Best one volume commentary
What I can think of are:
New International Bible Commentary
New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged (2 Vols.) (not exactly one volume, but I think it is at the same type of those)
The Bible Knowledge Commentary
It seems that New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition is the best among the one volume commentary. Do you have any idea about which one is the best?
By the way, I want to ask what is the main difference between a one volume commentary and the footnotes of a study Bible, let say, the ESV Study Bible.
Thanks.
Comments
-
Kolen Cheung said:
By the way, I want to ask what is the main difference between a one volume commentary and the footnotes of a study Bible, let say, the ESV Study Bible.
Probably depends on the commentary/study notes. But I know MacArthur's study Bible and Single Volume Bible commentary are almost identical.
Logos Platinum
Windows 7 - 64 Bit
Lenovo laptop E520 i7-2640M, 2.8GHz 8G Ram, 2G GraphicsAustralia
0 -
Lots of factors: needs, expectations, beliefs...
For me, the NBC is the most useful single-volume commentary I own.
Current. Clear. Concise. Informed.
A distillation of the key things to be aware of in any passage.0 -
I just realised that Logos carries the NBC. I wonder what books are in the tournament of this year's March Madness? Perhaps the NBC would make a good candidate? [hint, hint, hint] [;)]
0 -
Good reminder. I will wait until I saw the list.
Thanks.
0 -
Some years ago I had been using Bible Knowledge Commentary a lot. After finding NBC in Logos, I use it as my preferred one-volume-commentary since and am very happy with it.
Bohuslav
0 -
I enjoy BKC more than NBC...but I've only used them in Malachi so far, so I don't exactly have a broad comparison of the two yet.
EDIT - I also have not been terribly impressed with the Believer's Bible Commentary, counter to all the praise I've seen for it...but again, my only reference point so far is its treatment of Malachi (which is very shallow...more of a summary than a commentary.)0 -
David Gullick said:
But I know MacArthur's study Bible and Single Volume Bible commentary are almost identical.
I did a search on that. And I found that there is a MacArthur's Study Bible and a MacArthur's Bible Commentary. It is even more confusing. What's the difference between the two?
Thanks.
0 -
It seems that NBC is the best. How about Baker Commentary on the Bible / Evangelical Commentary on the Bible? How is it compare to that?
Thanks.
0 -
It's 2 volumes: IVP Bible Background Commentary - one for OT, one for NT.
0 -
Pam Larson said:
IVP Bible Background Commentary
It seems great on the background. But it is not on Logos. I was looking at the Zondervan one, but it is 9 volumes comparing to 2 vol. here.
Other good suggestion about the background?
Thanks.
0 -
IVP Bible Background Commentary
[quote]
It seems great on the background. But it is not on Logos.
YES it is.
Regards, SteveF
0 -
Logos needs to improve their product search. It's part of the Essential IVP Reference Collection:
http://www.logos.com/products/details/1516
0 -
Thanks. It is so good. So, are the individual titles in the "The Essential IVP Reference Collection Version 3" are generally one of the best?
e.g. how you compare the "Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology" with the "New Dictionary of Biblical Theology"?
Also, the "New Bible Dictionary" is already included in the base package. Will there be further discount on that then?
Thanks.
0 -
Kolen Cheung said:
Thanks. It is so good. So, are the individual titles in the "The Essential IVP Reference Collection Version 3" are generally one of the best?
e.g. how you compare the "Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology" with the "New Dictionary of Biblical Theology"?
Also, the "New Bible Dictionary" is already included in the base package. Will there be further discount on that then?
Thanks.
I compared the entries on "Atonement". New Dictionary has 5 1/2 pages, with 7 sub-headings that show up in the table of contents. Evangelical Dictionary has 3 1/2 pages and only 2 sub-headings, OT and NT, which don't show up in the table of contents. So it's easier to find exactly what you're looking for in the New Dictionary.
