Study Bible Recommendations

[Anonymous No.19483148]

I've been using a Thompson Chain Reference Bible for years. It's nice but I'm looking for something to provide historical background on stuff and explanations of tribes I've never heard of
(What is a shuite, what are the Hebrew months in relation to ours, where were the nations in Genesis 10 located, etc.)

What do you recommend?

[Anonymous No.19483172]

>>19483148

[Anonymous No.19483181]

>>19483148
Ol' big red is the only option

[Anonymous No.19483196]

>>19483172
I am not catholic nor interested in becoming one. Guess I should clarify
I am looking for one with more historical based study notes, not theological

[Anonymous No.19483349]

>>19483148
It's much better to get a single Bible that is going to be *your Bible* and then get commentaries, which is like the notes of a "study bible" kept separate. Bible Knowledge Commentary by Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Commentary, there's lots and lots.

[Anonymous No.19483359]

>>19483196
Ah, just saw this, in which case perhaps look into "Bible background" type commentaries.

[Anonymous No.19483374]

>>19483196
The New Oxford Annotated, 5th edition is standard, but in my opinion the Jewish Annotated New Testament is the strongest historical critical study bible out there.

The Oxford Bible Commentary is a very good one volume commentary that I believe is what you're probably looking for.

If you're looking for more religiously orientated, ESV Study Bible has the most content. Reformation Study Bible is a personal favorite of mine from a religious perspective.

[Anonymous No.19483686]

>>19483148
>I'm looking for something to provide historical background
The ESV Archaeology Study Bible might be what you're looking for.
https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Study-Bible-Bibles-Crossway/dp/1433550407

[Anonymous No.19483731]

>>19483148
>It's nice but I'm looking for something to provide historical background on stuff and explanations of tribes I've never heard of
For your purpose, a Study Bible wouldn't be the best option. You'd want the IVP Bible Background Commentary, OT and NT. Endorsed by Protestants and Catholics. It's exactly what you're looking for and more.

[Anonymous No.19483803]

>>19483374
>ESV
>>19483686
>ESV

[Anonymous No.19483811]

Making use of the thread, is the Jerusalem Bible good?

[Anonymous No.19483839]

>>19483811
It was good for 1966 and probably will be familiar to you if you're an Anglo or Irish. However, the notes, while extensive, are historical-critical notes, so keep that in mind; meanwhile, the translation itself to the loosest and most dynamic translation until the recent NLT. That said, the JB is still to be preferred over both the NJB and especially the RNJB.

[Anonymous No.19483856]

>>19483803
What's wrong with ESV

[Anonymous No.19483908]

>>19483839
Well, nothing such as too many bibles. Comparing might come in handy.

[Anonymous No.19483959]

>>19483856
It's become a bit of a recent thing to hate the ESV, I've noticed. Before, it was the NIV, and now it's the ESV. Recently Catholics got an ESVCE, but that's already been largely forgotten (outside of Britain, who formally adopted it) in favor of retaining the RSV2CE for academic work. Their reason might be the same as those of Protestant critics of the ESV: it's literal to the point of being dry; in its approach to becoming the "Common Bible," it's striving to be as inoffensive as possible to the broadest range of conservative Christians; and possibly dating back to its origins as a purely reactionary translation. Anyway, here are some specific critiques that have been written about, which are predominantly about idiom translation:
https://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf

[Anonymous No.19483988]

>>19483959
>it's literal to the point of being dry
If only. It's so far off in so many places it might as well be The Message.

[Anonymous No.19484140]

>>19483988
source?

[Anonymous No.19484190]

>>19484140
The original languages retard.

[Anonymous No.19484690]

NKJV vs NIV
Which is the way to go

[Anonymous No.19484773]

>>19484690
If those were your only choices, NKJV. The NIV is a meme, more so since 2011 but it's always been just the Protestant answer to the NAB.

