A Great Conservative Study Bible using the ESV that is ANTI-dispensational

[Arthur81]

It is difficult to find a scholarly, conservative Study Bible that is not either Dispensationalist, or Calvinist/Reformed. Though I'm a Baptist, I find the Lutheran Study Bible by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to be my favorite, and the one I've gifted to friends and relatives. While it is Lutheran, it is excellent for any Bible student. Christian Book has a good description with 15 pictures and several videos so you know what the Bible is before paying out $54.99

ESV Lutheran Study Bible, Hardcover

Engage in devotional, Christ-centered Bible reading and study with the distinctive, comprehensive notes and practical application of The Lutheran Study Bible.This new Bible is the first in English to be developed from the ground-up with notes that are distinctively Lutheran, prepared by Lutheran...

www.christianbook.com

When I say it is anti-dispensationalist, I'll make my first attempt to showing a photo I've taken of a chart in the section on Revelation, showing the True and False timeline of eschatology.

 

[Arthur81]

I have posted a photo of the Revelation chart from the LCMS Study Bible, so I'll post the chart of Daniel 9 as found in this LCMS Study Bible

 

[Marty fox]

It is difficult to find a scholarly, conservative Study Bible that is not either Dispensationalist, or Calvinist/Reformed. Though I'm a Baptist, I find the Lutheran Study Bible by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to be my favorite, and the one I've gifted to friends and relatives. While it is Lutheran, it is excellent for any Bible student. Christian Book has a good description with 15 pictures and several videos so you know what the Bible is before paying out $54.99

ESV Lutheran Study Bible, Hardcover

Engage in devotional, Christ-centered Bible reading and study with the distinctive, comprehensive notes and practical application of The Lutheran Study Bible.This new Bible is the first in English to be developed from the ground-up with notes that are distinctively Lutheran, prepared by Lutheran...

www.christianbook.com

When I say it is anti-dispensationalist, I'll make my first attempt to showing a photo I've taken of a chart in the section on Revelation, showing the True and False timeline of eschatology.

It looks like a great book thank you

 

[Truth7t7]

It is difficult to find a scholarly, conservative Study Bible that is not either Dispensationalist, or Calvinist/Reformed. Though I'm a Baptist, I find the Lutheran Study Bible by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to be my favorite, and the one I've gifted to friends and relatives. While it is Lutheran, it is excellent for any Bible student. Christian Book has a good description with 15 pictures and several videos so you know what the Bible is before paying out $54.99

ESV Lutheran Study Bible, Hardcover

Engage in devotional, Christ-centered Bible reading and study with the distinctive, comprehensive notes and practical application of The Lutheran Study Bible.This new Bible is the first in English to be developed from the ground-up with notes that are distinctively Lutheran, prepared by Lutheran...

www.christianbook.com

When I say it is anti-dispensationalist, I'll make my first attempt to showing a photo I've taken of a chart in the section on Revelation, showing the True and False timeline of eschatology.

I use the KJV, I have found that the ESV follows Greek texts from Egypt, and they have removed Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24 to mention a few

I'll stick with the time honored KJV, 413 years and going strong, a translation used in the majority of Baptist churches

 

[Arthur81]

I use the KJV, I have found that the ESV follows Greek texts from Egypt, and they have removed Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24 to mention a few

I'll stick with the time honored KJV, 413 years and going strong, a translation used in the majority of Baptist churches

Truth, I do not use the ESV translation myself, as my 'study Bible', but it is the study aids that I find so helpful in that LCMS Study Bible. If you look at the links I gave, notice the helps, and even the short commentaries you'll find are conservative. I also agree that God has blessed the KJV for over 400 years as THE English Bible translation and it is my basic study Bible because my Bible reference sources use the Strong's numbering system, which is based on the KJV.

For many years, my Bible study notes I wrote and filed on the long yellow legal pads and they were studied out in the KJV. I have rewritten those notes in several modern translations such as the REB and NRSV and found no problem in supporting Christian doctrines. My first Greek-English Interlinear NT was the George Ricker Berry work and it was TR and included the textual variants in the footnotes so the debates of manuscript families did not trouble me.

I too am Baptist, a New Covenant Particular Baptist as my Signature shows, so when I suggest the LCMS Study Bible, I take it for granted a non-Lutheran would recognize the difference in their notes on baptism and infant baptism, but the Bible is so good on other points. For instance its page on "Faith" and "Church Unity" I find helpful. I'll attach it to illustrate what I mean.

 

[DavidTaylor]

I use the KJV, I have found that the ESV follows Greek texts from Egypt, and they have removed Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24 to mention a few

I'll stick with the time honored KJV, 413 years and going strong, a translation used in the majority of Baptist churches

No modern translations ‘remove’ verses from the KJV. This claim is either uneducated in the area of textual criticism, or a sensational hit for gullible ears.
In truth, no modern English bibles are translated ‘from’ any prior English version.
The KJV was primarily translated from the Textus Receptus and some of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate.
Most modern English bibles are translated from the 3-4 century Vaticanus and Sianaticus Greek manuscripts which didn’t include the so called ‘missing’ verses, and which weren’t available to Erasmus.
I disagree with the modern emphasis of ‘older is better’ just because of age, especially when the Vaticanus and Sianaticus themselves have over 3000 textual variations. To me this show less care in transmission than the majority texts.
The good thing however, is whether you prefer the Alexandrian/CT, Byzantine/MT, or Kjv/TR; there is no major biblical doctrine that is lost or corrupted by any text-type family.

 

[Arthur81]

No modern translations ‘remove’ verses from the KJV. This claim is either uneducated in the area of textual criticism, or a sensational hit for gullible ears.
In truth, no modern English bibles are translated ‘from’ any prior English version.
The KJV was primarily translated from the Textus Receptus and some of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate.
Most modern English bibles are translated from the 3-4 century Vaticanus and Sianaticus Greek manuscripts which didn’t include the so called ‘missing’ verses, and which weren’t available to Erasmus.
I disagree with the modern emphasis of ‘older is better’ just because of age, especially when the Vaticanus and Sianaticus themselves have over 3000 textual variations. To me this show less care in transmission than the majority texts.
The good thing however, is whether you prefer the Alexandrian/CT, Byzantine/MT, or Kjv/TR; there is no major biblical doctrine that is lost or corrupted by any text-type family.

David, If I may add to your excellent reply, the helps we have available to us in this day to discuss variations or decisions in translation can keep us from being in the dark on many questions. I'll first quote John 1:1 from the Revised English Bible; then from the NET2.1 Bible along with an explanation of the difference in word or phrase choices.

"In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was." (John 1:1 REB)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God." (John 1:1 NET2.1)

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

The REB is actually my favorite modern English translation. It is dynamic, and on several key verses I believe it brings the truth out more clearly. Two examples for instance:

"We are always bound to thank God for you, my friends beloved by the Lord. From the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation in the Spirit who consecrates you and in the truth you believe." (2Thess 2:13 REB)

"Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:34 REB)

I like those because it matches what my careful study of the texts mean in context. The REB is a 1989 Dynamic Equivalence translation from the UK and for smooth reading that is accurate, I do enjoy it. It did not go so far into the rank feminism as the NRSV and NRSV Updated Edition has.

 

[SavedInHim]

I'm sure a LCMS study Bible is slanted toward Lutheranism. So I wouldn't recommend this unless a person is interested in learning Lutheran theology.

 

[Arthur81]

I'm sure a LCMS study Bible is slanted toward Lutheranism. So I wouldn't recommend this unless a person is interested in learning Lutheran theology.

You believe your own particular denomination, group, etc., has only the truth and all of it? Your denomination or group can't defend its view against other Christian denominations? That is dangerous to wear such spiritual blinders.

 

[SavedInHim]

You believe your own particular denomination, group, etc., has only the truth and all of it? Your denomination or group can't defend its view against other Christian denominations? That is dangerous to wear such spiritual blinders.

Relax, I never said any of that.

 

[Arthur81]

Relax, I never said any of that.

Saved in Him, I apologize for I apparently misread or misinterpreted your reply. I suppose I was reading between the lines, sorry 'bout that.

 

[SavedInHim]

Saved I apologize for I apparently misread or misinterpreted your reply. I suppose I was reading between the lines, sorry 'bout that.

No problem, no offense taken. I just meant if a person wanted to know about Lutheran theology it might have some value; otherwise I'd skip it.

 

[Behold]

Lutheran Study Bible

Would you post these 2 verses from that particular version, so that we can check it for accuracy and Truth?

John 4:24

1 Timothy 3:16

 

[Arthur81]

Would you post these 2 verses from that particular version, so that we can check it for accuracy and Truth?

John 4:24

1 Timothy 3:16

Yesterday I wrote: "I do not use the ESV translation myself, as my 'study Bible', but it is the study aids that I find so helpful in that LCMS Study Bible. If you look at the links I gave, notice the helps, and even the short commentaries you'll find are conservative. I also agree that God has blessed the KJV for over 400 years as THE English Bible translation and it is my basic study Bible because my Bible reference sources use the Strong's numbering system, which is based on the KJV."

So, my primary or basic Study Bible is the KJV and my carry to church Bible is a Cambridge KJV with the OT, Apocrypha and NT. I learned something just this morning reading in that Cambridge KJV. I was starting in 1 Macc. and came across this in verse 15 -

1Ma 1:15 KJVA "And made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief."

