For each, you will write a 200-250 word summary and evaluation of that resource in terms of its usefulness in responsible Bible reading. Specific Requirements

  Resource Evaluation

General Description

You will select one translation and one commentary.. For each, you will write a 200-250 word summary and evaluation of that resource in terms of its usefulness in responsible Bible reading.

Specific Requirements

Elements of the Paper

Your paper will be 400-500 words long. The first half will cover a Bible translation, and the second half cover a commentary or online resource. You do not need to cite or footnote your sources for this paper.

Page 1: Translation

• Describe the history of the translation (when it was published, whether it is a revision or update of a previous translation), the translation committee (its general makeup), and the translation philosophy. 
  • You are welcome to use easy-to-access sources like Wikipedia and BibleGateway.com.
• Explain where this translation falls on the translation philosophy spectrum (from formal equivalence [literal], to functional equivalence [dynamic], to free). See Fee & Stuart, p. 45. page link below.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.4&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safe

• Give an example of where this translation’s philosophy makes a difference by giving the wording to a verse and comparing it to another translation.
• Evaluate the translation by discussing a way in which it could help or hinder responsible Bible reading.

Page 2: Commentary/Online Resource (See list of criteria in Fee & Stuart, pp. 276-277, for a good list of things to include) this are the links to pages below.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safehttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.2&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safehttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.3&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safe

• Describe the author of the commentary. What is her/background and credentials? Is it part of a series? If so, is the series all by the same author?
• Describe the type of commentary this is: exegetical, homiletical, or other.
• Describe, as best you can, whether the commentary makes use of Hebrew and Greek, or whether it uses an English translation as its basis.
• Describe how the author handles issues where multiple interpretations or conclusions are possible.
• Evaluate the commentary by discussing a way in which it could help or hinder responsible Bible reading.
• Feel free to pick from one of the resources listed in Fee & Stuart, pp. 279-290. found in the two links below.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.5&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safehttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.6&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safe

Format APA

Use all the instruction above with each link to the various pages of text you might look at. write by answering the following question above. i want it done 

• 400-500 words total
• Clear titles/headings to mark your two sections
• Free of spelling/grammatical errors

this is a sample paper of how i want it done. Sample PaperJosh KingcadeBIBL-4822Resource Evaluation: TranslationIn this section, I am evaluating the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). This version was originally published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches, an ecumenical organization that is associated primarily with mainline denominations. It is an update of the Revised Standard Version (1952), which itself was an update of the American Standard Version (1901). The NRSV’s translation committee is composed of Protestants, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and even a Jewish scholar. The translation committee has aimed for a more formal equivalence (i.e., a literal translation), and because of this and the robust academic background of the committee, scholars often favor this translation. For example, the NRSV renders Genesis 1:2 as “while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters,” whereas the NIV reads “while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” The NRSV avoids the conclusion that the word for “spirit” (which can also mean breath or wind) is automatically a divine being, whereas the NIV draws the conclusion for the reader.One way the NRSV helps with responsible Bible reading is its focus on gender accuracy, being careful to use gender-specific words (e.g., man, brother, son) only when scripture is clearly referring only to one gender.Resource Evaluation: Commentary/Online ResourceIn this section, I am evaluating the Ezra-Nehemiah volume in the Teach the Text commentary series, written by Douglas J.E. Nykolaishen and Andrew J. Schmutzer.Nykolaishen earned a PhD from the University of Edinburgh, is an ordained minister, and serves as professor of biblical studies at Ouachita Baptist University. Schmutzer earned a PhD from Trinity International University and is professor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute. He has also published articles in scholarly journals. Both authors are well-suited to write an Old Testament commentary.This commentary is neither fully exegetical nor fully homiletical. It is not a rich scholarly work based on the Hebrew text and aimed at fellow scholars. Neither is it aimed fully at preachers. Rather, it is aimed at teachers. Each unit gives some important information about genre and context – not too much, but enough for a teacher preparing a lesson who might need some background information. There are some interpretive and theological insights included. The authors do not list every possible option for difficult texts, opting to give teachers the best middle-ground way forward. This approach is indeed helpful for volunteers who are, say, going to teach an adult Sunday school class and don’t have hours to prepare and whose classes don’t have time to chase every possibility. But this feature is of course limiting to those who want a deep dive into all possibilities.Each section closes with some ideas for illustrating the text, including stories, anecdotes, and historical illustrations.For example, in the section covering Ezra’s instructions on intermarriage (Ezra 10), the authors list some of the reasons why foreign marriages might have been theologically troubling for God and God’s people and how modern divorce is different that ancient Near Eastern divorce. The authors acknowledge how this might have seemed heartless. They frame this exclusive relationship between God and God’s people as a theological one, and they give some practical messages from this passage that might even apply to believers today.