As to getting a discount, you would need to talk to a salesperson about that.
0 -
Hi Kolen,
I also found The Teacher's Bible Commentary quite good (it's part of the Logos4 base packages, not to be confused with The Teacher's Commentary).
Peter
0 -
And now you can add "The Moody Bible Commentary" available on Vyrso (which by the way is on sale at "pre-pub" price...lol). I wish you could type a reference and make it jump to it, but its tagging is not as advanced. Great commentary so far. Also, just for consideration, don't forget Holman's Concise Bible Commentary, Teacher's Commentary and Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary.
DAL
0 -
DAL said:
And now you can add "The Moody Bible Commentary" available on Vyrso
I appreciate having this in my library. Perhaps it will be available in Logos some day.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible, Dunn, Rogerson, 2003 is still the best one volume I know of.... https://www.logos.com/product/36612/eerdmans-commentary-collection#001
And it is tucked away in this commentary collection at the moment though, hope it gets under contract soon.
-Dan
0 -
Kolen Cheung said:David Gullick said:
But I know MacArthur's study Bible and Single Volume Bible commentary are almost identical.
I did a search on that. And I found that there is a MacArthur's Study Bible and a MacArthur's Bible Commentary. It is even more confusing. What's the difference between the two?
Thanks.
The MacArthur Study Bible contains Dr. MacArthur's notes which really are a shortened form of commentary but in no way are as complete as a full commentary.
Here's a description of the MacArthur Bible Commentary taken from Dr. MacArthur's web site:
In this premiere volume, John MacArthur brings you a complete Bible commentary in one volume. The MacArthur Bible Commentary treats every passage of the Old and New Testaments phrase by phrase, with hundreds of word studies as sidebars throughout. It offers a broad overview of each Bible book and the internal consistency that results from having a single commentator.
In addition, there is a 30 volume set of commentaries on the NT written by Dr. MacArthur. (No longer available from Logos.)
In Christ,
Charles
2017 27" iMac 5K, Mojave, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 7+, iPhone 8, iOS 12.0, Catalina beta, iPadOS Beta
0 -
DAL said:
And now you can add "The Moody Bible Commentary" available on Vyrso (which by the way is on sale at "pre-pub" price...lol). I wish you could type a reference and make it jump to it, but its tagging is not as advanced. Great commentary so far. Also, just for consideration, don't forget Holman's Concise Bible Commentary, Teacher's Commentary and Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary.
DAL
Why would Logos release this on Vyrso? I'm confused on this move - it is a Bible study resource.
0 -
Josh said:
Why would Logos release this on Vyrso?
Because contract negotiations between Moody and Logos were unsuccessful at continuing Moody products in Logos; however, they appear to have reached an agreement on Vyrso.
No one has mentioned the excellent New Jerome Commentary or the New International Commentary[8-|]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Dan Francis said:
Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible, Dunn, Rogerson, 2003 is still the best one volume I know of.... https://www.logos.com/product/36612/eerdmans-commentary-collection#001
And it is tucked away in this commentary collection at the moment though, hope it gets under contract soon.
-Dan
Ditto to what Dan said.
0 -
Kolen Cheung said:
By the way, I want to ask what is the main difference between a one volume commentary and the footnotes of a study Bible, let say, the ESV Study Bible.
Addressing your question a different way, several of the one-volume commentaries recommended here are very decent, and are complete enough for the layperson or even ministry worker.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
No one has mentioned the excellent New Jerome Commentary or the New International Commentary
The NJBC is good (I am just happy I own the old JBC) and I would love to have the NIC, and the NIC is a real mystery to me as why we don't have it since it is a Liturgical Press Publication, but then again we don;t have the New Collegeville Commentary either.
