Let's discuss commentaries.

[Truther]

Depends.

και εν τω συμπληρουσθαι την ημεραν της πεντηκοστης ησαν απαντες ομοθυμαδον επι το αυτο
και εγενετο αφνω εκ του ουρανου ηχος ωσπερ φερομενης πνοης βιαιας και επληρωσεν ολον τον οικον ου ησαν καθημενοι
και ωφθησαν αυτοις διαμεριζομεναι γλωσσαι ωσει πυρος εκαθισεν τε εφ ενα εκαστον αυτων
και επλησθησαν απαντες πνευματος αγιου και ηρξαντο λαλειν ετεραις γλωσσαις καθως το πνευμα εδιδου αυτοις αποφθεγγεσθαι
ησαν δε εν ιερουσαλημ κατοικουντες ιουδαιοι ανδρες ευλαβεις απο παντος εθνους των υπο τον ουρανον
γενομενης δε της φωνης ταυτης συνηλθεν το πληθος και συνεχυθη οτι ηκουον εις εκαστος τη ιδια διαλεκτω λαλουντων αυτων
εξισταντο δε παντες και εθαυμαζον λεγοντες προς αλληλους ουκ ιδου παντες ουτοι εισιν οι λαλουντες γαλιλαιοι
και πως ημεις ακουομεν εκαστος τη ιδια διαλεκτω ημων εν η εγεννηθημεν
παρθοι και μηδοι και ελαμιται και οι κατοικουντες την μεσοποταμιαν ιουδαιαν τε και καππαδοκιαν ποντον και την ασιαν
φρυγιαν τε και παμφυλιαν αιγυπτον και τα μερη της λιβυης της κατα κυρηνην και οι επιδημουντες ρωμαιοι ιουδαιοι τε και προσηλυτοι
κρητες και αραβες ακουομεν λαλουντων αυτων ταις ημετεραις γλωσσαις τα μεγαλεια του θεου
εξισταντο δε παντες και διηπορουν αλλος προς αλλον λεγοντες τι αν θελοι τουτο ειναι
ετεροι δε χλευαζοντες ελεγον οτι γλευκους μεμεστωμενοι εισιν

Now we need to read and study the morphology, Basic Greek and Hebrew, the etymology etc.
Some go online for the info, I have it right here.

J.

I cannot read 1st century Greek, nor can you or anyone else. You must hope and pray your predecessors could.

The KJV translators could, though.

 

[Enoch111]

I found them ridiculous most of the time.

I think that is rather harsh and inaccurate. But then again, no one is compelled to consult commentaries.

 

[Enoch111]

The only one I found to be accurate to what a verse actually means is The Abingdon Bible Commentary.

Actually the Abingdon Bible Commentary is unreliable. See this review:
Question: Are you familiar with one-volume Abingdon commentary on the Bible? What is your opinion of it?

Response: Yes, I'm familiar with this commentary, but couldn't recommend it for personal study. The main problem with Abingdon from my point of view (besides being so general that any good study Bible is likely to just as insightful while more to the point) is that it is written from a theologically liberal point of view. By this I mean, the fine scholars that contributed to it by and large do not ascribe to a high view of inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. One case in point is the section on the Pentateuch which is filled with reference to "E" and "J". This acceptance of the so-called "documentary hypothesis" gives one a pretty fair idea of where this commentary is coming from: the Bible, while "important", is not really the result of "plenary verbal inspiration from God", in their misguided view, and such an approach is like the leaven which infiltrates the whole lump. Once again, a good study Bible (Scofield, Ryrie, NIV Study Bible, etc.) whose notes are done by those who respect what the Bible really is (i.e., the true Word of God) is likely to be of more help and do much less harm than something like Abingdon, which, while respectable and scholarly enough, doesn't really respect the Bible as God's absolute Word of Truth.

 

[Johann]

I just think commentaries are about 50% correct. Not enough for my scriptural taste buds to ingest.

You need to snap out of your delusional state re sinless perfection, well done to Johnny Mack for exposing this cultic movement and their polygamous relationship.
So if you "slip" you still qualify for a third, fourth "grace"....like Karma.
You say you don't hold to the insipid teachings of Wesley, yet you do.

