Which paper Study Bible?

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but what is the implication if Gen 1:1 does not teach creation ex nihilo (according to you) apart from making more than one view of creationism logically compliant with the Biblical text? At the end of the day, God did create everything and I have not seen many scholars making the case that matter was co-existent with God.

Ben said:

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 on that post...

Peace, Geo!                       Thank you so very kindly for that Heiser page!                  So very much appreciated indeed!           Excellent!     *smile*

Looks like another Logosian weekend.

Carmin's probably already using her new study Bible. I also wanted an 'info' study Bible. The afore-mentioned Annotated Oxford is the best I found. I have it with the NRSV. Although 'Oxford', it's probably a bit to the right of WBC. Actually a small version of the Logos Oxford Commentary.

The absolute best, however, is no longer in print .... the Lexham of course. Kind of interesting that it's generally very good. 

Rosie Perera said:

Steve said:

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.

Hi Ben,

Rosie pointed out, correctly so, that I misunderstood and misstated your comments.  After re-reading your post and my reply I can see how I have conflated a few things inadvertently.  Please accept my apology.

When I read your post that cited a Catholic theologian expressing a viewpoint (although the content of that viewpoint was not provided) on the topic of ex nihilo (against), I thought it would be good to clarify the Catholic teaching and for the benefit of the forum readers.  That was my intention and hence the reference to the Catechism, paragraph 296.

Having said that, It did cause me to do some additional research.  Honestly, I'm not sure that citing Mr. Smith initially or as a "prominent" (later post) Catholic theologian or his viewpoint as "majority" (also later post) is helping your argument.  I looked through a number of independent texts, commentaries, monographs, etc. in my paper library from what I would consider to be prominent Catholic theologians and biblical scholars in our day (Murphy, Ratzinger, Boadt, Fitzmeyer, Hahn, Balthasar, Bergant, Brown, Perkins, and others).  I don't see opinion against ex hihilo.  The translation differences you cite are frequently shown, but not used as a basis for your argument.  Some do not address the subject, some point to ex nihilo.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of Mr. Smith or your viewpoint.  I am just offering the perspective that your argument, as it appears to stand in this post, which includes "prominent" and "majority" and Catholic in a connected way against ex nihilo is tenuous.

Again, my apologies for misrepresenting your thoughts earlier.

Blessings always,

Steve [:)]

Ken McGuire said:

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

[Y] I agree, the Harper Collins Study Bible has excellent notes. Too bad the Bible version is NRSV. I wish the NASB had this quality of study bible.

John said:

David Bailey said:

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

By "original" I believe he is speaking of the 1977 NASB vs the 1995 update of the NASB. Yes Thompson was around in KJV before NASB, but the only NASB available in Thompson is the "original NASB"

David Thomas said:

By "original" I believe he is speaking of the 1977 NASB vs the 1995 update of the NASB. Yes Thompson was around in KJV before NASB, but the only NASB available in Thompson is the "original NASB"

Yes I think you are correct.

The Thompson Chain brings back lots of good memories for me. I never used it, but I had several close friends who did (KJV version).

I did a little searching and found that the 1984 NIV in a Thompson Chain is still available and even with a nice discount.

I have a small collection of 1984 NIV Bibles now, but have decided to go with the HCSB. Either way seems to be a good choice.

I neglected to point out that as much as I love having a study Bible nearby, they are often heavy and large. The very best study Bible is often simply the Bible you have in front of you. I got a very good deal on a slightly blemished leather Pitt Minion Bible in ESV. It's small, slim, very readable and it goes with me everywhere. 

The new ESV Gospel Transformation Bible is good from what I have seen so far. It will be released next month:

 http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv-gospel-application-bible-hccase/

 We just heard this week that the publisher for the Sprit of the Reformation Study Bible will re-release it in 2015 – probably in ESV or NASB. Presently there are only a few Chinese copies left:

http://store.thirdmill.org/home.php?cat=14

Also the combined http://www.amazon.com/English-Bible-King-James-Version/dp/0393347044/ref=sr_1_2/184-8867746-8525962?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377287311&sr=1-2 (to be released in Nov).