-Dan
PS: I had been limiting myself to items available or nearly available in the Logos World, I think the Oxford Bible Commentary is as Good as NJBC, but Logos no longer has it (not that it ever did distribute it, just provide unlocking of disk purchased elsewhere). I was lucky enough to get a CD with my Hardback, so when I became a Logos user not easily but not too difficult either I purchased the unlock (the person had argued with me it was not a Logos product, and then said unlocking is fine but we have no disks to mail you, once I stated again I had a disk, while then I can help you).
0 -
MJ, I missed your truly 'mean' comment concerning the New Jerome. You very much KNEW that only long time Logosians could possibly have it. And that many less-blessed Logosians are forced to simply dream of it. I don't think one could validly pray for it.
I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome. I think one of the early Collegeville CDs had New Jerome on it. But it's really hard to track down. The later CDs stuck with Collegeville.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Kolen Cheung said:
What I can think of are:
New International Bible Commentary
New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged (2 Vols.) (not exactly one volume, but I think it is at the same type of those)
The Bible Knowledge Commentary
It seems that New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition is the best among the one volume commentary. Do you have any idea about which one is the best?
By the way, I want to ask what is the main difference between a one volume commentary and the footnotes of a study Bible, let say, the ESV Study Bible.
Thanks.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary is two volumes in printed form, just fyi. I too like New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy
0 -
Denise said:
I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome.
Aimed at a different market and clearly inferior.
Denise said:You very much KNEW that only long time Logosians could possibly have it.
[6]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Denise said:
I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome.
Aimed at a different market and clearly inferior.
I would over all agree on that assessment but Collegville has bright spots in it. And Denise Logos has never to the best of my knowledge had The New Jerome Biblical Commentary but yes the Old Catholic collection and Scholars collection of 2.0 Logos did have the Jerome Biblical Commentary. It took me over 5 years to track down a copy of the Catholic collection. I am so glad I have it, because the JBC is a great resource. And the version we have must be a mild revision, because this was released in 1968, but it mentions dates as late as1979 (doing a search in the book for 197*, but absolutely no date references for 198*). The 1989 NJBC is a good update, and most definitely superior and if Logos can ever get it I will most certainly buy it.
-Dan
PS: The 1968 update of the Logos released Catholic Commentary on Holy Scriptures would well be worth having too. Nelson published it up until at least 1984, which is the printing date on my copy.
0 -
I have many study Bibles, and none is as complete as the New Bible Commentary. I find it to be my best one volume commentary.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary is very good, too, but it is not really one volume. And even if it was, the New Bible Commentary is more balanced and just better in my opinion.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Dan Francis said:MJ. Smith said:Denise said:
I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome.
Aimed at a different market and clearly inferior.
I would over all agree on that assessment but Collegville has bright spots in it. And Denise Logos has never to the best of my knowledge had The New Jerome Biblical Commentary but yes the Old Catholic collection and Scholars collection of 2.0 Logos did have the Jerome Biblical Commentary. It took me over 5 years to track down a copy of the Catholic collection. I am so glad I have it, because the JBC is a great resource. And the version we have must be a mild revision, because this was released in 1968, but it mentions dates as late as1979 (doing a search in the book for 197*, but absolutely no date references for 198*). The 1989 NJBC is a good update, and most definitely superior and if Logos can ever get it I will most certainly buy it.
-Dan
PS: The 1968 update of the Logos released Catholic Commentary on Holy Scriptures would well be worth having too. Nelson published it up until at least 1984, which is the printing date on my copy.
I too have the old Jerome Biblical Commentary, and have had it since the old CDWORD program that was bought out by Logos in ancient times. It is good, and I use it from time to time. But as you note, it is no longer available.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Thank you Dan for your great assessment. I have Jerome's and had already made sure New Jerome's could still compete with Jeromes (the two top 1-volume commentaries being Jeromes and New Jeromes with a few others I can't remember).
The reason I like Jeromes (old and new) is their approach to honesty. They'll go a lot further down the rabbit trail, compared to their protestant brothers, and then at the last moment jump through a special theological hole and land back in solid Catholic territory.
