When I was a child I had the impression that reading the Bible and praying were shameful activities unless they were done in church on Sundays or Wednesday evenings. Thanks for commenting, Robin!

You're doing it correctly.

If you were sinning, entertaining lies and reading all kinds of worldly garbage, they wouldn't be batting an eye but even encouraging you. But, because you strive to you abide by Him rooted in Him i.e. The Holy Scriptures, because you deny yourself, carry your cross and follow Him, then they have all kinds of issues against you. You are on your way to Heaven. They are on their way to HeLL. Like a previous commenter stated: 'you are doing it correctly'! Keep moving forward in Him, comrad !!! Sola Scriptura. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."Jésus-Christ i.e. God i.e. Adonaï{Authorized Holy King James 1611}

Psa 119:46 I will speak of Your testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed. Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Kenneth!

+1. I love Ted's take on what makes a good study bible (kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bZZyhbur1K6llIk.html). I also like R. Grant Jones' comment on the New Oxford Annotated: "The notes tend to have a higher critical tone to them ... it's good to know what skeptics think of the scriptures."

Yes! Ted’s videos are fantastic: informative and good humor all in one. I was messaging him about the ESV and the Knox Bible recently. Very helpful!

Had the Old Testament been complete, I suspect it would have made my list also. Thanks for commenting, Donald!

Cool.

It's coming this fall 😊​@@RGrantJones

Thanks for the encouragement, DinoDino! I'm glad you find these videos informative.

Thank you for the kind and encouraging comment, Paul!

@@RGrantJones Looking forward, too, to your review of the 2nd edn of the NRSV (which, I understand, will appear before too long!).

I would have included the Geneva Bible on this list if I hadn't made the mistake of including it on my Ten Favorite Bibles video three months ago. Thanks for commenting!

Thank you for that kind comment!

Thanks for those kind words, Susy!

Thanks for commenting, Colleen!

Thanks for the suggestion, CEO Bruh -- and for the encouraging comment!

Thanks for the encouraging comment, Gary! I'm a fan of the notes in the Reformation Heritage Study Bible.

I appreciate the encouraging comment, Philip!

'Inclusive' ? Hmmm... "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."Jésus-ChrisT i.e. God i.e. Adonaï{Authorized Holy King James 1611}

Thank you for commenting, PastorForTheMaster! Glad I could be of service.

Thanks for the suggestion, timothyb!

Thanks for commenting, Peter!

Thanks, Fred! I appreciate the comments.

Thanks for commenting, Thrift Store Bibles!

Do not 'broaden' anything. The way is NARROW and STRAIT, not broad. Sola scriptura.

Thanks for the kind comment, Joshua In The Woods, and for the recommendation!

Thanks for commenting, Rachel! I hope some find it helpful. I often check the older commentaries that are available at no cost through eSword. Matthew Henry is one of those.

Thanks for the informative comment, John! I saw the NRSV edition in a used book store recently, and the NASB edition was available at eBay the last time I checked.

Thanks for commenting, M.A. Moreno!

Perhaps the older RSV NOAB was a bit more tame in terms of neutral tone. However, I cannot say that at all about the newer NRSV NOAB. Some of the notes seem outright gleefully petty and maliciously spiteful towards God and the Gospel. For example: Note for Genesis 1:11-13 - Earth is a feminine noun in Heb. The text thus echoes other ancient mythologies and the life cycle in having a *feminine earth bring forth the first life in the universe* (c.f. Job 1.21.) *God is involved only indirectly here* , commanding the earth to put forth. Some of the notes outright come across more as the sneering, sardonic, catty observations of high school mean girls than of scholars: Excerpt from the note for Genesis 2:19-20- *Yet the Lord God here contrasts with the all-powerful deity depicted in ch 1; The Lord God creates the animals in a comical, failed attempt to make a truly corresponding helper for the human.* Note for Mark 7:27- Dogs, sometimes used as a slur in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. 1 Sam 17.43; 24.14); *Jesus exhibits a surprisingly provincial attitude here.* Not to mention the note writers can barely contain their cringe-worthy Radical Feminism: Excerpt from the note on Genesis 2:21-23 - … *so also the connection of men and women is affirmed through the crowning event of creation; the making of the woman from a part of the man*

@@SolitaireZeta I regard those notes as neutral. You spend quite a bit of time on David M. Carr's annotations for Genesis in particular. Carr is a Quaker, but the notes are not pro-Quaker. He is not using them to advance Quaker beliefs or to convince the readers to become Quakers. That's why they're neutral.