[Anonymous No.19484823]

>>19483856
>>19483959
I think only a few months ago I named it and the comment was like "the ESV study bible is probably the best single volume study bible" and now everyone hates the ESV. I don't know if it's just the usual contrarianism or some sort of targeted dogpiling. I think it's mostly one anon, this one >>19483988

[Anonymous No.19484840]

>>19484823
I've noticed that too. I understand why Catholics don't like the ESVCE (Lk 1:28), but I'm curious why there's Protestants sewing discord regarding it when it's basically viewed by e-Protestants the way e-Catholics view the RSV2CE: as the default for discussion. You're probably right that it's just the KJVonlyist again.

[Anonymous No.19484891]

>>19484840
The ESV isn't hated. It's on KJVOnly shill. Catholics are raging against it because its making inroads there and the conservatives don't like it.

It remains one of the best selling bible translations and tne ESV Study Bible is immensely popular. The 12 Christians on lit aren't representative of anything except mental illness.

[Anonymous No.19484907]

>>19484823
>now everyone hates the ESV
>I think it's mostly one anon

[Anonymous No.19484935]

>>19484891
>Catholics are raging against it because its making inroads there
It basically died in America since the Augustine Institute hasn't done anything since the initial version. The only Catholics raging are Anglos who don't want to give up the JB.

[Anonymous No.19484959]

>>19484935
>Catholics further ghettoize themselves with an outdated bible that will never be updated
Funny. I love watching the collapse

[Anonymous No.19484975]

>>19484959
>Anglos
>Catholics

[Anonymous No.19485096]

>>19484823
Yeah it couldn't possibly be that it's actually a terrible translation and you've just fallen for good marketing and "like it" because it's got a great presentation and lots of people parrot that "it's really good". Anyone who actually spends significant time checking it against other translations and the original languages in parallel can plainly see a constant stream of errors and it becomes readily apparent that it was a hack job to change the RSV just enough to form a new copyright and sell tons of books (not just Bibles but study materials and general Christian subject books that quote it without owing any other company).

It says that the serpent was more crafty than any *other* beast of the field, which means the serpent was itself a beast of the field and not something far more transcendental. Neither other translations nor the original language say "other", but rather that the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field. There are many, many such examples. If you actually care about the word of God then you'll put in the time and effort to see for yourself rather than attacking people who don't share your weakness for good marketing (which itself is generally pretty Satanic, BTW).

Why do the "nations" rage? Yeah, no, it's *goyim* in the original language, which heathen (KJB, LXX) is essentially perfectly fitting of, as the goyim are those *outside* of the Israelites. Words have meanings that matter. If you think "oh this makes no real difference" then *you* are not actually paying close attention to the *Holy Bible* and are just skimming along the casual surface.

[Anonymous No.19485465]

>>19485096
>KJB
oh it's really you, hahaha

[Anonymous No.19485658]

>>19485465
>there's only one person here who refers to it as KJB
I am absolutely positive of a minimum of two, and highly likely *at least* three. It's common enough that Wikipedia includes pic related.

[Anonymous No.19485742]

>>19484823
Because the ESV removes 33,000 words from the New Testament alone.

[Anonymous No.19487743]

>>19483731
>keeping the dust jackets
ghetto

[Anonymous No.19487755]

>>19487743
That picture isn't of mine, but yes, I put an archival protector over my dust jackets.

[Anonymous No.19487784]

>>19487755
Even gayer. But do you own those? I'd like to see a shot of maybe John 4, Rev 18, and Zech 4 and 5 if that wouldn't be too much trouble for (You). I'm pretty close to going with that set, but would like to be a bit more sure.

[Anonymous No.19487819]

>>19487784
Fuck you, faggot, I like the spines of these jackets. Anyway, here.

[Anonymous No.19487837]

>>19483839
That's a crap as fuck image.
Even if you believe its a revealed text that's fucking garbage.

[Anonymous No.19487842]

>>19487837
What's wrong with the image?