I like that. Most of my commentaries waffle badly (the one Michael just mentions is a great waffler trying to figure out child birth in the Pastorals, but delicious waffles are their specialty). Jeromes just cuts to the chase, lays the data on the table, smiles, and then whoosh, they're back in safe territory.
Refreshing.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol. I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.
On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."
Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh. That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.
I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David. Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.
Since someone on this thread pointed out that The Moody Bible Commentary is now available on Vyrso, I thought I should point out that its "type" is Monograph. Thus, even though it had a decent entry on the designated verse, it did not show up in my passage guide report! Furthermore, I added it to my Commentaries collection and then reran the passage guide with the "Commentaries" setting. It still did not find content for The Moody Bible Commentary. Next, I chose an earlier verse which had a singular reference and ran a new search unsuccessfully. I conclude that the lack of tagging will keep us from fully exploiting this Moody commentary.
0 -
D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.
But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I believe David F Payne wrote that entry on 1 Samuel you are referring to.
Denise said:D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.
But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).
0 -
I believe the FSB entry is a little bit of conjecture. I found this Zondervan Background Commentary entry to be useful
"Michal took an idol and laid it on the bed (19:13). The nature of Michal’s “idol” (terāpîm) is somewhat mysterious. Attempts to clarify the character of “teraphim” etymologically have not proved successful. More fruitful has been a phenomenological approach, focusing on the apparent function of teraphim in their fifteen biblical occurrences. The general consensus that teraphim must have been “household gods” has been challenged recently by van der Toorn, who prefers the notion that teraphim were “ancestor statues.”
The latter theory may help to explain the Bible’s somewhat ambivalent attitude toward teraphim, but a definitive answer to the question of what the teraphim were remains elusive. Even their size seemed to vary considerably. While Rachel was able to conceal Laban’s teraphim in the camel’s saddle on which she was sitting (Gen. 31:34–35), Michal’s teraphim are apparently large enough to simulate a reclining David. About all that can be said with relative certainty is that teraphim figured more prominently in “folk religion” than in the official cult."
Walton, J. H. (2009). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Vol. 2, p. 354). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.David A Egolf said:In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol. I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.
On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."
Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh. That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.
I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David. Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.
Since someone on this thread pointed out that The Moody Bible Commentary is now available on Vyrso, I thought I should point out that its "type" is Monograph. Thus, even though it had a decent entry on the designated verse, it did not show up in my passage guide report! Furthermore, I added it to my Commentaries collection and then reran the passage guide with the "Commentaries" setting. It still did not find content for The Moody Bible Commentary. Next, I chose an earlier verse which had a singular reference and ran a new search unsuccessfully. I conclude that the lack of tagging will keep us from fully exploiting this Moody commentary.
0 -
Geo, D.A. was the editor. Let's not play like it's an honorary position. (Though in many cases as this one, it may appear that way.)
But again thank you for yet another yummy waffle. I think the author dug himself even deeper with ancestor worship. And 'folk religion' not as bad as 'cults'. That's tasty strawberries on the waffle.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
For a different point of view,
"Then in an act that revealed as much about her spiritual condition as it did about her commitment to her husband, Michal “took a teraphim” (“idol”) and used it to deceive Saul’s cohorts.
The reference here to a teraphim, apparently a large anthropomorphic idol,75 is the second one in 1 Samuel. Ominously, the prophet Samuel previously had suggested that Saul’s rebellious acts were equitable to the “evil of teraphim” (15:23). Through the present compelling scene and without the intrusion of didactic commentary, the writer suggests that Michal was as much a spiritual rebel as her father. This observation foreshadows an outcome for Michal’s life that is the feminine counterpart to Saul’s. Michal’s father lost his opportunity to establish a dynasty; Michal lost her opportunity to establish a family (2 Sam 6:23). When read in connection with Psalm 59,76 Michal’s action creates a strong contrast with those of her husband; whereas Michal trusted in a teraphim to save David, David trusted in the Lord (cf. Ps 59:9–10, 16–17).
