What bible for study?

[Scribe]

My first study bible was a brown leather Dake. It was helpful, but as time went by I began to find little inconsistencies in it, especially when it came to separation of races. Something about it was God's will that blacks & whites are supposed to stay separate. I found that appalling & racist.
I threw it away after that.

The Matthew Henry Commentary study bible is a good one for a beginner to get seriously grounded. I don't agree with every interpretation but I don't think I agree with every interpretation from any one particular author. Someone always makes a mistake, including me. I shared gave this bible as a gift to my son and his fiance and they have been reporting aggressive bible knowledge growth as a direct result of that Bible.

If the following is true about Dake I would expect that his bible is helpful, but it is a massively confusing sea of data and not that useful for aggressive growth in establishing a foundational knowledge of the meaning of most scriptures like you would get from Matthew Henry Study Bible. I had a nice leather bound copy of Dakes many years ago, but I got lost in the notes and did not agree with many of them. He seemed to be too focused on lists and patterns that I found distracting to authorial intent. But someone else who's mind works like Dakes might fall in love with it.

In the book “Finis Jennings Dake, His Life and Ministry” by Leon Bible, it is stated in the book as testimony to fact, Dake had a unique gift. He was challenged by ministers whether he had such a gift and they challenged him to quote the New Testament verbatim. So Dake agreed as long as the whole thing was aired on the radio. He sat behind a glass window in a large department store and he quoted Matthew to Revelation without opening the Bible. He gave number of each verse and indicated chapter changes. It touched many lives

Finis Dake was also a ghost writer for Pat Zondervan. He wrote the book “The Zondervan Expanded Concordance,” which includes all the words of the KJV and every word in 8 other Bible translations. A total of 9 translations in the expanded concordance.

Funds from this project helped pay for the 1st printing of Dake Bible.

Dake Bible notes were assembled and worked on over a period of 5 plus years from late 50’s to 1963.

 

[oyster67]

I like my old 1611 KJV without anybody else's notes in it. It forces me to pray to seek the Holy Spirit for understanding. All those notes printed in the 'study Bibles' seem to contradict one another. I also find them to be a time wasting and space wasting distraction. I like Charles F Stanley's friendly devotionals, but I do disagree with some of his doctrine.

If you absolutely can't deal with KJV, try NASB.

I also like to keep a separate journal for notetaking.

 

[mustaphadrink]

You will not go wrong with the Scofield Reference Bible in the King James Version (1909, 1917 edition). It is available from the online bookstore shown below.

https://www.christianbook.com/scofi.../9780195274585/pd/274585?event=Bibles|1007775

You will go wrong with it if you want to be educated about the supernatural gifts of the Spirit which according to him do not exist.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Any bible will do you fine if you are led by the Holy Spirit as to what it says.

No bible will be any good if your study is devoid of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

"For when he (the Holy Spirit) comes, he will lead you into all truth..."Not some truth. ALL truth. John 16:13

 

[BibleFreak4Christ]

Thompson Chain Reference bible under which ever version your lead too.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I like my old 1611 KJV without anybody else's notes in it. It forces me to pray to seek the Holy Spirit for understanding. All those notes printed in the 'study Bibles' seem to contradict one another. I also find them to be a time wasting and space wasting distraction. I like Charles F Stanley's friendly devotionals, but I do disagree with some of his doctrine.

If you absolutely can't deal with KJV, try NASB.

I also like to keep a separate journal for notetaking.

I was brought up on the KJV because that is all there was in those days (showing my age). When I went to Bible College the RSV was stipulated as the version to use. I think I still have it somewhere.

Over the years I have tried this that and the other and recently I have graduated to the New King James Version because whenever I quote verses I seemed to always use the KJV of them but modernise it as thees and thous are old hat. Hence the use of the New KJV.

When I search for a verse on my computer bible I use the KJV of it as that is the one I remember after all these years and all the other versions.

I hasten to add that most of the time I will check the original greek for a fuller understanding.

 

[Truth7t7]

Hello @Reellv, first off (since I see that you are a new member), welcome to CChat

When I became a Christian (more than 34 years ago now) I started off with the KJV (because that was the only Bible that I owned). My pastor recommended that I get something easier to read, so I ended up with the NIV .. because someone gave me a copy (and I loved it .. in fact, I still do).

