# Reformation Study Bible vs. The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible



## N. Eshelman

Friends: 

I have before me two study Bibles: 

R.C. Sproul and Keith Matheson, general editors, _Reformation Study Bible_, (Orlando: Ligonier, 2005). 

Richard Pratt, general editor, _Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible_, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

Both Bibles claim to be outworkings of the older "New Geneva Study Bible" that RC Sproul edited. 

Besides general editor and version (Sproul's ESV; Pratt's NIV) does anyone know what the differences are? How could Zondervan publish theirs when the list of contributors is the same from both?


----------



## danmpem




----------



## caddy

They are both excellent Bibles. I have both. I like the binding better on the ESV and the text font, but I think the notes are better in the S.O.T.R Study Bible. It is also a bonus to have the Creeds & Confessions at the end of the NIV which Sprouls doesn't have. I like the ESV translation better, than the NIV.

With all that said, the S.O.T.R study Bible is the winner because of the overall notes and additional materials. 

My suggestion. Get both!


----------



## DMcFadden

Both. ESV better. However, notes and confessions in SOTRSB are GREAT!!! Just wish it wasn't NIV.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I prefer the notes and confessions available in the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible over the Sproul bible; however, I do not prefer the NIV translation.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Does anyone know why the SOTR Bible has not been made available in a translation that is acceptable to Reformed people?


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*I have the SOTR Bible and the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible*

Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

nleshelman said:


> Does anyone know why the SOTR Bible has not been made available in a translation that is acceptable to Reformed people?



The NIV is acceptable to many Reformed people, but it's losing popularity.


----------



## jfschultz

nleshelman said:


> Does anyone know why the SOTR Bible has not been made available in a translation that is acceptable to Reformed people?



Actually the New Geneva Study Bible was supposed to be NIV! The publishing house that started the project (and had a license from Zondervan) went out of business. Another group stepped up to the plate on this but did not have a NIV license, so it was done with the NKJV text, which was later replaced with the ESV text.


----------



## sastark

Reformed-Kermit said:


> ...why not get the original...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
> I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).




Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Email PB member: jawyman

He used to work for Zondervan and I think that he has a few copies.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Reformed-Kermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
> I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.
Click to expand...


Email PB member: jawyman

He used to work for Zondervan and I think that he has a few copies.


----------



## glorifyinggodinwv

Benjamin--Ligonier Ministries Store has both hardcopies and genuine leather editions of the New Geneva Study Bible in the NKJV.


----------



## N. Eshelman

sastark said:


> Reformed-Kermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...why not get the original...
Click to expand...


Seth, 

I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible. 

BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, In my humble opinion, do not meet this confessional requirement.


----------



## sastark

nleshelman said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed-Kermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...why not get the original...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seth,
> 
> I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.
> 
> BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, In my humble opinion, do not meet this confessional requirement.
Click to expand...


Oh, don't get me wrong: I love my New Geneva Study Bible (NKJV) for that exact reason. I do, however, believe the 1599GB is easier to read than the KJV and is a great tool.


----------



## N. Eshelman

sastark said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seth,
> 
> I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.
> 
> BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, In my humble opinion, do not meet this confessional requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, don't get me wrong: I love my New Geneva Study Bible (NKJV) for that exact reason. I do, however, believe the 1599GB is easier to read than the KJV and is a great tool.
Click to expand...


Me too!


----------



## sastark

nleshelman said:


> Me too!


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

caddy said:


> They are both excellent Bibles. I have both. I like the binding better on the ESV and the text font, but I think the notes are better in the S.O.T.R Study Bible. It is also a bonus to have the Creeds & Confessions at the end of the NIV which Sprouls doesn't have. I like the ESV translation better, than the NIV.
> 
> With all that said, the S.O.T.R study Bible is the winner because of the overall notes and additional materials.
> 
> My suggestion. Get both!



 

However, (though I have both) I find that I tend to reach for the (NKJV) New Geneva Study Bible before either of the others. I prefer the NKJV over either NIV or ESV ... but I'm wierd like that.


