# Best study bible



## josiahrussell

what is everyone's favourite 'go to' study bible? I have the ESV reformation study bible, and the KJV Reformation heritage bible but always open for new ones for my collection.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Those you mention are two of the very best.


----------



## Beezer

My favorite is the KJV Reformation Heritage Study Bible, which I have open on my desk now. This study Bible has more aids and helps included than any other I've seen. I really enjoy the included "Thoughts for Personal/Family Worship" at the end of each chapter as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake

Another study Bible that I've found helpful which is a little less known is the "The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible" edited by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates. I have it in KJV but it's available in multiple translations. It includes notes mainly around the translation of the text, has gramattical marks throughout, and links a great portion of the words of the text to Strong's and then has a concise Strongs dictionary in the back. 

In some ways, Bible software is better, but I like having the printed form available.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jake said:


> "The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible" edited by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates.


The word studies can be helpful, but Zodhiates acts like the central theme of the Bible is eternal security.

Pound for pound, the best is the old Nelson Study Bible. While it has a premillennial slant to it, it was the best early study bible.


----------



## Beezer

Jake said:


> Another study Bible that I've found helpful which is a little less known is the "The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible" edited by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates.



I was unfamiliar with this one and took a look and see one of the endorsements on the front of the box is from Beth Moore! It's apparently her favorite study Bible as well!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jake

ReformedReidian said:


> The word studies can be helpful, but Zodhiates acts like the central theme of the Bible is eternal security.
> 
> Pound for pound, the best is the old Nelson Study Bible. While it has a premillennial slant to it, it was the best early study bible.



The word studies are only on certain passages, and sometimes helpful. I use it more for the language notes (grammatical and definitions) throughout.



Beezer said:


> I was unfamiliar with this one and took a look and see one of the endorsements on the front of the box is from Beth Moore! It's apparently her favorite study Bible as well!



For what it's worth, my older edition doesn't have that. I do see now that some of the newer editions have her recommendations on the front. Zodhiates was (independent?) baptist, so bear that slant in mind.


----------



## Beezer

Ah, I was just poking fun! Got a chuckle out of it is all.


----------



## Silas22

I bounce back and forth between the ESV study bible and Ligoniers reformation study bible.

If I were abandoned on an island I would probably take the ESV study bible.


----------



## reaganmarsh

I love my RBH KJV SB. It stays open on the book stand on my desk. A close second is the ESV SB, with third place being awarded to the _Spirit of the Reformation_ SB (NIV). I prefer it to the Reformation SB because its notes are keyed to the confessions, and the RSB notes aren't.

Honorable mention: Zondervan's new NIV SB, the NET Bible, and the HCSB SB.

Also indispensable is the 1599 Geneva Bible.

Just thinking out loud:

1. I've never been very impressed with the "word study" Bibles. AMG has theirs, and Thomas Nelson just printed one recently as well...your mileage may vary.

2. My wife picked me up a gently-used Thompson Chain-Reference at Goodwill for a song. Glad to have it, though I've not had much opportunity to use it yet; but it's an interesting idea. Not sure if I like it yet or not.

3. . I've considered an NLT SB for some time now -- not for the translation, but because I read somewhere that the notes were insightful. Never have picked one up. Any of y'all care to weigh in on its value?


----------



## tleaf

If you can find one, Dickson's Analytical Bible (KJV) is good, but out of print.
It has outlines of each book, but also two really useful features others do not: (1) an extensive dictionary / encyclopedia in the front, and (2) at the end of every book a one or two page summary of contemporary events for the time period in that book.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

If you can overlook the fact that he manages to read the millennial kingdom into virtually every passage of Scripture, the MacArthur study Bible does provide some pretty good insights and a fair amount of historical context.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## josiahrussell

Bill The Baptist said:


> If you can overlook the fact that he manages to read the millennial kingdom into virtually every passage of Scripture, the MacArthur study Bible does provide some pretty good insights and a fair amount of historical context.


I was thinking about getting the MacArthur study bible because I simply like the NASB translation over all the others but there just doesn't seem to be any reformed study bibles in the NASB. Maybe at this stage I should look at individual commentaries to accompany further


----------



## Bill The Baptist

josiahrussell said:


> I was thinking about getting the MacArthur study bible because I simply like the NASB translation over all the others but there just doesn't seem to be any reformed study bibles in the NASB. Maybe at this stage I should look at individual commentaries to accompany further



It's still worth owning if you find a good deal on one.


----------



## ZackF

Bill The Baptist said:


> It's still worth owning if you find a good deal on one.



This was my workhorse NAS study bible in days past. My wife still uses it. It's very helpful.


----------



## Dachaser

josiahrussell said:


> what is everyone's favourite 'go to' study bible? I have the ESV reformation study bible, and the KJV Reformation heritage bible but always open for new ones for my collection.


I current use the most my ESV study bible, and the ESV center column reference bible, and do still use my Ryrie Nas bible, as while Dispensational, still very good notes, and in my favorite version!


----------



## reaganmarsh

ZackF said:


> This was my workhorse NAS study bible in days past. My wife still uses it. It's very helpful.



Quite so!


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> If you can overlook the fact that he manages to read the millennial kingdom into virtually every passage of Scripture, the MacArthur study Bible does provide some pretty good insights and a fair amount of historical context.


Much as my Ryrie bible, as you can get information from either one, just as long as know their Dispensational views are in there....


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> I love my RBH KJV SB. It stays open on the book stand on my desk. A close second is the ESV SB, with third place being awarded to the _Spirit of the Reformation_ SB (NIV). I prefer it to the Reformation SB because its notes are keyed to the confessions, and the RSB notes aren't.
> 
> Honorable mention: Zondervan's new NIV SB, the NET Bible, and the HCSB SB.
> 
> Also indispensable is the 1599 Geneva Bible.
> 
> Just thinking out loud:
> 
> 1. I've never been very impressed with the "word study" Bibles. AMG has theirs, and Thomas Nelson just printed one recently as well...your mileage may vary.
> 
> 2. My wife picked me up a gently-used Thompson Chain-Reference at Goodwill for a song. Glad to have it, though I've not had much opportunity to use it yet; but it's an interesting idea. Not sure if I like it yet or not.
> 
> 3. . I've considered an NLT SB for some time now -- not for the translation, but because I read somewhere that the notes were insightful. Never have picked one up. Any of y'all care to weigh in on its value?


Another good one would be the Inductive study bible, as that version teaches one how to actually study the bible...


----------



## Pilgrim

For those talking about the MacArthur SB, if you have a smart phone, I think you can still get access to the notes in the mobile app for $5. (That mobile app is one of the better one's I've used, and it has audio versions of the ESV, NASB and KJV, with the latter being a Scourby recording.) The Kindle version is also periodically on sale for under $5, along with several other major Study Bibles, mostly those published by Zondervan and Nelson.

I've gotten to where I hardly refer to Study Bibles anymore, especially the physical book. About the only exception in recent years is the Reformation Heritage Study Bible. Usually I just read a text or reference edition and then refer to an electronic copy of a Study Bible or commentary as needed.


----------



## Pilgrim

ReformedReidian said:


> The word studies can be helpful, but Zodhiates acts like the central theme of the Bible is eternal security.
> 
> Pound for pound, the best is the old Nelson Study Bible. While it has a premillennial slant to it, it was the best early study bible.



I've never found the Nelson (subsequently revised as the NKJV Study Bible) to be particularly helpful. (I only have it on Logos and have rarely referred to it, so maybe that's part of the problem. But if I refer to something 4 or 5 times and don't find it to be particularly helpful or distinctive, I tend to forget about it.) Most if not all of the contributors were dispensational, but they seemed to have made the notes rather plain vanilla and inoffensive, perhaps appealing to the lowest common denominator. Are you maybe referring to word studies or something like that? 

One that pleasantly surprised me several years ago, especially because it is basically a product of Liberty Baptist Seminary (which has been rather anti-Calvinist at times) was the Nelson KJV Study Bible. I found the notes to be helpful more often than not, less anti-Calvinist than I expected, and it tended to have an in-text map just when I thought it would be helpful. It has archaic KJV words rendered in modern English in the margin. The print is nice and large although I think with the new edition it might not be as large. Although the doctrinal perspective (Baptist and moderately dispensational) falls far short of the Reformed confessions, Reformation Heritage Books used to sell this one due to their commitment to the KJV and what was perhaps a felt need to have at least one Study Bible available. Evidently they thought it was better than Zondervan's KJV Study Bible, which has more plain vanilla notes that don't take a position on many matters.


