee presents.

There are many other things that I could say, but I’m realizing a complete commentary on this chapter would take too long. I think I have addressed the main issues EXCEPT: A much bigger thing is at state: did the Holy Spirit inspire the words, or just the ideas? If you’re interested in how some people answer that question, check out these talks on Inerrancy:

But one last small thing:

I thought it was a little weird that Fee doesn’t let the reader know that he was on the translation committee for the TNIV and yet gives a glowing review of it:

We would venture to suggest that the TNIV is as good a translation as you will get. (52)

Why does he not let people know his involvement? It’s not even mentioned in the About the Author part at the back of the book. At least he should be worried that people will think he’s hiding it from them. I’ve noticed that Justin Taylor, a guy who works for Crossway Bibles, always discloses his involvement whenever he mentions anything about the ESV on his blog (which is actually quite a popular one in… those circles) Anyways, I don’t want to accuse him of intentionally deceiving people, but the number of misleading comments and ungenerous characterizations of the essentially literal philosophy in this otherwise intelligent and helpful book make me really disappointed with Fee.

Oh, and by the way, I was joking about the marriage thing. I actually think this person puts forth a pretty weak argument. Although he points out good principles, he does not give me any reason to believe his “One Year” rule is anything more than one man’s legalistic opinion.