----------



## Pilgrim

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Reformed-Kermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
> I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.
Click to expand...


Try Third millennium Ministries. The leaders of it are basically who produced the NIV SOTR. Apparently they are out of the hardcover but their prices on the leather are barely more than you'd pay retail for hardcover. It looks like supplies are becoming scarce and I wouldn't be surprised if this goes out of print soon, a casualty of the NIV's decline in popularity among the Reformed as well as the ESV Reformation Study Bible coming out soon after this did. I never saw many copies of this bible in the stores anyway compared to the ESV RSB.

Also see here.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

nleshelman said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed-Kermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...why not get the original...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seth,
> 
> I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.
> 
> BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, In my humble opinion, do not meet this confessional requirement.
Click to expand...


I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter. 

In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.


----------



## Galatians220

nleshelman said:


> How could Zondervan publish theirs when the list of contributors is the same from both?


 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Margaret


----------



## SueS

ChristopherPaul said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seth,
> 
> I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.
> 
> BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, In my humble opinion, do not meet this confessional requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.
> 
> In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.
Click to expand...






I don't know what happened to the "thanks" button, but thankyou for this post - I agree completely!


----------



## sastark

ChristopherPaul said:


> I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.
> 
> In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.



Not wanting to debate either, but I will only ask one question in response: Can you name a single, living person who speaks King James English?

And, just so you know, I don't think either of us were saying our comments resolve any disputes, only that we both agree on this point, which is why we use modern translations like the NKJV.

Again, not wanting to debate, just wanting to clarify (and ask a rhetorical question).


----------



## KMK

sastark said:


> Again, not wanting to debate, just wanting to clarify (and ask a rhetorical question).



Isn't this a contradiction? I believe rhetorical questions are a tool of rhetorics in general.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

sastark said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.
> 
> In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wanting to debate either, but I will only ask one question in response: Can you name a single, living person who speaks King James English?
Click to expand...


No I cannot. I am not even sure the confessional divines whom you quoted in regards to using vulgar tongue spoke in King James English. However, whether the common man understands his language or not, the language is still English. I do not believe the language used to interpret holy writ should be based on the democratic majority of the use of that language. The language is what it is whether ignorant man wants to twist the meanings of words or not. If I start a new fad that catches on where the word "righteous" means "wicked," shall we update the Bible due to man's corruption and or ignorance of his own language?

My overarching point is not that you or anyone else should only read the AV (I personally use ESV primarily these days), but that the "vulgar tongue" argument or excuse does not apply.

I prefaced my original comment because I realize this is off topic, I just couldn't let one side remark go by without another side remark in response.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

KMK said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not wanting to debate, just wanting to clarify (and ask a rhetorical question).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a contradiction? I believe rhetorical questions are a tool of rhetorics in general.
Click to expand...


yes, thus the sticking out of the tongue smiley (a _vulgar _tongue I might add).


----------



## DMcFadden

Pilgrim said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed-Kermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
> I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Third millennium Ministries. The leaders of it are basically who produced the NIV SOTR. Apparently they are out of the hardcover but their prices on the leather are barely more than you'd pay retail for hardcover. It looks like supplies are becoming scarce and I wouldn't be surprised if this goes out of print soon, a casualty of the NIV's decline in popularity among the Reformed as well as the ESV Reformation Study Bible coming out soon after this did. I never saw many copies of this bible in the stores anyway compared to the ESV RSB.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the tip. I already ordered my leather copy of SOTR. It was practically the same price just as you indicated. Thanks again, for poiinting that out. Now if we could get the text to be something other than NIV . . . .


----------



## N. Eshelman

If we argue that English is the 'vulgar' then why don't we use something even more pure like Chaucer English or Beowolf English... why go for such a watered down modern form like Elizabethan? 

