Which paper Study Bible?

Page 2 of 5 (84 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 83 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 19216
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 7:17 PM

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. 

Posts 2711
mab | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 7:20 PM

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.

The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter

Posts 557
Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:11 AM

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 Big Smile  ), 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!

Posts 654
David Bailey | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:29 AM

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell:
Obviously, I know I can quite easily find this info using Logos (and do it all the time Big Smile  ), 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

Posts 1795
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 1:33 PM

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

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 3:48 PM

Daniel Yoder:

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*

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 1602
Deacon Steve | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:16 PM

Thank you, Milford.

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:18 PM

Steve:

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!

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 525
Kent | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:20 PM

Ben:
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"?

Posts 737
Evan Boardman | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:47 PM

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

Posts 514
Daniel Yoder | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 5:11 PM

Milford Charles Murray:

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. 

Posts 1552
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 5:49 PM

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

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 19216
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 5:58 PM

Milford Charles Murray:

Daniel Yoder:

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.

Posts 2878
Mike Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:19 PM

 "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".

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 1552
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:41 PM

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. 

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 1552
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:57 PM

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 1:1-3Genesis 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/

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 1602
Deacon Steve | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:00 PM

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  Smile

Posts 19216
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:15 PM

Steve:
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.

Posts 525
Kent | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:27 PM

Ben:

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 1:1-3Genesis 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.

Posts 1552
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:38 PM

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.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Page 2 of 5 (84 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS