Which Study Bible do you use?

[GreekPrincess]

In a discussion on another thread of this forum, posting were showing some misguided beliefs by John MacArthur. I used to use his study bible. I was saddened by reading the thread and it brought up this question.

Which study Bible do you use?

Can you recommend a study bible? I know sometimes it is a personal choice but I'd like to hear what study bibles are being used by everyone. I have several bible in which I use when I study but I do want a solid study bible as well.

Which do you like best?

[Brandan Kraft]

I don't use a "study bible"... sorry

I would recommend the Geneva Bible for its notes... However, I think your best bet is a collection of good commentaries.

[Fledge]

So far, personally, I have found the John MacArthur Study Bible to be very good. Perfect? Far from it! And I don't 100% agree with every bit of the study notes, but then again, if I did...I'd be John, or a clone.
I also really like the NASB Study Bible, put out by Zondervan.
The NIV Study Bible is a quite solid one too.

In studies, and for clarification on passages, I will refer to more than one, or all three of those. I also have a Nelson Study Bible (Nelson Publisher) and a Life Application Study Bible that I refer to from time to time, but not as often as the first three I mentioned, as I usually get plenty of help from those before I move on to others.

Commentaries, yes, very good. And probably a best bet for more thorough exposition and explanation. Unfortunately, really REALLY good ones can be expensive, and in my case (living out here in the country) hard to come by.

[Christ_†_Alone]

Like kermie... I dont use a study Bible either - just a Bible, and the aid of a varied collection of commentaries & sermon expositions.

We have lots:

John Calvin
Richard Baxter
John Gill
Matthew Henry
Charles Spurgeon

Just to name a few - Gill is my personal favorite, even though I never agree with him 100% :D

[Alan Stevens]

Hi

I use the 'New Geneva Study Bible'

It's 'handy' to have good notes at the foot of the page. On the Computer i use the NIV study. Both are good. But, i suppose it's individual preferance.

I hope that helps

Cheers

[Odyssey]

I personally don't use a 'study Bible' (I used to but then I spent too much time reading the 'notes' and not enough time reading the Bible). The Bible I do use most often when studying is the Online Bible. It is free software that contains various modules. It comes standard with the King James Version (or Authorized Version) and various modules such as Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, etc. You can download other Bible versions, some at no cost at all such as the Young's Literal Translation (my personal favorite). Others, like the New American Standard Version (NASV) or New King James Version (NKJV) you have to pay a small price for those modules. You can also download commentaries and study notes such as the Thomson Chain study references, Matthew Heny Commentaries, the Geneva Study notes (15xx edition), etc. There are also great theological works that you can download as well such as For the Cause of God and Truth by Dr. John Gill; The Sovereignty of God by Arthur W. Pink; etc. You can find those things here (http://www.onlinebible.net/).

Next, for casual reading I like the New Century Version. It is was originally designed for children and went by the name The International Children's Bible. People liked it some much they asked for an 'adult' version.

Lastly, my advice would be to get a good Bible. One that is easy for you to follow (such as the NASV or NKJV) and then get some solid commentaries such as those by Calvin or Spurgeon. But if you are really into studying the Bible, get the Online Bible. You will be glad you did.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

as for study bibles, i really think the MacArthur is one of the best. the main thing i personally object to is his strong dispensational bent. but overall it's really good. i wouldn't be too worried about using it.

also OD mentioned some software. i've tried all there is out there (well almost) and i wouldn't recommend online bible. the reason being is that there is other freeware which is much better, much easier to use, and has more modules. go visit the two following sites (they are very similar although the second has many more modules and more potential IMHO).

http://www.e-sword.net
http://www.crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp

also, the sword project has tense-mood-voice for the greek and hebrew text as well as all the greek texts that are out there (including the LXX). i highly recommend it so go check it out!

[batteredsheep]

I'm personally not big on study bibles.

Instead, I'd suggest reading a good basic book on hermeneutics (try Fee & Stuart, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" or Duvall & Hays, "Grasping God's Word" among many others) -- this will give you a good grounding so that you can learn to interpret God's Word for yourself.

Also, learn a bit of Greek and Hebrew so you can use the reference tools. Then get a few good commentaries.

But nothing beats repeated reading through the ENTIRE Bible. For variety, I use a different version each time, just for variation and comparison.

[Christ_†_Alone]

Originally posted by Odyssey
The Bible I do use most often when studying is the Online Bible.

I also use the Online Bible. We've had it for about 5 years now, and it's still our favorite, out of all the other free online Bible's out there.

The only problem with it is, the search engine it comes with is so good, I get frustrated when studying away from the computer, lol. My old KJV doesn't have a built in search engine!

I guess everyone has their favorites - there's ALOT to choose from, not to mention, our OWN software right here at this site, put together by our faithful brother kermie - which can be launched HERE (http://bible.5solas.org/)

[GreekPrincess]

Thanks everyone for sharing their preferences. I think Carla's right. I think we each have our favorites and how we like to study. I do like to hear how others study because I like to steal :eek: ideas from others! :D

[Odyssey]

Hey disciple,

I am going to try the other software you mentioned. Can't you just agree with me for once!!! LOL :D :p

Grace to you,

jak

[Brandan Kraft]

Carla, for a few years I used to use the bible on my palm pilot - and it was searchable! It really is a good solution.. I just need a new palm pilot so that I can continue using this feature...

My methods of study are different from most.. For raw scripture, I use the software I developed for 5solas.org. Second, for extra commentary, I use google.com. It's amazing what you can find when searching the entire internet. I've developed some pretty interesting search techniques that allows me find just about anything I'm looking for!