@@MAMoreno So blasphemous and irreverent notes from a clearly secular point of view are neutral as long as they don't push for a specific denomination?

This is why I love the original Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, I found one at a Half Price Books a while back from 1965 and I've been thoroughly pleased with the notes so far!

Thanks for commenting, Joe! It's good to know that I'm not the only RSV NOAB fan still around.

Not a fan of the NOAB, but I do dig the RSV.

Thanks for commenting, Varga Erwin! Shalom.

@@RGrantJones My top :) 10 and 1 :)) I translate you , please wait 3 minute please.

The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible was my #11, I think. I do like the notes, but I don't find the KJV typeface appealing. I'd like to have the notes in a separate volume to use alongside a nicely printed KJV. Thanks for commenting!

I sometimes use Spanish bibles even though it's not my native language. Makes me think a bit more. I'm partial to the LBLA.

Thanks for the recommendations, T K!

Thanks for commenting, Winnie! I didn't come up with detailed criteria and a scoring methodology. I ranked them with my heart.

Thanks for the kind comment, Burnt God!

Thanks for commenting, TJ Tampa!

Thanks for the recommendation, Paladin Hansen!

Thanks for commenting, anónimo2323 !

@@RGrantJones May Jesus bless you richly, both the Orthodox and the Lutheran study Bible are under my radar for quite a while.

I believe Tolkien worked on the translation of Jonah. I don't think he wrote any of the notes, (though I could be wrong). I believe those are from the original French edition.

@@RGrantJones oh I see, thanks!

Thanks for the kind comment, Parker! Manaus Books sells those covers directly and through Amazon. They're called Brodart Clear Vinyl Adjustable Book Slip-covers.

@@RGrantJones Thank you! I'll look them up. As an aside, in your opinion, do you think there will ever be another printing of the 1885 RV? I was glad to see Schuyler bringing back the RSV, so I was curious if you think that trend will continue to rarer and older translations.

@@Ambrose_op - No, I doubt it. The RSV was fairly popular in its day, and there are enough older fans willing to shell out $200+ for a copy of a premium edition to make it worth Schuyler's while. But the RV wasn't very popular, especially in America. I don't think the calculus works.

Thanks for the question, Wilson. I typically don't mark in Bibles, though sometimes I underline or circle in pencil.

Thank you for the kind words! Unhappily, I don't feel qualified to review that Bible, since I don't read French.

@@RGrantJones I'm sorry. I could swear that they did an english version of TOB, but maybe I'm wrong. I say this because they did a Portuguese version in my country, Brazil (Tradução Ecumênica da Bíblia - TEB) wich I'm seriously considering to buy. So that's why I asked you. I hope it get translated in America, specially the 2010 version with all the Apocryphal books included. Best wishes! 👍

That is a map of the Roman Empire, published by National Geographic. Thanks for commenting, We Are Lions!

The Jerusalem Bible and the original New English Bible are my two favorite free/dynamic translations, and I use them both often - though rarely by themselves, since they are so interpretive. What attracts me most about the Jerusalem Bible, I think, is the style of its English.

No doubt, we're all wired differently. Let me add that I don't positively dislike the ESV. But for some reason I can't lay my finger on, I can't seem to love it.

An unused Bible is a terrible waste. If you have a love of the ESV, then read that one. I gave one to my son who has been reading it ever since he received it. He seems to have changed a lot.