----------



## Pilgrim

josiahrussell said:


> I was thinking about getting the MacArthur study bible because I simply like the NASB translation over all the others but there just doesn't seem to be any reformed study bibles in the NASB. Maybe at this stage I should look at individual commentaries to accompany further



in my opinion the MacArthur is well worth getting, but I wouldn't pay $50 (much less $80) for something that I am not likely to refer to often. (Hence, opting for ebook versions at a sale price as I mentioned earlier before making a big investment.)

The MacArthur was published 20 years ago. At the time, it had a lot more notes than any other Study Bible. (The most thorough at that time were probably the original NIV Study Bible and the Nelson KJV Study Bible, and maybe the Ryrie.) The MacArthur still holds up quite well in that regard. It has a lot more notes in the NT than the OT, but the OT still has more notes than most other Study Bibles do. I think it probably has at least about the same amount of notes in the OT as the first edition of the Reformation Study Bible did, which was fairly skimpy in places. The revision of the Reformation Study Bible that was published a few years ago has a good many more notes than the first edition did, from what I understand. 

Another good one is the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. Some still prefer it to the Ligonier Reformation Study Bible. But it has been out of print for about a decade. Whether or not you use the NIV, it is well worth picking up if you don't have to pay a fortune for it. 

Among Study Bibles that are currently in print, the MacArthur is still in my top 5 along with the Ligonier and RHB Reformed Study Bibles, the ESV Study Bible and maybe either the HCSB or Zondervan NIV Study Bible. (I haven't looked at the Zondervan NIV much and only have it in ebook format, but I've heard good things about it.) The CSB Study Bible has just been released. It is a revision of the HCSB Study Bible, but I don't know how much was changed or if it was made more or less friendly to Reformed theology. With the HCSB Study Bible, you have at least a few dispensational notes in Revelation and some that are not dispensational in Matthew, so it doesn't really come from a unified doctrinal perspective.

The Archaeological Study Bible is another one that I've heard good things about, but I have never really looked at it.

I've occasionally found it helpful to read a Study Bible from a different doctrinal perspective in order to get it straight from the horse's mouth, as they say, and not merely rely on critiques. I did that with the Scofield III close to 10 years ago. But once I read through it once, (there aren't many notes) I'm not sure if I've ever really consulted it again. And I probably won't unless I'm doing some kind of research on dispensationalism. in my opinion there isn't enough there to bear repeated reading compared to the Nelson KJV Study Bible and a few of the others. But it did help me understand dispensationalism as opposed to relying on what other people said about it, some of which is helpful and some of which really is not. Getting something like Concordia's Lutheran Study Bible (which I hear is excellent) could serve a similar purpose, and it would probably bear repeated reading. (I've never seen that one and I don't know if it has second commandment violations.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pilgrim said:


> Another good one is the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. Some still prefer it to the Ligonier Reformation Study Bible. But it has been out of print for about a decade. Whether or not you use the NIV, it is well worth picking up if you don't have to pay a fortune for it.


Pratt and the ThirdMill folks will eventually get this back online:
http://thirdmill.org/studybible/

About as cheap as you can get nowadays:
http://www.biblio.com/book/niv-spirit-reformation-study-bible-pratt/d/956716734
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0310923603/

Some may have been fortunate to get it on the Kindle a few years ago but it is no longer offered.

I have read that it maybe available on iTunes, too.
Laridian has the notes available for any bible translation:
https://www.laridian.com/catalog/products/pcdsotr.asp

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

I've seen hardcover copies of the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible on eBay for less than $50 in the past few years, with some appearing (or so the seller claims) to be in decent condition. You just have to be patient. I'd try make sure the seller accepts returns in case there is something wrong with it or see if they can post pics. 

Bookfinder.com is the place I usually check for used books as it searches most of the major sites. It is sort of hit or miss for eBay though. Most of my listings show up on there, but some don't even if I have the ISBN entered.


----------



## bookslover

Beezer said:


> My favorite is the KJV Reformation Heritage Study Bible, which I have open on my desk now. This study Bible has more aids and helps included than any other I've seen. I really enjoy the included "Thoughts for Personal/Family Worship" at the end of each chapter as well.



Are you aware that all of those "Thoughts for Personal/Family Worship" have been gathered together and published here: _Family Worship Bible Guide_, Joel R. Beeke, general editor (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Press, 2016), xviii + 856pp.? Although nearly 900 pages long, it's printed on Bible paper and is a small, physically handy size. It's even printed and bound by Royal Jongbloed in the Netherlands. The list price is $20, I think, but you can get it for less. I've been using it as part of my devotional reading and I'm really enjoying it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover

Jake said:


> Another study Bible that I've found helpful which is a little less known is the "The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible" edited by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates. I have it in KJV but it's available in multiple translations. It includes notes mainly around the translation of the text, has gramattical marks throughout, and links a great portion of the words of the text to Strong's and then has a concise Strongs dictionary in the back.
> 
> In some ways, Bible software is better, but I like having the printed form available.


 
I remember my Greek professor from years ago, David Alan Black, saying he was not too impressed by Zodhiates's handling of the Greek text.


----------



## Josh Williamson

Later this year there will be a Spurgeon Study Bible in the CSB translation. I'm looking forward to that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh

Josh Williamson said:


> Later this year there will be a Spurgeon Study Bible in the CSB translation. I'm looking forward to that.



That sounds fascinating. Could you provide a link, or some more information? 

Not to derail the thread on a textual war -- this is merely an observation: given Spurgeon's esteem of the AV, it's a bit ironic that an eclectic textual base like the HCSB utilizes (and I assume, the CSB as well, given its lineage) is being utilized.


----------



## bookslover

reaganmarsh said:


> That sounds fascinating. Could you provide a link, or some more information?
> 
> Not to derail the thread on a textual war -- this is merely an observation: given Spurgeon's esteem of the AV, it's a bit ironic that an eclectic textual base like the HCSB utilizes (and I assume, the CSB as well, given its lineage) is being utilized.



Spurgeon was happy to occasionally use the RV, after it was published in 1881, to correct the KJV where he felt it necessary. Just sayin'.


----------



## bookslover

I believe John MacArthur has announced that there will be a second edition of the MacArthur Study Bible published by the end of the year.


----------



## Josh Williamson

reaganmarsh said:


> That sounds fascinating. Could you provide a link, or some more information?
> 
> Not to derail the thread on a textual war -- this is merely an observation: given Spurgeon's esteem of the AV, it's a bit ironic that an eclectic textual base like the HCSB utilizes (and I assume, the CSB as well, given its lineage) is being utilized.



Here is the link: http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/products/csb-spurgeon-study-bible-black-genuine-leather-indexed

CHS liked the AV, but he also said that it contained translation errors, and supported the RV in points.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Josh Williamson said:


> CHS liked the AV, but he also said that it contained translation errors, and supported the RV in points.


Here is an example http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols31-33/chs1934.pdf


----------



## reaganmarsh

Josh and Stephen, 

I take your point. Thanks. I'd read that before, but had forgotten. 

(Not intending to badmouth the H/CSB!)

Back to Study Bibles: the Spurgeon SB looks interesting! I appreciate the link!


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> That sounds fascinating. Could you provide a link, or some more information?
> 
> Not to derail the thread on a textual war -- this is merely an observation: given Spurgeon's esteem of the AV, it's a bit ironic that an eclectic textual base like the HCSB utilizes (and I assume, the CSB as well, given its lineage) is being utilized.


He did esteem the KJV, but also thought the 1881 revision did in places give a better rendering of the original text...


----------



## joebonni63

I like a couple of Study Bibles that I use:

1. ESV Study Bible has great coverage
2. ESV Reformation Study Bible (First Edition)
3. NKJV Reformation Study Bible (Current Edition)
4. The Geneva Bible 1599 great for everything

I think I like out of all these I use is the 1599 Geneva but the print is starting to bother me they really need a larger type and they were going to do that and nothing happened ................


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> Josh and Stephen,
> 
> I take your point. Thanks. I'd read that before, but had forgotten.
> 
> (Not intending to badmouth the H/CSB!)
> 
> Back to Study Bibles: the Spurgeon SB looks interesting! I appreciate the link!


The Zondervan Study Bible that recently came out as very good notes. much as the Esv one has, too bad text is Niv 2011...


----------



## reaganmarsh

Dachaser said:


> The Zondervan Study Bible that recently came out as very good notes. much as the Esv one has, too bad text is Niv 2011...



Agreed, David. The ESV SB takes more of a ST focus, while the Z-NIV SB employs more of a BT lens. I enjoy them both. 

Joseph mentions the 1599 Geneva above (post #35) -- an incredibly helpful Bible, and the historical aspect is just plain fun.


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> Agreed, David. The ESV SB takes more of a ST focus, while the Z-NIV SB employs more of a BT lens. I enjoy them both.
> 
> Joseph mentions the 1599 Geneva above (post #35) -- an incredibly helpful Bible, and the historical aspect is just plain fun.