I continued with the NIV until I became a more serious student of the Bible/started looking far more closely and carefully at what the Text was actually saying, which is when I was introduced to the NASB (which I believe is the most accurate and literal translation among our modern translations). In fact, I was so impressed with what I found in the NASB that I went back and rememorized the verses/passages that I had formerly memorized in the NIV, in the NASB instead.

Compare, for instance, the NASB and the NIV (both from back then) in this verse.

Matthew 11​

12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. (NASB 77')​

​

Matthew 11​

12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. (NIV 84')​

While I do not necessarily disagree with the NIV's paraphrasing in this case, the point is, I wanted to know what the original text said so that I could look into it myself, rather than relying on what a translation team had decided that it meant, for me. The good news is (in this case anyway), the newer edition of the NIV, and the NIVUK (which I believe is a better NIV translation), has translated that verse in a way that is much closer to the NASB.

So, the NASB has become my go-to translation, but I regularly use many other translations as well whenever I study the Bible (as I've found that they are almost like a commentary on the Text from different linguists' POV .. and no translation is always the best translation of every verse in the Bible). They include the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIVUK, NLT, GWT and others. I think that we are, in fact, BLESSED to have so many translations available to us today

As far as Study Bibles go, the two that I principally use are the MacArthur Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible (the MacArthur is available in many translations, including the NASB, while the ESV Study Bible is only available in the ESV translation .. a great, modern translation that is more accurate but slightly less readable than the NIV, but less accurate/more easily readable than the NASB .. and as such, has become the translation choice of many these days, just FYI).

You can go here to compare many different translations, all on the same page. Perhaps you can find one that you are most comfortable with there

God bless you!

~Deut
p.s. - the following passage, as well all of the verses/passages in my signature line below, are NASB 95' .. except Matthew 7:12, which is NASB 77', just FYI.

1 Thessalonians 5​

23 May the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body ​

be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.​

​

Your gonna have a real easy time reading Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 in the NIV,they are removed

And dont forget Isaiah 14:12 where the NIV removes the KJV (Lucifer) and replaces it with (morning star) changing Satan into Jesus Christ, the morning star of Revelation 22:16

Scary!

 

[mustaphadrink]

Just as a matter of interest, I received a catalogue from a Christian bookseller and there was 46 different versions of the bible for sale. A bit like a monkey with a bible in his hands saying "Am I my keepers brother?"

 

[Truth7t7]

A DEADLY TRANSLATION
THE "NEW" KJV
By Dr. Michael E. Todd (Part #1)

The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points:
(1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and
(2) That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).

It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.

There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by Satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy.

Riplinger states that this same tri-part symbol is found concealed in the tail of the Green Dragon, illustrated in Harry E. Wedeck's occult classic volume, Treasury of Witchcraft.

Moreover, it is similar to the logo of the immense Krupp Works, the German manufacturing giant that was one of the most important producers for Adolf Hitler's Nazi war machine.

While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE
22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".

The term "JEHOVAH" is completely omitted.

The NKJV makes a very serious doctrinal error when dealing with the word "JEHOVAH" in Exodus 6:3. They change the word "JEHOVAH" to "LORD" thus making the Bible to contradict itself. Even the corrupt "New World Translation" (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible) has a better rendering of this passage.

So what does Exodus 6:3 say? Please read carefully - "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." (KJV)

Now please note what the NKJV says - "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I was not known to them." (NKJV)

If you will take a concordance and go back to Genesis 1 and go through to Exodus 6:3 you will notice that the word "LORD" is mentioned 242 times.

Did anyone before Exodus know God by the name of "LORD" before Exodus 6:3. The answer is a resounding, YES! Don't just sit there, look it up for yourself.

Adam & Eve knew - Genesis 4:1
Enos knew - Genesis 4: 26
Noah knew - Genesis 8: 20
Shem knew - Genesis 9:26
Nimrod knew - Genesis 10:9
Abraham knew - Genesis 12:7-8
King of Sodom knew - Genesis 14:22
Sarah knew - Genesis 16:2; 18:14
Hagar knew - Genesis 16:11
Lot knew - Genesis 19:14
Abimelech knew - Genesis 20:4
Eliezor knew - Genesis 24:3-12
Rebekah knew - Genesis 24:18
Laban and Bethuel knew - Genesis 24:50
Isaac knew - Genesis 25:21
Abimelech, Ahuzzath, & Phichol knew - Genesis 26:28
Jacob knew - Genesis 27:20
Leah knew - Genesis 29:32
Rachel knew - Genesis 30:24
Laban knew - Genesis 30:27
Joseph knew - Genesis 39:2-3
Pharaoh knew - Exodus 3:18
Moses & Aaron knew - Exodus 5:1
So to eliminate the word "JEHOVAH" is not only poor scholarship but also perverts and damages the text making it contradictory. It is a key passage that shows God as He reveals Himself BY ANOTHER NAME to mankind. Someone on the translation committee evidently does not like the name, "JEHOVAH."
The term "NEW TESTAMENT", is completely omitted.

