Henry Morris KJV Study Bible

[Just_Ahead]

I bought one a good six weeks ago and opened the box and did little else. ...

Thank you for your comments.

I hope you find some time in 2020 for The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible.

There is more to this study Bible than notes about YEC. The strong literal position of the notes are quite welcome in this perplexing time and place in which we are currently living.

*****

I did a google search and found over 1,000 sermons by Dr. John Whitcomb at Sermon Audio. It would be interesting to listen to some of his sermons.

Here are some of the books for sale from the Whitcomb Ministries website.

Thanks again.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Morris came to MABTS when I attended there for Chapel and was very good for 3 days. ...

Thank you for sharing your experience with Dr. Henry Morris at MABTS. Those must be special memories for you.

If you have the time, you might want to call or send an email to the store at the Institute for Creation Research and tell them about Dr. Morris's Chapel time when you attended MABTS.

After spending some time with The Henry Morris Study Bible -- I called the ICR Store (Dallas, TX) and spoke a few kind words to one of the sales representatives who was on duty when I called.

It was a nice phone call.

Now back to my nap.

 

[Logos1560]

Institute for Creation Research is the name of the current organization publishing the Henry Morris KJV Study Bible, which appears to be the 3rd edition of this study Bible.

1st edition
KJV Defenders Study Bible, by Dr. Henry Morris, PhD (World Publishing, 1996, 1728 pg.).

2nd edition
KJV New Defenders Study Bible, by Dr. Henry Morris, PhD (World Publishing, 2005, 2202 pg.)

3rd edition
The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible, Apologetic Study Bible with over 10,000 comprehensive study notes (Master Books, 2012, 2215 pg.)​

I have not compared the study notes in the third editions, but I have compared the KJV editions in the first and third editions.

There are at least some differences in the editions of the KJV used in them. The different publishers may have started with a different edition of the KJV that they already used or printed, and then that publisher may have added the study notes to it.

Along with the Oxford edition of the old Scofield Reference Bible, the first edition Defenders Study Bible is one of only a few editions of the KJV to have "the Lord" at 1 Kings 8:56 instead of "the LORD."

 

[Just_Ahead]

I have not compared the study notes in the third editions, but I have compared the KJV editions in the first and third editions.

There are at least some differences in the editions of the KJV used in them. The different publishers may have started with a different edition of the KJV that they already used or printed, and then that publisher may have added the study notes to it.

Along with the Oxford edition of the old Scofield Reference Bible, the first edition Defenders Study Bible is one of only a few editions of the KJV to have "the Lord" at 1 Kings 8:56 instead of "the LORD."

Thank you for your comments about the KJV text in the various editions of what has transitioned from the earlier Defenders KJV Study Bible to The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible.

I checked the KJV text at 1 Kings 8:56 in The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible. It reads the verse as follows:

"Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant."​

There are no notes or cross references at 1 Kings 8:56.

*****

Are there any other KJV text passages you can recommend I check in The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible?

 

[Just_Ahead]

Leviticus 14:36 in The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible reads:

"Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:"​

No notes or references at Leviticus 14:36.

*****

I go back to my nap.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Regarding "unto the coasts"?

Joshua 16:3 in The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible reads:

"And goeth down westward to the coast of Japh-le'-ti, unto the coast of Beth-ho'-ron the nether, and to Ge'-zer; and the goings out thereof are at the sea."​

No notes, but cross references at the following words:

R unto the coast
2 Ch 8:5

R Ge'-zer
1 Ki 9:15​

Morris does have two notes at 1 Ki 9:15:

Text:
9:15 And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Mil'-lo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Ha'-zor, and Me-gid'-do, and Ge'-zer.

Note:
9:15 the levy. Solomon undertook numerous major construction projects, not only for the temple and his own palace, but numerous others, including the strengthening of the key cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, as well as Jerusalem (9:15). For this he required many thousands of laborers, and these were mostly conscripts from the large numbers of Canaanites remaining in the land (9:20-21). This policy, while developing Israel as never before or since, led to much resentment among the people (12:3-5).