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
I am going to try the other software you mentioned. Can't you just agree with me for once!!! LOL :D :p
actually, i thought you and i agree on a lot ;) but i do highly recommend those two pieces of software i mentioned. it is true that everyone gets accustomed to using what they use on a regular basis but i always like to try new stuff to see if i'm missing out. i downloaded Online Bible to see if i was missing out there and i just didn't find it as powerful, robust, user friendly, etc and to have as much potential as Sword (http://www.crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp) and e-Sword (http://www.e-sword.net/). the nice thing about the Sword project is that it's open source so as long as you've got the document electronically you can get it into the format to be read. also, the modules are cross platform so if you have a mac, a windows box, and linux you can use them on all. in addition, if you've got free time to volunteer, there are a bunch of people frantically getting stuff into the format to be read by their software. all while not paying a single red cent. also, i'm not sure if online bible has tense-mood-voice in the greek texts which is an indispensable tool for me (since i don't read greek fluently). sorry to ramble, just thought i'd add my two cents :)

[benn93z28]

If you're looking for a serious Study Bible, it is probably a good idea to have a bible that has a literal translation as opposed to those that are paraphrased.

In fact, as a rule, I usually stay away from paraphrased bibles due to the fact that there's a high likelihood of adding words, phrases, and ideas that are not in the original manuscript or even the reverse (erasure). Not to say that literal translations are perfect and immune to this (they're not), but if you truly want to understand what the writer was saying, a literal translation is your best bet.

Not to long ago, there was a comparison among the most popular bible translations to see which followed the original manuscript the most (New Testament only), you can find the results here (http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm)

Personally, I use the New World Translation, American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version.

--Benjamin

[Fledge]

The New World Translation is a Jehovah's Witnesses translation. It is not to be trusted as reliable.
Here is some information I have found on the NWT.

--------------------------------------------

New World Translation
Bible "translation" produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses to support their false doctrines.
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros.
Why So Many Versions? and which translation is best? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

--------

The New World Translation (NWT) is the official translation of the Bible published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and used by all Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). It has often been criticized for its biased renderings of crucial texts traditionally used by Christians to support the deity of Christ. Although study of such isolated mistranslations in the NWT is valuable, it can give the mistaken impression that the NWT is an otherwise acceptable translation with only a handful of verses in dispute. This is not the case, however.

There are several types of mistranslations in the NWT. This article will draw attention only to some of the most common and unfortunate.


ADDING WORDS
In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in the NWT to make it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul is thus made to say that "all [other] things" were created in and for Christ, as if Christ were one of the created things. It is, of course, legitimate for translators to add the word "other" where this does not change the meaning but simply makes for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4). In Colossians 1:16-20, however, adding "other" substantially changes the meaning.

What is not so often recognized is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Romans 8:32; Phil. 2:9). In Romans 8:32 ("....will he not also with him [Jesus] kindly give us all other things?"), the word "other" is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In each case, the intent is apparently to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

There are several other texts where the NWT adds words without brackets which change the texts' meaning. Some of these have real doctrinal significance. In Romans 8:28 "all things" is changed to "all his works." This implies that God does not work "all things" together for good to those who love God, but only those things which He Himself does, over which He therefore has control. This allows for their belief that God does not have control over all things.

In Philippians 1:23-24 (NWT) several words are added without brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and thereby the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with the added words italicized), "I am under pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, to be sure, is far better." There are other errors as well, but the additions indicated here clearly change the meaning. JWs translate it this way in order to avoid the text's implication that at death Paul would be with Christ. Such an implication would contradict their belief that death involves the annihilation of the soul.

Some of the additions in brackets with the NWT so clearly change the meaning that it is a wonder that more JWs do not question them. In 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the expression "gift of the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift of the] spirit." The result is that Paul's contrast between his own personal "spirit" and his "mind" is removed, which again serves the JW doctrine that the spirit is not a distinct entity which survives death. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word "my" is also added in brackets before "mind" twice in verse 15. Thus the simple contrast between "the spirit" and "the mind" is changed to "the [gift of the] spirit" and "[my] mind."


OMITTING WORDS
The NWT also omits key words on occasion, when retaining them in the text would seem to contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Romans 8:1, "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," which omits the word "now." This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that JWs do not believe anyone can claim to be free of condemnation now.

Also notable is the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:19, "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word "the" is omitted before "fullness." This is significant, because in the NWT rendering "all fullness" is ambiguous, whereas "all the fullness" clearly refers to the "fullness" of God's own being (cf. Col. 2:9).

John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads, "If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT, however, has "me" after "ask." It therefore should be translated, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament (including those used by the JWs in producing the NWT) include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note.


CHANGING WORDS
The NWT is further guilty of mistranslating or paraphrasing words in a way which not only does a disservice to the text but betrays its prevailing doctrinal bias as well. It does this with words as small as prepositions.

Of course, it is possible to make too much of prepositions. Words like "in," "of," "into," and "with" really do not in and of themselves have doctrinal significance. Only as these words are attached to other words do they take on significance. It is also important to recognize that a preposition can have different meanings in different contexts. Yet -- though this is true -- prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings and cannot be translated in whatever manner one chooses.

In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition "in" (Greek, en) with unnecessary variations which often obscure or alter the meaning of the passage. This is illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT reads in part, "And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ." Reading this translation, one would never suspect that in union with and by means of translate the same simple Greek preposition. There is no sound reason for this variation. "And we are in union with the true one, in union with his Son Jesus Christ," would have brought out John's point that union with Christ is union with God.

