Which kjv study bible is best

Apr 7, Let an expert on the subject guide you through the maze. In some contexts it refers to the translation itself, to a version of the Bible suitable for study. More often, however, it refers to a translation plus a set of features designed to help one read and study the text. The first English translations were study Bibles in both senses.

Translators sought to create a version that could be studied by the masses. They wanted to take the text from the tight grip of academics and clerics and put it in the language of the people. They also wanted to provide guidance to their readers with explanatory notes and cross references.

These early study materials were often as polemic as informative. William Tyndale was strangled to death and burned at the stake for the crimes of translating the Bible into English and of challenging the teachings of the Roman Catholic church in his notes. This pattern continued in all Protestant Bible translations of the sixteenth century. The Geneva Bible of , for example, promoted the Reformed doctrines of John Calvin and criticized all contrary systems.

Here it is thought proper, not to enter into any controversy upon that subject, as the inventors of the fancies have been already answered, and fully refuted by many controvertists. The English Bible had seen at least settings and printings in 75 years.

The king detested the notes in the Geneva Bible, especially when they commended characters for choosing to obey God rather than human monarchs, as at Exodus Though received with mixed reviews, this version soon became so popular that all previous translations were eventually put out of print.

The version of began three centuries of its near monopoly as the English Bible. Shortly thereafter, two distinct study systems emerged that would start a new trend in Bible presentation. Thompson provided the model of a study system that was doctrinally objective, while Scofield presented a specific system of interpretation in his notes. Most modern study Bibles fall into one or the other category established by these pioneering works.

The s and early s saw an explosion of English Bible translations. The real noise in the nineties, however, is coming from new study Bibles. Tyndale House introduced The Life Application Bible in and with it a significant new trend of needs-oriented Bibles. Because the Bible-buying public seems to have a bottomless appetite for new editions of the Bible, and because Bible typesetting is a much faster process than ever before, Bible publishers are now issuing new Bibles almost at the pace that they issue new books.

Gone are the days when a Thompson or a Scofield spent decades developing study systems. Such products, however, are indeed meeting needs. Craig Featherstone, director of marketing for Thomas Nelson Bibles, uses the model of the Sunday school: as there are different class options for different age groups, different needs, and different interests, so there are different study Bibles.

This historical overview may help explain the incredible proliferation of study Bibles. But it does not explain how to evaluate a particular edition for personal use.

To provide guidance in this regard, this article will first survey the range of features that can be found in a study Bible, and then examine specific features of several classic and recent editions.

Of course, there can be objectivity in interpretation and subjectivity in the selection of texts. A study Bible that is primarily objective in its features can be used by anyone, regardless of theological affiliation. On the other hand, a study Bible that is primarily subjective is most useful to someone who agrees with the interpreter — and can even be offensive to someone who does not.

The single most important feature of a study Bible is its text — its translation — because the most important activity in studying the Bible is reading it. In the nineties, all the best-selling translations have a wide variety of study systems, sizes, and bindings, although not every study system is available in a variety of translations. Introductions usually inform one as to the author, readers, date, origin, and content of a book or section of the Bible; outlines display the contents of a book.

Introductions and outlines differ in thoroughness and length, but introductions can also differ in perspective. They agree that Moses wrote all or most of the Pentateuch the first five books of the Bible , that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter because the books themselves say so.

Most nonconservative or liberal scholars, however, use criteria other than the text of the Bible to evaluate its statements and claims. As a result, the introductions might be the first place to check to discern whether a study Bible takes a conservative or liberal interpretive perspective. One of the most useful features of a study Bible for analyzing the biblical text is its reference system.

Cross-references link verses and passages on the basis of similar words, phrases, and concepts. The most specific reference system is in the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, which identifies the topic that is referenced, keys it to a numbered topical index, and sends the reader to the next verse in its chain of references.

Much of the time, notes simply illuminate the text with definitions of obscure or meaningful words, explanations of customs, cross-references to similar passages, enlightenment from historical background, and similar objective information. As in the case of introductions, the notes often betray an alignment with a particular theological or critical approach to the text. Scofield and Ryrie are both conservative and dispensational.

Dake is pentecostal. These theological positions can determine the tone and volume of the notes. The Catholic study Bibles tend to emphasize the historical dogmas of the church at key texts such as Matthew Scofield and Ryrie emphasize distinctions between Israel and the church and literal fulfillment of prophecy e. The New Geneva Bible takes a nondispensational approach at these texts.

Notes in liberal study Bibles often counter the literal understanding of the text e. As always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs states: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer.

If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious.

To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty.

For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? That is the purpose of this book. If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of and He did , then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press.

Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors?

We need to establish one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man.

Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of Although the printing press had been invented in by Johann Gutenburg in Germany years before the printing , the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time that's one piece at a time through the whole Bible , and errors were an expected part of any completed book.

Because of this difficulty and also because the printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles.

They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions. The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: The same printers did both jobs.

Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville!

The time has come to examine these "revisions. Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F. The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in , was a member of the Revision Committee of He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.

In the section of Scrivener's book dealing with the KJV "revisions," one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days. The edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors.

Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of , admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the printers and amended manifest errors.

Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process--the purification of early printing errors--so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process--the standardization of the spelling.

These two editions were only seven years apart and with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one.

Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are still changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do with the changes that are still there?

Let us now examine the character of these changes. Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own.

You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let's examine the evidence. For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes.

Printing changes will be considered first. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages.

I highly recommend it Yeshua1 Well-Known Member. I recommend a repro AV as a study Bible for everyone, as well as the "study Bibles" named above by various people.

I recommend them all, to help develop one's overview of Scripture, same as I recommend various Bible translations for the same purpose. TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus. TC Active Member. Agree x 3. Jerome Well-Known Member. Squire Robertsson Administrator. I like the Old Scofield.

I ignore the notes for the most part. But, the price is usually right and the references are good. What follows is an in-depth guide to choosing a study Bible. Essentially literal study Bible translations are those that seek to examine the original Greek or Hebrew word, then translate that word into English as literally as possible. There are rare occasions when a literal translation will make zero sense to a modern English reader, and in that case, the translation attempts to be as close to the original as possible while still making sense to the reader.

In other words, instead of translating each word individually, they attempt to translate the original thoughts behind each word and phrase. Personally, I believe this is an inferior and unhelpful method of translation because it has the potential to introduce interpretation into the translation. In other words, instead of simply translating the words as they were originally written, an attempt is made to interpret the meaning of the original words and then let that interpretation guide the translation.

Because it has the potential to introduce the biases of the translators. Leland Ryken explains it this way :. Instead, these translators often engage in commentary on the biblical text instead of translation of it. Overall, this is a big simplification of the two methods of translation, but I think you get the point.

Bottom line: If you want the best study Bible, I recommend getting an essentially literal translation. Because you want the translation to be as close to the original as possible, while still being readable.