To be honest the ESV is about 90% identical to the RSV. The ESV began as a light revision of the RSV, mostly to change a few of its more "liberal" readings (Isaiah 7:14 being the classic example). Personally I think all of the ESV's changes are improvements (and its my preferred translation overall), but either way it's very close to its RSV parent. The NRSV deviates from the RSV far more often and far more significantly than the ESV does for instance.

@@catlorecj424 I am happy to hear about your son, but I don't have an unused Bible. I refer to all of them when I really want to study something. There are many ways to say essentially the same thing in English, but some ways just sink in better, or more accurately, or have the right nuance to enter my brain, my way of thinking, as opposed to yours. That's a great reason to have multiple translations. There's all the more chance that what is being said really registers appropriately in your brain, or your heart. I did give away my ESV Study Bible to someone that only had a paperback New Testament, but I promptly bought a new ESV Study Bible for myself. In fact, it's probably a good idea to have a few extras on hand that you can give away if you are ever confronted with the need.

@@gilbertculloden87 - It's true that the ESV is close to the RSV. I tried to make that point in this video, kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ntWAntpn1dXHeGg.html .

Manaus Books. They also sell them through Amazon.

As far as I know, it's been out of print for several decades. Your best bet is to search online for a used copy.

@@RGrantJones Alright, thanks for replying. I think my best choice at the moment is to order a hardback copy of the Didache Bible by Ignatius Press

Bruce - I've heard of it, but I haven't seen it. It sounds worthwhile.

"The Roman Empire", National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., July 1997. Thanks for the question, Shaun!

I would have no objection to endorsing either one. Thanks for the question, Chris!

@@RGrantJones thanks Mr. Grant

"The Roman Empire", National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., July 1997. Thanks for the kind comment, Samuel!

@@RGrantJones very nice, and thank you for such good content

No, I haven't. I've seen it online, but I haven't used it. I like the old ASV.

I've heard of that series and other viewers have recommended it to me. I may at some point acquire a copy of The Navarre Bible: New Testament, Expanded Edition. Thanks for commenting and, as always, I'm looking forward to your next video.

@@RGrantJones I appreciate the kind words about looking forward to my next video. I always enjoy your videos! In case you didn’t know about them, I did a six-part series called “Authority & Continuity” on the Word on Fire Institute KZfaq Channel.

@@decluesviews2740 - thanks for pointing me to those videos. I'll watch them.

I'll add that to my list of future projects. Please set your expectations low. I'm no expert in it; just a reader.

@@RGrantJones I'm no expert either. I'm a novice in Lutheran theology. I love your content and the timbre of your voice is the cherry on top.

I've reviewed it on this channel, but I haven't read through my copy of it. Thanks for the question!

I don't have a copy, but I may review it some day. Thanks for commenting!

Thanks for the question, GrimRooster. I'm not qualified to do such a video. I don't have much experience with the range of available commentaries.

Thanks for the kind comment, acardnal! I don't have that particular issue with KZfaq and Chrome.

@@RGrantJones Regarding the KZfaq notifications: I used to get a unique email for each subscription channel each time one of the channels I subscribed to posted a new video. One email for each channel. Then it stopped last year or two I think. And now I'll get ONE email that lists ALL the new videos posted to my subscribed channels. Usually at the end of the day. I don't like this change. How do you get notified of new videos?

@@acardnal - not by email. I'm notified at the bell, the same way KZfaq tells me about new comments.

​@@RGrantJones I just got an email (via gmail) notifying me that you replied. Made a Comment. I used to get gmails when new videos posted! But no longer. I don't understand what you mean "by the bell." I Subscribe and Click on the Bell for dozens of KZfaq Subscriptions. But I no longer get Notifications.

It looks like this: KZfaq Logo 🌟 R. Grant Jones replied to acardnal's comment My Ten Favorite Study Bibles R. Grant Jones acardnal - not by email. I'm notified at the bell, the same way KZfaq tells me about new comments. REPLY

I'm fairly old. I remember where I was when I heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated.