It is interesting to note that Hebrews 9:15-20 in the NKJV lines up with the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible).

DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS
DEALING WITH SALVATION
The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "ARE BEING SANCTIFIED", and it replaces "are saved" with "ARE BEING SAVED."
In I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "MAY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE" in I John 5:13.

The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "DIFFICULT" way in the NKJV.
In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "CASTING DOWN ARGUMENTS". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a " DIVISIVE MAN". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".
According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "PEDDLE" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God .... "But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not -- they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to peddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

 

[Truth7t7]

A DEADLY TRANSLATION
THE "NEW" KJV
By Dr. Michael E. Todd (Part #2)

The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

2 TIMOTHY 2:15
KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "DO YOUR BEST."

MATTHEW 7:14
KJV - "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life..."
NKJV - "Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life," Is the way unto eternal life difficult? No, that is false teaching. The way unto eternal life is "strait," as the KJV says, meaning "constricted, restricted, distressed, narrow, restrained."

MATTHEW 20:20
KJV - "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him..."
NKJV - "Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, KNEELING DOWN..."
This is a wicked change. To kneel is obviously not the same as worship. "Worship" was in Tyndale's translation of 1526. It was in the Matthew's Bible of 1537. It was the Geneva of 1537. It was in the Authorized Version of 1611. Even the English Revised version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 retained the word "worship." It was the modernistic Revised Standard Version of 1952 which changed to "kneeling." Now the NKJV editors follow this same wicked error.

1 CORINTHIANS 1:18
KJV - "... but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
NKJV - "... but to us who are BEING SAVED it is the power of God..."
This unnecessary change corrupts the doctrine of salvation and conforms to the heretics who teach that salvation is a process.

ACTS 8:9
KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "ASTONISHED." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."
COLOSSIANS 3:2
KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "MIND."

HEBREWS 3:16
KJV - "For some, when they had heard did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses."
NKJV - "For who having heard rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt led by Moses?"

The NKJV make this verse to say something directly contrary to the KJV and to the Old Testament. The Bible plainly says that not all of the Israelites rebelled against God, but the NKJV creates a contradiction.
The NKJV also lines up with the (NWT) Jehovah's Witness Perversion in dealing with the above.

HEBREWS 10:14
KJV - "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
NKJV - "For by one offering He has perfected forever, those WHO ARE BEING sanctified."
This unnecessary change in the NKJV conforms to heretical gospels, such as that taught by Rome, which claim that salvation is a sacramental process. The NKJV completely destroys the beauty and power of this verse, that through the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ the believer is perfected and sanctified forever. This verse properly translated, as in the KJV, defeats false views of salvation. The NKJV, on the other hand, creates confusion. If Christ's offering gives eternal perfection, as the first half of the verse claims, why does the rest of the verse say that we are BEING saved? It is confusion and error.
And we know that God is not the Author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14:33)

ISAIAH 11:3
The entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NWT, NASV, NIV and RSV.

ISAIAH 66:5
The wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

DANIEL 3:25
The fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NASV actually have the latter reading in their texts.

In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perverted persons." The NKJV does not deserve its respected name. It is a perverted version.

Duplicity is revealed in the preface of the NKJV and in a 16-page history of the KJV printed at the end. On page vi of the preface, NKJV readers are given the following erroneous information: "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." This is simply not true! There are two basic New Testament texts -- the Divinely preserved Textus Receptus from which the original KJV was translated and the satanically corrupted Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions) which form the basis of all other modern Bible versions.

Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text -- the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?

Some will argue that the changes noted do not affect any fundamental Bible doctrine. We strongly disagree. Is not the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a fundamental doctrine? Is not every word of the Bible important? Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be concerned about every word and raise a voice of protest whenever scholarly sleight of hand is discovered in any modern version, including the NKJV.