Again, in Colossians 2:6-12 the preposition "in" is translated by the NWT using unnecessary variations. The Greek phrase en auto ("in him") is translated "in union with him" (v. 6b), "in him" (vv. 7a,9), and "by means of him" (v. 10). En ho ("in whom") is translated "by relationship with him" (vv. 11a,12a). These variations of "in" serve no useful purpose, undermine the unity of the passage, and obscure the point of the author which is that the Christian life consists of a supernatural relationship with Christ through faith.

There are many other passages where "in" is paraphrased in the NWT to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, in Matthew 5:19 "in" is translated "in relation to." This is done to avoid the passage's teaching that some who disobey the Law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven." (JWs believe the Kingdom will be restricted to 144,000 specially chosen and sanctified believers).

Another kind of mistranslation involves the word "believe." One of the most offensive teachings of evangelical Christianity to the JWs (and to many others as well) is that God reckons the sinner righteous on the basis of simple faith, or believing, in Christ. Of course, where "faith" or "belief" is reduced to mental assent to a doctrine, this is rightly rejected. But biblical justification is based on faith in Christ not faith in a doctrine. Nonetheless, even when this teaching is properly defined it is offensive to the JWs, as is evidenced by their attempt to obscure this truth in the NWT.

Most notable in this regard is the NWT rendering of the Greek word for "believe" (pisteuo) as "exercise faith" instead of "believe." As others have noted, to "exercise faith" implies more than to believe; it implies doing works on the basis of one's belief. The NWT almost always renders pisteuo as "exercise faith" when it concerns God's free pardon and justification of those who believe in Christ (e.g., John 1:12; 3:16-18 [but note v. 15]; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:22).

It was noted earlier that in 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the phrase "gift of the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift of the] spirit." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word "spirit" -- especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature -- in order to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, in Hebrews 12:9 "the Father of spirits" becomes "the Father of our spiritual life." In Galatians 6:18 "your spirit" is paraphrased "the spirit YOU show."

Similar rewordings are introduced in passages where the simple translation "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to their doctrine that "holy spirit" is God's "active force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not having the Spirit" is rendered "not having spirituality" (Jude 19).

Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence (4:1) in the NWT reads, "Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God..." (4:1a; emphases added). One would never suspect from this rendering that "inspired expression" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as was translated "spirit" in 3:24 (see also 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence in us gives us assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT obscures this point of God's Word in order to avoid its implication that His "Spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic "spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs recognize).

The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT reads, "However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the spirit says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "spirit."

Finally, the way in which the NWT most systematically distorts the teaching of Scripture is in its handling of the names and titles used for God. Two points must be made here.

First and most obvious is the appearance of "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT New Testament where the Greek text has kurios ("Lord"). Other writers have exposed the scholarly errors involved; I will not repeat their work here. Instead I wish to point out two ways in which this distorts the teaching of the New Testament.

The New Testament follows the practice of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by most Greek-speaking Jews in the first century) in substituting the word "Lord" (and occasionally "God") for the divine name "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah"). By so doing, the New Testament makes it clear that the use of "Jehovah" is not necessary for Christians, contrary to the JWs' claim.

Moreover, the substitution of "Jehovah" for "Lord" often obscures the meaning of passages relating to Jesus Christ. A good example is Romans 10:9-13, where Christ is called "Lord" (kurios) three times, concluding with verse 13, a quote from the Septuagint where the "Lord" is Jehovah. The NWT, by rendering kurios in verse 13 as "Jehovah" but as "Lord" in verses 9 and 12, has obscured the fact that in this passage Jesus is being identified as Jehovah by the use of the title "Lord."

The second way the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles is in its handling of texts in which Jesus is called God. There are nine texts where Jesus is definitely called God (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20; possibly also Acts 20:28).[7] Of these, four are translated so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Two are rendered so that he is "a god" or "god" (John 1:1,18). The remaining three texts (Isa. 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20) are interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is called God only in some lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT has translated texts which in their natural reading plainly call Jesus God in such a way that they no longer make that identification.

Only a small sampling of doctrinally-motivated mistranslations in the NWT have been documented here. We have seen words added, words omitted, and words and phrases paraphrased improperly with a view toward transmuting the Bible into JW doctrine. We have seen that these mistranslations conveniently support the distinctive JW understanding of the name "Jehovah" and their denials of Christ's deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the separableness of the human spirit from the body, spiritual life after the death of the body for Christians, God's absolute sovereign control over the world, the unity of God's people, and justification by faith. Were we to extend the study, we would see that every distinctive of the JWs has strategically been insinuated into the text of the NWT in a way that to the non-JW clearly shows doctrinal bias.

One possible criticism of this survey would be that it does not consider the arguments JWs would advance in defense of their controversial renderings in the NWT. In reply I must point out that to address such arguments would necessarily mean limiting the examples of mistranslation to just a few. But, it is my experience and doubtless that of many others that no JW will admit that there might be so much as one doctrinally-slanted verse in the NWT. To defend such a position, however, they must now satisfactorily explain all of the examples given here. In any case, the more in-depth treatment a specific text is given (including evaluation of arguments in its favor), the more evidence piles up that the JW renderings are wrong and biased.

[benn93z28]

Originally posted by Fledge
The New World Translation is a Jehovah's Witnesses translation. It is not to be trusted as reliable.
Here is some information I have found on the NWT.

--------------------------------------------

New World Translation
Bible "translation" produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses to support their false doctrines.
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros.
Why So Many Versions? and which translation is best? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary


--------

The New World Translation (NWT) is the official translation of the Bible published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and used by all Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). It has often been criticized for its biased renderings of crucial texts traditionally used by Christians to support the deity of Christ. Although study of such isolated mistranslations in the NWT is valuable, it can give the mistaken impression that the NWT is an otherwise acceptable translation with only a handful of verses in dispute. This is not the case, however.

