The Reformation Study Bible

Neat size, for sure.

 

Nice reference bible,and the cover is quite supple, but I would have probably gone for the standard edition, as there are many more notes in it.

 

You did not get injured did you at work?

 

I expect the Cals will like it but the non-Cals will avoid it.

 

You would be probably correct, but that would be tto bad, as it is still a very good study bible!

 

Right, Y1, get an agenda driven translation and couple it with agenda driven study notes, and voila, a very good bible for Cals.
Anybodies ears tickling?

 

I’m too old to worry anymore about getting a new reference Bible. I do very well with the NASB and trust it as the only one to recommend.

I am just not a big fan of versions that are more thought oriented. I prefer doing my own thinking.

 

Could you please explain with greater clarity?

 

Here is a graph:

https://www.ucg.org/files/images/articleimages/types-of-bible-translations.jpg

See where the popular NIV is in comparison to the NASB as an example.

I’m not suggesting one is weaker, I’m showing the mode/method used and if I want to rely on how someone thought it should read as compared to my own examination and conclusions.

 

Or could be seen as being a very good translation, with very good study notes in it.
I do not agree with all of its notes, but one would learn much better under those notes than the notes of authors denying reformed salvation method!

 

Good points made here, as there is really no all word for word translation, but better to have a translation to used as formal a method as possible, as should be word for word as much as the construction/wording used would allow for coming over into Englsih!

 

Agreed, but the question ask for clarification.

By using a chart, it gives both the spectrum of basic intent behind a translation and which translations were primarily positioned on that spectrum. Over all these charts have purpose as a quick visual communication tool more acceptable than my long posts that go on, and on and....

The point was, I like to do my own thinking, not rely upon what others think I should think when I actually do think.

 

Your chart is all messed up.

The HCSB and TNIV should be placed next to each other.

The ESV needs to be brought several clicks more to the right --next to the ESV and to the left of the HCSB.

While I appreciate the NJB and plan on doing a thread on it in the near future it is decidely to the right of both the TNIV and 84 NIV.

You are confused on several counts.

All translations interpret and most are not the product of a single translator.

Just about every translation translates according to the clause or phrase --not by isolated word chunks. They are translated sense-by-sense as John Purvey tried to explain back in the late 14th century.

 

...or the Lockman Foundation?

www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php

 

Here is an example of the "study notes provided by this agenda driven version.
1) No discussion of the two very different interpretations of this phrase, (a) chose us individually in Him, or (b) chose us corporately in Him.

2) Next, the idea behind "in Him" is overlooked.

3) Paul does not say explicitly or implicitly that the sole ground (only basis) of His election was God's unconditional action. What the verse (5) actually indicates is that the election before creation was according to God's redemption purpose and plan.

4) Lastly, "in Him" refers to our status (spiritually located within the body of Christ and spiritually alive together with Christ.)

Bottom line, this is not a study bible but an indoctrination bible.