There was a time when the western world spoke Latin and the Vugate would have been fine- but the Papists made an idol out of their translation... should we do that with the AV, or should we give the people the Bible in their language?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

nleshelman said:


> If we argue that English is the 'vulgar' then why don't we use something even more pure like Chaucer English or Beowolf English... why go for such a watered down modern form like Elizabethan?
> 
> There was a time when the western world spoke Latin and the Vugate would have been fine- but the Papists made an idol out of their translation... should we do that with the AV, or should we give the people the Bible in their language?



Nate, that is an excellent point. In fact why even go for a watered down language like English at all, why not keep it in Latin?


----------



## SolaGratia

The English Language is good for business purposes, the German for War, and the Latin to speak to God (Popular Spanish Remark).


----------



## KMK

nleshelman said:


> If we argue that English is the 'vulgar' then why don't we use something even more pure like Chaucer English or Beowolf English... why go for such a watered down modern form like Elizabethan?
> 
> There was a time when the western world spoke Latin and the Vugate would have been fine- but the Papists made an idol out of their translation... should we do that with the AV, or should we give the people the Bible in their language?



It sure sounds like someone wants to start a debate...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SolaGratia said:


> The English Language is good for business purposes, the German for War, and the Latin to speak to God (Popular Spanish Remark).



Most interesting...


----------



## etexas

I am not a big "fan" of Study Bibles. I would rather have my King Jimmy and a Matt Henry commentary set! I kick it old school!


----------



## DMcFadden

I agree about English and German. But, why would anyone try speaking in Latin to God? Don't they know he put the Gospel into GREEK, not Latin? Latin was for corrupt political types, effete elites, and PB scholarly wannabees. "Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!"


----------



## ReformedDave

etexas said:


> I am not a big "fan" of Study Bibles. I would rather have my King Jimmy and a Matt Henry commentary set! I kick it old school!



Kind of a Matt Henry study Bible?


----------



## Ivan

DMcFadden said:


> I agree about English and German. But, why would anyone try speaking in Latin to God? Don't they know he put the Gospel into GREEK, not Latin. Latin was for corrupt political types, effete elites, and PB scholarly wannabees? "Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!"




Well, it's all Greek to me...even English sometimes.


----------



## etexas

ReformedDave said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a big "fan" of Study Bibles. I would rather have my King Jimmy and a Matt Henry commentary set! I kick it old school!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a Matt Henry study Bible?
Click to expand...

No they make a Matt Henry Study Bible but the notes are MUCH shorter! I mean what I said I like my Allan King James , and the 6 volume Matthew Henry Commentaries.


----------



## SolaGratia

DMcFadden said:


> I agree about English and German. But, why would anyone try speaking in Latin to God? Don't they know he put the Gospel into GREEK, not Latin? Latin was for corrupt political types, effete elites, and PB scholarly wannabees. "Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!"



It has more to do with the Western Church and the Holy Roman Empire, when there was a time in the church (western church primarily) when theologians, teachers, bishops, etc. wrote in Latin. A good example is Martin Luther thesis which he wrote in Latin.


----------



## pilgrim3970

Well, after much consideration, I have ordered a copy of the SRSB. The NIV is not my favorite translation (I guess there ARE much worse out there), but it is what is being used at the parish I am serving in. After reading some of posts here, I am very attracted to the idea of the additional features and better notes the SRSB has over the RSB (which I have a copy of as well).


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy

I have the Reformation Study Bible but am also probably going to get a copy of the ESV Study Bible that was mentioned on here earlier that is due out in Oct.

Home | ESV Study Bible | Crossway

Which also looks to be very good.


----------



## danmpem

Kenneth_Murphy said:


> I have the Reformation Study Bible but am also probably going to get a copy of the ESV Study Bible that was mentioned on here earlier that is due out in Oct.
> 
> Home | ESV Study Bible | Crossway
> 
> Which also looks to be very good.



 I've been bugging my local Christian bookstore about it for years. They are very happy to not have to hear me keep asking about it.


