CSB Worldview Study Bible

The Worldview Study Bible seeks to remind Christians that the Bible is not just a book that we read to feel more religious, we are changed by it, our thinking, our worldview, our perspective of everything is changed when we use it to renew our mind.

This Bible has many articles in it, scattered throughout and dealing with various 'worldview' topics, articles like: "Biblical Models for Business", "Engaging LGBT Advocates", "Emperor and King Worship in Biblical Times", "Animal Rights" , "A Biblical Assessment of Abortion", and so on.  Some of the articles are quite interesting and helpful.  Others, I had some trouble with some of the content.  For instance, in the article on "Biblical Formation",  dealing with various ways one can utilize the Scriptures, it says, "Praying through the Bible flows naturally from Scripture meditation.  Giants of the faith, such as Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, and especially George Mueller, made a habit of praying through Scripture…..Praying the Scriptures helps to assure that one's prayers are biblically sound and pleasing to God."

 I think that if praying through the Scriptures was a way to pray correctly, then Christ would have told the disciples to grab some copies of portions of the Old Testament and pray them. He could have demonstrated by quoting one of the Psalms, or a passage of Isaiah.  But instead he gave them a model prayer.  How does one pray through the book of Leviticus? Or Judges? Should we pray the imprecatory songs, while thinking of a particular person who hates us when we are told in the New Testament to "Love our enemies"?  How would we know that the Scripture we are praying is the right scripture for us to be praying at that moment?  The Apostle Paul shows us that it is already assumed that we will have trouble praying biblically sound prayers, that we do not know how to pray correctly, but that's where the Holy Spirit comes in, "And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;"(Rom 8:26) The Spirit wouldn't need to intercede for us if we already knew how to pray as we ought, and the Bible doesn’t say that we ever will get to a point where we know how to pray correctly, this side of eternity.  That's where our Helper comes in. 

And then, there is an article that seems to downplay the validity of Christian young earth creationists arguing with Christian old earth creationists, as if they should focus on arguing their common enemy (atheistic evolutionists) rather than debate the validity of each other's hermeneutic. But don't we remember that bad doctrine will most likely come from within the "church"?  Aren't we to look out for our brethren and correct them in a fault? Aren't we judging those within the church, see 1 Cor 5:12 (I know, that passage is dealing with practical moral sins, not necessarily bad viewpoints, but its implications may apply here as well), aren't we critiquing the viewpoints of those within our midst, making sure that we all have an accurate view of God's Word? We don't expect the world to listen to us, we don't expect the world to ever have a correct viewpoint, but we do want to help our brethren, fellow Christians, stay away from dangerous hermeneutics.  We are our brother's keeper.      

This Bible also has a good deal of commentary.  A lot of it seems pretty useful, and using a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic.  For instance, in the commentary on Jeremiah 29:11 it says, ""While it is true that from an eternal perspective God has good plans for believers (Ps 84:11; Rm 828), this of cited verse should be understood first with respect to its addressees; exiles who would have to wait an extended time for God to restore them…"  But the hermeneutic seems to change in spots, like in Revelation, where it speaks of the 144,000, "The number 144,000, with multiples of twelve and multiples of ten (completeness), is symbolic of the entire people of God.  That the tribe of Dan is missing while Joseph as well as Manassah (Joseph's son) are listed further supports the symbolic nature of the list."  Huh? How do those things clue us in to this section's not being literal?  The context would seem to indicate that it should most certainly be taken literally. After the description of these tribes, the VERY NEXT verse says,  "After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number".  Differentiating this group of many peoples from the sealed of the twelve tribes of Israel.  How much clearer, could it be?  It differentiates between those in Christ who were sealed from Israel, and points out a more inclusive group later on, encompassing all peoples?  How much clearer could John get in describing what he saw? Does he have to go through each tribe and say, "And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, Judah was the son of Jacob (also called Israel), the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, born in the year such and such.  The tribe of Judah was made up of all of the living descendants of Judah.  The first descendant's name was George, the second, Robert…..the 12,000th, Charles.  And I also saw that their physical features resembled Judah's.  12,000 from the tribe of Reuben were sealed, Reuben was the son of Jacob (also called Israel), the son of Isaac…." Would that make it more likely to be literal?  I suspect that some would think that the more detailed it gets, the more figurative it is.  Omissions and replacements of tribes does not mean that this is not to be taken literally, it probably should be taken VERY literally and the omission of Dan might be significant in some way, taken as such.  We shouldn't assume that the omission of one of the original tribes indicates that this is not Israel.  Why would God HAVE to choose men from the tribe of Dan to be sealed in order for this to be literal, ethnic Israel? Do we not remember what Paul tells us in Romans 9?  Not all Israel is Israel, and that God has the right to choose whomever He wishes within Israel (even individual tribes).     