The cross reference in the margin was to 1 Cor. 7:18 and it reads -

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." (1Cor 7:18 KJV)

I had always thought of that as figurative language until reading the background in 1 Macc.

The old Puritan John Trapp in his 17th century commentary on 1 Cor. 7:18 wrote:

"Ver. 18. Let him not become uncircumcised] Some Jews, for fear of Antiochus, made themselves uncircumcised, RAPC 1 Maccabees 1:15. Others for shame after they were gained to the knowledge of Christ, as here. This was done by drawing up the foreskin with a sergeon’s instrument. And of this wicked invention Esau is said to be the first author and practiser. (Godw. Antiq. Hebr.)"

WOW! Not only does my KJV have the apocrypha, it cross referenced to the NT. Then I find the Puritans were using the Apocrypha and mention it in their commentaries. John Gill mentions this also.

But, the two verses you asked about as the ESV translates, are John 4:24 and 1 Tim. 3:16 -

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 ESV2011)
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24 KJV)
*The KJV puts "is" in italics to how it was added by translators, it is not in the Greek

The Net2.1 Bible explaining "spirit" rather than "Spirit" reads, "tn Here πνεῦμα (pneuma) is understood as a qualitative predicate nominative while the articular θεός (theos) is the subject."

"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." (1Tim 3:16 ESV2011) * Margin on "He" (Greek Who; some manuscripts God; others Which)

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1Tim 3:16 KJV)

1 Timothy 3:16:
TEXT: "He was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: S* A* C* G 33 syr(pal) syr(p,h)? cop?
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "God was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: Se A2 C2 Dc K L P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn

NOTES: "Which was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: D* lat vg syr(p,h)? cop?
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn
COMMENTS: The word "who" was changed to "which" by some copyists to refer to "mystery." In an older manuscript that does not have accents and breathing marks, all that is required to change the Greek word for "who" (OS) to the abbreviation for "God" (OS) is to add two marks. This happened to several manuscripts, apparently to give a definite subject to the following verbs.

 

[Behold]

"God is spirit, " (John 4:24 ESV2011)

So, your Lutheran bible is not teaching the truth.

How do you know?

Its because there are many types of Spirits in the world.

Animals have spirits.
Unbelievers, never born again have a spirit.
Demons have a spirit "demonic spirits"
The Devil has a spirit. "The unholy spirit".

= Notice...... """GOD is A Spirit."""

So, why does a REAL Bible make the distinction of God's Spirit as "A" Spirit?
Its because a Real Bible, teaches God's Spirit as The Holy Spirit...("God is A.. Spirit") "A" "Spirit".....= The HOLY Spirit.

And that is not the same "spirit" as found in a Demon, or an Unbeliever, or The Devil.

So, your bible, the Lutheran version, is teaching that God's spirit is just the same as all the other spirits, including the Devil's.

1 Timothy 3:16:
TEXT: "He was made apparent in the flesh"

Your bible teaches that "HE" was manifested in the Flesh.

Now, if you have never read a bible, and have never heard of Jesus before, and you read YOUR LUTHERAN Bible.....

Then when you read.. "HE, was manifested in the FLESH"... you would think.... "HE who" "who is the HE"?

And the reason you know that the ''HE" is GOD in the Flesh, = Jesus the virgin born "in the Flesh"....is because a REAL BIBLE that says..>"GOD was manifested IN THE FLESH"< taught you who the '"HE" is..
Your bible doesn't.

 

[grafted branch]

So, my primary or basic Study Bible is the KJV and my carry to church Bible is a Cambridge KJV with the OT, Apocrypha and NT. I learned something just this morning reading in that Cambridge KJV. I was starting in 1 Macc. and came across this in verse 15 -

I see you’re using the Apocrypha to better understand verses in the canon. Some time ago I had a brief discussion with someone about using the Old Greek to better understand the controversial verses in Daniel 9:26-27. What are your thoughts on using something like the Old Greek as a deciding factor on which eschatological view of Daniel 9:26-27 is correct?



Here is the Old Greek for reference.

OG Daniel 9:26-27 And after seven and seventy and sixty-two, the anointing shall be removed, and shall not be; and a kingdom of nations shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ: and his end shall come with wrath, and he shall be warred upon with war until the time of the end. 27 And the covenant shall rule in many; and he shall return again, and it shall be rebuilt in breadth and length, and at the end of times, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the time of the end of war; and the desolation shall be taken away in the covenant’s prevailing for many weeks. And at the end of the week the sacrifice and the drink offering shall be taken away, and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations until the end, and the end shall be given unto the desolation.