9:15 Gezer. The cities mentioned in this verse were important cities during the reign of Solomon, a fact clearly confirmed by archaeological excavations at their sites.​

*****

Now back to my nap.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Flipping the page, I read the following note for 1 Kings 10:11:

Text:
10:11 And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from O'-phir, brought in from O'-phir great plenty of al'-mug (algum) trees, and precious stones.

Cross References:
1 Ki 9:27, 28
2 Ch 9:10,11

Note:
10:11 Ophir. Ophir's location is uncertain, though it had to be reached by ships from Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea (9:26-28). The city was unknown even in Job's day, probably before the time of Abraham (Job 22:24). In view of its exotic trade, many believe it was as far away as India.​

*****

This may be of interest to literature buffs, particularly those familiar with one of the late 1800s English Victorian adventure novels (and several movies) under the title: King Solomon's Mines (written by English Victorian author H. Ryder Haggard).

*****

Now back to my nap.

 

[Just_Ahead]

In my personal library, The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible works well with the following resources.

The New Moody Atlas of the Bible, by Barry J. Beitzel (2009).

Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Places: Towns & Cities, Countries & States, Archaeology & Topography, consulting editor John J. Bimson (1995).

Moody Bible Commentary, Michael Rydelnik et al (2014).

The Bible Exposition Commentary, 6 volumes, by Warren Wiersbe (The BE series) (2002, 2008).

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, by Merrill F. Unger & R. K. Harrison (2006).

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Large Print

or​

Cruden's Complete Concordance:

Cruden's Concordance is a better fit for my desk;
Strong's Large Print is easier to read for my aging eyes, and of course the Strong's Numbers and Dictionaries.​

However, I am finding the appendices in the back of The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible are quite adequate for much of my study.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Another nice thing about The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible:

I do not find myself getting hung up on "what if's" or "maybe's" in the notes and appendices.

Morris and the ICR staff say what they mean in direct, easy to understand language.

 

[John of Japan]

I think I remember inheriting a John R. Rice Study Bible from an uncle. I looked but could not find it. May be boxed up somewhere (I don't have enough shelf space for my books). @John of Japan is his grandson. Maybe he will notice this and comment on his grandfather's study Bible.

Sorry I didn't see this. I'm still recovering from emergency surgery (diverticulitis) on Christmas eve. (Ouch!)

The JRR Reference Bible has been out of print for decades, unfortunately. It was pretty popular when it came out, and copies can sell for hundreds on Amazon.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry I didn't see this. I'm still recovering from emergency surgery (diverticulitis) on Christmas eve. (Ouch!)

The JRR Reference Bible has been out of print for decades, unfortunately. It was pretty popular when it came out, and copies can sell for hundreds on Amazon.

In the mold of say the Creswell Study Bible?

 

[Just_Ahead]

Thank you for adding your comments to this thread.

 

[Dwayne McDowell]

If it advocates for a 6000 year old planet..? Then its a waste of paper..
Its the 21st century. Anyone still advocating for a 6000 year old earth in this day and age needs to spend more time in a library.
It's scientifically impossible for the earth to be "young".
We KNOW this.. Heck, geologists way back in the late 1700s figured this out.
Today, we have ice cores, river varves, magnetic pole reversals, radiometric dating, etc.
For the earth to be "young", EVERY field of earth and life science we have from Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Zoology, Genetics, Climatology and Ice Coring, Cosmology, Biogeography, Anthropology,, etc, would ALL have to be wrong.
These are but a few in a long list of independent fields of science that ALL show that the earth is NOT "young".