The Zondervan notes are quite similar to the Esv, but think that the Esv ones are slightly better overall....
And many do regard the Geneva bible is superior to the KJV itself...


----------



## Stephen L Smith

josiahrussell said:


> I have the ESV reformation study bible, and the KJV Reformation heritage bible but always open for new ones for my collection.


These are both quality Reformed study Bibles. My advice would be master the truths of these, and more importantly the scriptures themselves, before you go onto another study Bible.


----------



## reaganmarsh

ZackF said:


> This was my workhorse NAS study bible in days past. My wife still uses it. It's very helpful.



My wife gave me the hardback edition NASB-SB during our first year of marriage. A helpful (and special!) SB indeed.


----------



## Dachaser

Which Bible is that one?


----------



## reaganmarsh

Dachaser said:


> Which Bible is that one?


Not sure if you were asking me, David, but this is the NASB SB to which I referred in my last comment (#40): https://www.christianbook.com/nas-zondervan-study-bible-hardcover/9780310910923/pd/10932?event=AAI


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> Not sure if you were asking me, David, but this is the NASB SB to which I referred in my last comment (#40): https://www.christianbook.com/nas-zondervan-study-bible-hardcover/9780310910923/pd/10932?event=AAI


The version that used the Niv Study Bible notes, correct?


----------



## py3ak

The Literary Study Bible can be quite suggestive of lines of inquiry.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Dachaser said:


> The version that used the Niv Study Bible notes, correct?



Yes, that's correct; they were adapted for the NASB, but originated with the NIV SB.



py3ak said:


> The Literary Study Bible can be quite suggestive of lines of inquiry.



My wife gave me a copy of the LSB a few years back for my birthday. I agree wholeheartedly, and have given several copies as gifts.

A nice companion to the LSB is IVP's Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (the big purple one). They complement each other well.


----------



## py3ak

reaganmarsh said:


> the big purple one



That book is quite remarkable for its bigness and its purpleness. Removing the dust jacket helps!


----------



## reaganmarsh

py3ak said:


> That book is quite remarkable for its bigness and its purpleness. Removing the dust jacket helps!



Ha ha! Yeah, I almost always remove the dustjacket when I'm using it, too.


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> Yes, that's correct; they were adapted for the NASB, but originated with the NIV SB.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife gave me a copy of the LSB a few years back for my birthday. I agree wholeheartedly, and have given several copies as gifts.
> 
> A nice companion to the LSB is IVP's Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (the big purple one). They complement each other well.


I always wanted to purchase that Nas bible, but do not think Zondervan still publishes it though.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dachaser said:


> I always wanted to purchase that Nas bible, but do not think Zondervan still publishes it though.



It is still available at CBD and likely elsewhere.

The NASB SB (and Zondervan's KJV Study Bible) is based on the 1995 10th Anniversary revision of the NIV SB. I've heard that it doesn't quite have all of the NIV SB resources.

I think that Zondervan NIV/NASB/KJV Study Bibles are ok as a "training wheels" Study Bible, but they punt on too many controversial issues and has always seemed to me to be aimed at a lowest common denominator evangelicalism. No doubt, that is one reason why the NIV Study Bible became so popular. Back in 1985 when it was first published, about the only alternatives were Scofield, Ryrie and some others that have long been forgotten by most people. 

There weren't as many choices in the late 90s when it was published. The Reformation Study Bible was only available in the NKJV, as was the MacArthur. About the only choices in the NASB were things like the Ryrie, which would obviously be unacceptable to Reformed people. I do remember the book introductions in the NIV Study Bible being helpful, especially for someone like me who was just beginning to study the Bible and had had to read the New Oxford Annotated Bible in college with its promotion of the documentary hypothesis, denial of traditional authorship of the NT, etc.

There is supposed to be a new NASB Study Bible coming out following the release of the upcoming NASB update. I don't know whether or not it will be a new SB or an adaptation of the NIV SB or some other existing SB.


----------



## TrustGzus

Dachaser said:


> I always wanted to purchase that Nas bible, but do not think Zondervan still publishes it though.


It's definitely still available. I'm vacationing in Tennessee and stopped by a Lifeway Christian Store. They had it in stock on the shelf.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Josh Williamson said:


> Here is the link: http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/products/csb-spurgeon-study-bible-black-genuine-leather-indexed


It looks like the study Bible's Spurgeon notes will be selected by Alistair Begg. Hopefully this means Spurgeon's clear Calvinistic theology will be included.

Josh you should not really promote a Spurgeon study Bible in front of our Presbyterian friends. The danger is that reading a lot of Spurgeon may compel them to head to a baptismal pool.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> It is still available at CBD and likely elsewhere.
> 
> The NASB SB (and Zondervan's KJV Study Bible) is based on the 1995 10th Anniversary revision of the NIV SB. I've heard that it doesn't quite have all of the NIV SB resources.
> 
> I think that Zondervan NIV/NASB/KJV Study Bibles are ok as a "training wheels" Study Bible, but they punt on too many controversial issues and has always seemed to me to be aimed at a lowest common denominator evangelicalism. No doubt, that is one reason why the NIV Study Bible became so popular. Back in 1985 when it was first published, about the only alternatives were Scofield, Ryrie and some others that have long been forgotten by most people.
> 
> There weren't as many choices in the late 90s when it was published. The Reformation Study Bible was only available in the NKJV, as was the MacArthur. About the only choices in the NASB were things like the Ryrie, which would obviously be unacceptable to Reformed people. I do remember the book introductions in the NIV Study Bible being helpful, especially for someone like me who was just beginning to study the Bible and had had to read the New Oxford Annotated Bible in college with its promotion of the documentary hypothesis, denial of traditional authorship of the NT, etc.
> 
> There is supposed to be a new NASB Study Bible coming out following the release of the upcoming NASB update. I don't know whether or not it will be a new SB or an adaptation of the NIV SB or some other existing SB.


Do you know when the new Nas will be out then?


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> It looks like the study Bible's Spurgeon notes will be selected by Alistair Begg. Hopefully this means Spurgeon's clear Calvinistic theology will be included.
> 
> Josh you should not really promote a Spurgeon study Bible in front of our Presbyterian friends. The danger is that reading a lot of Spurgeon may compel them to head to a baptismal pool.


They might also want to check out his understanding of the Second Coming also.


----------



## Josh Williamson

Stephen L Smith said:


> It looks like the study Bible's Spurgeon notes will be selected by Alistair Begg. Hopefully this means Spurgeon's clear Calvinistic theology will be included.
> 
> Josh you should not really promote a Spurgeon study Bible in front of our Presbyterian friends. The danger is that reading a lot of Spurgeon may compel them to head to a baptismal pool.



Here's hoping!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## JimmyH

My first one was also the NIV Study Bible, still have it. Added W.A. Criswell's 'Believer's' SB, and eventually the MacArthur NKJV, Reformation Heritage KJV, and the ESV SB. So many on this board recommended the Spirit of the Reformation SB that I bought an OUP hardback with clean text block. The notes in that make it worth it even if you have to use a magnifying glass to read them. I picked up the new 2011 NIV SB because D.A. Carson is the editor so how bad could it be.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> My first one was also the NIV Study Bible, still have it. Added W.A. Criswell's 'Believer's' SB, and eventually the MacArthur NKJV, Reformation Heritage KJV, and the ESV SB. So many on this board recommended the Spirit of the Reformation SB that I bought an OUP hardback with clean text block. The notes in that make it worth it even if you have to use a magnifying glass to read them. I picked up the new 2011 NIV SB because D.A. Carson is the editor so how bad could it be.


I have found that the study notes between the esv and the Zondervan Niv Study Bibles seem to be pretty close to each other, but I prefer the esv, as like that translation better then the 2011 Niv.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dachaser said:


> Do you know when the new Nas will be out then?



Late this year at the earliest, but my best guess is that it will be next year. It seems that it keeps getting pushed back. They post periodic updates to the Lockman Foundation Facebook page.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> Late this year at the earliest, but my best guess is that it will be next year. It seems that it keeps getting pushed back. They post periodic updates to the Lockman Foundation Facebook page.


I have read somewhere that this new revision was not touching the new testament at all, but was mainly dealing with the OT scriptures, as the NT update was done in 1995 revision.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dachaser said:


> I have read somewhere that this new revision was not touching the new testament at all, but was mainly dealing with the OT scriptures, as the NT update was done in 1995 revision.



The NT will be brought into conformity with the latest NA/UBS critical text, (more or less) even if they don't do much else. I think the 1995 is at least two editions out of date by this point. That's one of the reasons for doing an update to begin with, even though they've said they will be doing more work on the OT. (That's also one reason why the now abandoned ESV "Permanent Text" idea was half-baked since the ESV is not based on a "Textus Receptus" that basically doesn't change.)

