Which paper Study Bible?

Hey guys... which paper study bible would you recommend? (yes I'm a Logos user, but I still want to know). The one caveat is no "Message" or paraphrase-type Bibles... I'm really picky about that, being an NASB user to begin with.

I'm certainly willing to look at other translations though... in fact that might be a good idea just to see different scholarly inputs... (by which I don't mean the New World Translation or anything!) Big Smile

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Daniel Yoder

The ESV Study Bible is quite studly, and the NIV Study Bible is also worth a look.

Roger G Black

While having digital is a very nice thing, I too, like to have paper to back it up. I recently purchased 2 New Inductive Study Bibles for the household, 1 ESV and 1 NASB. Inductive Study Bibles are a format that can have the user digging into the Word, if they choose to put this style into action and into heart. Just a few ideas to look into.

Geo Philips

Hey guys... which paper study bible would you recommend? (yes I'm a Logos user, but I still want to know). The one caveat is no "Message" or paraphrase-type Bibles... I'm really picky about that, being an NASB user to begin with.

I'm certainly willing to look at other translations though... in fact that might be a good idea just to see different scholarly inputs... (by which I don't mean the New World Translation or anything!)

ESV has a whole bunch of study bibles (I have heard the Global Study Bible is quite good) but I recommend the standard ESV Study Bible, which has excellent articles and graphics to go along with solid mini-commentary (standard caveats about theological leanings which might be different to yours.)

I would not get the current NIV Study Bible. However, it is being updated by Doug Moo and DA Carson, so that might be a good one to get later.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514235#Comment_514235

Several I like are:

The Open Bible NASB

The Geneva Study Bible

The KJV Study Bible (formerly known as the Liberty Annotated Study Bible)

The Strand Study Bible (this one is new to me but so far I like it)

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514248#Comment_514248

I think the 1995 NASU that You are already using, is superior to the Evangelical Standard Version. I haven't used a Study Bible, but agree that ESV has bias in the Study Bible notes. Plus the ESV has bias in the translation.

I use other Bibles myself, I don't feel like discussing them right now, I'm focusing on writing other posts ...

Fred Chapman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514248#Comment_514248

Paper Study Bibles?

I did not know they still made them out of paper. Why? [:O][;)]

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514261#Comment_514261

For me it is hands down the ESV Study Bible. It's a brick, but an incredible work, as far as study Bibles go. I tend to collect study Bibles, however, and really like the Believer's Study Bible, which I'm not sure is in print/or it was renamed, I can't remember.

NB.Mick

Hey guys... which paper study bible would you recommend?

this depends on your planned usage intentions and whether you'd rather be confirmed in - or challenged by - a certain theological viewpoint. E.g. the ESB SB is rather reformed-leaning (there are of course more outspoken Reformed SBs) and complementarist, the CSSB is Lutheran (again, there's a more Lutheran SB), the current NIV SB is probably the global bestseller of SBs and "broadly evangelical" (wonder if the upcoming new NIV SB will be more reformed leaning, given the editors) - and that's only the non-pentecostal, conservative protestant flaviour ...

I personally like NIV SB in paper, but find I look less and less into it, given that I have FSB, ESV SB and CSSB in Logos (and CSSB is a "lutheranized" NIV SB). For bible study in German language I rather carry a Thomson Chain Reference bible around.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514265#Comment_514265

I tend to collect study Bibles

Everett, since you are a collector, may I suggest the Andrews Study Bible . Different perspective on some areas of belief. Tell me what you think. Logos also has it.

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514270#Comment_514270

I would use the paperback edition of the ESV Study Bible.

For bible study in German language I rather carry a Thomson Chain Reference bible around.

My favorite paper study Bible is the Stuttgarter Studienbibel. I still use my old German paperback edition and the Hungarian hardback edition regularly.

For Bible study in Dutch I use the classic Kanttekeningen (English translation available here as Logos pb).

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514309#Comment_514309

Jewish Study Bible, which obviously doesn't include the NT. (Edit to add: There's the Jewish Annotated New Testament, a NRSV NT with Jewish study notes from the same people who did the JSB.)

I found the ESV Study Bible to be *extremely* narrow. I prefer the NIV Study Bible to the ESV, even aware of its problems.

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514316#Comment_514316

ESV definitely ESV

Deacon Steve

I use two study bibles regularly:

Catholic Study Bible, Second Edition (NABRE) -> Coming to Logos, HERE.

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV2CE) - Available in Logos, HERE.

