Study Bible

The NIV Study Bible from Zondervan (also available in NASB and KJV) is excellent. The Reformation Study Bible (ESV) is also very good. Next would be the Disciple's Study Bible (NIV) from Broadman/Holman.

Use these sparingly. Do not get so tied to the notes that you forget that the text is inerrant and the notes aren't

 

I have yet to see a christian study bible that was based on catholic theology, so that statement is mush.

I like all those Tom listed, and I would add the Quest study bible (Niv/Kjv). It has been one of my favorites for years now.

 

For starters, much of the KJV is based on Catholic theology, and many of the study Bibles are based upon or influenced by that.

 

Nelson puts out a little CD with Bible study helps.There are several study Bibles within the program(OpenBible,Criswells' Study Bible & more)You can get it at your local Bible bookstore for about 15$.
You can get plenty of help on Biblecentre.net or e-sword,or bible.org,or O.T gateway.com,or N.T. Gateway.com, all for free on the internet.There are many other free resources on the internet.In addition you can review most of the study Bibles mentioned on the net before you spend any money. Good luck.

 

I find that as I'm preparing Sunday Scool lessons I use a few different Study Bibles to compare opinions. They are the...

MacArthur Study Bible
Baptist Study Bible- Criswell and Patterson
Reformation Study Bible
Nelson NKJV Study Bible

 

Here's the Study Bible's I have and use .I have other Bible's that have no notes also .

MacArthurs NKJ
Ryrie's, one in NAS and one in NIV
Scofield KJ and one NIV
Harper -Collins RSV
Wesley's NKJ
Life Apllication NLT and one NIV
Reformation Study Bible ESV
New Geneva NKJ
Spirit of the Reformation NIV
NIV Study Bible I have two
Nelsons NKJ Study Bible

 

I like the Life Application Study Bible....KJV.

 

I, personally, don't get too bent out of shape over the version. But I like Scofield, Criswell, Ryrie, Thompson, Mac Arthur, et al. You can learn something. After all, anybody who is smart enough to write his own Bible... Heh! Heh! Ed

 

Does anybody know if theres any difference between the Criswell Study Bible and the Baptist Study Edition other then using different translations?

 

Charles, There is a small page included in the box of my Baptist Study Edition (NKJV) which states that it is the same study Bible (a re-presentation of the work of Criswell and Patterson) that was originally published as The Criswell Study Bible. Bruce

 

I use

The Net Bible
Scofield NASB (it's now in NASB versio)
Baptist Study Bible, NKJV
NIV Study Bible

I've used Ryrie, Thompson, Life Application, and MacArthur for awhile, but for one reason or another, just did not get enough out of them, or maybe it's me.

The Life Application seemed to have too many comments that involved just opinion or their view of how to apply scripture.

The Thompson Chain was really good for awhile and has great ref stuff in the back, but the text does not have cross-references.

 

Actually, I don't believe in using study Bibles at all. Better to read the Word as it's intended to be read (i.e. as is) and then consult commentaries, etc. for clarification and elaboration. I've used Scofield, Ryrie, New Geneva, and Life Application study Bibles in the past, but I never became a student of the Word until I abandoned the words of critics and sought understanding for myself first. Then, I'd turn to the commentaries. From that, you can build your own study Bible with your own notes that combine the strengths of all of them. But that's just my own experience.

 

Well, in my library as of this moment are:

Thompson Chain KJV (The be all and end all as far as I am concerned. The rest are great, but don't measue up IMHO)

The NIV Student Bible (Some great stories to go along with the text, but I'm not a huge NIV fan.)

And the newest: NKJV Scofield III (Seems good so far, but not as much in it as I was hoping)

I guess you could consider the HCSB Marines Bible I have. Not really a study Bible, but there is some interesting stuff in the back.

 

Cool thanks Do wish though they had published a KJV edition

 

I just got my hands on a copy of the Reformation Study Bible (ESV) and I'm hooked!

 

Hope of Glory said:

Read everything that I wrote. I didn't say to dump the information, but to dump the study Bibles. I've never seen one without preconceived bias.

How does that differ from any other source of information? Commentaries will contradict one another. Preachers contradict one another. My personal study notes contradict one another over the years as I mature in my knowledge of the Scriptures.

When you think it through to the logical end, your objection to a study Bible boils down to the format, nothing more.

If you want to study Greek, study Greek; don't study was Schofield (sp?) or someone else says that is "obvious".

And when you get into studying Greek, you are subjected to the biases of Machen or Mounce or whatever Greek teacher/textbook you use. Can't be helped.

Cross reference the passages, compare Scripture to Scripture.

How do you know which cross-references are meaningful, and which are merely superficially similar? There's that bias again.

have a good Greek dictionary (not concordance) such as the BDAG handy,

Even a dictionary is not intellectually neutral. Bauer, Danker, Arndt, or Gingrich were not without their own biases.

a decent ancient history traditions text book,

Ah, but how do you know that your preferred historian has a suitable philosophy of doing history?

You need a measure of wisdom and discernment to know what tools to use, and how to use them. But if you have that discernment, then frankly, what's the problem with exercising it in the use of a study Bible?

 

I will just quote Wilander to answer that question:

Often in preparing sermons, I will compare every passage that uses the same word or idiom, sometimes breaking it down by grammar. This helps explain certain ideas to those who are listening, and puts the Greek in a context that even a 12 year old can understand.

For secular history, I will often turn to secular historians. For the most part, they don't have a preconceived theology they are trying to "prove".

For biblical history, I will compare the writings of the Jews, religious historians, etc. For example, I can find some corruptions of doctrines buried in the RCC, that have wormed their way into everyone's lives. There is little secular evidence of such, but there is evidence within the church.

I've seen very little bias in the BDAG.

If I find a personal note that contradicts another, then I try to find out why. But, when I make notes, I generally tend to only make them on what the text actually says, and cross reference them to other similar passages.

I always do my cross referencing to the Greek, not the translation.

I also never state anything as fact unless I can back it up with Scripture. I will state it as opinion, if it's an opinion I've drawn from sources other than Scripture. I do have to change notes on opininions occasionally.

A study Bible is usually nothing more than one man's (or group's) opinion about what Scripture says, and by and large, it is based on one translation or another. I do use the Thompson Chain Reference software occasionally, but most often, I use BST, which contains the NA27 text (plus can be cross referenced with the TR) and will let me search by word, phrase, grammar, etc.

That way, the only opinion that I'm using is that of comparing Scripture to Scripture; line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.

 

Wilander:

In other words, he (and you) believe in the primacy of your own brain before someone else's, that's all.

This still doesn't explain why you would consult the opinions of men in commentaries and lexica, but shun the opinions of men in Bible footnotes. (They were probably written by the same guys anyway.)

 

What we believe is the primacy of the Scriptures.

I do not consult any single commentary, which is what a study Bible boils down to. I rely mainly upon language commentaries and lexicons, primarily, and not doctrinal commentaries, but also refer to others regarding customs, history, etc.

Some of the greatest insights into Scriptures come from those who oppose them, or are at least apathetic about them. I have even come across some writings of atheists who are startled to learn that the Scriptures are historically accurate, in spite of all their "learnings".