[Anonymous No.19487859]

>>19487819
Thanks, it was something of a miracle to get you to stop slobbering cocks long enough to take the photos. I am looking at various commentaries before purchasing and am noticing the shocking lack (in almost all sets I have checked) of John 4 not referring back to 2 Kings where the foreigners were force seeded into Samaria, paving the way for the future hatreds between them and the Jews. Nonetheless there are some very worthwhile points in what I can see of those, if not necessarily the "optimal" of all possible points to concisely squeeze into each sectional space. Truly appreciated, my homosexual fren.

[Anonymous No.19487868]

>>19487837
This, there is no way that the ASV and RV are more literally correct than the KJB, and no way that the NKJV is as literally accurate as the KJB.

[Anonymous No.19487877]

>>19487868
King James was a homosexual.

[Anonymous No.19487886]

>>19487877
>believing the Catholic character assassination propaganda

[Anonymous No.19487891]

>>19487886
King James was also a crypto-Catholic, on top of being a homosexual.

[Anonymous No.19489081]

>>19487891
>crypto catholic
>does English translation of Bible so people can read it without having to learn Latin thus weakening catholic church's power over scripture
What

[Anonymous No.19490311]

>>19487819
If you don't mind upon return mighten I trouble thou for Zech 4:1-9? I'm dangerously close to either acquiring these or others. That is, of course, unless (You) simply cannot bear to dislodge the tip of the benis from the back of thine throat for the time and effort required.

Oddly enough through entirely unconnected paths I wound up falling asleep to Craig Keener, though he was discussing modern miracles with Michael Heiser rather than Biblical cultural background.

[Anonymous No.19490341]

>>19490311
I see you've returned after a night of girl dick ramming your ass. Here ya go, champ.

[Anonymous No.19490975]

bump

[Anonymous No.19491061]

>>19490341
I see (You) have already gotten home from school today where you had to hold it for hours because they still do not allow troons to use the girl's bathroom in your district. Very much appreciated, verily.

[Anonymous No.19491144]

>>19487891
>King James was a C*tholic
>King James was a C*lvinist
>Kig James was a H*mosexual
The character assassination is worse than what the Jews did to Hitler.

[Anonymous No.19491305]

>>19491144
Checked dubs of thisness. King James was based and tortured witches and wrote about demons.

[Anonymous No.19492714]

>>19490341
>>19487819
I'm starting to dig a bit more into these and have definitely run up on some fascinating aspects, check this out from the Zech 4:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addagoppe_of_Harran

[Anonymous No.19492918]

>>19490341
OK, the Z4 notes cinched it for me, these are breddy gud and I'm going to do them, bless you for the sacrifice of your precious coom gurgling time and may (You) be considered a reasonably passable troon.

[Anonymous No.19493084]

>>19483686
Absolutely bugman-tier

[Anonymous No.19493114]

>>19493084
This, collect all of the ESV study "bibles". What will be the next exciting release? John Piper loves it!

[Anonymous No.19493247]

>>19492918
Any time, faggotron! Glad you like 'em! And have fun spreading your boipussy for knowledge!

[Anonymous No.19493438]

>>19493247
I'm in the Rev 18 ones now, definitely worthwhile. What I'm finding is that they are nicely complementary of and not overlapping with my other commentaries. May the Lord on His day grant (You) clemency on the sodomite charges.

[Anonymous No.19493683]

>>19483196
You're not going to learn anything from modern biblical exegesis. Dive into Patristics. Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition is a fantastic book that will teach you how to interpret scripture properly and was written by a Protestant.

[Anonymous No.19493919]

>>19485658
There's only one person here who is so incredibly anal about calling it the KJB. Lying is a sin btw.

[Anonymous No.19493960]

>>19493919
I know you're wrong too but there's only one here so incredibly gay as you

[Anonymous No.19494071]

>>19493960
So since you are not him you are perfectly fine with calling it "King James Version" or KJV, since "version" means "translation", which the KJV actually is, as everyone but that particular anon knows.