This "Worldview" Bible has a lot of good notes, and some interesting essays, I just don't like some of the concepts in the essays, nor do I like the inconsistency in the hermeneutics.  Also, the essays scattered throughout seem a bit too distracting.  I think that if you are going to put multiple essays in a Bible it would be better to put them at the end of the book, and then you can just look up the page number in the index if you want to read a particular article, instead of it breaking up the text.  

This particular study Bible is okay but not great.            

Many thanks to the folks at B&H publishers for sending me a free review copy of this Bible! My review did not have to be favorable.    

My Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars

***

This Bible may be purchased at Christianbook.com and at Amazon.com

The Spurgeon Study Bible

The Spurgeon Study Bible is a very neat idea.  As most people somewhat acquainted with Mr. Spurgeon know, he was not a verse-by-verse through a book of the Bible kind of preacher.  He usually would choose a verse (or portion of verses) for one Sunday and would preach on that and then preach on another (non-related, often from a whole different book)verse the next week. And also, some may also notice that his preaching was not always very exegetical.

That being said, this commentary is a great compilation!  It sort of gives a glimpse of how it would have been if Spurgeon went by a more verse by verse preaching style, and it focuses on snippets from his sermons that are more exegetical.

The version that I have is the brown and tan cloth over board Bible.  It is very nicely bound and seems quite durable.  The spine has some fancy looking ridges on it and the front has Spurgeon's signature printed on the bottom left.

There is a lot of good commentary in this work.  But there are also, of course, places where the commentary is not so great. To give an example, in one place he says,  "I hate that plan of reading the Scriptures in which we are told, when we lay hold of a gracious promise, 'Oh, that is for the Jews.'   Then I also am a Jew, for it is given to me!  Every promise of God's Word belongs to all those who have the faith to grasp it…."  That is a ridiculous, irreverent and, to speak very plainly, quite a selfish statement.  Why does everything have to be about us individually? And it absolutely cannot be applied in a general way.  What if there was a married, childless, ninety year old woman who greatly desires to have children and so she reads Genesis and Matthew,  and grasps hold of the promises given to Sarah and Elizabeth, that they would bear children in their old age,  and applies them to herself in faith?  Is that a reverent interpretation of God's Word?

Anyway, I still think that this is a worthwhile Bible to get.  There is a lot of good commentary in here, and of course, it is filled with pithy statements like, "Let us never think that we have learned a doctrine until we have seen its fruit in our lives." and "Anything is a blessing that makes us pray"

And I was particularly pleased at Spurgeon's conclusions in some places that are more or less controversial today.  For instance, in speaking of the flood's being a universal flood some of the commentary says, "If Moses had meant to describe a partial deluge on only a small part of the earth, he used misleading language.  But if he meant to teach that the deluge was universal, he used the words we might have expected that he would use.  I should think that no person, merely by reading this chapter, would arrive at the conclusion that has been reached by some of our learned men - too learned to hold the simple truth of God. " Wow! That's really stating it plainly.