----------



## pilgrim3970

*finally bit the bullet*

Ok, after reading the favorable reviews here and elsewhere, I decided to go ahead and buy a SRSB.

All I have to say is wow...

I owned the New Geneva at one time and bought a RSB last year. I have to admit that even with it being and NIV (which isn't necessarily a bad translation, its just that there are better) it surpasses both the NGSB and the RSB - seems to have more of everything.

now I REALLY wish Zondervan would come out with a NASB version!


----------



## SueS

sastark said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.
> 
> In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wanting to debate either, but I will only ask one question in response: Can you name a single, living person who speaks King James English?
> 
> And, just so you know, I don't think either of us were saying our comments resolve any disputes, only that we both agree on this point, which is why we use modern translations like the NKJV.
> 
> Again, not wanting to debate, just wanting to clarify (and ask a rhetorical question).
Click to expand...




I am not a "King James onliest" but use it and the Geneva Bible out of preference. Surprisingly, I find that the Geneva is much more readable than I expected and I love the notes by the original Reformers.

These two Bibles have been around for 399 and 409 years, respectively, and up until a few decades ago were the only game in town. During the early years of this country overall literacy was at a much higher level than it is at present - people read and were able to UNDERSTAND what they read. Almost every home had a copy of the KJV, Pilgrim's Progress, and sometimes, Shakespeare. Even though the Bible was written in an archaic form people didn't run around spouting "thee's" and "thou's" in their speech, except, of course, the Quakers! I find that a familiarity with King James/Geneva English promotes an easier understanding of Shakespeare, Spenser, and the Puritan writers, although Owen is still a bear to read!!! 

Fast forward to our modern era - overall literacy is down, people, in general, simply don't read any more - education has been so dumbed down that they are incapable of reading, much less understanding, the English of the KJV and the Geneva Bible. New "translations" are coming out all the time, most merely paraphrases - and each is progressively more casual and more "vulgar" in its tone. At this rate how long will it be until the "message bible" is deemed to be too advanced to be understandable?


----------



## Pilgrim

Galatians220 said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Zondervan publish theirs when the list of contributors is the same from both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> 
> Margaret
Click to expand...


I don't know what the legal intricacies are. Luder Whitlock was involved in both, but Sproul and Ligonier were not involved in the SRSB but Third millennium Ministries (Pratt, Frame and McLaughlin) were. The contributors are the same, but that is because the SRSB started with the original NGSB notes, but they have been extensively revised in some cases and are much more thorough. The editorial team (Thirdmill) is different too.


----------



## jbergsing

nleshelman said:


> Does anyone know why the SOTR Bible has not been made available in a translation that is acceptable to Reformed people?


$$$$$! It's all about sales. They don't think it'll sell with a different translation and that's to bad. I'd surely buy one!


----------



## wallingj

I have both, but in a strange way. I have SRSB in print, and the RSB electronically in Logos. This works for me because I also have WCF, and the other confessions in Logos, and they keylinked by verse.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*I think I bought mine on the Ligonier website a year ago or so*



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Reformed-Kermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
> I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.
Click to expand...


I looked again today on the Ligonier site but I think all they are selling now is the new version.


----------



## CPI1943

Just FYI, while I know distributors are running out of the hardback versions of the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, there is also an electronic version available: It is from a company called Laridian Software. I got a copy from them..it is a book on their Pocket Bible program which is available for Windows, Windows Mobile and Palm Pilot (and probably some other OSes also)... I have the windows version running in a virtual box in Linux and the Palm Pilot version on my Palm T/X.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here's a thread from the Thirdmill discussion board on the SRSB and the possibility of it coming out in different translations: 

SRSB - General Discussion - Third Millennium Discussion Groups - Third Millennium Ministries Discussion Forums - Message Board - Yuku

This one goes into a lot more detail about the origin of the project: 

Speaking of Covenant Theology - General Discussion - Third Millennium Discussion Groups - Third Millennium Ministries Discussion Forums - Message Board - Yuku

In another thread Ra discusses their use of the NIV.


----------

