Best study bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 I think the 1995 is at least two editions out of date by this point.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.
 
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.
 
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 I think the 1995 is at least two editions out of date by this point.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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top