 

[Johann]

I cannot read 1st century Greek, nor can you or anyone else. You must hope and pray your predecessors could.

The KJV translators could, though

You should try it, and maybe come to the truth.

 

[Johann]

Actually the Abingdon Bible Commentary is unreliable. See this review:
Question: Are you familiar with one-volume Abingdon commentary on the Bible? What is your opinion of it?

Response: Yes, I'm familiar with this commentary, but couldn't recommend it for personal study. The main problem with Abingdon from my point of view (besides being so general that any good study Bible is likely to just as insightful while more to the point) is that it is written from a theologically liberal point of view. By this I mean, the fine scholars that contributed to it by and large do not ascribe to a high view of inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. One case in point is the section on the Pentateuch which is filled with reference to "E" and "J". This acceptance of the so-called "documentary hypothesis" gives one a pretty fair idea of where this commentary is coming from: the Bible, while "important", is not really the result of "plenary verbal inspiration from God", in their misguided view, and such an approach is like the leaven which infiltrates the whole lump. Once again, a good study Bible (Scofield, Ryrie, NIV Study Bible, etc.) whose notes are done by those who respect what the Bible really is (i.e., the true Word of God) is likely to be of more help and do much less harm than something like Abingdon, which, while respectable and scholarly enough, doesn't really respect the Bible as God's absolute Word of Truth.

That's what I told her, which she denies, and you just confirmed it.
But then, if they are perfectly sinless, they don't need to read the Bible or DO what the Bible is saying.
The DOING part they are in denial of...
J.

 

[Johann]

The Abingdon Bible Commentary. All the othera agreed with each other, whereas the Abingdon was sound on those scriptures.

You commentary is way off the mark...and the map. Bad reviews on it.
J.

 

[Truther]

You need to snap out of your delusional state re sinless perfection, well done to Johnny Mack for exposing this cultic movement and their polygamous relationship.
So if you "slip" you still qualify for a third, fourth "grace"....like Karma.
You say you don't hold to the insipid teachings of Wesley, yet you do.

I told you I don't read commentary(including Westley), but only the Bible. Nothing, nada, nyet.

 

[Truther]

You should try it, and maybe come to the truth.

My own truth? No thanks.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I just think commentaries are about 50% correct. Not enough for my scriptural taste buds to ingest.

I don't need commentaries, but want to be able to recommend one that is more right than any other I've checked.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I think that is rather harsh and inaccurate. But then again, no one is compelled to consult commentaries.

When their interpretation is not only unscriptural from the whole of the New Testament, but the opposite of what is meant, that is ridiculous. Doctrines of demons should be dealt with harshly, even if you don't agree with that.

 

[Truther]

I don't need commentaries, but want to be able to recommend one that is more right than any other I've checked.

Sorta right or more right than wrong?

 

[bbyrd009]

I have e sword, with a couple of commentaries.

Which ones are good, to help us get a better understanding on to make Scriptures applicable in our lives?

Please don't comment to those who don't "like" secondary resources.

i like them, but from those considered heretics, more than professors, really for the same reasons i avoid English translations, written by scribes

 

[Johann]

i like them, but from those considered heretics, more than professors, really for the same reasons i avoid English translations, written by scribes

So which ones do you like brother, as we ought to have discernment between error and truth.
J.

 

[bbyrd009]

So which ones do you like brother, as we ought to have discernment between error and truth.
J.

well, i think prolly to each his own? And having witnessed my family’s various choices, after really having been exposed to the same environment, i guess they kind of define one as much as their Bible interpretations; my mom still adheres to the slimiest (imo) prosperity preachers, my sister went another way, etc, point being idk if its so much about error and truth, or i mean it might be, but who could admit to error there? Everyone has the truth, right

anyway, that dynamic sort of had me at a dead end several years ago, when someone in a forum first revealed to me that i was Esau, and i guess it just came at the right time or something, gave me a lot of peace on the matter of interpretation. I would never disagree with someone else’s now, as there might be some truth in them if you listen with an open mind, but i also dont have much patience with gnostics anymore, people or commentaries that talk “its like this and like that?” since generally speaking they are the least informed, as dunning-kruger informs us.

