What is the best Study Bible to purchase?

anyone use the NKJV Thompson Chain reference?

and what are your thoughts in general of it?

I am thinking of purchasing it...

 

To help Jack out here with the lists, here is the list of appendix's that he is referring to.

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/list.html

Jamie

 

Since most study Bibles are slanted to one mans view as one person stated I guess your best bet in a study Bible would be one from Zondervan or Nelsons that uses several scholars viewpoints in the study notes.

 

The MacArthur NASB study bible edition has been out for awhile! I got mine either late last year or earlier this year! I like it a lot and use it when I prepare SS lessons at home.

 

Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible. Please use a KJV. Avoid Bibles with commentary, they will only hinder your studies.

 

Me to!:thumbs:

 

Just now getting into this thread, but what does what one has heard of Scofield's life have to do with his "dispensational doctrine" or any other doctrine, for that matter? As one can clearly see from the various posts, about all the study bibles mentioned so far, seem to have someone who finds varied disagreements with about all. I'd suggest, that so far, I've yet to see one that is "best" in everyone's eyes, or even a consensus. I would offer this. If one can find some version of a 'wide margin', regardless of translation or edition of 'study Bible', one may do his or her own research, :type: and can write his or her own notes, easier, (I wish I could find a smilie of little "Lotsa Luck" doing his "Scribble! Scribble!" on the pad for Limpid lizard) than in one of a 'narrow margin' flavor. :thumbsup:

I don't know if such actually exist, but a four version, "side-by-side" study Bible would be a good thing, IMO.

Ed

 

A four version, side by side, study Bible with a wide margin for notes! I’d buy one. :thumbs:

 

As to the first, above, I suggest that the question of whether or not the church is or is not the bride of Christ, is debatable, but has little to do with a "Study Bible", per se. As to the question of "espoused" vis-a-vis` "promised", this word "hermozO" only occuring here in the NT, and as a past participle, is rendered as espoused or betrothed by both Thayer and Wigram, but can also be rendered joined by both. And given what little I know about Bible customs and marriage, this would seem appropriate. "Promised" does not seem to be one of the renderings, and seems to reflect something less than the intention here, of Paul.

As to Gal. 2:7, I agree that the rendering of the KJV and NKJV leaves to be desired, here, IMO.

And as to Ephesians 2:10, I'd suggest that the fairly large majority of the 20 standard versions, at least as found on Bible Gateway, render this as some flavor of "should", as opposed to the idea of "shall". As this word "peripateO" is here in the subjunctive mood, meaning potentially, I would vote here for "should", as do the majority of the 'standard versions'. Were it the indicative, one might have a case. BTW, the previous two sentences illustrate the subjunctive, in English, as this current sentence illustrates the indicative. Ergo, I'd say your own take on Ephesians 2:10, right or wrong, cannot be derived from the actual text, at least here.
But this example in miniature, also shows that no one, including any 'editor' of a study Bible, would or could be free from every personal bias. Were I one, I would not be. But hopefuly all can and do keep them to a mimimum.:thumbsup:

Ed

 

I personally consider a "black letter" edition as a positive, and a "red-letter" as a negative.

Ed

 

Although I personally use and have used a Scofield for many years, mostly now because I locate much by where it is on a page, my junior brother by 20 years and also from Central KY speaks volumes, here. And I fully agree with his assessment, as to the dangers. And as a 'Prof.' I once had said, "The Bible sheds a lot of light on the commentaries." I agree.

Ed

 

See Jonathan's comments a couple of pages back. He speaks well.

Ed

 

Good idea, in theory. However I seriously doubt that the "General Editor", or "Editor-in-Chief" is particularly likely to pick associates with whom he strongly disagrees. However, it is probably better than nothing.

Ed

 

Are not the 'chain- references' a running commentary in themselves? I grant they are 'better' than commentary footnotes, in at least some instances.

Ed

 

In a heart-beat. Do they even exist??

Ed