[martineconnor No.19494121]

>>19483148
i habe red hte bible

[Anonymous No.19494493]

>>19494121
And your favorite book in it was

[Anonymous No.19495216]

>>19493919
There were I think 3 threads yesterday which used KJB, none of which I had anything to do with (I haven't started any threads at all in a good while). (You) might just have yourself a tism there.

[Anonymous No.19496101]

>>19495216
see >>19494071 there's only one anon who insists so much on "KJB" and "KJB is not a version, it's the one and only Bible" and you are obviously acting coy about it.

[Anonymous No.19496168]

>>19496101
What (You) seem to be failing to grasp is that I say that, yet I also see it being said here without my involvement, so I know that there is a minimum of two of us.

[Anonymous No.19496600]

Much of the theological teaching and prophecy in the Bible is almost impossible to understand, such that even learned scholars cannot agree on what it means.
If the Bible was inspired by God, it would not contain so much incomprehensible teaching and prophecy.
Christianity claims that the Bible was inspired by God.
Therefore, Christianity is false.

[Anonymous No.19496669]

>>19496600
>impossible to understand
>incomprehensible teaching and prophecy
Projecting.
>learned scholars
Blinded.

[Anonymous No.19496692]

>>19489081
Douey-Rhiems predates KJV. Catholics were already dipping toes into an english bible

[Anonymous No.19496745]

>>19496669
Are you claiming universal agreement among Christian scholars?

[Anonymous No.19496800]

>>19496600
Honestly all the NT is very easy to understand, the only problem is that literally anything written in simple language can be made to mean whatever you want it to mean, if you desire it so. The only way to make the Bible immune from reshaping by people with interests in doing so, would be to have it written like some kind of technical dissertation where you enunciate every single concept, explain it, then you build another concept, and so on. Imagine Jesus talking to people and spending his time over technical minutiae just in case someone would misinterpret his sayings. Many people, even Christians, object by the use of goat farmer metaphors but honestly there's very little that makes more sense than using goat farmer metaphors. There's very little chance that the goat farmer metaphor will become obsolete anytime soon, and when it will be obsolete the world will be over.

[Anonymous No.19496827]

>>19496692
You do know the KJV is descended from the Tyndale translation of the 1530s right? You retards think the Douay-Rheims was the first Bible in English?

[Anonymous No.19496848]

>>19483148
Thomas Nelson's KJV Study Bible has a lot of historical context and archeological findings. Its theology is mainstream Protestant.
Personally I like the Orthodox Study Bible but its notes are mostly Orthodox patristic theology, might not be what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.19496866]

>>19496745
There doesn't have to be "universal agreement among Christian scholars". There are certain core elements that are crucial and many relatively minor that not only are not, but can legitimately hold multiple understandings among various members of the Body of Christ. God is a vast, complex being of incredible depths/layers, not a simple, boxable, containable, quantifiable one.

[Anonymous No.19496952]

>>19496800
>have it written like some kind of technical dissertation where you enunciate every single concept, explain it, then you build another concept, and so on
Easily within God's infinite power
So clearly his desire was for the Bible to open to subjective interpretation, have people be able to claim it says whatever they feel like

[Anonymous No.19497166]

>>19496952
>Easily within God's infinite power
The problem was not God's power but the will of men. He had to speak to everyone.

[Anonymous No.19497192]

>>19496827
I didn't, and yes.

[Anonymous No.19497209]

>>19497166
>The problem
There's no problem. How could there be a problem? God is infinitely powerful and wise.
He desires for this clusterfuck where his followers cannot agree on anything, where they squabble over minutiae

[Anonymous No.19497601]

>>19497209
Everyone is being put to incredibly complex, granular testing. Every detail counts.

[Anonymous No.19497618]

>>19497209
The real problem is that God gave us free will, and therefore we can act outside his influence, God gave this world to us and we fucked it up, blaming God for your problems is like if your daddy bought you a car and you blaming him when you drive it into a fence.