. @@RGrantJones | Likewise , And Reminded ( 8 Aug. 2021 ) Of "That Day," Again. If Interested In Hearing What JFK Was Prepared - But Rendered Unable - To Say In Dallas , Texas ( 22 Nov. 1963 ) The Link Below Is Passed Along. Thank You For This Useful Review. "JFK Unsilenced Speech Highlights" ( Re : The Speech NOT Delivered 22 Nov. 1963 ) Published 25 April 2021 By Rothco Channel ( kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nLWZd7Jpp73elp8.html ) 2:36 Mins. .

Yeah, he'a s typical "irenic" wishy-washy boomer pseudo-intellectual. He fancies himself "above the fray."

That's a hard question, allan. I've known Anglicans who used the RSV New Oxford Annotated Bible -- but not because its notes are Anglican in character, but simply because of the information it contains. I knew one who used the Harper Collins Study Bible, but warned others against it because of its skeptical tone. Anglicanism is diverse. Evangelical Anglicans with Calvinist sympathies would likely be fine with the Reformation Study Bible. Other evangelical Anglicans might find the ESV Study Bible or the NIV Study Bible acceptable. The more progressive Anglicans will tend toward the NRSV New Oxford Annotated Bible or the Harper Collins Study Bible. I've known of Anglo-Catholics who were happy with Catholic Bibles like the Jerusalem Bible and the Orthodox Study Bible.

@@RGrantJones Thank you for your reply. I have the Orthodox and NRSV. I've been collecting various versions to get a cross section on current ideas, while comparing them to extant church writings, looking at the evolution of belief within the religion. It's interesting to see what denominations kept certain things, while creating entire new ones. I'm ex Church of Christ, and get into debates with my mother all the time. She is still a member and defends their positions rather blindly, so I'm interested in belief and history to refute her. She has a habit of expecting everyone to follow their customs, whether a member or not. ha ha Anyway, I appreciate your answer, and was unaware at how diverse the Anglican position really was. I was under the impression it was simply the middle of a four point grid between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Luther, and Calvin. I see that is a great oversimplification.

@@allancarmichael835 - The only religious group whose meetings I can recall attending as a child was the Church of Christ (non-instrumental, multiple cups), so I'm somewhat familiar with them. My maternal grandparents were members. Anglicanism is hard to define, and it may have always been that way. In Elizabeth's time, although everyone agreed to the 39 articles (at least in principle), there were conformist members and Puritans, and squabbles over issues like vestments and sports on Sunday. I believe Calvinist understandings of soteriology were common then, and the continental Reformed churches were viewed as sister churches. During the reigns of James I and Charles I, and perhaps a bit earlier, there was a movement toward what came to be known as Arminianism, along with a greater appreciation for beauty in worship. Names like Laud, Cosin, and Lancelot Andrewes (one of the KJV translators) are associated with that movement. Its ecclesiology was less inclusive in that it put more emphasis on the role of the historic bishopric, sometimes viewing episcopacy as essential to the church. Some historians consider that 'beauty of holiness' movement to have been a cause of the English Civil War. After the Commonwealth, Puritanism within the Church of England withered, but there were still evangelicals whose soteriology centered on regeneration and conversion rather than on baptism and communion. Anglo-Catholicism arose in the nineteenth century under the leadership of men like Newman (who eventually became a Roman Catholic saint), Pusey, and Keble. Some Anglo-Catholics I have known affirm all Roman Catholic doctrines except those associated with the papacy. And, of course, there are Anglicans who view their religion primarily as a tool for social change, placing little emphasis on the supernatural aspects of Christianity. The 39 articles are affirmed by the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), and perhaps by some other groups worldwide. In my experience, most Anglicans hold that they have no binding force. Although 19th century Anglo-Catholics attempted to interpret the articles so as to avoid contradicting their own theological positions, modern Anglo-Catholics tend to feel no need to do so and openly disagree with them.

@@RGrantJones Thank you for your informative reply.