The Ignatius Study Bible is currently available for the New Testament. The publisher is currently working on the Old Testament.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514444#Comment_514444

I would advise against:

- NIV Study Bible - the notes are good and helpful, but they very frequently refer to notes elsewhere, so unless you like turning pages a lot, this is one that much more useable in electronic format, IMHO

- NLT Study Bible - the notes do not have depth

Esv Study Bible has good notes and charts and graphics... The maps are lightly colored and kind of hard to read.

Peter

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514454#Comment_514454

The first study Bible that I ever bought for myself was a NASB Ryrie Study Bible. I loved it.

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514226#Comment_514226

The ESV Study Bible is quite studly, and the NIV Study Bible is also worth a look.

The ESV Study Bible is definitely among the best.

The main problem with the (2011) NIV is with the translation being made gender-neutral. Almost guarantees its eventual decline.

There is also the Reformation study Bible (revision of the Geneva SB, edited by R.C. Sproul), available in ESV or NKJV.

If you like John Macarthur, his study Bible is very good and available in several translations.

If you are from a dispensationalist (I hope not [H]) background, the Ryrie study Bible is very good.

And last but not least, the HCSB translation and study Bible are both very good. Especially the translation which IMO is better than the ESV.

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514259#Comment_514259

... ESV has bias in the Study Bible notes.

All study Bibles have bias. The ESV is actually well regarded for being more objective than most, it shows several different views in difficult passages.

Plus the ESV has bias in the translation.

All translations have bias. Only way to escape that fact is to learn original languages (using lexicons and study tools which have bias of course) [:D]

Michael

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514476#Comment_514476

The Life Application study bible is very good and I think it comes in the NIV, NASB and one other translation. The Quest Study bible is also very good. I know it comes in NIV, but not sure what other versions it may be in. Both deal with every day issues that we face as Christians.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514480#Comment_514480

"The ESV is actually well regarded for being more objective than most, it shows several different views in difficult passages."

Oh really?

My comments from elsewhere, 2009.

>I know lots of people like it, but I was singularly *unimpressed* with its notes when I looked through it at SBL last year.

The note on Genesis 1:1, for example, does not even mention the alternate translation of the verse, one many scholars take to be correct (i.e. NRSV and JPS/TNK.) Not even a mention, and it claims to be a Study Bible! Moreover, it assumes that Gen 1:1 (without mentioning the alternative) teaches creation exnihilo [again, something most scholars now reject], and then states that this is"confirmed by the NT writers' affirmation that creation was from nothing" though their citied passages affirm no such thing. They also leave out 2Peter 3:5, which has a connection to Genesis and creation from the pre-existing chaotic water/deep/tehom.

For a *Study* Bible, I find the notes vastly incomplete and hopelessly dogmatic, with no mention of alternatives. Whether the scholars are right or not is immaterial to this discussion. I expect a *Study* Bible to present the options, not dogmatically choose and arbitrate between them for the reader, without letting the reader know there is even a question. There *is* a debate, and the ESV Study Bible presents the topic as if there were absolute certainty. That is what I take issue with.

Rosie Perera

I've pretty much abandoned the use of paper study Bibles, but I always liked the NIV Study Bible. It's got quite good notes; excellent cross-references; a nice, succinct, but remarkably comprehensive concordance (though that's a moot point with Logos and its search capabilities); and some pretty good maps. I wish Logos would publish that someday, at least the cross-references. I've been slowly chipping away at making a PB of them, but I fear it will take me until kingdom come, and I hope Logos comes along and does it before I finish with Genesis.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514480#Comment_514480

I'll give another thumbs up on the ESV Study Bible. You get free access to their online ESV Study Bible which I absolutely love. Very handy. Of course I had to have the module in Logos too.

I just added a Life Application Study Bible to my paper Bibles since Logos doesn't have it yet. Word of caution: get the Large Print version, the standard version notes are really small.

One other gem is the Thompson Chain Reference. Very useful and yes I wish it was in Logos too.

FWIW, if you really use a bound Bible, look for a sewn binding and avoid bonded leather which wears out rather quickly.

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514488#Comment_514488

Wow everyone... thanks so much for all the feedback... this leads to a follow-up question... I must agree with some of you that, as a relatively well-educated long-time student of the Bible, I'm quite capable of deciding for myself which way I think an interpretation should go... so here's what I'm thinking: is there a study Bible out there that doesn't so much focus on interpretations as information - in other words I don't really care whether "day" means "day" or "period of time", but what I do want to know is... what's a "talent"? Who was this Herod guy?