According to the Lockman FB page, apparently it is up in the air as to whether they will use YHWH or the traditional LORD. Making that change may cause some to embrace the NASB who haven't before (or who may have defected to the ESV, etc.) and cause some who think abandoning LORD is a mistake to consider switching to something else.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> The NT will be brought into conformity with the latest NA/UBS critical text, (more or less) even if they don't do much else. I think the 1995 is at least two editions out of date by this point. That's one of the reasons for doing an update to begin with, even though they've said they will be doing more work on the OT. (That's also one reason why the now abandoned ESV "Permanent Text" idea was half-baked since the ESV is not based on a "Textus Receptus" that basically doesn't change.)
> 
> According to the Lockman FB page, apparently it is up in the air as to whether they will use YHWH or the traditional LORD. Making that change may cause some to embrace the NASB who haven't before (or who may have defected to the ESV, etc.) and cause some who think abandoning LORD is a mistake to consider switching to something else.


I believe that the 1995 revision used the 26th edition of the Nestle Aland Greek text.


----------



## TrustGzus

Pilgrim said:


> The NT will be brought into conformity with the latest NA/UBS critical text, (more or less) even if they don't do much else. I think the 1995 is at least two editions out of date by this point. That's one of the reasons for doing an update to begin with, even though they've said they will be doing more work on the OT. (That's also one reason why the now abandoned ESV "Permanent Text" idea was half-baked since the ESV is not based on a "Textus Receptus" that basically doesn't change.)
> 
> According to the Lockman FB page, apparently it is up in the air as to whether they will use YHWH or the traditional LORD. Making that change may cause some to embrace the NASB who haven't before (or who may have defected to the ESV, etc.) and cause some who think abandoning LORD is a mistake to consider switching to something else.


Just looking at my latest copies. I think the NASB was last updated in 1995. Since then others have been updated multiple times.


----------



## iainduguid

Dachaser said:


> I believe that the 1995 revision used the 26th edition of the Nestle Aland Greek text.


I haven't been part of the NT discussions on a translation, but I suspect it is a mistake to think that translators follow a particular version of Nestle Aland slavishly. What NA does is to provide the information about manuscript evidence that enables translators (and pastors who are working from the Greek) to weigh the variants. Obviously, they also provide a recommendation by what they choose to put in the text as opposed to the footnotes, but for seasoned scholars the information is the useful part, not the recommendation. New editions provide the most up to date information and, in some cases, a different recommendation, but there is no particular reason why a group of translators is bound to that recommendation, if they think the footnote text is better. If there are new textual discoveries that are relevant, the translators may certainly consider them, but in most cases the differences between editions of NA are likely to be issues that anyone versed in text criticism is already aware of and will weigh their own opinions without being bound to the conclusions of NA.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## iainduguid

Pilgrim said:


> The NT will be brought into conformity with the latest NA/UBS critical text, (more or less) even if they don't do much else. I think the 1995 is at least two editions out of date by this point. That's one of the reasons for doing an update to begin with, even though they've said they will be doing more work on the OT. (That's also one reason why the now abandoned ESV "Permanent Text" idea was half-baked since the ESV is not based on a "Textus Receptus" that basically doesn't change.)


----------



## iainduguid

The reason the ESV abandoned the idea of a permanent text has virtually nothing to do with not using a textus receptus and everything to do with the fact that all translations are imperfect. If you announce a "permanent text" then you remove the possibility of fixing minor (or major) flaws in your translation. To do so at the same time you also make a major change to your translation of an important text was a significant strategic error, which came back to bite Crossway. It would be better to adopt a view of "functional permanence"; that is, once a translation has become established and the first few rounds of inevitable corrections have been made, to reach the point where the oversight committee determines that it will not constantly keep making minor changes for the sake of slight improvement, but will reserve the right to fix errors if they are significant enough.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> I haven't been part of the NT discussions on a translation, but I suspect it is a mistake to think that translators follow a particular version of Nestle Aland slavishly. What NA does is to provide the information about manuscript evidence that enables translators (and pastors who are working from the Greek) to weigh the variants. Obviously, they also provide a recommendation by what they choose to put in the text as opposed to the footnotes, but for seasoned scholars the information is the useful part, not the recommendation. New editions provide the most up to date information and, in some cases, a different recommendation, but there is no particular reason why a group of translators is bound to that recommendation, if they think the footnote text is better. If there are new textual discoveries that are relevant, the translators may certainly consider them, but in most cases the differences between editions of NA are likely to be issues that anyone versed in text criticism is already aware of and will weigh their own opinions without being bound to the conclusions of NA.


There is generally than no real valid reason to keep revising and updating versions, as the differences between the source texts really are minor whenever they come out with another greek text.


----------



## TrustGzus

Dachaser said:


> There is generally than no real valid reason to keep revising and updating versions, as the differences between the source texts really are minor whenever they come out with another greek text.


I think there are legitimate things to revise. Essential? Not always. 

I keep waiting for the ESV to update Jonah 4 but every update fails to come through for me. 

_4 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. 2 And he prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.” 4 And the Lord said, “*Do you do well to be angry*?” 
5 Jonah went out of the city and sat to the east of the city and made a booth for himself there. He sat under it in the shade, till he should see what would become of the city. 6 Now the Lord God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort. So Jonah was exceedingly glad because of the plant. 7 But when dawn came up the next day, God appointed a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint. And he asked that he might die and said, “It is better for me to die than to live.” 9 But God said to Jonah, “*Do you do well to be angry for the plant?*” And he said, “Yes, *I do well to be angry*, angry enough to die.” 10 And the Lord said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” 
_
Do you do well to be angry? Sure, I know what it's saying, but is that a modern English translation? Who talks like that? They needed more street type stylists on the ESV committee. I'm glad they didn't lock it for good and I hope they fix that next time. NASB and NKJV are much better (and every functional translation is better).


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> The reason the ESV abandoned the idea of a permanent text has virtually nothing to do with not using a textus receptus and everything to do with the fact that all translations are imperfect. If you announce a "permanent text" then you remove the possibility of fixing minor (or major) flaws in your translation. To do so at the same time you also make a major change to your translation of an important text was a significant strategic error, which came back to bite Crossway. It would be better to adopt a view of "functional permanence"; that is, once a translation has become established and the first few rounds of inevitable corrections have been made, to reach the point where the oversight committee determines that it will not constantly keep making minor changes for the sake of slight improvement, but will reserve the right to fix errors if they are significant enough.


They could do well to just keep the translation team active, in the sense of updating grammar and style of the version from time to time, as English changing would be more of a reason to update then there being a real change in their source texts being used.


----------



## Dachaser

TrustGzus said:


> I think there are legitimate things to revise. Essential? Not always.
> 
> I keep waiting for the ESV to update Jonah 4 but every update fails to come through for me.
> 
> _4 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. 2 And he prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.” 4 And the Lord said, “*Do you do well to be angry*?”
> 5 Jonah went out of the city and sat to the east of the city and made a booth for himself there. He sat under it in the shade, till he should see what would become of the city. 6 Now the Lord God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort. So Jonah was exceedingly glad because of the plant. 7 But when dawn came up the next day, God appointed a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint. And he asked that he might die and said, “It is better for me to die than to live.” 9 But God said to Jonah, “*Do you do well to be angry for the plant?*” And he said, “Yes, *I do well to be angry*, angry enough to die.” 10 And the Lord said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”
> _
> Do you do well to be angry? Sure, I know what it's saying, but is that a modern English translation? Who talks like that? They needed more street type stylists on the ESV committee. I'm glad they didn't lock it for good and I hope they fix that next time. NASB and NKJV are much better (and every functional translation is better).


Those last 2 versions are to me the best ones to use for serious studies of the scriptures, as do like the formal translation the best.
The esv biggest problem seems to be being caught between not being as accurate as the Nas, and at times, not as easy to read as the Niv. Would also add though at times the Niv read "too street" for my tastes.


----------



## Pilgrim

iainduguid said:


> The reason the ESV abandoned the idea of a permanent text has virtually nothing to do with not using a textus receptus and everything to do with the fact that all translations are imperfect. If you announce a "permanent text" then you remove the possibility of fixing minor (or major) flaws in your translation. To do so at the same time you also make a major change to your translation of an important text was a significant strategic error, which came back to bite Crossway. It would be better to adopt a view of "functional permanence"; that is, once a translation has become established and the first few rounds of inevitable corrections have been made, to reach the point where the oversight committee determines that it will not constantly keep making minor changes for the sake of slight improvement, but will reserve the right to fix errors if they are significant enough.



