Matthew Henry Commentary Abridged or unabridged

[Stephen L Smith]

Hello, what do you think about the Abridged verses the unabridged of Matthew Henrys commentary. Does the Abridged get to the essence of his teaching?

Thanks Stephen

 

[Jash Comstock]

Well I must take the side of the unabridged. It is never good to go for a portion of the meal when you have the option to feast on every morsel!

 

[jogri17]

You can get both free online for any Bible software. It's in the public domain. Save your money, get it free for any Bible Software program (Bibletree, e-sword, bibleworks, logos, the linux CrossWire, accordance, etc.) and you that money and buy this which is more up to date, not expensive, and inho much better.

 

[baron]

Well I must take the side of the unabridged. It is never good to go for a portion of the meal when you have the option to feast on every morsel![/quot

I also agree get the unabridged. But remember that the Matthew Henry Commentary was not completed by him. He only was able to finish Acts before he passed away. Romans through Revelation was completed by some pastor friends. This is why they lack the style or beauty of the book's he completed. If you check out volume 6 of his Commentary Acts through Revelation and take out the 292 pages of Acts, the rest Romans through Revelation consists of 664 pages total that was written by his friends. He penned 4,969 pages out of the 5,633 total pages.

 

[Zach]

I would always go with the unabridged. Like Joshua said, you can never have too much of Matthew Henry.

 

[Mushroom]

Both. And a Matthew Henry Study Bible. I love mine.

 

[jandrusk]

Real men never use the abridged versions.