And then, speaking of 1 Corinthians 9-10 ("What no eye has seen, no ear has heard….") he expresses incredulity at "How frequently verses of Scripture are misquoted!  How frequently do we hear believers describing heaven as a place of which we cannot conceive.  They quote verse 9, and there they stop, not seeing that the marrow of the whole passage lies in verse 10.  The apostle was not talking about heaven at all.  He was only saying that the wisdom of this world is not able to discover the things of God, that the merely carnal mind is not able to know the deep spiritual things of our most holy faith…" Rather, these things "must be revealed by the Spirit of God, as they are to all believers."  I was delighted that he had come to that conclusion as I know that my dad (a pastor) has been frustrated by the same thing.

As one would expect with just about anything written by Spurgeon, there is a lot of quotable stuff in the commentary. Overall, it's exactly what one would expect in a Spurgeon study Bible.

Many thanks to the folks at B&H Publishers for the free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable)!

My Rating:  5 out of 5 Stars

*****

This Bible may be purchased at websites like Christianbook.com and Amazon.com

The Cultural Backgorunds Study Bibl

The Cultural Background Study Bible is a Bible that contains a lot of information about the times in which the various sections were  written.  It has many pictures, maps and diagrams, and of course, commentary.  The Bible is pretty large and heavy, but that is to be expected with so much extra content being added to it. 

I must say that this Bible, or rather the extra content of this Bible, had a lot of unnecessary things, and even absolutely indecent things.  First, the pictures.  I don't remember if I've ever reviewed a Bible that had so many indecent pictures in it. There's the obligatory Adam and Eve (as usual, depicted before the fall of man with conveniently placed leaves), there are ancient artistic depictions of women exposing various body parts, including the lower half of the body,  there are ancient depictions of men being circumcised…and so on.  And get this, there's even a clay depiction of a woman bathing (not very detailed at all, but still…) from around, and I quote, the "eighth-sixth century  BC, a few centuries after David saw Bathsheba"! I’m sorry people (sarcastically said), but this is absolutely absurd.  Why would Christians think that looking at photographs of naked people are wrong but that it's okay to stare at a painting, statue, or etching of a naked person?????  I don't care how "ancient" the depiction is, or even how undetailed, it's still wrong.  Hasn't any one considered that some of the stuff might even be ancient pornography?  Whatever the case,  It's a denial of the fall of mankind, it's a denial of original sin, it makes it seem as though it is okay to not be ashamed to stare at other people's nakedness/shame, as long as it is ancient or artistic, and it also provides possible "stumbling blocks" to other Christians.  My understanding of the Bible is not enhanced by looking at unclothed people. 

Second, some of the commentary actually seems blasphemous. Just look at this commentary on  Isaiah 46:9:  "'I am God, and there is no other. ' The Assyrians saw their god Ashur as being the god from whom all other gods derive…In the Hymn to Aten from New Kingdom Egypt, Aten is hailed as the 'sole God beside whom there is none.'  In an environment where numerous other deities claimed power, Israel's God is not making an absolute statement of uniqueness, though he could, according to Israel's theology, rather, he is saying that the readers know his uniqueness through past experience, and this will be confirmed through future fulfillment of God's plans."  WHAT????????????? God is "not making an absolute statement of uniqueness"?  But what does God say in the VERY NEXT STATEMENT IN THAT VERY SAME VERSE ?  "I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE LIKE ME." This is simply shocking.  Let's look at another one:  The commentary on Proverbs 3:19:  "'By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations.'  It is not unprecedented that creation is said to be the product of a deity's wisdom, in the 'Memphite Theology,' the Egyptian god Ptuah is said to produce the world through his heart and tongue, standing for his wisdom and his speech…" Sections in the Bible like this seem to be actually making the case that there WERE/ARE actually other gods like God, without taking into consideration the CONTEXT of the rest of the Bible, and even the evidence of the archeology, that states that other so-called 'gods' are not even gods at all, but rather wood and stone.  Essentially the commentators appear to think it valid to compare God to the attributes that man in his stupidity has ascribed to elaborately carved sticks and stones, and then finding "similar", though imaginary, attributes attributed to those sticks and stones they declare that God is not a unique 'god' and that He is compatible to a rock and a piece of wood.  I hope that they do not mean to do so, but this is STRONGLY implied. 