There are several types of mistranslations in the NWT. This article will draw attention only to some of the most common and unfortunate.


ADDING WORDS
In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in the NWT to make it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul is thus made to say that "all [other] things" were created in and for Christ, as if Christ were one of the created things. It is, of course, legitimate for translators to add the word "other" where this does not change the meaning but simply makes for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4). In Colossians 1:16-20, however, adding "other" substantially changes the meaning.

What is not so often recognized is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Romans 8:32; Phil. 2:9). In Romans 8:32 ("....will he not also with him [Jesus] kindly give us all other things?"), the word "other" is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In each case, the intent is apparently to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

There are several other texts where the NWT adds words without brackets which change the texts' meaning. Some of these have real doctrinal significance. In Romans 8:28 "all things" is changed to "all his works." This implies that God does not work "all things" together for good to those who love God, but only those things which He Himself does, over which He therefore has control. This allows for their belief that God does not have control over all things.

In Philippians 1:23-24 (NWT) several words are added without brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and thereby the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with the added words italicized), "I am under pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, to be sure, is far better." There are other errors as well, but the additions indicated here clearly change the meaning. JWs translate it this way in order to avoid the text's implication that at death Paul would be with Christ. Such an implication would contradict their belief that death involves the annihilation of the soul.

Some of the additions in brackets with the NWT so clearly change the meaning that it is a wonder that more JWs do not question them. In 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the expression "gift of the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift of the] spirit." The result is that Paul's contrast between his own personal "spirit" and his "mind" is removed, which again serves the JW doctrine that the spirit is not a distinct entity which survives death. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word "my" is also added in brackets before "mind" twice in verse 15. Thus the simple contrast between "the spirit" and "the mind" is changed to "the [gift of the] spirit" and "[my] mind."


OMITTING WORDS
The NWT also omits key words on occasion, when retaining them in the text would seem to contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Romans 8:1, "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," which omits the word "now." This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that JWs do not believe anyone can claim to be free of condemnation now.

Also notable is the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:19, "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word "the" is omitted before "fullness." This is significant, because in the NWT rendering "all fullness" is ambiguous, whereas "all the fullness" clearly refers to the "fullness" of God's own being (cf. Col. 2:9).

John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads, "If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT, however, has "me" after "ask." It therefore should be translated, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament (including those used by the JWs in producing the NWT) include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note.


CHANGING WORDS
The NWT is further guilty of mistranslating or paraphrasing words in a way which not only does a disservice to the text but betrays its prevailing doctrinal bias as well. It does this with words as small as prepositions.

Of course, it is possible to make too much of prepositions. Words like "in," "of," "into," and "with" really do not in and of themselves have doctrinal significance. Only as these words are attached to other words do they take on significance. It is also important to recognize that a preposition can have different meanings in different contexts. Yet -- though this is true -- prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings and cannot be translated in whatever manner one chooses.

In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition "in" (Greek, en) with unnecessary variations which often obscure or alter the meaning of the passage. This is illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT reads in part, "And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ." Reading this translation, one would never suspect that in union with and by means of translate the same simple Greek preposition. There is no sound reason for this variation. "And we are in union with the true one, in union with his Son Jesus Christ," would have brought out John's point that union with Christ is union with God.

Again, in Colossians 2:6-12 the preposition "in" is translated by the NWT using unnecessary variations. The Greek phrase en auto ("in him") is translated "in union with him" (v. 6b), "in him" (vv. 7a,9), and "by means of him" (v. 10). En ho ("in whom") is translated "by relationship with him" (vv. 11a,12a). These variations of "in" serve no useful purpose, undermine the unity of the passage, and obscure the point of the author which is that the Christian life consists of a supernatural relationship with Christ through faith.

There are many other passages where "in" is paraphrased in the NWT to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, in Matthew 5:19 "in" is translated "in relation to." This is done to avoid the passage's teaching that some who disobey the Law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven." (JWs believe the Kingdom will be restricted to 144,000 specially chosen and sanctified believers).

Another kind of mistranslation involves the word "believe." One of the most offensive teachings of evangelical Christianity to the JWs (and to many others as well) is that God reckons the sinner righteous on the basis of simple faith, or believing, in Christ. Of course, where "faith" or "belief" is reduced to mental assent to a doctrine, this is rightly rejected. But biblical justification is based on faith in Christ not faith in a doctrine. Nonetheless, even when this teaching is properly defined it is offensive to the JWs, as is evidenced by their attempt to obscure this truth in the NWT.

Most notable in this regard is the NWT rendering of the Greek word for "believe" (pisteuo) as "exercise faith" instead of "believe." As others have noted, to "exercise faith" implies more than to believe; it implies doing works on the basis of one's belief. The NWT almost always renders pisteuo as "exercise faith" when it concerns God's free pardon and justification of those who believe in Christ (e.g., John 1:12; 3:16-18 [but note v. 15]; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:22).

It was noted earlier that in 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the phrase "gift of the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift of the] spirit." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word "spirit" -- especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature -- in order to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, in Hebrews 12:9 "the Father of spirits" becomes "the Father of our spiritual life." In Galatians 6:18 "your spirit" is paraphrased "the spirit YOU show."

Similar rewordings are introduced in passages where the simple translation "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to their doctrine that "holy spirit" is God's "active force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not having the Spirit" is rendered "not having spirituality" (Jude 19).

Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence (4:1) in the NWT reads, "Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God..." (4:1a; emphases added). One would never suspect from this rendering that "inspired expression" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as was translated "spirit" in 3:24 (see also 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence in us gives us assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT obscures this point of God's Word in order to avoid its implication that His "Spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic "spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs recognize).

The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT reads, "However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the spirit says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "spirit."

Finally, the way in which the NWT most systematically distorts the teaching of Scripture is in its handling of the names and titles used for God. Two points must be made here.

First and most obvious is the appearance of "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT New Testament where the Greek text has kurios ("Lord"). Other writers have exposed the scholarly errors involved; I will not repeat their work here. Instead I wish to point out two ways in which this distorts the teaching of the New Testament.

The New Testament follows the practice of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by most Greek-speaking Jews in the first century) in substituting the word "Lord" (and occasionally "God") for the divine name "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah"). By so doing, the New Testament makes it clear that the use of "Jehovah" is not necessary for Christians, contrary to the JWs' claim.

Moreover, the substitution of "Jehovah" for "Lord" often obscures the meaning of passages relating to Jesus Christ. A good example is Romans 10:9-13, where Christ is called "Lord" (kurios) three times, concluding with verse 13, a quote from the Septuagint where the "Lord" is Jehovah. The NWT, by rendering kurios in verse 13 as "Jehovah" but as "Lord" in verses 9 and 12, has obscured the fact that in this passage Jesus is being identified as Jehovah by the use of the title "Lord."

The second way the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles is in its handling of texts in which Jesus is called God. There are nine texts where Jesus is definitely called God (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20; possibly also Acts 20:28).[7] Of these, four are translated so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Two are rendered so that he is "a god" or "god" (John 1:1,18). The remaining three texts (Isa. 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20) are interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is called God only in some lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT has translated texts which in their natural reading plainly call Jesus God in such a way that they no longer make that identification.

Only a small sampling of doctrinally-motivated mistranslations in the NWT have been documented here. We have seen words added, words omitted, and words and phrases paraphrased improperly with a view toward transmuting the Bible into JW doctrine. We have seen that these mistranslations conveniently support the distinctive JW understanding of the name "Jehovah" and their denials of Christ's deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the separableness of the human spirit from the body, spiritual life after the death of the body for Christians, God's absolute sovereign control over the world, the unity of God's people, and justification by faith. Were we to extend the study, we would see that every distinctive of the JWs has strategically been insinuated into the text of the NWT in a way that to the non-JW clearly shows doctrinal bias.

One possible criticism of this survey would be that it does not consider the arguments JWs would advance in defense of their controversial renderings in the NWT. In reply I must point out that to address such arguments would necessarily mean limiting the examples of mistranslation to just a few. But, it is my experience and doubtless that of many others that no JW will admit that there might be so much as one doctrinally-slanted verse in the NWT. To defend such a position, however, they must now satisfactorily explain all of the examples given here. In any case, the more in-depth treatment a specific text is given (including evaluation of arguments in its favor), the more evidence piles up that the JW renderings are wrong and biased.

It's funny how the NWT is being singled out for its "controversial" renderings when there are other popular translations of the Bible that reads similarly to that of the NWT. You said that any defense to the NWT warrants a satisfactory explanation of all the examples you cited. Here (http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/pageindex.htm) it is.

--Benjamin

[disciple]

Originally posted by benn93z28
It's funny how the NWT is being singled out for its "controversial" renderings when there are other popular translations of the Bible that reads similarly to that of the NWT.
really? which ones? and what do you mean by "popular"?

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by Alan Stevens
Hi

I use the 'New Geneva Study Bible'

It's 'handy' to have good notes at the foot of the page.

Alan! I checked out the New Geneva Study Bible, and it's now called the Reformation Study Bible. I HIGHLY recommend this bible and have purchased two of them... one for me and my wife. It's great for taking your notes with you to church meetings. Also, the notes are written from a reformed perspective. I take issue with the CT and infant baptism that is found within the notes (that and calling the ordinances "sacraments!"). However, at least on the infant baptism issue, they took the time to describe the baptist position and justification for it. Many notes contain a variety of interpretations. Most importantly, the notes have a Calvinistic theme to them.

The introduction to each book is excellent. I appreciated how they they commented that the dating of Revelation was most likely before 70ad while most "scholars" set it some time after that date.

The general editor of the Reformation Study Bible is R.C. Sproul with associate editors James Boice, Edmund Clowney, Roger Nicole, and J.I. Packer...

I especially enjoyed the notes on James chapter 2...

I also appreciate the NKJV translation. I've used the NASB almost exclusively for the past few years; but over the past few weeks, I've been warming up to the NKJV. I'm not sure if the TR is the most accurate gr. manuscript, but the margin notes tell you where it differs from others.

[Tanker Bob]

I, too, am a big fan of the New Geneva Study Bible, a.k.a, Reformation Study Bible. I've been using it for years to great advantage. The insert notes are especially good, written primarily by J.I. Packer and when taken in total constitute his book Concise Theology. With all due respect to Kermie, I highly appreciate the traditional Reformed Covenant Theology perspective of the notes. This is also the only English Bible of which I'm aware that includes exhaustive text notes on the differences in the three primary Greek manuscript families--Nestle's, Majority, and TR. These types of notes are usually limited to Greek texts.

I also highly favor the 1599 Geneva Bible, whose notes are the best of any study Bible IMO. I also use The Self-Interpreting Bible by John Brown of Haddington, et al. This is an excellent work, but the notes are not as detailed as the Geneva Bible notes. Although not strictly a study Bible, my favorite reference next to the 1599 Geneva itself is the 6-volume Westminster Annotations and Commentary on the Whole Bible from ca. 1657. After the Westminster Standards were completed, some of the Westminster Divines got together to expand on the Geneva Bible notes, but the volume of the work necessitated a different form. I have all three of these works in facimile form from Still Water Revival Books (http://www.swrb.com/).

