Best Study Bible?

[TripleB]

I have several different Study Bibles: Tyndale Life Aplication NLT, Nelson The Open Bible Expanded Edition NAS, and Holman Aplogetics Study Bible HCSB.

My Sunday School class uses both the King James Version as well as the Holman Christian Standard Version (usually reading from the last for 'better understanding'). Our Pastor reads only from the King James Version.

I went to a local Christian Bookstore today and looked at numerous Study Bibles which has led me to only more confusion.

I'm not sure I'm truly capable of reading and understanding the King James Version but I really liked the way the Holman KJV Study Full Color Bible was set up. It really seemed to have a lot of great information at the bottom of each page explaining exactly what was going on during the time period and how various people in the Bible related to one another. This is the one I was looking at: http://www.familychr...dy-bible-7.html. The other Study Bible that seemed to stand out was the ESV Study Bible.

But I would love to hear your opinion on the best Study Bible?

IYO: which translation should I purchase?

Thanks for any and all help.

TripleB

 

[THE Gypsy]

If you ask a hundred people you'll get a hundred different answers.

Personally, I use a variety of bibles and commentaries.

 

[HammerStone]

Well, the HCSB is a great translation on its own merit. I own a copy of the hardback HCSB Study Bible and I am perfectly happy with it. It consistently stays in my top 4-5 study bibles. The notes are Baptistic in nature, but I know of folks in other traditions who consult the HCSBSB. The big downside for me is more of an issue with the translation itself; when it formats the text, some lines can be very short in quotes.

I'm a huge fan of the ESVSB. Its notes are copious, and I feel as though I am able to really dig into a topic without even necessarily having to look up a commentary. The notes can lean a little Reformed/Calvinistic (as do I somewhat), but I don't think that it gets in the way of the text. I know Arminians who use it and consult it often as a primary study bible.

Another study bible I like is the NKJV Study Bible. I don't know that I could say it's a particular slant to it, but it's comfortable for the conservative end of the spectrum and I know a number who consult it across many denominations. It's put out by Thomas Nelson and it's a solid Bible. The thing about the NKJV is its similarity to the KJV might prove helpful since you come from a church that uses it.

Honestly, I don't think you could go wrong with the 3. It'd be hard to rank them, but I'd probably favor the ESVSB or NKJVSB if I had to choose. I really do like the HCSBSB too, though. I just feel like the ESVSB gives you so much information and my experience is that the NKJV notes are a little sharper (maybe even deeper) than the HCSB notes.

Honorable mention goes to the NLTSB. I use the NLT translation for my youth. I actually do like the notes and frequently consult them, but for deeper study I prefer a formal equivalence version because the NLT can gloss over some things to make them easier to understand.

Another thing to consider, yet not get bogged down in, is which textual tradition you prefer. It's good to see that your church consults both. The NKJV and KJV basically use the same text (the NKJV expands it a little more) while the HCSB, ESV, and NLT use another. It's not a huge deal, as most Bibles (especially study Bibles) provide footnotes were verses might vary. That actually brings to mind another strength of the NKJV. Aside from the NET Bible, the NKJV probably has the best textual notes between all of them when it comes to variants and translations.

Again, any of the three, but I'd go with the one that you feel gives you reason to study. I hope that helps without getting too confusing.

 

[veteran]

I recommend The Companion Bible, a 1611 KJV study Bible with loads of margin notes by the excellent 19th century Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger. The time it takes to look over in the margin notes next to the text to discover historical and archeaological info about the subject gives just the right speed for covering God's Word line upon line. The 198 Appendixes of info Bullinger put together in the back is worth it alone.

 

[mjrhealth]

You want teh truth, you need to go to the source, Jesus. everything else is mens wiisdom mens doctrines, mens understanidng, Revelation comes from God not reading books.

In all His Love

 

[veteran]

You want teh truth, you need to go to the source, Jesus. everything else is mens wiisdom mens doctrines, mens understanidng, Revelation comes from God not reading books.

In all His Love

Our Heavenly Father sent His Word to us, and we are to study It. And Apostle Paul confirms that also in 2 Timothy 2 and 2 Timothy 3. So trying to associate Bible study with doctrines of men is just plain ignorance.

 

[mjrhealth]

Yes you are right,

Jesus Christ the Word come in the flesh,

Who did Jesus send,

The Holy Spirit to guide and lead us into all the truth,

who is the Truth,

Jesus

So who is it teh Holy Spirit leads us to

Jesus


The bible wrtten by man..

Take a look, how can the bible be from God when it causes confusion, division and turns people from God.

In all His Love

 

[Axehead]

I recommend The Companion Bible, a 1611 KJV study Bible with loads of margin notes by the excellent 19th century Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger. The time it takes to look over in the margin notes next to the text to discover historical and archeaological info about the subject gives just the right speed for covering God's Word line upon line. The 198 Appendixes of info Bullinger put together in the back is worth it alone.

Thanks, I will take a look at that Bible, Vet.

Reading the Bible does not cause confusion in me. It dispels it especially when guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rach1370]

Yes you are right,

Jesus Christ the Word come in the flesh,

Who did Jesus send,

The Holy Spirit to guide and lead us into all the truth,

who is the Truth,

Jesus

So who is it teh Holy Spirit leads us to

Jesus


The bible wrtten by man..

Take a look, how can the bible be from God when it causes confusion, division and turns people from God.

In all His Love

I'm sorry....are you saying that the bible cannot be Gods word to us, as it is written by men...and that therefore we mustn't rely or read it?
May I then ask how you know of Christ, his life, his gospel and his will?