This one would be good on a Kindle

David Thomas said:

Don't know if you ever made a decision, but here is an option - https://store.bible.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=1 

NET Bible? isn't that the one that gets updated every couple weeks? [:O]

David Thomas said:

 

Semper Reformanda! Any dead tree document is only a snapshot of the best information available at a given time. Should any of the historical councils of the church not been held just because a previous or later council may refute/refine its conclusion?

           Does anyone remember how we got the NetBible in the days of Logos 3?  I remember it was free at the time.  Somebody from NetBible.org came onto the Newsgroups, I believe, and showed us how to get it????

Somehow I have both the "noted" edition and the "noteless" edition ....     

                     What I'm wondering    (having just looked at the NetBible online ...)   .........     how often do you think Logos should update our resource to match the NetBible.org version???         Actually, I'm pleased with Logos' many resource updates..     Just wondering. ....       

                              BTW, I'm going to be looking at the "noted" version a wee bit more ...      Thanks for mentioning it.

 It's one of my many versions that I've just been taking for granted in my studies of God's Word!           ...   and it deserves a "peek"!        *smile*

Carmen, to learn more and apply more, create your own study Bible. Purchase a wide margin Bible in your favorite translation and go for it.

John said:

Instead someone testified somewhere: "What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him? (Heb 2:6 NET)

There might be some feminists that are very offended if they read that one

Not all feminists would be offended. According to Richard Floyd http://richardlfloyd.com/category/inclusive-language/

"Deborah M. Belonick, in a discussion of the Christological and Trinitarian debates of the fourth century, concludes “In the theology of the early church, the traditional Trinitarian terms are precise theological terms. Therefore these terms are not exchangeable. Through them humanity encounters the persons of the Trinity, and through them relationships among members of the Godhead are defined.” She goes on to say, “There is no historical evidence that the terms ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ were products of a patriarchal culture, ‘male’ theology, or a hierarchical church” ' (Union Seminary Quarterly Review 40 (1985) pp 31–342)."

Jane 3:16    "For Goddess so loved Gaia that she gave one of her many Muses ....."    Dangerous stuff!

John said:

Denise said:

John ... I know you're trying really hard with the new forum manners guide; reading plan to follow.

Huh? what new forum manners guide?

I wonder if she is referring to this other thread on the Forum? http://community.logos.com/forums/t/74380.aspx 

Milford Charles Murray said:

BTW, I don't understand your comment about the offended feminists ... ?

Sometimes my sarcastic sense of humor is difficult for others to understand, I apologize. On the topic of Gender Neutral Bible translation, the key motivation is to reduce "offensive" masculine language from the Bible. Generally speaking, it is the feminist movement which has been behind this trend. They have already made tremendous inroads into academia. You will find their influence in all the school textbooks.

And the .NET Bible is really moderate in this sense. The worst offenders are of course the NRSV, in which perhaps the best English translation ever produced was about to be published after more than 10 years of work by the worlds leading scholars from all denominations and backgrounds. And then it was "Gender Neutralized" by a "style" committee before going to print. Many of its translators were horrified, but the political agenda prevailed, and hence what would have been the best English translation ever produced is basically a flop as far as the free market is concerned.

Then came the TNIV. After the NRSV came out, somebody over at what is now called "Biblica" was chomping at the bit to gender neutralize the Bible too. With the TNIV they found out that it wouldn't sell in a free market. So they took away the freedom, utilized their monopoly position, and replace the 1984 NIV which had over 40% of the market, and slipped in the TNIV in Trojan horse fashion ... while at the same time leveraging copyright laws to prevent the printing or distribution of the 1984 NIV text.

I was told by a manager at a Zondervan Family bookstore that they were not allowed to close out their remaining stock of 1984 NIV's. They were forced to ship them back to the publisher, where they were destroyed. Can you imagine that? A publisher of Bibles destroying Bibles in order to push the feminist agenda? I found it truly amazing.