True. David's post seemed to indicate that there wouldn't be any changes to the NASB NT at all, which is unrealistic to say the least. That was the reason for my bringing up the "TR" idea.

And thanks again for your input here, Dr. Duguid.

I trust that the ESV has reached that point of "functional permanence "perhaps with the exception of the recent changes in Genesis (which to me was a "NIV move" in the sense that it foisted one interpretation onto a text that can be taken other ways) and maybe a few other places.

Regarding the ESV changes, in some texts, the changes from 2001 to 2016 (which is the fourth "text edition") appear to be more substantial than I would have thought. Recently I had my 2016 text edition with me at church and the pastor read from his ESV. I'm pretty sure his has the 2001 text, or possibly the 2007. I can't remember which book it was, but the text was from one of Paul's Epistles. If I had not known better, I would have thought I was comparing two different versions. That really surprised me, but I would think that is somewhat of a rare exception. (In a lot of places, there is hardly any more difference between the ESV and the NASB than I heard that day.) I had read on Michael Marlowe's site or somewhere else that most of the changes from the RSV to the ESV had been in certain passages in the epistles. By contrast, I had a recording of Alexander Scourby reading the RSV a few years ago. I was following along in one of the Gospels with a 2011 ESV, and there was hardly any difference at all. And Scourby was reading from the 1946 RSV NT, not the 1971 edition that was the starting point for the ESV.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> True. David's post seemed to indicate that there wouldn't be any changes to the NASB NT at all, which is unrealistic to say the least. That was the reason for my bringing up the "TR" idea.
> 
> And thanks again for your input here, Dr. Duguid.
> 
> I trust that the ESV has reached that point of "functional permanence "perhaps with the exception of the recent changes in Genesis (which to me was a "NIV move" in the sense that it foisted one interpretation onto a text that can be taken other ways) and maybe a few other places.
> 
> Regarding the ESV changes, in some texts, the changes from 2001 to 2016 (which is the fourth "text edition") appear to be more substantial than I would have thought. Recently I had my 2016 text edition with me at church and the pastor read from his ESV. I'm pretty sure his has the 2001 text, or possibly the 2007. I can't remember which book it was, but the text was from one of Paul's Epistles. If I had not known better, I would have thought I was comparing two different versions. That really surprised me, but I would think that is somewhat of a rare exception. (In a lot of places, there is hardly any more difference between the ESV and the NASB than I heard that day.) I had read on Michael Marlowe's site or somewhere else that most of the changes from the RSV to the ESV had been in certain passages in the epistles. By contrast, I had a recording of Alexander Scourby reading the RSV a few years ago. I was following along in one of the Gospels with a 2011 ESV, and there was hardly any difference at all. And Scourby was reading from the 1946 RSV NT, not the 1971 edition that was the starting point for the ESV.


My understanding was that the new updated NASB would concentrate mainly on the OT, as the NT was pretty much revised in the 1995 revision. I also wonder just how much of those revisions in the Esv were actually needed, or were done as more of a reaction towards those revisions in the Niv 2011?


----------



## Pilgrim

iainduguid said:


> The reason the ESV abandoned the idea of a permanent text has virtually nothing to do with not using a textus receptus and everything to do with the fact that all translations are imperfect. If you announce a "permanent text" then you remove the possibility of fixing minor (or major) flaws in your translation. To do so at the same time you also make a major change to your translation of an important text was a significant strategic error, which came back to bite Crossway. It would be better to adopt a view of "functional permanence"; that is, once a translation has become established and the first few rounds of inevitable corrections have been made, to reach the point where the oversight committee determines that it will not constantly keep making minor changes for the sake of slight improvement, but will reserve the right to fix errors if they are significant enough.





Dachaser said:


> My understanding was that the new updated NASB would concentrate mainly on the OT, as the NT was pretty much revised in the 1995 revision. I also wonder just how much of those revisions in the Esv were actually needed, or were done as more of a reaction towards those revisions in the Niv 2011?



I don't know so much about the most recent changes, but it has been said (or alleged) that the ESV was sort of rushed to print and that there have been some things carried over from the RSV that needed to be tidied up.

As far as I know, the most controversial recent change in the ESV (in Gen.) does not appear in any major English translation, was unnecessary and is pretty clearly a violation of their stated principles of translation methodology, if this unlettered layman can be allowed to give an opinion.  (But credentialed men have said the same thing.)

I don't know that they would feel the need to respond to the NIV11 since the whole thing was arguably a response to the NIV and the impending NIV gender-neutral translation in the late 90s to begin with, although there were other factors. If people aren't satisfied with the ESV, making whatever changes they made isn't going to change their opinion.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> I don't know so much about the most recent changes, but it has been said (or alleged) that the ESV was sort of rushed to print and that there have been some things carried over from the RSV that needed to be tidied up.
> 
> As far as I know, the most controversial recent change in the ESV (in Gen.) does not appear in any major English translation, was unnecessary and is pretty clearly a violation of their stated principles of translation methodology, if this unlettered layman can be allowed to give an opinion.  (But credentialed men have said the same thing.)
> 
> I don't know that they would feel the need to respond to the NIV11 since the whole thing was arguably a response to the NIV and the impending NIV gender-neutral translation in the late 90s to begin with, although there were other factors. If people aren't satisfied with the ESV, making whatever changes they made isn't going to change their opinion.


They seem to be considered as the standard Calvinist translation now, as many of that position have come out strongly for it, so they should not worry about the Niv 2011, as many Baptists and reformed dropped that due to their over gender wordings.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## ValleyofVision

YRRSBCGuy said:


> I bounce back and forth between the ESV study bible and Ligoniers reformation study bible.
> 
> If I were abandoned on an isla*nd I would probably take the ESV study bible*.



I'd do the same

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

ValleyofVision said:


> I'd do the same


There have been some reviewers who have claimed that the study notes in the Csb study bible now out were "too Calvinistic", so that might be an interesting one also to use.


----------



## kodos

I use both the RHB Study Bible (KJV of course) and the new edition of Ligonier's Reformation Study Bible (NKJV). I am pretty content with those for surface level comments before breaking into commentaries if need be. I don't use them very much for study, but they are both quite helpful for preparing for Family Worship.


----------



## bookslover

kodos said:


> I use both the RHB Study Bible (KJV of course) and the new edition of Ligonier's Reformation Study Bible (NKJV). I am pretty content with those for surface level comments before breaking into commentaries if need be. I don't use them very much for study, but they are both quite helpful for preparing for Family Worship.



A librarian friend of mine was talking to a rep from Reformation Heritage Books, who told my friend (when he asked) that the RHB Study Bible doesn't actually sell all that well, precisely because it's the KJV. So, I wonder if the _Family Worship Bible Guide_, which includes all the "Thoughts for Personal and Family Worship" from the study Bible, is an attempt to salvage some of the study material in a different format.


----------



## josiahrussell

bookslover said:


> A librarian friend of mine was talking to a rep from Reformation Heritage Books, who told my friend (when he asked) that the RHB Study Bible doesn't actually sell all that well, precisely because it's the KJV. So, I wonder if the _Family Worship Bible Guide_, which includes all the "Thoughts for Personal and Family Worship" from the study Bible, is an attempt to salvage some of the study material in a different format.



I've wondered the same thing. The RHB has so much rich content it would be a shame if it was just tossed away because it's in a KJV bible 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## josiahrussell

Dachaser said:


> There have been some reviewers who have claimed that the study notes in the Csb study bible now out were "too Calvinistic", so that might be an interesting one also to use.



Where have you read these reviews?
This excites me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kodos

josiahrussell said:


> I've wondered the same thing. The RHB has so much rich content it would be a shame if it was just tossed away because it's in a KJV bible



My problem is actually that I already have two _really nice_ KJV Bibles. I really don't need another one. I actually don't care for Study Bibles. I prefer to go to the notes if I have a question about something, but I don't want them with the Scriptures. Especially as a daily use Bible -- it gets way too distracting. Regardless of why RHB sells the Family Worship Guide separately I think it's a great idea. It's also wonderful to have a resource for families that struggle with preparing for Family Worship.


----------



## hammondjones

kodos said:


> Regardless of why RHB sells the Family Worship Guide separately I think it's a great idea. It's also wonderful to have a resource for families that struggle with preparing for Family Worship.


Yes, I have it and use it and it is great.


----------



## Dachaser

josiahrussell said:


> Where have you read these reviews?
> This excites me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


NEW ORLEANS (LBM) – A noted scholar has published a focused assessment on study notes in the newly published Christian Standard Bible (CSB), saying non-Calvinists “will be disappointed” due to the heavy Calvinistic leaning in some of its comments about passages that address salvation.