 

[Arthur81]

Grafted Branch, after leaving the Dispensationalist interpretation of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9, I have consistently held to the older traditional interpretation. After doing some reading of late, I've come to realize just how uncertain some of the translations in this passage are and how difficult the passage is, to become dogmatic about. My reason for going to the apocrypha, was to see how the history between the OT and NT played out and how it MAY relate to Daniel 9:24-27. As to the Old Greek, are you referring to the Septuagint, or one of the variations of that translation? The K & D discussion of the translation of the Hebrew shows just how uncertain some of that is.

My understanding of the 70 weeks as in chart form I'll attach. This is the interpretation I hold. I'm post-mil and believe the 1000 years of Rev 20 are symbolic of the time from the cross to the second advent. I believe Matt 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are all about the time leading up to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. I find that the bulk of Revelation concerns the fall of Jerusalem and then the fall of the Roman Empire. BUT, I await the Second Coming of Christ, resurrection & judgment which can happen in the next hour or the next century, no one knows. I reject any idea of separating the 70th week of Daniel from the 69th week. That is read into the passage in order to embrace a modern eschatology invented in the 19th century. I am trying to do some 're-study' of Daniel 9 though.

 

[grafted branch]

Grafted Branch, after leaving the Dispensationalist interpretation of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9, I have consistently held to the older traditional interpretation. After doing some reading of late, I've come to realize just how uncertain some of the translations in this passage are and how difficult the passage is, to become dogmatic about. My reason for going to the apocrypha, was to see how the history between the OT and NT played out and how it MAY relate to Daniel 9:24-27. As to the Old Greek, are you referring to the Septuagint, or one of the variations of that translation? The K & D discussion of the translation of the Hebrew shows just how uncertain some of that is.

My understanding of the 70 weeks as in chart form I'll attach. This is the interpretation I hold. I'm post-mil and believe the 1000 years of Rev 20 are symbolic of the time from the cross to the second advent. I believe Matt 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are all about the time leading up to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. I find that the bulk of Revelation concerns the fall of Jerusalem and then the fall of the Roman Empire. BUT, I await the Second Coming of Christ, resurrection & judgment which can happen in the next hour or the next century, no one knows. I reject any idea of separating the 70th week of Daniel from the 69th week. That is read into the passage in order to embrace a modern eschatology invented in the 19th century. I am trying to do some 're-study' of Daniel 9 though.

I don’t think the Old Greek is the LXX, although I’m not well studied on the various translations. From the internet the Old Greek was the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible, it was made in Alexandria Egypt for the use of the Greek speaking Jewish community there.

I’m in agreement with you on the seventy weeks, I was looking at how the OG may help with understanding the AOD.

My thoughts were that the AOD was the first sacrifice made on the altar after the veil was torn. The OG says “and the desolation shall be taken away in the covenant’s prevailing for many weeks”, which to me could mean the destruction of Jerusalem was delayed in a sense. When we see “for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened” it can mean that the sign to flee changed with the shortening of days.

For example if 5 days of tribulation are scheduled for Monday through Friday and those days are shortened to 3 days, they could start on Wednesday and last through Friday. The shortening of days changed the initial sign of when to flee to avoid the tribulation.

The fact that Luke doesn’t mention the shortening of days or use the term abomination of desolation leads me to think it is a possibility that the sign to flee changed when the days were shortened, which could be seen in the OG of Daniel 9.

 

[Arthur81]

I see you’re using the Apocrypha to better understand verses in the canon. Some time ago I had a brief discussion with someone about using the Old Greek to better understand the controversial verses in Daniel 9:26-27. What are your thoughts on using something like the Old Greek as a deciding factor on which eschatological view of Daniel 9:26-27 is correct?



Here is the Old Greek for reference.

OG Daniel 9:26-27 And after seven and seventy and sixty-two, the anointing shall be removed, and shall not be; and a kingdom of nations shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ: and his end shall come with wrath, and he shall be warred upon with war until the time of the end. 27 And the covenant shall rule in many; and he shall return again, and it shall be rebuilt in breadth and length, and at the end of times, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the time of the end of war; and the desolation shall be taken away in the covenant’s prevailing for many weeks. And at the end of the week the sacrifice and the drink offering shall be taken away, and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations until the end, and the end shall be given unto the desolation.

Grafted Branch, what or where are you finding that OG? I have bookmarked what is supposed to be an excellent English translation of Old Greek along side of Theodotion and it reads different.

https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf

I've had to edit this. Now I do see what you quoted. This Lyrica, I'm taking for postherpetic neuralgia on my head, is really doing a number on my mind!

 

[grafted branch]

Grafted Branch, what or where are you finding that OG? I have bookmarked what is supposed to be an excellent English translation of Old Greek along side of Theodotion and it reads different.

https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf

I've had to edit this. Now I do see what you quoted. This Lyrica, I'm taking for postherpetic neuralgia on my head, is really doing a number on my mind!

The OG I quoted was from a different website but I like the one you have linked, it gives a side by side. Very good.