In spite of the negative implications of the teraphim, the sequence of actions performed by Michal creates links between her and those of previous biblical heroines. In each case these allusions identify David in particularly favorable comparisons. Jacob too was saved by a woman who had possession of teraphim and deceived her father during a desperate search (cf. Gen 31:19–35). Moses also was saved through the efforts of the daughter of a wicked ruler (cf. Exod 2:6–10). Furthermore, David’s escape echoed that of the spies saved by Rahab, who were let down through a window at night by a woman who lied to a king (Josh 2:2–15)."
Bergen, R. D. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel (Vol. 7, p. 208). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.0 -
I prefer chicken and waffles myself.
Denise said:Geo, D.A. was the editor. Let's not play like it's an honorary position. (Though in many cases as this one, it may appear that way.)
But again thank you for yet another yummy waffle. I think the author dug himself even deeper with ancestor worship. And 'folk religion' not as bad as 'cults'. That's tasty strawberries on the waffle.
0 -
According to Carson: "One-volume commentaries are too brief to be useful in detailed exegesis and exposition, but they have the advantage of providing at least something on every book of the Bible—an advantage when the student or minister is young or able to maintain only a very small library. The New Bible Commentary (IVP/Eerdmans, latest revision 1994) is condensed, evangelical, and brief. It is primarily exegetical, but a little space is devoted to discussing critical theories and occasionally to ongoing application of the text. In its various editions it has become something of a standard around the English-speaking world among evangelical readers of single-volume commentaries. Several other volumes have aimed for more or less the same evangelical market. Some of them deserve honorable mention: A Bible Commentary for Today (Pickering and Inglis/ 1979) = The New Layman’s Bible Commentary (/Zondervan 1979) is a product of the Christian Brethren. Based on the RSV, its focus is sometimes on exegesis, sometimes on exposition. On the whole it is lighter than the New Bible Commentary. One should not overlook the latest revision of International Bible Commentary (/Zondervan 1986), edited by F. F. Bruce. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, edited by Walter A. Elwell, is useful (/Baker 1989). The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary is in two volumes, but its second volume is devoted to the NT (/Zondervan 1994). With one fat volume devoted to the last quarter of the canon, inevitably it offers a little more comment per line of text than the one-volume commentaries on the whole Bible."
D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (6th ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 29–30.0 -
Michael Childs said:
I too have the old Jerome Biblical Commentary, and have had it since the old CDWORD program that was bought out by Logos in ancient times.
CDWord Bible Software from Dallas Theological Seminary
A blast from the past...
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
That was quite the advanced interface for a DOS application back then. IBM's Common User Access (CUA) guidelines were the way to go.
... wow ... I almost forgot.
Thanks, Dan.
0 -
David A Egolf said:
In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol. I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.
On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."
Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh. That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.
I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David. Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.
Saul's family were never gung-ho and faithful where YHWH was concerned--they weren't meant to be.
I am always surprised that people are surprised that evidence of idolatry exists in Israel...whether in the Book or the archaeological record. How could that surprise anyone??
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Denise said:
D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.
But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).
Are you sure that is not one of those Exegetical Fallacies? [;)]
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Dan Francis said:Michael Childs said:
I too have the old Jerome Biblical Commentary, and have had it since the old CDWORD program that was bought out by Logos in ancient times.
CDWord Bible Software from Dallas Theological Seminary
A blast from the past...
-Dan
Thanks Dan! That really brings back memories. CDWORD was the reason that I bought my first computer. It convinced me that I needed / wanted one. It was a great program in its day!
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
I had a CDROM at the time (1990 was when I got it), but using a mac then too... but I do remember hearing about it and wanting it, but not a High Priority for a High School student... But like I said I had seen it discussed in a Christian Magazine and remember thinking how cool it would be to have it.
-Dan
0