This is very awkward to say, but I don't like this Bible.  Or rather, I don't like some of the commentary and other additions to this Bible.  I don't know if I've ever said this before, but I'm saying it now:  Don't buy this Bible.  The back of this Bible says, in bold letters: "CONTEXT CHANGES EVERYTHING".  It certainly does.

I received a free review copy of this book from The BookLook Bloggers Program (My review did not have to be favorable). 

NKJV Chronological Study Bible

This edition of the Chronological Study Bible NKJV is a nicely bound chronological Bible.  It has a simple, studious looking  'Leathersoft' cover, brown in color with a big dark blue stripe across its center.  This Bible is full of extra content, almost to the point of being distractingly cluttered.  It has charts and 'timepanels', background notes,  full color illustrations (some are very neat looking while others are not very decent), and maps throughout. 

I have some problems with it though, besides some indecent works of art,  some of the notes and commentary seem rather eisegetical.   For instance, some of the notes dealing with wives being submissive to their husbands make it more of a concession to the culture of the time rather than God ordained. They say things like,  "Paul's command 'Wives, submit to your own husbands' (Eph. 5:22) is at least partly related to concern for Christian witness within the surrounding culture, and is quite mild in comparison to the rest of his culture. What is significant is that Paul modified the culture's values, calling on all believers to submit…Wives were to submit 'as to the Lord' (Eph. 522), and husbands were to love their wives 'as Christ also loved the church"(5:25)  and, "…the structure of these traditional codes was adopted in Christian letters,".

 But the reasons given in the New Testament for wives submitting to their husbands was because of the structure that God had set up, not one man had set up.  It's not that the apostles were adopting and then modifying cultural authority structures in the family and that the headship of a husband over a wife and her submission to him were just necessary cultural evils, rather they were explaining how to correctly implement the authority structure set up by God (husbands loving their wives, wives submitting to their husbands and children obeying their parents.  Ironically, the commentators in this Bible are imposing modern cultural family-structure (equality of husbands and wives = no submission required) views on the Scriptures. 

And of course, you can presume, based upon the hermeneutical method used in interpreting the above concepts in the Bible there are other things that are probably erroneously interpreted as well.  One hint of it is in their use of dates, the numbers they use (like 26,000 years ago) hint at an 'old earth' or theistic evolutionist perspective. 

Oh, and I didn't like some of the chronological arrangement.  For instance, they have some prophecies from Isaiah being read after the fall of Jerusalem.  Part of their reasoning is that, "Other prophetic passages speak of times later than the traditional date of composition for the passage itself.  For example, parts of the Book of Isaiah refer to events that took place centuries after the prophet Isaiah lived.  Though Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the 8th century B. C., the passage of Isa 44:28; 45:1 refers by name to Cyrus, a Persian king who lived in the 6th century .  For this reason , some chapters form the Book of Isaiah appear in the time of Cyrus…"  Umm… didn't God have the prophets prophecy LOTS of things that hadn't happened yet?  It would hardly be unthinkable for God to have the prophets give out a particular name of someone in the future.  Besides, right before God starts prophetically addressing Cyrus He states, "I am the Lord, the maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns  it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers."

Overall, this Bible is very nice looking inside and out (excepting the indecent pictures), but several of the above mentioned aspects keep me from recommending this Bible highly, though there are several redeeming factors, like the timelines, charts, and even other study notes that aren't so biased.  I had reviewed the NIV version of this Bible a while back but seem to have forgotten about several of the problems that I had with it.

I am grateful to have received a free review copy of this book from the Book Look Blogger program(My review did not have to be favorable)

NKV APPLY THE WORD Study Bible

I am disappointed with many of the 'study' Bibles of our day but the Apply the Word Study Bible is quite refreshing in its commitment to prompting one think to about the text one is studying.  he Bible has many "application notes" and also includes maps,  charts and little character profile boxes throughout.    It really is more of an application type of study Bible, not a linguistic study Bible but the application used seems to be mostly exegetically based. 