that said, i currently give weight to a pretty gnostic type, abarim-publications.com, although he does admit to not knowing every now and then lol. But he is extremely well informed too, and usually cites all of he major sources in his lexicons for support. He doesnt seem to be a religious believer, but he still seems to be cult of sol invictus, so i dont really get that. So his commentary i kinda take with a grain of salt, but his lexicon is first rate imo, more like a meta-lexicon. Anyway in his commentaries i guess the “heretic” part would come out a little more lol.

anyway, pretty much all of my definitions have changed now; i no longer seek Death, More Abundantly like most believers, so i also realize they arent too interested in my opinion in that state lol. I have witnessed a big change irl, but in a forum it just prolly wouldnt come across right; as my latest interactions with titus reminded me. Most believers literally do not want to hear um anything that contradicts their current pov imo, and i say “dont want to” but really i guess it is cannot, and after you have said something like “hey, check this out, state any Bible ‘fact’ that you are convinced of, and ill Quote the exact opposite” or something similar, and you get cut off, well, i just try to take a hint then, or iow i have other commentaries that i have kinda been led to from abarim, joined a dark web forum (got invited), but i wont lie it took some seeking…and then, when i had kind of given up, something else came along, which seems to be a theme with Yah? lol

there is a sort of Bible code imo, since names meant things back then in a way we ignore now, so i would mostly recommend understanding the ancient meaning of some place or person name, rather than just gliding by it, in a Bible verse, since the surface story is usually just a cover story, imo

 

[bbyrd009]

When their interpretation is not only unscriptural from the whole of the New Testament, but the opposite of what is meant, that is ridiculous. Doctrines of demons should be dealt with harshly, even if you don't agree with that.

see, imo for that you must first assume that you know, in order to judge “the opposite of what is meant,” or iow your mind is made up in a certain way? And i have become convinced that like Paul, particularly, is pitched to that perspective; believers interpret him to their destruction, as the Bible states, but he does it so artfully that it really is sublime when you understand him.

pretty much the whole of Christendom adds “to be” onto the front of “absent from the body is (to be) present with the lord,” and to me that is some genius stuff lol, when you can write “we are confident” and have it taken as a good thing, rather than admonishment? Its like when “iron sharpens iron” changes for you i guess, something like that

 

[Johann]

So, conclusion--the majority don't read commentaries.

 

[Johann]

Honsesty is not your cup of tea I see. I'm an open book. Nothing to hide.

Christians are always ready with an answer for their beliefs. No deception.

 

[Lambano]

So, conclusion--the majority don't read commentaries.

Were I a cynical man, I would note that most are in love with their own ability to interpret the Bible and are not interested in what insights others might have discovered in their own studies.

But I'm not a cynical man, am I?

Oh well. I do it too. I'm just as bad the rest, if not worse.

I want to add that in addition to having used Barclay's commentaries, John MacArthur's study Bible, and an on-line version of John Wesley's commentary on the entire Bible that even Google can no longer find, I also will read books on a particular Biblical topic in which I am interested. Examples of topical Bible books that I've found helpful are Robert Picirilli's Grace, Faith, and Free Will for the Calvinist/Arminian debates, Richard Hays' Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul and The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1 - 4:11, which led to other "New Perspective on Paul" works by James D. G. Dunn and Krister Stendahl and N.T. Wright, the latter of which Justification has been most helpful.

 

[Johann]

Were I a cynical man, I would note that most are in love with their own ability to interpret the Bible and are not interested in what insights others might have discovered in their own studies.

But I'm not a cynical man, am I?

Oh well. I do it too. I'm just as bad the rest, if not worse.

I want to add that in addition to having used Barclay's commentaries, John MacArthur's study Bible, and an on-line version of John Wesley's commentary on the entire Bible that even Google can no longer find, I also will read books on a particular Biblical topic in which I am interested. Examples of topical Bible books that I've found helpful are Robert Picirilli's Grace, Faith, and Free Will for the Calvinist/Arminian debates, Richard Hays' Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul and The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1 - 4:11, which led to other "New Perspective on Paul" works by James D. G. Dunn and Krister Stendahl and N.T. Wright, the latter of which Justification has been most helpful.

Na, you're not cynical--well matured, and will definitely have a look on Robert Picirilli's Gracem Faith and Freewill, should be an interesting read.
Thank you @Lambano
J.