Hi, I'm Dwayne, and I apologize for coming to the party late, but I'm new here and just came upon your post last night. I'm interested to know how you can state emphatically "We KNOW this" when, in fact, we don't know any such thing. The basis of empirical science is observation, testing and falsification. The only eye-witness to the age of the Earth is God and His written record doesn't even hint at long ages. It isn't "scientifically impossible for the earth to be 'young'", but it is scientifically impossible for life to have begun apart from a divine Creator. Has "science" ever been grossly incorrect about other things in the past? Absolutely, the consensus of science once held that the Earth was the center of the solar system and that flies were created by rotting meat. And in your list of evidences for an old Earth you mention radiometric dating. Why is it that when artifacts of known age are tested they never produce correct outcomes? Lava samples from Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Nyiragongo, from eruptions that were observed and recorded, produce wildly inaccurate results. Samples from the lava dome that formed after the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, were dated by K-Ar and the test results indicated a minimum age of more than a quarter of a million years. Those rocks had crystallized from magma less than 10 years prior to testing. Based on this, and the number of assumptions that are built into radiometric dating mechanisms, it is difficult to understand why any such results would be viewed with credibility. And all branches of science that deal with unseen past events are subject to the biases of the investigators - most of whom have had their worldview steeped in evolutionism.

Dwayne

 

[robycop3]

Hi, I'm Dwayne, and I apologize for coming to the party late, but I'm new here and just came upon your post last night. I'm interested to know how you can state emphatically "We KNOW this" when, in fact, we don't know any such thing. The basis of empirical science is observation, testing and falsification. The only eye-witness to the age of the Earth is God and His written record doesn't even hint at long ages. It isn't "scientifically impossible for the earth to be 'young'", but it is scientifically impossible for life to have begun apart from a divine Creator. Has "science" ever been grossly incorrect about other things in the past? Absolutely, the consensus of science once held that the Earth was the center of the solar system and that flies were created by rotting meat. And in your list of evidences for an old Earth you mention radiometric dating. Why is it that when artifacts of known age are tested they never produce correct outcomes? Lava samples from Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Nyiragongo, from eruptions that were observed and recorded, produce wildly inaccurate results. Samples from the lava dome that formed after the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, were dated by K-Ar and the test results indicated a minimum age of more than a quarter of a million years. Those rocks had crystallized from magma less than 10 years prior to testing. Based on this, and the number of assumptions that are built into radiometric dating mechanisms, it is difficult to understand why any such results would be viewed with credibility. And all branches of science that deal with unseen past events are subject to the biases of the investigators - most of whom have had their worldview steeped in evolutionism.

Dwayne

Well, while not wishing to derail this thread, lemme say that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed quickly. Any force that could quickly eat thru a mile of rock would destroy all that rock. And the Appalaciian Mts. were once as high as the Rockies. They didn't erode down overnight. Had the Flood of Noah done it, it woulda washed down the Rockies & Himalayas as well.

And, God allowed us to discover the speeda light. many stars & galaxies are so far away that it takes their light millions of years to reach us. And please, don't say the light was sped up ! While man can slow light down to about 38 MPH, he can't speed it up. If that were a reality, God woulda let us discover that as well.

God has left plentya proof that earth is VERY old.

Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program...

 

[church mouse guy]

And you were there when the Appalachian Mountains were as high as the Rockies. So you should recall that Noah's Flood caused the Himalayas. No one has the answer to light but the big bang theory says that the universe dies of heat death, which I suppose that you believe, too?

 

[robycop3]

And you were there when the Appalachian Mountains were as high as the Rockies. So you should recall that Noah's Flood caused the Himalayas. No one has the answer to light but the big bang theory says that the universe dies of heat death, which I suppose that you believe, too?

The geological proof is there. The physical proof of the light from the stars is there.

 

[church mouse guy]

The geological proof is there. The physical proof of the light from the stars is there.

If there was proof, you would be linking it. You aren't. Jesus said that from the beginning God made them male and female. Guess I agree with Jesus since He was there.

 

[robycop3]

If there was proof, you would be linking it. You aren't. Jesus said that from the beginning God made them male and female. Guess I agree with Jesus since He was there.

Yes, there were male & female dinosaurs long before there were men.

 

[church mouse guy]

Yes, there were male & female dinosaurs long before there were men.

Oh so are you saying Jesus was wrong that Adam and Eve were at the beginning?

 

[robycop3]

Oh so are you saying Jesus was wrong that Adam and Eve were at the beginning?

What kind of silliness are you inventing now ? The dinos were male & female same as A & E were.