Adam Harwood, associate professor of theology with the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, described the actual Bible translation as a “theologically conservative resource,” but took issue with the “theological interpretation” of some study notes provided at the bottom of pages, saying, “those who affirm that God loves every person, Christ died for every person, and God desires to save every person will be disappointed.”

SBC Today


----------



## Post Tenebras

I have the 1599 Geneva and the previous editions of the Reformation Study Bible in NKJV and ESV. They're all good but, for the past few years, I've been avoiding study Bibles and delighting in reading the scriptures without distraction. 

I'm about to change course again as I have a new study bible currently in transit


----------



## reaganmarsh

Post Tenebras said:


> I have the 1599 Geneva and the previous editions of the Reformation Study Bible in NKJV and ESV. They're all good but, for the past few years, I've been avoiding study Bibles and delighting in reading the scriptures without distraction.
> 
> I'm about to change course again as I have a new study bible currently in transit



I have really enjoyed my 1599 Geneva Bible as well. 

Which SB do you have en route? Just being nosy.


----------



## Post Tenebras

reaganmarsh said:


> I have really enjoyed my 1599 Geneva Bible as well.
> 
> Which SB do you have en route? Just being nosy.



I couldn't resist the D. James Kennedy MEV. I'm looking forward to reading Dr. Kennedy's commentary on a Bible version that did not exist during his lifetime.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Post Tenebras said:


> I'm looking forward to reading Dr. Kennedy's commentary on a Bible version that did not exist during his lifetime.



Ha ha! Indeed!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have a question. Has anyone seen or looked at one of these?

Gospel Transformation Bible. ESV
https://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv-gospel-transformation-bible-3348-tru/

I am generally opposed to men putting their notes next to a Bible text. It can tend to cause a bad reading of the scriptures. ie... Scofield Reference Bible.


----------



## reaganmarsh

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a question. Has anyone seen or looked at one of these?
> 
> Gospel Transformation Bible. ESV
> https://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv-gospel-transformation-bible-3348-tru/
> 
> I am generally opposed to men putting their notes next to a Bible text. It can tend to cause a bad reading of the scriptures. ie... Scofield Reference Bible.



It's not bad, as SB's go; you could certainly do a lot worse. It attempts to demonstrate the gospel-centrality of all of Scripture, and how grasping that changes our lives. The notes aren't in-depth or comprehensive, but they are faithful.

This one looks like it'll be interesting: the ESV Systematic Theology SB.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a question. Has anyone seen or looked at one of these?
> 
> Gospel Transformation Bible. ESV
> https://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv-gospel-transformation-bible-3348-tru/
> 
> I am generally opposed to men putting their notes next to a Bible text. It can tend to cause a bad reading of the scriptures. ie... Scofield Reference Bible.


I liked what the Esv Study Bible did in regards to this very issue, as they made the bible text much larger than the notes, to highlight the supreme importance of the scriptures themselves.


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> It's not bad, as SB's go; you could certainly do a lot worse. It attempts to demonstrate the gospel-centrality of all of Scripture, and how grasping that changes our lives. The notes aren't in-depth or comprehensive, but they are faithful.
> 
> This one looks like it'll be interesting: the ESV Systematic Theology SB.


Wonder if that Esv ST will be like the Esv study bible lite edition?


----------



## reaganmarsh

Dachaser said:


> Wonder if that Esv ST will be like the Esv study bible lite edition?



I'm not sure, but I'll look forward to flipping through one in our local bookstore.


----------



## OPC'n

ESV reformation study bible R.C. Sproul


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> I'm not sure, but I'll look forward to flipping through one in our local bookstore.


I have had and used probably 20 different study bibles since the Lord saved me, and would still say that the Esv SB would be the best one yet have used.


----------



## Pilgrim

I'll definitely consider getting the Spurgeon Study Bible if I can get a good deal on one. 

Since I already have the HCSB Study Bible, I'm not going to bother with the CSB Study Bible. I understand that it has some additional notes, but much of it is the same. Hopefully B&H will offer the Kindle edition at a deep discount soon, or else make it freely available online the way the HCSB Study Bible is. 

Regarding the NASB, I saw it mentioned in some FB posts that the update has now been delayed until 2018 or maybe even 2019.


----------



## JimmyH

bookslover said:


> A librarian friend of mine was talking to a rep from Reformation Heritage Books, who told my friend (when he asked) that the RHB Study Bible doesn't actually sell all that well, precisely because it's the KJV.


From a business point of view, if that is correct, they went a bit overboard on editions. When the RHSB was first published there was the top of the line 'montana cowhide', leather, an imitation leather, and a hardback. Shortly thereafter they changed from the USA printer to Jongbloed in the Netherlands, the top of the line became goatskin with cowhide and the other bindings as well. Finally , a large print RHSB in hardcover @ $100.00 if I remember correctly. Just saying, if they weren't selling well they shouldn't have upped the ante with the additional formats. Speaking from a purely business point of view. Of course they aren't in it to get rich. Theirs is a labor of love type of endeavor. I bought my copy when they first came out and I'm quite happy with it.


----------



## bookslover

Bill The Baptist said:


> It's still worth owning if you find a good deal on one.



I've heard that there will be a 2nd edition of MacArthur's study Bible by the end of this year.


----------



## bookslover

reaganmarsh said:


> It's not bad, as SB's go; you could certainly do a lot worse. It attempts to demonstrate the gospel-centrality of all of Scripture, and how grasping that changes our lives. The notes aren't in-depth or comprehensive, but they are faithful.
> 
> This one looks like it'll be interesting: the ESV Systematic Theology SB.



Boy, Crossway never seems to run out of ideas for plugging the ESV. Their marketing department is relentless (and I like and use the translation).


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pilgrim said:


> Late this year at the earliest, but my best guess is that it will be next year. It seems that it keeps getting pushed back. They post periodic updates to the Lockman Foundation Facebook page.



How are you feeling about this? I'm an NAS'er for life. I don't know whether to be excited or nervous.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pilgrim said:


> The NT will be brought into conformity with the latest NA/UBS critical text, (more or less) even if they don't do much else. I think the 1995 is at least two editions out of date by this point. That's one of the reasons for doing an update to begin with, even though they've said they will be doing more work on the OT. (That's also one reason why the now abandoned ESV "Permanent Text" idea was half-baked since the ESV is not based on a "Textus Receptus" that basically doesn't change.)
> 
> According to the Lockman FB page, apparently it is up in the air as to whether they will use YHWH or the traditional LORD. Making that change may cause some to embrace the NASB who haven't before (or who may have defected to the ESV, etc.) and cause some who think abandoning LORD is a mistake to consider switching to something else.



Do you know of any other concrete examples of things they may change?


----------



## Pilgrim

bookslover said:


> A librarian friend of mine was talking to a rep from Reformation Heritage Books, who told my friend (when he asked) that the RHB Study Bible doesn't actually sell all that well, precisely because it's the KJV. So, I wonder if the _Family Worship Bible Guide_, which includes all the "Thoughts for Personal and Family Worship" from the study Bible, is an attempt to salvage some of the study material in a different format.



After seeing it go on sale at least once recently, I wondered the same thing about sales numbers. I reckon that a lot of the people who REALLY wanted it got one when it first came out, and the people who wanted better paper got one when the second print run came out. They've also published "How to Live as a Christian" and maybe some of the other material separately. 

Regardless, this was bound to be somewhat of a niche product. Even though it has more notes than I expected since the emphasis was Family Worship, it isn't a "General audience" type of Study Bible in the way that the Reformation Study Bible is, much less the ESV Study Bible or the NIV Study Bible. 

Some Reformed people are allergic to experientalism, (or so-called "pietism") so they won't like it. The "Grace Boys" won't like it. Unless they are Calvinistic, KJV Only or KJV Preferred Baptists won't like it for various reasons. And so on.


----------



## Pilgrim

JTB.SDG said:


> How are you feeling about this? I'm an NAS'er for life. I don't know whether to be excited or nervous.



I'm not sure. I have no idea whether or not they had these kinds of delays with the 1995. If I'm not mistaken, the first note about the revision I saw indicated that it was supposed to come out in 2016. They do post occasional updates on their FB page. But I haven't checked it in a good while. I saw some posts yesterday indicating that it has been pushed back to 2018 or even 2019. 

I have been using the NASB more lately, but it is probably moreso that I love the Side-Column Reference (SCR) due to it being black letter and having very readable print than it is a love of the translation. I've pretty much always preferred the NKJV, but I've basically given up on it due to the lack of quality affordable editions. (I basically can't read red letters anymore, and almost every NKJV has them.) I might start reading the ESV more. But I've basically gone back and forth between the NASB and the KJV in the past few years. 

I'm certainly no expert and really not even a beginner, but For what it's worth, I think it would be a move in the wrong direction to include Yahweh (instead of LORD) if the NT writers indeed used _kurios_ where they could have used some Greek equivalent of YHWH. But I've only read that in passing and may have misunderstood. Regardless, there are some people who would be overjoyed but some wouldn't like it.