Even if God telekinetically spoke to everyone and told us the truth, people would keep believing in lies.

[Anonymous No.19497648]

>>19497618
>blaming God for your problems is like if your daddy bought you a car and you blaming him when you drive it into a fence.
If my daddy made me, the car, the fence and the entire world, sure
Yeah, and also knew I was going to crash and choose not to prevent it, despite being able

I get that you think "free will" (do I CHOOSE to crash? what if it was an accident), somehow solves this
but God still made the precedents (for literally everything) , why would being indirectly associated make him less involved?

Still, this is not entirely related. Human action in our daily lives may be decided by free will
But it's not like the Bible is a mundane object. Clearly God had some hand in it's creation. (and would thus be fully aware of what exact discord would follow from however it was written)

[Anonymous No.19497739]

>>19483811
Yes, Jersualem Bible is the patrician’s choice.

[Anonymous No.19497855]

>>19487837
>>19487868
Retards. The maker of the image has said repeatedly that "more literal", on his scale, does not mean "better." It just means the words are more often to be mapped rigidly to the GNT it is based on with little to no interpretation on the part of the translator. So, for the KJV, that means it more or less is very literal in its translation of the TR.

He's not saying the RV/ASV is the best because it's the most literal by his metrics or that the JB or the NLT are the worst because they're the least literal. It just means they're the most literal regardless of the end-result quality of that literalness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hzF2302xEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDToQVs-ME0

[Anonymous No.19497937]

>>19497855
>calls others retard
>is a retard
I didn't use the word "better" or anything of it's nature, but specifically "literally accurate/correct", and a significant factor of my suspicion is rooted in the fact that his "test" is NT only.

[Anonymous No.19498122]

>>19497937
>and a significant factor of my suspicion is rooted in the fact that his "test" is NT only.
Because he does a separate test for the OT, which is graded based on reliance on the MT vs. the LXX, because the differences between the MT and LXX make it impossible to test for literalness if translations can translate a differing MT verse and LXX verse and yet still both be deemed "literal".

[Anonymous No.19498231]

>>19498122
It's still only based on 100 random readings. These findings could be more or less accurate for them but very different were the wholes tested. Either way his test is a pile of dung because the KJB is the Bible as God intended so nothing can possibly be more accurate.

[Anonymous No.19498352]

>>19483839
>>19498122
Look at the esv being so low. What a scam.

[Anonymous No.19498388]

>>19498352
RGJ seems to like to contrast the ESV with everything: ESV vs NAS, vs ASV, vs RSV, vs KJV, and vs NRSV, and I'm pretty sure he largely ends up siding with the non-ESV every time.

[Anonymous No.19498448]

>>19498388
Maybe nrsv is going a little too far in that.

[Anonymous No.19498483]

>>19498448
The NRSV, if it hadn't implemented the gender stuff against the wishes of the translation team, would largely be better. It's got a richer vocabulary (eg. keeping "fornication" instead of changing it to "sexual immorality"), better footnotes half the time but annoying atheistic footnotes the other half, and makes greater usage of the LXX whereas the ESV hugs tighter to the MT.

[the anti-marx !LuolGG/SZI No.19498544]

>>19483148
'Study' and 'bible' are contradictory

[Anonymous No.19498554]

>>19498483
I don't know any actual comparative figured but I've at least been glad of the esv usage of the DSS and it's footnotes are probably the best I've seen. It's still a pile of dung though and the nrsv even worse. They seemed to intentionally take off the wall readings in places just because the languages technically allowed them.

[Anonymous No.19498571]

>>19498554
>They seemed to intentionally take off the wall readings in places just because the languages technically allowed them.
That sounds like the Lutheran EHV, which takes more from the DSS than I think any other Bible does.

[Anonymous No.19498600]

>>19498571
It's all such a ridiculous mess. If only people could just man up and learn to handle the KJB we would all be experiencing the exact same words along with most people of the last 400+, like a unified body. The King James is the true orthodox institution that we should all attend regardless of the local buildings we go to with fellow believers.