Obviously, I know I can quite easily find this info using Logos (and do it all the time [:D] ), but what about when my Logos is in one place, and it's just me and my paper study Bible elsewhere? Which of the above mentioned study bibles does the best job at that (even if they include hermeneutical stuff?)

Thanks again!

David Bailey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514614#Comment_514614

Obviously, I know I can quite easily find this info using Logos (and do it all the time ), but what about when my Logos is in one place, and it's just me and my paper study Bible elsewhere?

There is only one bible that fits the bill: The Thompson Chain Bible. You can get it in the original NASB and NIV. I have a genuine leather NASB with outstanding features and binding - it should last for many years (edit: and has - for the past 23 years). I wouldn't mind having a digital Logos version of this bible as well.

David

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514619#Comment_514619

If nothing else, this discussion has shown that there are many different expectations for a Study Bible. I come from a mainline background, and eventually settled on the HarperCollins Study Bible produced with the help of SBL. I used the New Oxford Annotated in School, and it to be a bit clunky not too insightful. It gave solid information, but generally information I already knew... While the maps at the end were excellent, there was no graphical information in the text itself. I practically jumped for joy when I looked at the HarperCollins and saw the "Simplified Family Tree" for the Herods near the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, as well as much more extensive annotation. Admittedly Oxford has seen this and the 3rd and 4th editions are much better than the one I used in school.

No, it doesn't give the theological meanings that I do find in scripture. But it seems to do a decent job at summarizing what many top-drawer academics find and debate about in the Bible.

SDG

Ken McGuire

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514226#Comment_514226

The ESV Study Bible is quite st***ly, and the NIV Study Bible is also worth a look.

Peace and Blessings, Daniel! *smile*

If you can still edit your post, you might want to replace the word st**dly with something else, eh??? *smile*

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514782#Comment_514782

Thank you, Milford.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514790#Comment_514790

Thank you, Milford.

Hi, Steve! *smile* Just now I realised that I should also edit the word in my quote of Daniel's post .... oopppssss, almost! *smile*

Thanks for your very kind post!

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514485#Comment_514485

Moreover, it assumes that Gen 1:1 (without mentioning the alternative) teaches creation exnihilo [again, something most scholars now reject],

Is there another alternative? Did God find some substance lying around and decide to use that? I know liberal scholars believe God is limited but who are "most scholars"?

Evan Boardman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514791#Comment_514791

I like the ESV translation, but for a study bible I prefer the Matthew Henry Study Bible.

Daniel Yoder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514782#Comment_514782

Peace and Blessings, Daniel! *smile*

If you can still edit your post, you might want to replace the word st**dly with something else, eh??? *smile*

I am very sorry for my poor choice of words. I can no longer edit the post. Can a forum administrator be contacted about removing my post?

My sincere apologies. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514793#Comment_514793

You're asking a sarcastic theological question, but I'll reply with bibliographic/historical data, as soon as I get back to my computer at home. But yes, many scholars of many persuasions agree that creation ex nihilo is not intended in gen 1, and would have been quite foreign to the Israelites. It probably arises late in the second temple period, but the refer

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514782#Comment_514782

The ESV Study Bible is quite st***ly, and the NIV Study Bible is also worth a look.

Peace and Blessings, Daniel! *smile*

If you can still edit your post, you might want to replace the word st**dly with something else, eh??? *smile*

What would be an appropriate alternative? I could get a forum moderator to edit it. I wasn't offended by the word. I think Daniel was using this meaning of it (from computer lingo): http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/studly: " Impressive; powerful. Said of code and designs which exhibit both complexity and a virtuoso flair."

But since that word has its origin elsewhere, and some folks might be offended by it, I can see why you wanted it changed, Milford.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514485#Comment_514485

"something most scholars now reject"

A very silly and meaningless phrase to use. Would be more honest to say "people who agree with me now reject".

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514824#Comment_514824

For a beginning, how about the Logos-produced Lexham Bible Dictionary?

"While it is often thought that God creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”), the Genesis text testifies to the presence of a primordial watery chaos over which the “spirit of God” hovers", referring to Mark S. Smith's excellent book, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Smith is Catholic, teaches at NYU, Hebrew Bible.

Or, Jon Levenson, Jewish, prof. at Harvard in Hebrew Bible. The LBD summarizes one aspect of his book Creation and the Persistence of Evil by saying "Creatio ex nihilo is a falsification of creation in the Hebrew Bible."