Oh...and I totally agree with Hammerstone...I love the ESV study bible...but I also go for some NIV study bible and some HCSB study bible. I think it's always best to have a few different versions about, especially if you are wanting to dig into a particular passage. The online version of the HCSB is good, because just by hovering your mouse over a word, it shows the greek/hebrew word, the strongs number and the meaning....really handy!

 

[HammerStone]

mjrhealth, I don't want this to become a versus-type argument, but I have one question of such a perspective?

Doesn't it kind of presume to limit the Holy Spirit if one maintains that he cannot work through other authors?

While we must avoid the temptation of making the footnotes the equivalent of what is in the larger font towards the top of a Bible page, I think most people already do this in their study. It seems limiting to say that the Holy Spirit must speak directly to me in order for it to be legitimate. I would hold that the Holy Spirit can speak through writings that are maybe not inspired in the sense of the Scriptures, but that nonetheless remain inspired.

 

[veteran]

I think mjrheath has brought up an interesting matter, his questioning of how can The Bible be from God when it causes confusion, division, and turns people away from God.

Firstly, that kind of view definitely is NOT a Christian view of The Bible, and I am not afraid to say it.

Some of the many new-and-improved Bible versions out on the market are apparently doing what they've been designed to do, to cause greater division among Christians so as to make their agreement more difficult as to Bible doctrine. Couple that along with the intentional dumbing-down of our public education systems, and potential agreement between Bible doctrine becomes even more difficult. I haven't even gotten to the various divisions the theological seminaries create.

The Revisionists have even been busy trying to change the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance from Dr. James Strong written back in the 1880's with the 'new-and-improved' ideas. This is also why you won't see Bullinger's 1880's Companion Bible (KJV study Bible) on the front shelves of Christian bookstores either, if on a shelf there at all.

REVISIONISM is the name of the game they're playing today, and it's important for the Christian believer to wise up to that fact.

 

[Rach1370]

I wouldn't say that the bible divides and turns away....it's all on us. People will disagree and argue and divide...even over things that should bring us together. It's not God's word that's at fault....it's human sinfulness.

 

[veteran]

I wouldn't say that the bible divides and turns away....it's all on us. People will disagree and argue and divide...even over things that should bring us together. It's not God's word that's at fault....it's human sinfulness.

I agree with that too, but the various Bible translations can, and have, created divisions among Christian brethren.

 

[Rach1370]

Yes, that is true. But (and I fully admit I'm about as far from an expert on this matter as I could be!) it seems to me that most of the really troubling bible versions come from when man has tried to blend too much of himself or his culture into it. They try to dress it up (or perhaps dumb it down) so that the masses can 'understand' the text better, or so it's more relevant to today's readers...but I fear that it leads to perhaps unintentionally putting too much of society and too much sinful interpretation into it.
Where as with some of the more recognisable versions, where biblical scholars have come together and done their prayerful best at translating the text, I often find that while reads and those studying scripture have definite preferences on which is more accurate, they do not come to blows over it...indeed find the different takes on the original words to help understanding and growth.
But that's just my opinion, and what I've seen in my small world to be true!

 

[joshhuntnm]

Life Application Study Bible.

 

[Thegoodground]

3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 3:16 Every scripture23 is inspired by God24 and useful for teaching, for reproof,25 for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God26 may be capable27 and equipped for every good work.

NET Bible has some very insighful commentaries.

http://bible.org/netbible/

TGG

P.S I couldnt help myself in placing this verse for mj's benefit. How "able" are the Sciptures?

 

[veteran]

Yes, that is true. But (and I fully admit I'm about as far from an expert on this matter as I could be!) it seems to me that most of the really troubling bible versions come from when man has tried to blend too much of himself or his culture into it. They try to dress it up (or perhaps dumb it down) so that the masses can 'understand' the text better, or so it's more relevant to today's readers...but I fear that it leads to perhaps unintentionally putting too much of society and too much sinful interpretation into it.
Where as with some of the more recognisable versions, where biblical scholars have come together and done their prayerful best at translating the text, I often find that while reads and those studying scripture have definite preferences on which is more accurate, they do not come to blows over it...indeed find the different takes on the original words to help understanding and growth.
But that's just my opinion, and what I've seen in my small world to be true!

King James forced Christian scholars from different theological schools in England to come together for the KJV translation. They fought against each other at the first but eventually settled in agreement on the translation, and in their Letter To The Reader they did not claim it was an absolute perfect work, warning the Bible student, as they pointed out problem areas to be aware of. In their original 1st Edition they also included many alternate readings from the manuscripts in the margins of the text.

So in reality, those who do not have an original 1611 KJV 1st Edition that contains those margin notes, the two introductory Letters (one to King James and one to the reader), and also the Apocrypha books and Scripture prayer guide of the 1st Edition, truly don't have a 'complete' 1611 KJV Bible.

The question then becomes, why was all that left out of later 1611 KJV editions? Leaving those things out certainly is going way beyond any idea of trying to create a KJV that's easier to read, especially since as Christians we are to grow to maturity and knowledge of God's Word, not dumb down God's Holy Writ to suit our immaturity.

 

[biggandyy]

NIV Student Bible is what I used when I first became a Christian. Wonderful work.

 

[John_8:32]

Without a doubt, Bullinger's Companion Bible.

 

[CoreIssue]

I cross reference the NASB and NIV and Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance . The two most accurate Bibles out there.

I also use those when debating KJVonliest.

The KJV is based on Catholic writings and has too many errors. Check out the 1611 version and see the books that were in it that were later removed.

King James Bible

Not to mention Easter, not Passover being used. Or Genesis was instead of became, which creates a real problem for them on topics like dinosaurs. And the archaic English.