I think that the application notes are quite good, none of them really seem forced onto any text they're commenting on, even the ones found throughout the books of the law, and prophets, are quite good and don't seem as though someone was grasping at straws (as some study Bibles seem to do) to find an application of those seemingly tedious parts of Scripture and so they come up with some  eisegetical way to get some personal-meaning out of them.

For example, toward middle of Ezekiel one of the application notes reads:

"…when the show was over, so was the people's interest.  They heard Ezekiel's words but did nothing to put them into action.  They enjoyed the presentation but ignored the message…Their curiosity about Ezekiel's sermons did not change their lives.   When faith becomes more about entertainment than genuine commitment, we become spectators rather than players, concerned more with What is the latest word from God?  Than What am I going to do with what God has said? …Self-deception is the worst thing about a faith that exalts entertainment.  True conversion and true obedience involve not just expanded knowledge about spiritual things or good feelings toward God, but changed purposes, commitments, and actions."

Some of the application notes are quite strikingly insightful, In Luke 18, where the blind man begs Christ to have mercy on him there is a note entitles "Holy Interruptions", part of which reads: "Jesus didn't treat these interruptions like intrusions, He let needy people elbow into His life, even when His closest ffriends tried to block their way.  In fact, one could argue that Jesus did much of His work during moments of interruption.  We often grown annoyed at disruptions, feeling as if life has been put on hold.  When are we missing out on some of life's holiest moments?" Though I have heard of similar concepts/teachings about 'holy interruptions',  I had never noticed their significance in Christ's life before and His handling of them.

There were some problems that I had with it though, for instance, some references that were made to specific times when Christians "enter into the presence of God" which concept really seems to discount His omnipresence and His promise never to leave us or forsake us.    I also don't like that some of the notes call the land of Israel 'Palestine', I thought that the land did not become 'Palestine' until Hadrian's day, not to mention that in our day it’s basic area is the state of Israel.  I didn't understand why they didn't call that present day land area 'Israel'.

And then there were some things that seemed laughably odd to me (though they didn't mean them to be),  three samples of which I'll give here. First:  in the intro to each book of the Bible there are lists of key people in that book and key events..etc.  Among the key people of 1st Chronicles is "Sheerah, an Ephraimite woman who built three cities".  Umm…that just seems odd to me as, though she is mentioned, she hardly seems "key" to the account of book of 1st Chronicles. Second: In a chart comparing Joshua and Paul entitled "Profiles of Leadership" the two men are compared to each other, and in the section "Early indications of leadership potential" one of Paul's early leadership displays was  that he "Aggressively tried to stamp out Christianity"?  That just seemed too odd of an example  in my opinion.  And the last that I'll mention is the notes on Matthew 13 where Christ tells some parables, here is a tiny excerpt from the notes, "Jesus captivated listeners by putting spiritual truths into everyday terms they could understand.…His images and language brought His message to life for ordinary people."  But if the author of those notes would have just read vs. 10-17 of that very chapter they would realize that they are contradicting what Jesus said, when the disciples asked Him why He spoke in parables He said that He spoke in parables so that the people WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND!!  Even the disciples did not understand until Christ explained the parables to them.

 But, excepting all of the above and some other things, I was pleasantly surprised at the format and study content of this study Bible.  I have read too many Christian books and even, if I remember correctly, study Bible notes that seem too, for lack of a better term, "lovey-dovey", too "God is in love with YOU!", too uncomfortably and almost irreverentially romantic.  This study Bible is refreshingly un-overly-sentimental…if that makes any sense.  