Or, Peter Enns, Evangelical, The Evolution of Adam- "Genesis 1 does not describe creation out of nothing, but the establishment of order out of “chaos."

So, for the ESV to not even indicate this as an option, really tarnishes it for me.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514831#Comment_514831

Enns (again, an Evangelical, not some European agnostic liberal) goes on to say,

"Biblical scholars are generally in strong agreement that the conventional translation of Gen. 1:1 is wrong (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” [NIV]). This implies “creation out of nothing” (ex nihilo; cf. 2 Macc. 7:28), which is what neither Genesis nor other ancient Near Eastern stories depict. Genesis begins with the assumption that the waters (the “deep”) and the earth are already there. God separates the waters to make the sky and reveal the land, and then fills sky, earth, and sea with plant and animal life. For this reason, most scholars today translate verse 1 similar to what we see in the NRSV: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” This clause then introduces v. 2, which depicts the prior chaotic state. In other words, Gen. 1:1–2 together lay out the chaotic conditions: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void and darkness covered the face of the deep.” God’s first creative act is in verse 3 where he begins to order the chaos: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light.’ ” Genesis 1 is not interested in the ultimate origins of the chaotic matter."

And Michael Heiser, an Evangelical employed by Logos, also thinks Genesis 1 is creation from pre-existent matter. "The conclusion of that post (and the powerpoint video) was that, according to the Hebrew syntax of Genesis 1:1-3, Genesis 1:1 (“when God began to create…”) was NOT the first creative act of God. Rather, Genesis 1:3 was His first creative act — and it was the initial act of re-creating or re-ordering the material described in Genesis 1:1-2."

Where the matter comes from is another question.

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/08/god-as-creator-of-all-things-including-the-material-already-present-at-genesis-11/

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514831#Comment_514831

Ben,

Appreciate your sincere love of God and the study of Sacred Scripture. However, please refrain from positing a theological opinion as Church teaching. Mr. Smith is a theologian, not the Magisterium of the Church. He may have an opinion on the theological meaning of Genesis 1 based on his study, but the Church clearly teaches, has always taught, that "God creates freely out of nothing" CCC 296.

Blessings,

Steve [:)]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514838#Comment_514838

However, please refrain from positing a theological opinion as Church teaching. Mr. Smith is a theologian, not the Magisterium of the Church.

Um, I didn't see him anywhere claiming that Mr. Smith's theological opinion is Church teaching or that Mr. Smith is anything other than a theologian who happens to also be Catholic. He wasn't saying he represents the Magisterium.

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514836#Comment_514836

Enns (again, an Evangelical, not some European agnostic liberal) goes on to say,

"Biblical scholars are generally in strong agreement that the conventional translation of Gen. 1:1 is wrong (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” [NIV]). This implies “creation out of nothing” (ex nihilo; cf. 2 Macc. 7:28), which is what neither Genesis nor other ancient Near Eastern stories depict. Genesis begins with the assumption that the waters (the “deep”) and the earth are already there. God separates the waters to make the sky and reveal the land, and then fills sky, earth, and sea with plant and animal life. For this reason, most scholars today translate verse 1 similar to what we see in the NRSV: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” This clause then introduces v. 2, which depicts the prior chaotic state. In other words, Gen. 1:1–2 together lay out the chaotic conditions: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void and darkness covered the face of the deep.” God’s first creative act is in verse 3 where he begins to order the chaos: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light.’ ” Genesis 1 is not interested in the ultimate origins of the chaotic matter."

And Michael Heiser, an Evangelical employed by Logos, also thinks Genesis 1 is creation from pre-existent matter. "The conclusion of that post (and the powerpoint video) was that, according to the Hebrew syntax of Genesis 1:1-3, Genesis 1:1 (“when God began to create…”) was NOT the first creative act of God. Rather, Genesis 1:3 was His first creative act — and it was the initial act of re-creating or re-ordering the material described in Genesis 1:1-2."

Where the matter comes from is another question.

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/08/god-as-creator-of-all-things-including-the-material-already-present-at-genesis-11/

Ben I will disagree with you as a brother and apologize for any comment that came across as inflammatory or disrespectful. The reason I disagree is the word used in Gen. 1:1 is the same word in Gen 1:27. In 1:1 God created the heavens and earth. In 1:27, God created man in His image. The idea forming and not creating does not work for either. To clarify, we are not formed (arranged) in God's image, we are created.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514847#Comment_514847

Unfortunately, bara' does not connote or denote ex nihilo. John Walton, another non-liberal, has a whole book on that. (Two, if you separate his popular Lost World of Genesis 1 from his Eisenbrauns volume that covers the same material for an academic audience.)