Many today are purchasing NKJV Bibles
for three reasons:

1. Many pastors and Christian leaders are highly recommending it.
2. They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts.
3. The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.

 

[Truth7t7]

Parallel, KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB

Parallel, KJV, KJV, KJV, KJV

 

[Truth7t7]

Parallel, KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB

Why would anybody use the (N)ot (I)nspired (V)ersion

Daniel 11:37

The KJV has a monotheistic God of the Hebrews (God Of His Fathers), with a man that is gay or celibate (nor the desire of women) and it strongly suggest's this figure will be a Jew/Hebrew in decent

The NIV has polytheistic (gods of his ancestors) with the figure being a playboy, (one desired by women) The NIV hides the true identity of the figure in the verse, the future antichrist.

Daniel 11:37KJV
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Daniel 11:37NIV
37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

Isaiah 14:12

The KJV has (Lucifer), the NIV (morning star) as the NIV has changed Lucifer/Satan into Jesus Chrsit the Morning Star of Revelation 22:16

Isaiah 14:12KJV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12NIV
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

Revelation 22:16KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Revelation 22:16NIV
16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

 

[Truth7t7]

You will not go wrong with the Scofield Reference Bible in the King James Version (1909, 1917 edition). It is available from the online bookstore shown below.

https://www.christianbook.com/scofi.../9780195274585/pd/274585?event=Bibles|1007775

C.I. Scofield at 41 years old abandoned his wife Leotine and two daughters Abigail & Helene in Kansas, ran off to Dallas Texas to pastor a small church, where met 24 year old Hettie Van Wart in his sunday school class, he divorced Leotine and married Hettie in 1884 (Adultery)

Scofield & Hettie produced the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, Scofield died in 1921 while being married to Hettie, while his wife Leotine Lived (Adultery)

C.I Scofield is a corrupt tree, his 1909 reference bible is corrupt fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

 

[Truth7t7]

Love the KJV. I'm also a big fan of the ESV and NASB1995.

I love the KJV, and I Also use the KJV for study, and my back up bible is a KJV, I also recommend the KJV

 

[Angela53510]

I have many study Bibles. I have a Thompson Chain Reference, NASB, ESV, NIV Archeological, HCSB, and NET.

Holmans is quite good, I learned a lot from it. I'm using the NET because it has 66,000 footnotes. That includes geographical notes, translation issues, history & comparison of many versions. The words use the Hebrew & Greek script, but also the transliteration, for those who don't read the original languages.

I do believe study Bibles have to be read with the understanding that the notes are man made. So there will be things we will disagree with. I stopped reading the ESV because of notes I didn't agree with.

I do think you should read the Bible from cover to cover 5 or 10 times before using a study Bible. I read the NASB 25 times before I got an NASB study Bible. I didn't find the notes very helpful. Something about Holman's (HCSB) which I really liked was each book had a page explaining the outline and themes of the book. It had a timeline of other events happening when the book was written. The study notes were also very helpful. If I was going to recommend a study Bible, I would say, regardless of what you think of the translation, the study notes are excellent.

 

[Truth7t7]

I have many study Bibles. I have a Thompson Chain Reference, NASB, ESV, NIV Archeological, HCSB, and NET.

Holmans is quite good, I learned a lot from it. I'm using the NET because it has 66,000 footnotes. That includes geographical notes, translation issues, history & comparison of many versions. The words use the Hebrew & Greek script, but also the transliteration, for those who don't read the original languages.

I do believe study Bibles have to be read with the understanding that the notes are man made. So there will be things we will disagree with. I stopped reading the ESV because of notes I didn't agree with.

I do think you should read the Bible from cover to cover 5 or 10 times before using a study Bible. I read the NASB 25 times before I got an NASB study Bible. I didn't find the notes very helpful. Something about Holman's (HCSB) which I really liked was each book had a page explaining the outline and themes of the book. It had a timeline of other events happening when the book was written. The study notes were also very helpful. If I was going to recommend a study Bible, I would say, regardless of what you think of the translation, the study notes are excellent.

I have a hard time accepting a translation HCSB that is supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) created by Adulterers (Kurt and Barbara Aland), and homosexual union supporter, roman catholic jesuit cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

Yes Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg, and married his student Barbara Nee Ehlers, being 22 years older (Adultery)

Did God use Adulterers and A Homosexual Union Supporter to preserve his Holy Words? (NOT)

Wikipedia: Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is a modern English Bible translation from Holman Bible Publishers. The New Testament was published in 1999, followed by the full Bible in March 2004.