BTW, I should clarify that >>19498554 I was referring to the esv using the DSS, and the nrsv doing the off the wall readings. That being said, the last esv update went pretty wild with the G316. I understand where they were getting it from though and consider it interesting that they brought so much attention to the underlying works there. That very well could have been what the original inspiration intended. Still trash on the whole.

[Anonymous No.19498700]

>>19498600
>he only reads one version as if it is an immutable transmitted word of elohim.

Nice 1 punchy. I read around like I'm reading the over redacted remnants of a priest cult at the heart of a reestablished pathetic state dependent upon hill people goat herders who liked high places and cocks so much they killed off all their women elohim and forced their men elohim into a kind of fusion death match by fucking.

Enjoy your 400 year old tradition. I'm busy with a 3200 year old tradition.

[Anonymous No.19498728]

>>19498700
Enjoy being so recent and small, because my "400 year old tradition" is merely an interface with the eternal, the Alpha and Omega.

[Anonymous No.19498749]

>>19498600
>>19498728
>Anglos
>tradition
lol

[Anonymous No.19498752]

>>19498728
I want to push you until you break and you admit that King James revealed God's covenant with mankind in 1611.

Until you do I'll go back to masturbating to Genesis 2. And Numbers obviously.

[Anonymous No.19498753]

>>19498231
>Either way his test is a pile of dung because the KJB is the Bible as God intended
How is a man-made translation the most correct rather than the Greek or Hebrew? Version means translation, even if you're trolling that's such a stupid thing to say

[Anonymous No.19498772]

>>19498749
>t. fooled by Satan into praying to Ishtar
Wrong beliefs/practices will never become right beliefs practices no matter how long you believe/practice them.

[Anonymous No.19498776]

>>19498753
All translations are man made, the nature of linguistics is that we simulate words inside ourselves, we can never hear THE LORD we can only call upon his name.

Did someone forget to write his name down?
Did someone deliberately conceal his name behind nine pseudonyms, 8 of which have been lost?

For fucks sake Israel you had 613 jobs.

[Anonymous No.19498779]

>>19498752
But that's absurd, Jimmy did not personally do the translation.
>>19498753
>this tiny mind at work

[Anonymous No.19498790]

>>19498779
>But that's absurd, Jimmy did not personally do the translation.
To cause to come into being is to do. Also KJV essensialists are very strange people. Did you know that CoE isn't protestant. It is a church which incorporates the English reformation of the one true catholic church of Rome in Westminster which by confession transcends the protestant/catholic divide.

I'm not joking.

[Anonymous No.19498807]

>>19498790
CoE has adequate communion with the Church of Rome and most Orthodoxies to be intercommunional with both simultaneously, while each cannot commune with the other.

And I don't even align with CoE in the reformation. I'm an armed militant anabaptist.

[Anonymous No.19498811]

>>19498790
Interesting, but nothing the "CoE" does is of interest to me other than what God did through whatever specific individuals within it, same with the RCC. The institution is pretty evil yet the faith was preserved through them for many centuries despite themselves. Romans 8:28.

[Anonymous No.19498821]

>>19498811
This is a pretty obtuse way of saying that you're reconstructing a canon without reference to the works of 2000 years of archived threads; and, on this point, citing Romans in itself is an amusement.

Either the church in its living and institutional forms are objects of historical study, to which end we have to deal with hundreds of years between the KJV's claims about Jesus saying things and the publication of the KJV; or, all revelations substantiate themselves instantly, in which case the line for Seacorps and signing your children into slavery begins to your very far right.

Finding his light in a historical epoch while prior to his grace is a real problem.

[Anonymous No.19498825]

>>19498772
Chick tracts aren't Scripture.

[Anonymous No.19498853]

>>19498821
>leaning unto thine own understanding
No, I just follow the Shepherd's voice through it all.
>>19498825
>Chick tracts aren't Scripture