[Brandan Kraft]

I have the 1602 New Testemant Edition of the Geneva Bible in facsimile form. I agree, the notes are great! Althovgh it'f difficvlt to readeth the ould english! It's also nice to have you here on the forum Tanker Bob!

I had no idea there were no other English Bibles that noted the differences between the different manuscripts. I'm very impressed with my New Reformation Bible now that I've had it for a couple weeks. I recommend this Bible to everyone!

Also, friends, you cannot pass up this deal of the century... Calvin's Commentaries (22 vols) are on sale at ChristianBooks.com for only $99.00!!!!! Hurry up and grab a set while supplies last...

Also, while you're at it - pick up a copy of Martyn Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans 7.

Click here to buy Calvin's Commentaries for 99.00! (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/97415369?item_no=24442&event=6857SBF)

[Tanker Bob]

Kermie,

Great to be here! I just found the forum yesterday when a friend asked me to recommend Reformed discussions to him.

I have Calvin's commentaries on CD from Ages (http://www.agessoftware.com/calvin.html), along with a bunch of his other works. I think that my wife would leave me if I bought 22 more books, even at that price. :eek: Our house literally looks like a library. Besides, the advantage of electronic copy is that I can cut and paste quotes into Bible study and Sunday school notes. OTOH, $99 is a steal. :(

[disciple]

check out http://www.bible.org

this is not a study bible but a translation with a boatload of notes (translational, textual, and study). i just ordered a hard copy but you can get a free electronic copy for windows and online at the above website. it is the first work of its kind and from studies done is both accurate and readable. i highly recommend it.

[Alan Stevens]

Hi

Glad you like the 'New Geneva', i find it very helpful. Also remarkably balanced. The notes on the gifts of the holy spirit, give a good oversight without offending anyone. This i find helpful, many translations and notes to often 'push' there own preferences.

On another note i picked up the whole of MLJ's Romans series second hand (6 books) for £40 about 64 dollars, i think. There's a book shop in london, "Geneva books" which sells excellent second hand books. If anyone wants to know the address, just let me know.

Cheers

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by Alan Stevens
Hi

Glad you like the 'New Geneva', i find it very helpful. Also remarkably balanced. Right... I was impressed with the notes on Rom. 7 in this bible. I like it when a variety of interpretations are given... :)

[Brandan Kraft]

For those interested in a commentary - I added a really good one here: http://bible.5solas.org/gill.php

[Tanker Bob]

I use Gill on my Sony T665C handheld under BibleThumper, along with the 1599 Geneva notes and JFB. Excellent exposition.

[Westminster]

Okay,

For Religious Study courses in a Secular University, as the University of Toronto (U of T), I find the best is The New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV 3d ed for historical notes alone. No other Evangelical study bible, that I have seen, can compare in the critical historical approach. However, watch out for the unbelief, and skepticism by the contributors. A second choice is The Oxford Study Bible REV with the Apocrypha: A Complete Guide To The World of the Bible, a highly readible bible (for Episcopalians, and students), yet a much more freer translation than the NIV. Same as above—good historically! Third, is The New Interpreter's Study Bible NRSV with Apocrypha (NIB)—all of the above for evaluation. Remember that these bibles are inclusive language bibles.

One other that might be good is The Companion Bible (1920), notes and appendixes by E.W. Bullinger (a Dispensationalist). The Hebrew and Greek are in the margins—very helpful—and I believe there is no Dispensational bias or opinions in the notes. It is expensive—$95 Cdn, for hardback, and the print is rather small—it's almost like having a dictionary built into your bible.
GBM

[wildboar]

I thought some might find this useful, I stmbled across it yesterday: http://www.shakinandshinin.org/Ephesians.html It contains all the notes from various popular study Bibles for the book of Ephesians as well as a couple one volume commentaries. Highlights are notes from the New Geneva study Bible and New Bible Commentary. It looks like the site has something similar for the semon on the mount and some other interesting resources.

[titus]

I usually study from a plain NKJV, but I just recieved the NIV spirit of the reformation study Bible as a birthday gift from my wife and it's wonderful. It's packed full of notes from a reformed perspective with many one page articles on different topics such as Election, and the perseverance of the saints, definite atonement: for whom did Jesus die?, Christian Liberty: How free am I? etc.. It also has the WCF, the shorter and larger Catechisms, the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic confession.

[harald]

I do not use a study Bible. I use a Bible study program I have on the PC.


harald

[wildboar]

I thought some might be interested to know that a new study Bible is going to be released in the summer for the ESV (I think of it as the superior NIV:p ) by Ligonier ministeries under the editorship of R.C. Sproul.

[bgamall]

I think study notes are profit making attempts to sell a certain translations of Bibles. That doesn't mean I have not used them for referance, but that those who seek to profit from the gospel are genrally professional seminarians out to make a living from the word of God. That is plain wrong, and Paul would have never done anything in Jesus name that constituted profit or salary.

[2boysdaddy]

I'm much in the same camp with Darth Gill, I love my palm pilot bible. Laridian software makes a program called my bible; for the palm, nothing else comes close :D . The KJV version of the program is a free download, I wouild recommend it for anyone with a palm. I also use my NIV study bible, it helps me when I'm doing OT study by filling in the historical content going on "behind the scenes."