Holman Christian Standard Bible

Full name Holman Christian Standard Bible

Abbreviation HCSB

Complete Bible published 2004

Textual basis NT: Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Hello @Reellv, first off (since I see that you are a new member), welcome to CChat

When I became a Christian (more than 34 years ago now) I started off with the KJV (because that was the only Bible that I owned). My pastor recommended that I get something easier to read, so I ended up with the NIV .. because someone gave me a copy (and I loved it .. in fact, I still do).

I continued with the NIV until I became a more serious student of the Bible/started looking far more closely and carefully at what the Text was actually saying, which is when I was introduced to the NASB (which I believe is the most accurate and literal translation among our modern translations). In fact, I was so impressed with what I found in the NASB that I went back and rememorized the verses/passages that I had formerly memorized in the NIV, in the NASB instead.

Compare, for instance, the NASB and the NIV (both from back then) in this verse.

Matthew 11​

12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. (NASB 77')​

​

Matthew 11​

12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. (NIV 84')​

While I do not necessarily disagree with the NIV's paraphrasing in this case, the point is, I wanted to know what the original text said so that I could look into it myself, rather than relying on what a translation team had decided that it meant, for me. The good news is (in this case anyway), the newer edition of the NIV, and the NIVUK (which I believe is a better NIV translation), has translated that verse in a way that is much closer to the NASB.

So, the NASB has become my go-to translation, but I regularly use many other translations as well whenever I study the Bible (as I've found that they are almost like a commentary on the Text from different linguists' POV .. and no translation is always the best translation of every verse in the Bible). They include the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIVUK, NLT, GWT and others. I think that we are, in fact, BLESSED to have so many translations available to us today

As far as Study Bibles go, the two that I principally use are the MacArthur Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible (the MacArthur is available in many translations, including the NASB, while the ESV Study Bible is only available in the ESV translation .. a great, modern translation that is more accurate but slightly less readable than the NIV, but less accurate/more easily readable than the NASB .. and as such, has become the translation choice of many these days, just FYI).

You can go here to compare many different translations, all on the same page. Perhaps you can find one that you are most comfortable with there

God bless you!

~Deut
p.s. - the following passage, as well all of the verses/passages in my signature line below, are NASB 95' .. except Matthew 7:12, which is NASB 77', just FYI.

1 Thessalonians 5​

23 May the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body ​

be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.​

​

I agree with this.
I find it kind of hard to just use one english version to study from. A Greek lexicon and a concordance are handy tools, but mostly I look at a couple of different translations, esv, nasb, kjv, and even young's literal, generally speaking.

 

[Dino246]

Your gonna have a real easy time reading Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 in the NIV,they are removed

And dont forget Isaiah 14:12 where the NIV removes the KJV (Lucifer) and replaces it with (morning star) changing Satan into Jesus Christ, the morning star of Revelation 22:16

Scary!

No, not scary at all when you know the very valid reasons why those verses don't appear. Of course, you consistently reject sound reasoning in favour of fear-mongering and conspiracy theories.

 

[Scribe]

I have many study Bibles. I have a Thompson Chain Reference, NASB, ESV, NIV Archeological, HCSB, and NET.

Holmans is quite good, I learned a lot from it. I'm using the NET because it has 66,000 footnotes. That includes geographical notes, translation issues, history & comparison of many versions. The words use the Hebrew & Greek script, but also the transliteration, for those who don't read the original languages.

I do believe study Bibles have to be read with the understanding that the notes are man made. So there will be things we will disagree with. I stopped reading the ESV because of notes I didn't agree with.

I do think you should read the Bible from cover to cover 5 or 10 times before using a study Bible. I read the NASB 25 times before I got an NASB study Bible. I didn't find the notes very helpful. Something about Holman's (HCSB) which I really liked was each book had a page explaining the outline and themes of the book. It had a timeline of other events happening when the book was written. The study notes were also very helpful. If I was going to recommend a study Bible, I would say, regardless of what you think of the translation, the study notes are excellent.

I have been gravitating toward the HCSB. I saw the study bible last month and was thinking about getting one.

 

[Platosgal]

King James
No commentary
Just the word