----------



## Pilgrim

JimmyH said:


> From a business point of view, if that is correct, they went a bit overboard on editions. When the RHSB was first published there was the top of the line 'montana cowhide', leather, an imitation leather, and a hardback. Shortly thereafter they changed from the USA printer to Jongbloed in the Netherlands, the top of the line became goatskin with cowhide and the other bindings as well. Finally , a large print RHSB in hardcover @ $100.00 if I remember correctly. Just saying, if they weren't selling well they shouldn't have upped the ante with the additional formats. Speaking from a purely business point of view. Of course they aren't in it to get rich. Theirs is a labor of love type of endeavor. I bought my copy when they first came out and I'm quite happy with it.



There were a handful of errors in the first edition, so that was one reason for printing more. (And I think some of the editions may have sold through, but not all of them.) The paper left something to be desired for me and for some others. The print is barely large enough for many of us to read to begin with (apparently they were trying to keep the size down as it is a bit smaller than most Study Bibles today) and the paper in the first edition was too thin. I basically had to lay it aside. The second edition printed in the Netherlands has much better paper. But the copyright page still says it is made in the USA. (I have the Dollaro Leather, which is sort of fancy Genuine Leather, I guess.) Maybe that was an oversight?


----------



## JimmyH

Pilgrim said:


> There were a handful of errors in the first edition, so that was one reason for printing more. (And I think some of the editions may have sold through, but not all of them.) *The paper left something to be desired for me and for some others. The print is barely large enough for many of us to read to begin with (apparently they were trying to keep the size down as it is a bit smaller than most Study Bibles today) and the paper in the first edition was too thin. *I basically had to lay it aside. The second edition printed in the Netherlands has much better paper. But the copyright page still says it is made in the USA. (I have the Dollaro Leather, which is sort of fancy Genuine Leather, I guess.) Maybe that was an oversight?


Here we get into the 'eye of the beholder.' I prefer the size to something such as the ESV Study Bible which is almost a weapon of mass destruction LOL. For my eyes, corrected with bifocals, the print is fine. Comparing to the old NIV Reformation Study Bible the RHSB notes are near twice the size.
Apples and oranges, I know. Just to say that I like the original edition fine. On the other hand, I've never seen the second edition. If it is thicker by much I'd just as well have the one I've got. Nowadays finding paper that doesn't have some ghosting is near impossible, and I consider mine fine for reading.
This morning the sermon was an exposition of chapter 13 of Revelation. When I got home I picked up the RHSB and went to the notes on chapter 13 and they mirrored my pastor's exposition. Good stuff that.


----------



## Pilgrim

JimmyH said:


> Here we get into the 'eye of the beholder.' I prefer the size to something such as the ESV Study Bible which is almost a weapon of mass destruction LOL. For my eyes, corrected with bifocals, the print is fine. Comparing to the old NIV Reformation Study Bible the RHSB notes are near twice the size.
> Apples and oranges, I know. Just to say that I like the original edition fine. On the other hand, I've never seen the second edition. If it is thicker by much I'd just as well have the one I've got. Nowadays finding paper that doesn't have some ghosting is near impossible, and I consider mine fine for reading.
> This morning the sermon was an exposition of chapter 13 of Revelation. When I got home I picked up the RHSB and went to the notes on chapter 13 and they mirrored my pastor's exposition. Good stuff that.



For years I've been in a stage where I almost need bifocals, but not quite. The doctor keeps weakening the prescription instead and says that is what the exam indicates. I can read regular books fine, but Bibles tend to be more difficult, and I can't read red letters at all anymore.

Actually, with the RHSB, I think I found the study notes easier to read than the Bible text. I bought it thinking I could use it as my regular Bible, but I couldn't. I think maybe the notes were somewhat bolder than the text itself, which I thought needed to be bigger or darker for me to read it more easily. (Of course, you wouldn't read the notes continuously the way you would the Bible itself.) But I'm sure darker would have made the ghosting worse even though I've seen much worse in a Bible. The second print run of the RHSB uses a creme or more yellowish paper, similar (if not the same as) that used in the Westminster Reference Bible. It is a little more opaque and more readable.


----------



## BG

The Spirit of the reformation study Bible


----------



## bookslover

JimmyH said:


> This morning the sermon was an exposition of chapter 13 of Revelation. When I got home I picked up the RHSB and went to the notes on chapter 13 and they mirrored my pastor's exposition. Good stuff that.



Sounds like he's got a copy of the RHSB, too. Heh.


----------



## JimmyH

bookslover said:


> Sounds like he's got a copy of the RHSB, too. Heh.


Actually he does not. He does have a library of commentaries, and an old NKJV Spirit of the Reformation SB, but not the RHSB. His main Bible is an old KJV Cambridge wide margin that is all full of notes.


----------



## Dachaser

My understanding is that they will be updating the Greek texts being used to translate to the N-A 28th edition now, and that they will do most of the revisions on the OT English itself, as what they wanted to do with the NT was done in the 1995 revision.

I still own and use the 1977 edition of the NASB, and read well enough for me, as they just kept the ole thees and thous of the KJV in it still.


----------



## iainduguid

Dachaser said:


> My understanding is that they will be updating the Greek texts being used to translate to the N-A 28th edition now, and that they will do most of the revisions on the OT English itself, as what they wanted to do with the NT was done in the 1995 revision.



This represents an inaccurate understanding of the translation process. There is no new information in NA 28; the only question is whether particular (minor) variants belong in the text or in the footnotes. As I understand it there are only 34 changes in the actual printed text of the NT in NA 28 from NA 26 (the last revision). No scholar of Greek slavishly follows any critical edition; they are able to evaluate the text and the manuscript evidence in the footnotes for themselves to assess the most likely original text. Thus in Jude 5 the ESV _already _identified "Jesus" as the one who saved a people out of Egypt, rather than "the Lord", well before NA 28 came out. Following the same manuscript evidence led NA 28 to make the same change in the printed text, now putting "Jesus" in the text and "the Lord" in the footnotes, rather than vice versa. We could debate which reading is correct, but my point here is more fundamental: any scholar charged with the translation of Jude was already considering that variant long before NA 28 appeared.

What I would expect them to be doing much more of, based on my own experience on a revision committee, is to be assessing where they may previously have got the translation (slightly) wrong. That may be because the earlier edition came to different text critical conclusions, but the vast majority of cases will come down to different translation choices. _Translation is really hard_. The Bible is also a very big book. No one gets it right all of the time. That's why judicious revisions can be helpful.

Reactions: Informative 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> This represents an inaccurate understanding of the translation process. There is no new information in NA 28; the only question is whether particular (minor) variants belong in the text or in the footnotes. As I understand it there are only 34 changes in the actual printed text of the NT in NA 28 from NA 26 (the last revision). No scholar of Greek slavishly follows any critical edition; they are able to evaluate the text and the manuscript evidence in the footnotes for themselves to assess the most likely original text. Thus in Jude 5 the ESV _already _identified "Jesus" as the one who saved a people out of Egypt, rather than "the Lord", well before NA 28 came out. Following the same manuscript evidence led NA 28 to make the same change in the printed text, now putting "Jesus" in the text and "the Lord" in the footnotes, rather than vice versa. We could debate which reading is correct, but my point here is more fundamental: any scholar charged with the translation of Jude was already considering that variant long before NA 28 appeared.
> 
> What I would expect them to be doing much more of, based on my own experience on a revision committee, is to be assessing where they may previously have got the translation (slightly) wrong. That may be because the earlier edition came to different text critical conclusions, but the vast majority of cases will come down to different translation choices. _Translation is really hard_. The Bible is also a very big book. No one gets it right all of the time. That's why judicious revisions can be helpful.


The translation process is indeed quite complicated, and there are really not that many changes between revisions of a formal translation, as there can be though with a Dynamic Equivalent version. there should be just minor changes in names, or maybe as you stated well the variant listings in the margins.
To all intents and purposes, there has really not that big of a change in the NASB since first introduced, especially as compared to say the Niv version.


----------



## iainduguid

Dachaser said:


> The translation process is indeed quite complicated, and there are really not that many changes between revisions of a formal translation, as there can be though with a Dynamic Equivalent version. there should be just minor changes in names, or maybe as you stated well the variant listings in the margins.
> To all intents and purposes, there has really not that big of a change in the NASB since first introduced, especially as compared to say the Niv version.


Even in a "formal equivalence" translation, there are many decisions to be made as to how to translate obscure words and phrases. It's hard to be consistent across different books and genres. Eagle eyed readers will spot (and report) inconsistencies that ought to be fixed and so on. These are the kind of things that will engage most of the time of the revisers of the NASB, I would imagine. Text critical issues will be the least of their concerns.


