I have a copy and use it. I bought it reluctantly, and my reluctance was based on three personal thoughts: 1) I don't need another Bible (because I've got more than a dozen different translations already), 2) I don't need more commentary, 3) I don't want a biased translation (even if it does suit my Reformed sensibilities). and 4) all translations are flawed somewhere, and the ESV is no different in that regard. That said, I thoroughly enjoy it when I read it. Although I don't specifically use my Reformed Bible often, the ESV has replaced the NIV as my second-place alternative. I will say that were I not already Reformed minded I might not recognize or pick up on the doctrinal content and that might be a mixed blessing. I'll also add the Reformed pov is vastly superior to the Dispensational alternatives (I still have an old Scofield Bible I got soon after my conversion). Some of the contributors, like Sproul and Packer are stalwarts of Reformed doctrine, but also very adept exegetes.
I have the Reformation Study Bible in both ESV and NKJV. I do not know what all information is in the ESV version you have, but my NKJV as more background material than the ESV. I understand there is now an ESV version with all this other material, so don't know if that is what you have.
You'd be surprised at all the cool stuff in thrift stores, If you don't mind wading through all the Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen stuff.
The NAS is generally considered the best formal (word-for-word) translation but not as popular because reading it is somewhat stilted. The ESV was a conscious effort to preserve the formal translation while updating the language and readability. The KJV is also a formal translation, but its the translation is flawed in many places and the language antiquated. The KJV was made to address those problems while still maintaining an allegiance to the tradition of the KJV. It is very important to also have a dynamic (conceptual or concept-for-concept) translation because they correct what is sometimes missed by the more literal efforts. I still prefer the NIV over the NLT (for example) but neither is a translation I consider my "home" Bible. As for MacArthur, I noticed someone else criticizing his commentary Bible because of the eschatological dross. I am much harsher. Dispensationalism compromises multiple core doctrines of the faith and because these errors do not come with neon signs announcing them, they are missed by the less informed. Many read Mac's commentary and think, "That sounds correct," when the opposite is the case. Like most DPists, Mac has problems in his Christology, his soteriology, and his ecclesiology, not just his eschatology. My main complaint with commentary Bibles is that more often than not the contain more commentary than Bible. I can imagine the idea to mix commentary and scripture was a good one (maybe) but its execution has proven very problematic. I've been plodding through a cover-to-cover reading of the Life Application Bible in the NLT and am displeased that many pages have more commentary than scripture (and some of the commentary is in error@Josheb @Arial
The ESV is new to me. My preference is NKJV, but I guess that beggars can't be choosers when thrift shopping.
Somehow I'll need to check to see if this is the newer version of the ESV. I owned a Macarthur study Bible but it's seen better days. Should we retire old Bibles like we retire old flags? Is there a respectful way to discard them? Besides thrift stores. lol
Dave
). You've probably noticed the commentary-to-scripture ratio on some pages of the Reformation Bible is commentary heavy. At least you're getting a truly Reformed perspective that's fairly mainstream (as opposed to some of the peripheral viewpoints held within the Reformed pov. Imagine what that Bible would read like if it were published by A. W. Pink, or J. R. Rushdoony (a strict determinist or a Reconstructionist Dominionist). Yikes!
Oops! That should read, "The NKJV was made to address...." My bad.
I never throw a Bible away. I have a KJV from my childhood. I have a leather bound KJV presented to my gr aunt in 1923 and one my dad purchased in 1947.@Josheb @Arial
The ESV is new to me. My preference is NKJV, but I guess that beggars can't be choosers when thrift shopping.
Somehow I'll need to check to see if this is the newer version of the ESV. I owned a Macarthur study Bible but it's seen better days. Should we retire old Bibles like we retire old flags? Is there a respectful way to discard them? Besides thrift stores. lol
Dave
@JoshebThe NAS is generally considered the best formal (word-for-word) translation but not as popular because reading it is somewhat stilted. The ESV was a conscious effort to preserve the formal translation while updating the language and readability. The KJV is also a formal translation, but its the translation is flawed in many places and the language antiquated. The KJV was made to address those problems while still maintaining an allegiance to the tradition of the KJV. It is very important to also have a dynamic (conceptual or concept-for-concept) translation because they correct what is sometimes missed by the more literal efforts. I still prefer the NIV over the NLT (for example) but neither is a translation I consider my "home" Bible. As for MacArthur, I noticed someone else criticizing his commentary Bible because of the eschatological dross. I am much harsher. Dispensationalism compromises multiple core doctrines of the faith and because these errors do not come with neon signs announcing them, they are missed by the less informed. Many read Mac's commentary and think, "That sounds correct," when the opposite is the case. Like most DPists, Mac has problems in his Christology, his soteriology, and his ecclesiology, not just his eschatology. My main complaint with commentary Bibles is that more often than not the contain more commentary than Bible. I can imagine the idea to mix commentary and scripture was a good one (maybe) but its execution has proven very problematic. I've been plodding through a cover-to-cover reading of the Life Application Bible in the NLT and am displeased that many pages have more commentary than scripture (and some of the commentary is in error
Yep. I like Sproul a lot. I liked him even when I wasn't Reformed-minded. He's right down the middle orthodox but is familiar with diversity of thought, having considered it first-hand and usually (not always) had an informed response.@Josheb
I definitely don't take the commentary as Gospel truth, but it is easy access to see what the consensus may be. I'm interested to see some of the commentary in the Reformation Bible. My MacArthur Bible was the same. I usually only use the commentary for problem verses and sometimes when I want to know more context, specifically cultural and historic. I owned a Ryrie NAS study Bible, but never really got into it. The commentary was light, but maybe that's why It didn't stick for me. My first study Bible was a Life Application Bible, but for the same reasons, as a grew in understanding, I could see that many times it was overly simplistic, maybe even to a fault. There were areas that I flat out disagreed with the commentary. My standard has always been the same, I don't expect to agree with everyone one hundred percent, but I do need to believe that their efforts in understanding are genuine and not idol driven. R.C. Sproul's one of the Christian rat pack, if you will, Begg, MacArthur, Sproul, etc. It says below that "He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible". That's a good endorsement for me.
R. C. Sproul
About the author
Dr. R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was also first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. His radio program, Renewing Your Mind, is still broadcast daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world and can also be heard online. Dr. Sproul contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, spoke at conferences, churches, colleges, and seminaries around the world, and wrote more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God, Chosen by God, and Everyone’s a Theologian. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible.
The one I have that has all that information in it is very large----thick and heavy. Not the one you want to carry to church with you but invaluable at home.
It's big. I wouldn't call it "really large," but it is definitely thicker and heavier than a regular Bible. I'd guesstimate it's about half an inch thicker than the average commentary Bible and maybe an inch thicker than my plain-text non-commentary NAS Bible. It's available in e-reader format and that'll save you about half the price and all of weight
.