[bauerpauer]

I grew up using the.. KJV ONLY! Ahh, as if any other version were not translated correctly. Obviously some versions are in error but nonetheless. I feel like a 'heathen' as my church would put it. At any rate i've been using the NASB, and ESV.. but i'm gonna pick up a copy of the spirit of reformation study bible. It looks good.

[John 6-37]

I use the spirit of the reformation study bible! It is the GREATEST truly reformed study bible I have ever used or owned. It is written from the covenant theology, confessional, paedo baptist position, the position of those who are truly reformed and held to the true teachings of the reformation...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2039572&cat=18844&type=3&dept=3920&path=0%3A3920%3A18844

Hard back $25 there, not $40 retail!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310923611/ref=lpr_g_1/103-8508224-4255012?v=glance&s=books

Genuine LEATHER edition there for $48, not $70 (This is the bible I own and use).

God bless

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm

[bauerpauer]

Picked up a 'Reformation Study Bible: NKJV'. It's amazing. I love it. The commentaries are good and clear, concise even. The notes on everything from 'liberty' to 'baptism' to 'regeneration' to 'eschatology' are all excellent. I love this bible.

[wildboar]

The Reformation Study Bible: NKJV is out of print and the price has skyrocketed on the used book market. Many places are selling it for $180 or more. I own a copy of the New Geneva Study Bible which is the same but with a different name. You can still find hardcover copies of the New Geneva at alibris and amazon starting at around $15. Some of the notes and articles are questionable but the combination of the translation and the notes make it the best study bible out there in my opinion.

I still haven't gotten a chance to look at it very thoroughly, but from what I have looked at, I was even more impressed with the notes on the Spirit of the Reformation Bible: NIV but I'm not a big fan of the NIV. Nelson sold the rights to the notes from the Reformation Bible to Zondervan and Zondervan appointed Pratt as editor rather than Sproul who did the Reformation Study Bible. The notes have been expanded quite a bit and the Reformed Confessions are now found in the back of the Bible. I've been trying to get the Zondervan rep that comes into my work from time to time to publish the Spirit of the Reformation Bible in some other translation than the NIV but so far it has been to no avail. There are a number of conservative reformed people I know out there that really like the notes but won't buy it because of the translation.

It looks like the ESV study Bible mentioned in another post I made above isn't going to be released until March of 2005. The notes are supposed to be similar to those in the Reformation Study Bible and it looks like they are even calling it the Reformation Study Bible but I do not know if they will be identical. If changes are made it would worry me given some of the strange things Sproul has said of late. It also looks like it might be published by P+R.

[bauerpauer]

Yes, I hope i'm not being redundant didn't quite understand the end of your post there but yeah the Reformation Study Bible is coming out in ESV. Should be good. :)

[TimDaManWV]

Many years ago I worked at "Christian" bookstore. I am very familiar with many study Bibles on the market today. I very excited when the Geneva Study Bible was released but was disappointed because it was NKJV. I was the rebel at the store because I was Reformed.



I very excited when the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible was finally published. I like the NIV version of the Bible the best and I love this new study Bible.



Today, I heard that RC Sproul will be publishing (or promoting) a new Study Bible in ESV. Many of my Reformed friends will be very happy, but I still like the NIV. I am curious why RC is going to do another study Bible when the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible is essentially newer edition of the Geneva Study Bible. I don't see the need for another Study Bible (especially a Reformed study Bible), and I really don't see the need for another Bible translation. I think the number of versions of Bible is overwhelming and confusing.



Tim

[wildboar]

TimDaMann:

Sproul was unhappy with the level of accuracy in the NIV. I share his concerns. I do occasionally recommend the NIV to people who have a difficult time reading and the major doctrines of the Bible are certainly still to be found in the NIV. However, some passages are paraphrased. This paraphrasing can often remove some of the punch from the original. On occasion, the paraphrasing misses the point of what the original says. There was a style committee apointed for the NIV as well so that it would read uniformly. However, this also removes the distinct styles in the original and takes away from power in my opinion.

In my opinion the ESV is basically a more accurate version of the ESV. Unfortunately it still does a bad job in many of the places where the NIV does a bad job (Phil. 2), but it also makes a great number of improvements (I John). When someone comes into my store unsure of what they would like to buy but leaning toward the NIV, I often try to talk them into buying an HCSB or an ESV. They both seem just as readable as the NIV but noticeably more accurate. The HCSB seems more accurate than the ESV from passages that I have looked at, but the ESV has a nice literary quality absent from the other modern versions.

[TimDaManWV]

It is interesting that you say that Sproul was “unhappy” with the NIV. I heard that he originally wanted the Geneva Study Bible in NIV but since the publisher was Nelson the Bible would be in the NKJV. I think that if the NIV was an unacceptable translation the scholars that worked on the Geneva Study Bible would not use it as their text for the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. I compared the scholars of both Bibles and most of the same scholars that contributed to the Spirit of the Reformation Bible also contributed to the Geneva Study Bible. I would have thought that other in that camp would have objected besides RC Sproul.



Don’t get me wrong. I love RC Sproul. The man has helped understand the Reformed faith better than any other writers. I have attended several of his conferences. Choosing My Religion was a video series that change my Christian thinking.



Who are translators of the ESV? A pastor once told me that all Bible are a “paraphrase” of the Hebrew/Greek text. Keep in mind I am not theologian. I am just TULIP layman.



Tim



PS I will try to use better fonts on my post. I discovered this site by accident and had no idea that it would display the font so large.