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> Even in a "formal equivalence" translation, there are many decisions to be made as to how to translate obscure words and phrases. It's hard to be consistent across different books and genres. Eagle eyed readers will spot (and report) inconsistencies that ought to be fixed and so on. These are the kind of things that will engage most of the time of the revisers of the NASB, I would imagine. Text critical issues will be the least of their concerns.


There would be different kinds of issues regarding translation between the NASB/NKJV, than those who are much more dynamic such as the Niv.
Translation and textual criticism always has been a hobby of mine.


----------



## yeutter

The Naves Study Bible has been the most helpful study Bible I have used.
I presume it is long out of print.


----------



## Dachaser

yeutter said:


> The Naves Study Bible has been the most helpful study Bible I have used.
> I presume it is long out of print.


What made it so good?


----------



## yeutter

Dachaser said:


> What made it so good?
> 
> 
> 
> The *Nave's Study Bible* has enough marginal notes and foot notes to clarify issues found in the text of scripture but not so many as to clutter up the page. It contains a good outline, and index on the sovereignty of God, and on the Trinity, and the covenant of grace.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dachaser

It no longer is in print then?


----------



## yeutter

Dachaser said:


> It no longer is in print then?


Correct, out of print


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> It no longer is in print then?


See here:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...udy+Bible.TRS0&_nkw=Nave+Study+Bible&_sacat=0

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Thank you.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here's a pretty detailed page on various Study Bibles (many out of print) that was current up to about 2012 when the site went offline. The proprietor of that site is a confessional Baptist. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120418101457/http://www.theologue.org:80/StudyBibles.html


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> Here's a pretty detailed page on various Study Bibles (many out of print) that was current up to about 2012 when the site went offline. The proprietor of that site is a confessional Baptist.
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120418101457/http://www.theologue.org:80/StudyBibles.html


I have found muself just using the Esv Bible text itself for majority of my reading and studying, as when using the Esv SB, which I think is the best one now available, would find myself in the notes more than the text itself.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Kirkbride's new ESV Thompson Chain-Reference now available:

http://www.kirkbride.com/proddetail.asp?prod=109

Use this code E20BOND for $20 off at checkout.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

T


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Kirkbride's new ESV Thompson Chain-Reference now available:
> 
> http://www.kirkbride.com/proddetail.asp?prod=109
> 
> Use this code E20BOND for $20 off at checkout.


Thanks, just might be getting this bible.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Kirkbride's new ESV Thompson Chain-Reference now available:
> 
> http://www.kirkbride.com/proddetail.asp?prod=109
> 
> Use this code E20BOND for $20 off at checkout.



What makes this Bible special? I never heard of it. It says it comes with portraits of Christ. Did I read that right?


----------



## JimmyH

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> What makes this Bible special? I never heard of it. It says it comes with portraits of Christ. Did I read that right?


Thompson Chain Reference Bibles are set up as a topical Bible. Not a study system in the same way a MacArthur, an ESV, or an NIV study Bible is in a verse by verse fashion. The 'portraits' referred to are sections with Scripture verses that give an overview of the life of Christ, as well as important individuals, such as the Apostles, various prophets and Kings of Israel. This from Thompson's website ;


> The *Comprehensive Helps* section of your _Thompson®_ Bible contains _Portraits of Christ_ as recorded by Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and Revelation. It's an enlightening way to draw closer to the Savior. This fascinating study can be found only in a _Thompson®_ Bible.


The first Thompson Bible was published in the early 1900s and was extremely popular in Protestant denominations throughout the 20th century into the 21st.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

JimmyH said:


> Thompson Chain Reference Bibles are set up as a topical Bible. Not a study system in the same way a MacArthur, an ESV, or an NIV study Bible is in a verse by verse fashion. The 'portraits' referred to are sections with Scripture verses that give an overview of the life of Christ, as well as important individuals, such as the Apostles, various prophets and Kings of Israel. This from Thompson's website ;
> 
> The first Thompson Bible was published in the early 1900s and was extremely popular in Protestant denominations throughout the 20th century into the 21st.



That makes sense. Is it really a good Bible? I'm interested in it now.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That makes sense. Is it really a good Bible? I'm interested in it now.


See:
http://www.kirkbride.com/thompson-story.asp
http://www.kirkbride.com/thompson-how-to.asp
http://www.kirkbride.com/thompson-help-section.asp (many headings on this page are links to other information)


Think of the Thompson Chain-Reference bible with something like the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge book having its cross-references incorporated as "chains" that have been given short labels that appear beside each verse (see second link above). You can follow each chain throughout the Scripture. Add to that hundreds of pages of other summaries and interesting information.

A nice review:
http://biblebuyingguide.com/kirkbride-NKJV-thompson-chain-reference-bible-review/

I assume the ESV will come in a verse-by-verse layout to accommodate the chain reference system, too. The KJV and NKJV I own do so. My only nit is the red letter use, and lack of premium leather bindings, but I can live with that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That makes sense. Is it really a good Bible? I'm interested in it now.


It is a very good study bible, as it basically has the scriptures interpret themselves, as you follow a chain refernce system through the entire Bible.so its like the center column references on steroids.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> Thompson Chain Reference Bibles are set up as a topical Bible. Not a study system in the same way a MacArthur, an ESV, or an NIV study Bible is in a verse by verse fashion. The 'portraits' referred to are sections with Scripture verses that give an overview of the life of Christ, as well as important individuals, such as the Apostles, various prophets and Kings of Israel. This from Thompson's website ;
> 
> The first Thompson Bible was published in the early 1900s and was extremely popular in Protestant denominations throughout the 20th century into the 21st.


I once had this in the 1984 Niv version, and really like that there were no study notes, as the bible itself was the main emphasis for study.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

I


Dachaser said:


> It is a very good study bible, as it basically has the scriptures interpret themselves, as you follow a chain refernce system through the entire Bible.so its like the center column references on steroids.


Is it the same reference system crossway uses?


----------



## Dachaser

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I
> 
> Is it the same reference system crossway uses?


I do not think so, as it uses the system invented last century.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Dachaser said:


> I do not think so, as it uses the system invented last century.



Is it from a reformed perspective or does that not matter?


----------



## JimmyH

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Is it from a reformed perspective or does that not matter?


It is not, but it is not really from a dispensational, or premil perspective either. Sort of neutral. Frank Thompson, if I remember correctly, made copious notes in his Bible/Bibles, and the Thompson Chain is based on that. I think the first one was published in 1907 and they have had 5 updates over the years. The famed Oxford Long Primer also has a chain reference system, but I believe it is set up differently than the Thompson.
This Wikipedia article notes that it is called The Thompson Chain _Reference_ Bible, not Study Bible. That is a more accurate description/title reflecting what it is.I still have a KJV. Had the NKJV by Nelson with the Signature Series leather binding. I sold it because it was as big as the NYC telephone directory. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_Chain-Reference_Bible
http://www.kirkbride.com/thompson-story.asp


----------



## Dachaser

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Is it from a reformed perspective or does that not matter?


Any viewpoint can use this Bible, as it uses scripture itself to interpret scriptures in the chain references, but does seem to have a Covenant theology bent.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> It is not, but it is not really from a dispensational, or premil perspective either. Sort of neutral. Frank Thompson, if I remember correctly, made copious notes in his Bible/Bibles, and the Thompson Chain is based on that. I think the first one was published in 1907 and they have had 5 updates over the years. The famed Oxford Long Primer also has a chain reference system, but I believe it is set up differently than the Thompson.
> This Wikipedia article notes that it is called The Thompson Chain _Reference_ Bible, not Study Bible. That is a more accurate description/title reflecting what it is.I still have a KJV. Had the NKJV by Nelson with the Signature Series leather binding. I sold it because it was as big as the NYC telephone directory.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_Chain-Reference_Bible


This Bible can and has been used for profit by Christians of all varying and different theologies since it came out.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here's an old thread on the Thompson that may be helpful. (I thought I had "too many" Study Bibles and other books back then. LOL. I've probably gotten rid of at least 10-12 Study Bibles in the past few years and probably still have a lot more than I did back then.) I'm sure that isn't the only thread. Fred referred to Scripture Truth as being the cheapest. They probably still have very competitive prices if not the cheapest. 

I think Thompson was a Methodist, but I don't know to what extent that impacted the notes. Some dispensationalists don't like what he does with prophecy and covenants. My guess is that he was probably some kind of postmil. I have an old hardcover copy, but I never think to use it.


----------



## Dachaser

He was into Covenant theology to some degree, and Kirkbride was in the past producer of very high quality bibles, but their stock seems to have gone down recently.


----------