Perhaps it would help if I quoted from Bruce Metzger's textual commentary: "After σου (2) the great majority of witnesses interpolate γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς from Mt 6.10. If the Lukan text had originally contained these words, no good reason can be suggested that accounts for their absence from such varied witnesses as P75 B L f1 vg syrc,s arm al." (P75 is an ancient papyrus. B is Vaticanus, a fourth century manuscript. vg stands for the Latin Vulgate. syrc and syrs are two branches of Syriac manuscripts. arm stands for Armenian manuscripts.) Similarly, a note in the NET Bible points out that the omission in found in "weighty manuscripts" and it "cannot be easily explained as arising from the longer reading." In essence, they are arguing those words were included here because copyists tried to make Luke's text look like Matthew's. Had those words been in Luke originally, it's hard to see why they were dropped in the old Greek manuscripts and in the Latin, Syriac, and Armenian textual traditions.

@@RGrantJones Thank you very much for your help and time! This is new knowledge for me!

It is a fairly interpretive translation. I usually read it alongside a more literal one. Thanks for commenting!

He does say there are more books, doesnt he? right at the start?

The #1 Bible isn't Catholic; it is ecumenical. #9 and #5 are Catholic. None of these is in the American Standard Version (ASV), but a few are in the Revised Standard Version (RSV). The RSV is less literal than some other translations, such as the ASV, ESV, and NASB, but I like the way its standard, mid-twentieth century English reads.

Thanks for commenting, Macross DYRL! Yes, that revulsion is understandable. For my part, I prefer translations to leave what's ambiguous in the original languages ambiguous in the target language, so I would have preferred it had the RSV used the archaic pronouns throughout or gotten rid of them entirely. But most people still addressed God using 'thee' and 'thou' in 1946, so their halfway approach is understandable. I very much like the way the RSV reads, and I don't have any desire to abandon it because of its questionable choices regarding pronouns or capitalization. In my experience, using multiple translations helps safeguard against the biases of the individual translation teams. I notice that the ESV capitalized the second 'Lord' in Ps 110.1 but left 'holy one' in Ps 16.10 and 'the sun of righteousness' in Mal 4.2 in lowercase letters. Interesting.

@@RGrantJones Aye, I realize it is ultimately an issue of adiaphoric liberty, and is just a personal hang-up of mine. it's a shame, because other than the questionable choices, the RSV is a beautiful translation. Nice catch on the ESV inconsistencies. I wonder if they are just an editorial oversight or what?

Thanks very much for commenting, Charlene!

It is famous, Hassan, and I used it back in the 1980s. But I just looked at the larger list I drew up when I was trying to downselect to a top 10, and it didn't make that larger list! Thanks for commenting!

I have an NIV study bible and I never use it. I’m no longer an evangelical Protestant and the notes are way too generic for me. It’s extra historical details are interesting but they’re not that theologically useful so I don’t rate it highly.

I believe most historians and sociologists distinguish them.

The NRSV and the 2011 NIV are in modern gender inclusive English, are are some other translations, so you could consider study Bibles with those translations gender inclusive. Thanks for commenting, Luis!

Some words in the original texts were not gendered so it makes sense that they would at least attempt to translate into gender neutral english

@@xLvGx There is a difference between that and using " Gender inclusive modern english". Please just stop.

@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk ok 🥺

The publishers hire workers who use the money they earn to feed and shelter their families, and the workers give a portion of their salaries to their churches. The money diffuses into the local economy, keeping grocers, delivery drivers, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, barbers, teachers, etc., employed. The churches help support the needy and spread the gospel. And what evil deed do these publishers commit, which causes so much good? They print and distribute the word of God in modern English sentences that people read, understand, and believe; men, women, and children hear the gospel, the power of God unto salvation; they believe in their hearts that God raised Jesus from the dead; and they are saved.

@@RGrantJones Thanks for the economics lesson, Mr. Keynes. What subject will you tackle next? Global warming? Fish mongering for fun and profit?

Many of the notes and introductions were written by people influenced by higher criticism. I read the notes because I like to know what academics think, but I don't let them irritate me.

@@RGrantJones I know. Whenever I hear people blaspheme, I just smile and say, "Thank you for sharing your truth, brother."