But it doesn't hinge on the semantics of bara' at all, but the syntax of Genesis 1:1-2. Again, many (I'd say most, but haven't counted, you know) Semiticists and Hebraicists will tell you that the traditional rendering is incorrect. Enns says it, Smith says it (published, but heard it myself), Dennis Pardee says it. The NRSV and NJPS get it right.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514850#Comment_514850

In any case, I hope I've made it clear, what the ESV Study Bible presents as the only option that anyone holds, is very much not the case. Prominent Jewish, Catholic, and Evangelical scholars, not liberals, all hold to this idea, which is rooted in the syntax of Genesis 1:1-3 and comparisons with other ancient Near Eastern creation texts which also begin with circumstancial clauses.

Back to your previously scheduled posts. [:)]

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514850#Comment_514850

3666.Create.docx

I edited my last comment to clarify my position.

I do not think I can convince you and I don't think you are going to convince me. I do believe ex nihilo is correct.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514855#Comment_514855

Philosophically, I've always had a problem with the idea behind creation ex nihilo. "Nothing" doesn't exist.

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514485#Comment_514485

The note on Genesis 1:1, for example, does not even mention the alternate translation of the verse, one many scholars take to be correct (i.e. NRSV and JPS/TNK.) Not even a mention, and it claims to be a Study Bible! Moreover, it assumes that Gen 1:1 (without mentioning the alternative) teaches creation exnihilo [again, something most scholars now reject], and then states that this is"confirmed by the NT writers' affirmation that creation was from nothing" though their citied passages affirm no such thing. They also leave out 2Peter 3:5, which has a connection to Genesis and creation from the pre-existing chaotic water/deep/tehom.

There *is* a debate, and the ESV Study Bible presents the topic as if there were absolute certainty. That is what I take issue with.

After seeing the responses to your post, I went back and took a look at this. I honestly cannot figure out why you would expect a study Bible written by evangelicals for evangelicals to include commentary by those holding positions contrary to the evangelical position.

The complaint seems to be: "I do not agree with what it says, therefore it is no good".

In fact, the commentary on Genesis 1:1 is very good in my opinion.

The Hebrew verb bara’, "create," is always used in the OT with God as the subject; while it is not always used to describe creation out of nothing, it does stress God's sovereignty and power. Heavens and the earth here means "everything." This means, then, that "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of everything. The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create it ex nihilo (Latin "out of nothing"). The effect of the opening words of the Bible is to establish that God, in his inscrutable wisdom, sovereign power, and majesty, is the Creator of all things that exist.

The statements here are New Testament dogma and aren't up for debate among the evangelicals (real Bible believers) it is targeting as its audience. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 explicitly teach this view. That settles it for those who believe scripture is the final authority.

Of course there is going to be some unbelieving "scholar" somewhere who thinks God didn't create everything. But I don't need that garbage in my study Bible. Who does?

My litmus test for a study Bible has always been Matthew 24:34. I can tell immediately if the authors are honest and truthful, or just propagating their own view by how they handle this verse. The ESV Study Bible is one of very few I have ever seen that attempts to give several of the most popular views. Honestly, it does not give the correct view ... but then, I have never seen a study Bible that does. The closest to the truth I have seen on this verse is the Reformation SB, which gives the historic Christian view (which today is called partial preterism). The majority of Study Bibles I have seen are dispensational in their view, so on verses like this one they have to do some kind of tap dance around the clear reading of the text.

The ESV SB shows that within evangelicalism there are numerous views, and attempts to describe several of them. Others (like the Holman SB) simply do not comment on the meaning of the verse. I can respect either method. What I cannot respect are the ones that dogmatically tell outright lies (like Ryrie and Macarthur do).

The ESV does this with most "controversial" passages. Controversial being defined as the various views within the evangelical and reformed stream. No attempt is made, nor should it be, to include the conflicting and ever-changing views of unbelieving scholarship.

Ben, just out of curiosity, is there a Study Bible that you recommend?

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514619#Comment_514619

There is only one bible that fits the bill: The Thompson Chain Bible. You can get it in the original NASB and NIV.

