Best study bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Naves Study Bible has been the most helpful study Bible I have used.
I presume it is long out of print.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top