So essentially the two best English translations of the Bible ever produced have been destroyed by the feminist movement. I know many will argue that these were not the two best ... everyone has their favorites ... but the 1984 NIV definitely won in the marketplace. And the NRSV is still considered the best by academia even with its de-genderized corruption. More scholarship and work went into the NRSV than any other that I am aware of.

So today we have the ESV and the CSB as the leading alternatives. Unless you want to stick with the ultra-literal and venerable NASB95, with English about as smooth as a jigsaw ... and then there is always the old KJV, which doesn't seem to me to even be in English at all ... more like a second language in itself. But I know some people love that second language. I just figure if I have to learn a new language, it should be Greek, not Shakespearean prose.

Hope this clarifies what I was getting at a bit. Trying to avoid controversy a bit now, so I'm not going to mention to Denise that this whole big mess all "humankind" is in was Eve's fault [:D]

In spite of your stating clearly that you want nothing to do with the Message, I'd dare to say that it is quite scholarly. It is not a paraphrase of a translation. Eugene Peterson who is its translator is a scholar who knows both the Hebrew and the Greek has done a very good job of translating phrase for phrase and coming up with a good meaning for meaning reader. There are some places where I really prefer the Message to other translations and I definitely like to look at it in addition to NRSV and others to get at the meaning of the original languages. I have studied the Hebrew and the Greek myself and I find his translations to be very good. FWIW.

It's the same for me. I don't use paper to read much of anything these days. But when I did, I used the NASB Ryrie Study Bible. Now with Logos, I can look up information immediately.

I am new to this forum and therefore I am not sure quite how to respond to specific comments. I didn't see an option to "reply" ….(only "flag, quote, insightful, agree, like or LOL…none of which fit). However, I do want to let you know that I am a feminist theologian among you, and I have read and studied the Bible, even graduated from seminary with high grades and been ordained as a teaching elder/minister of Word and Sacrament. I would humbly ask that you consider me one of those among you as you write, please.

One interesting way that I came to think about the language change necessary in the NRSV and the TNIV is to consider the titles put on restrooms. If it doesn't matter what words we use there, then it doesn't matter which restroom I go into. I can use either the mens room or the women's room, because "everyone knows that men means everyone." At least that seem to be the argument for not changing the language of the Bible pronouns and gendered words. When "men" is used for all people I have to decide if I am included or not every time, and if I decide wrongly, I am in for serious trouble.

I recall a time when in an Orthodox Church the ministers were invited to go to the back to the "holy of holies" where communion is prepared and I'm not sure what else takes place there…….I took a step or two to join my colleagues, because I was among the local ministerial group. Immediately the clearly shocked orthodox minister, who had extended the invitation, put up his hands to block me from entering and said, "oh no, not you!" in spite of the fact that I was just as much a minister as any of the rest of them who were invited. Blessedly, a couple of the male ministers refused, then, to go with him in solidarity with me.

I hope that helps you to understand the issue a little more clearly. Words do matter, and can be very offensive when they exclude someone in ambiguous ways, and then punish those who misinterpret the ambiguity.

And, as to Eve being at fault…..did you forget that Adam was right there beside her when she ate the fruit? And he was eager to join her in eating it with her when it was offered to him.

I do not wish to be offensive…..at all. I do wish to help others to see that being feminist is not about being anti-men. It is about being clear with our words and helping everyone, both men and women to be all that they can be and are created to be. I love you all and pray that we can be loving in our use of words as we learn together.

P.S. You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist theologian. And I've wondered how anyone who follows Jesus can be anything but a feminist theologian when they understand what it means.

Yikes… I was wondering the same thing but we are drifting towards non-sanctioned forums topics. Questioning ex nihilo creation seems like a very dangerous precipice.

This thread has been resurrected. Answering the last question… To determine the age of many quoted comments you must scroll back to the author of the comment.

For posterity, I suggest both the Reformation Study Bible and The Lutheran Study Bible. I particularly like the Lutheran Study notes.

Considering how much Logos software has developed, a paper study Bible seems outdated… although I still love my Bible in print form. Everyone needs a nice readers edition Bible, single column, no references, no footnotes, no headings. Just get absorbed with the reading of God’s Word… IMHO.