I think the original Thompson Chain was KJV [:D]

The beauty of this one is that it isn't a lot of commentary, but it just sends you to other relevant scriptures.

The cross reference system is one of the X-ref options built into Bibleworks software. Wordsearch has it. Olivetree also has it. Not sure if Logos has it yet or not.

Put on my wish list, A Thompson Chain HCSB Bible [:D]

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514831#Comment_514831

For a beginning, how about the Logos-produced Lexham Bible Dictionary?

"While it is often thought that God creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”), the Genesis text testifies to the presence of a primordial watery chaos over which the “spirit of God” hovers", referring to Mark S. Smith's excellent book, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Smith is Catholic, teaches at NYU, Hebrew Bible.

Or, Jon Levenson, Jewish, prof. at Harvard in Hebrew Bible. The LBD summarizes one aspect of his book Creation and the Persistence of Evil by saying "Creatio ex nihilo is a falsification of creation in the Hebrew Bible."

Or, Peter Enns, Evangelical, The Evolution of Adam- "Genesis 1 does not describe creation out of nothing, but the establishment of order out of “chaos."

So, for the ESV to not even indicate this as an option, really tarnishes it for me.

"All things were made by him" doesn't leave an option for eternally existent primordial ooze [;)]

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514836#Comment_514836

"Biblical scholars are generally in strong agreement that ...."

Statements like this always remind me of those toothpaste commercials that say "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed said ...."

I never really believed they surveyed 5 randomly chosen dentists [H]

But I think the truly relevant point here is that Ben just made his 666th post here on the forum [6]

Just kidding Ben [H]

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514850#Comment_514850

The NRSV and NJPS get it right.

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth," (Gen 1:1 NRS)

NRS Notes (Gen 1:1) (1) Or when God began to create or In the beginning God created

"IN THE beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1 JPS)

I fail to see any difference here in these translations.

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514866#Comment_514866

Philosophically, I've always had a problem with the idea behind creation ex nihilo. "Nothing" doesn't exist.

Wow this thread is so interesting. Wouldn't "nothing" be the absence of "something"?

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514876#Comment_514876

You're looking at the 1917 JPS, not the much more recent NJPS, which reads

"When God began to create heaven and earth — ² the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water — ³ God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

In this understanding, when God begins creating, the earth is already present in a chaotic state, tohu and vohu, as is the deep.

I expect a Study Bible to give me the options and expand my views of the ways the text is read, not simply reflect my own dogma back at me. As for the "most scholars", what can I say? Reading across a wide breadth of scholarship (which is why I posted prominent Catholic, Jewish, and Evangelical cites), those who look solely at the Hebrew syntax tend to agree that this is a better rendering. Those who disagree tend to do so out of confessional/dogmatic reasons, not syntactic ones. (Google for Mike Heiser and ex nihilo, he has a few blog posts on the subject.)

But this is getting beyond the limits of the forums.

And I really should have included a [6] on that post...

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514929#Comment_514929

I would never use the ESV translation just because it's not even thoroughly updated. The scholarship in it is dated, the only major thing I can sort of agree about it is Is 7:14 for which I use the 1970 NAB which is similar for that verse. I actually read large parts of the NT from the RSV when I wanted to read the parts of the NT again that I had not read for a long time. I'm postponing reading the OT, but I've switched to reading Isaiah quotes in Logos books from the RSV (switching from the original Jerusalem Bible).

I have the Comprehensive Crossref both in Accordance and as printed matter (aka Comprehensive New Testament or Comprehensive Bible), so it's really really easy to correct a bit older English NT versions to correspond to the NA27. I remember about 1½ years ago or so recommending the Comprehensive New Testament to a person who used the RSV and that person was so thrilled about those corrections from the NA27! No Gk is needed to read it.

I'm not a native English speaker and I have not grown up or matured on my Christian path with any English Bible version that has old English words such as the 1977 NASB (which I've only seen once, a year ago, it was an NT so it doesn't have the old English), still I'm not bothered at all by the language in the RSV, I think it's format is actually good and it's a pleasant read and somewhat trustworthy.

I tend to prefer true ecumenical Bibles (of which there are very very few) and the Jerusalem Bible, but I really avoid the NRSV. I would read the Jerusalem Bible (of which I don't have and haven't desired a Study Bible) more if it's going to be produced in Logos, which I have suggested. I have been using the Good News Translation from time to time, however I don't have the ecumenical Edition of it that includes 4 Ezra and I don't know whether it's available free online.