[wildboar]

It is interesting that you say that Sproul was “unhappy” with the NIV. I heard that he originally wanted the Geneva Study Bible in NIV but since the publisher was Nelson the Bible would be in the NKJV. I heard something similar when the New Geneva was first released. It could be true, I really don't know. I haven't seen anything in writing. I don't have any official source for my comments either. I'm just relying upon people I know who follow Sproul's ministry. So perhaps neither comment is true or perhaps they both are and Sproul changed his opinions about the Bible translation at some point. I guess it really doesn't matter.


I think that if the NIV was an unacceptable translation the scholars that worked on the Geneva Study Bible would not use it as their text for the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. I compared the scholars of both Bibles and most of the same scholars that contributed to the Spirit of the Reformation Bible also contributed to the Geneva Study Bible.People often work for the person who pays the bills. The writing of study notes for a Bible does not equal endorsement for the translation. I would feel perfectly comfortable writing study notes for an NIV Bible if I were called upon to do so. I would not find it morally objectionable nor do I hold to any of the bizarre conspiracy theories some do in regards to the NIV. I just believe there are better translations out there, especially if a person is interested in doing a serious study of a passage.


Don’t get me wrong. I love RC Sproul. The man has helped understand the Reformed faith better than any other writers. I have attended several of his conferences. Choosing My Religion was a video series that change my Christian thinking.
There's certainly nothing wrong with disagreeing with Sproul. He is fallen into great heresy in the last couple years in regards to statements he has made about the covenant and eschatology. I was just explaining why Sproul believed it necessary to put the Reformation Bible study notes in some other translation than the NIV.


Who are translators of the ESV?http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv-translators.html


A pastor once told me that all Bible are a “paraphrase” of the Hebrew/Greek text.
That's not really true. No translation is perfect. But not every translation is a paraphrase. In some ways I'll be oversimplifying in the following paragraph but I'm just trying to give you an idea of what's going on here. The Greek language is structured quite a bit differently than English is. Taking the Greek words and just translating them into English would result in nonsense. If you pick up an interlinear Bible and read the words in the order in which they occur you can get some idea of what I am talking about. However, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, and RSV translators created some type of more or less formal equivalence translation. A formal equivalent translation takes the Greek sentence and attempts to translate it in such a way that the resulting sentence is similar in structure to the Greek sentence it is a translation of.

A Dynamic Equivalence translation such as the NIV is not concerned about the sentence structure of the original but only concerned with conveying the same thought that is in the original. In most cases the NIV is successful in conveying the thought, but it is questionable in other cases whether it is. The further a person moves in this direction, the more the danger of the translator's beliefs being read into the text comes into play. If a text is somewhat ambiguous from a strict linguistic point of view as to its meaning, this same ambiguity can sometimes at least be retained in the English translation if a formal equivalence method is used, but in the case of a dynamic equivalence translation, the translator must make a choice as to what the text means and will then persuade others that this is the real meaning of the text since they no longer have the ambiguity in front of them to grapple with. The result is that the translation then becomes more of a commentary than a translation.

All of the above problems are greatly increased when a person moves from a dynamic equivalence translation to a paraphrase. The Living Bible and the Message fall into this category. The Arminianism of the author of the Living Bible caused him to make sentences say the exact opposite of what they say in Greek. The New Living Translation has removed some of the more obvious blunders in the Living Translation but is still unwilling to say that God hated Esau.

Generally speaking, the HCSB and the ESV fall somewhere in between the Dynamic Equivalence and the Formal Equivalence categories. This is generalization. There are instances in which the ESV or HCSB will adopt a more literal reading than one of the Formal Equivalent translations.

One of the often debated texts as to the best translation is Philippians 2:7. I often turn to that passage when I come across a translation I have never read before to see how they deal with it.

ASV Philippians 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;

NASB Philippians 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

RSV Philippians 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

The above translations and the HCSB are very literal in how they translate Philippians 2:7. Christ emptying Himself gives us a graphic picture of what He did for us. He poured Himself out for us. The above translations also leave the decision to the reader as to what this emptying entails.

KJV Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

NKJ Philippians 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

The KJV and the NKJV decide to paraphrase this text. Rather than Christ emptying Himself, they say He "made Himself of no reputation." I don't believe this translation is as good. It makes the decision of interpretation for the reader and weakens the vivid picture found in the original. But I do believe the paraphrase is correct in its understanding of what the text means.

ESV Philippians 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form,

NIV Philippians 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

I think the paraphrase found in the NIV and the ESV which follows it is very, very strange. It seems to make the text more difficult to understand rather than simplifying it. Perhaps it was an attempt to get away from "emptying" due to all the strange teachings about Christ emptying Himself of His Deity based on this verse, but it makes no sense. How does someone make themself nothing? I was even more surprised since the ESV is supposed to be a conservative revision of the RSV that they chose to follow the NIV here rather than the more accurate RSV reading.

Of course Bible translation preference ought not be the basis of unity or disunity within the church. Belief about what the Bible teaches must be the grounds of unity.

[John 6-37]

It looks like the ESV study Bible mentioned in another post I made above isn't going to be released until March of 2005. The notes are supposed to be similar to those in the Reformation Study Bible and it looks like they are even calling it the Reformation Study Bible but I do not know if they will be identical. If changes are made it would worry me given some of the strange things Sproul has said of late. It also looks like it might be published by P+R.
If it is published by presbyterian and reformed pubs, then you can bet it will be written from a confessional (WCF) and covenantal theological viewpoint (paedo baptistic). Anyone notice that p&r, nor cumberland valley bible book service do not, and will not carry john reisinger books that promote the NCT view? Gee,
I wonder why? (not really!)

[Brandan Kraft]

What's funny is cumberland valley carries tons of stuff from macarthur - Dispensationalist nonsense!