I received a free review copy of this book from the BookLook Blogger program (My review did not have to be favorable)

This Bible may be purchased at (among other places) CBD and Amazon.com

NIV Zondervan Study Bible

When first received my copy of the NIV Zondervan Study Bible in the mail, my first impression was amazement over its size and weight, it is HUGE!  It is quite impressive on the inside as well, the text of the  NIV is laid out in a one column format instead of the usual 2 columns.  The cross references are placed on the side of the column and study notes on the bottom.  I loved the charts throughout, especially in the OT which included charts summing up what was in certain sacrifices and offerings, and charts on the Lord's appointed festivals, census results, Levite Numbers and responsibilities…etc.  Very helpful.  There were many photographs of Biblical areas throughout, and also pictures of various archeological finds having to do with many biblical events and people.  Those are quite fascinating and interesting.  

Many of the study notes seem quite intricate and useful and exegetical.  Several of the pages are quite packed with notes.  There were various scholars writing the study notes for each individual book of the Bible and you can see the negatives and positives to that.  For instance, I was pleasantly surprised (shocked may be the better term) that the person who did the study notes in 1 Corinthians actually took the literal view of chapter 7, where Paul repeats, affirms and perhaps expounds upon, the Lord's command,  "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):  A wife must not separate from her husband.  But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband must not divorce his wife." 1 Cor. 7:10-11  The writer of the study notes comments:   vs. 11"...There are only two options for a divorced woman: (1) remain unmarried or (2) reconcile with her husband.  a husband must not divorce his wife.  Just as a woman must not divorce her husband; again Paul formulates no exception." Vs. 15, 'Let it be so.'   when a non-Christian spouse divorces a Christian spouse, the Christian cannot do anything about it.  not bound in such circumstances.  it is often suggested that this allows a deserted Christian spouse to remarry since the Christian is not 'bound' to the marriage that has been dissolved.  This interpretation is not plausible:  (1) In v. 11 Paul prohibits remarriage in cases where divorce has taken place. (2) The Greek verb does not mean 'bound'; it means 'enslaved' or 'under bondage.' (3) The thrust of the context is maintaining marriage.  (4) Paul speaks of 'freedom' for a new marriage only in cases when the spouse has died (v. 39; Rom 7:1-3).  If a non-Christian spouse leaves the marriage, the Christian spouse is not responsible for the divorce.  Christian spouses may not initiate divorce from non-Christian  spouses on religious grounds..."  But then where you turn to Christ's comments on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 7 and 19 you find the usual view espoused  (dissolution of a marriage before God in the case of adultery)by whomever wrote the study notes. 

 But now I must talk about the negative aspects of this Bible.  One is not so bad, but some may find it quite inconvenient, and that is that the font is (or seems to me) quite small, and that is aggravated by the fact that it is difficult to lift the book closer to one's face to take a closer look  because it is so heavy.  But if they made the font any bigger the Bible's overall size would be impractical and it would probably end up having to be treated like some old gigantic Bibles of the past where would you just designate a place for it to be left open on its own stand as it would be difficult to transport.

 

The second negative was that the person(s) who wrote the study notes on Genesis did not come down firmly on a literal 24 hour day creation.  For instance in the introduction to Genesis it is stated that, "The question of the age of the earth is not automatically resolved with the use of the seven days in 1:1-2:3.  In 2:4, Moses uses the same Hebrew word for 'day' to summarize all the work of creation…Of course, this does not mean that the term 'day' cannot refer to a 24-hour day in the seven days of creation.  But it may also serve other purposes."    And therefore of course, they also do not firmly promote a global flood in Genesis 6-7 but leave it open to the possibility of its being a regional flood.

 

The third negative is that the Bible has at least a few engravings, paintings and other forms of art picturing unclothed people.  I'll mention three of them  here: First there was a picture of a naked Adam and Eve holding a few tiny conveniently placed leaves…I don't get why they don't at least depict them in the clothing of leaves they had tried to make, or why don't they picture them when God clothed them with animal skins?  Why depict the father and mother of all mankind in what is now their shame???  It is STILL their SHAME, why is it okay for their offspring to have pictures of them in that state???????I don't understand that at all.  And then there was an engraving or something  showing  circumcision being performed on men and it was completely unnecessary, I didn't need to see that.   And lastly there was a painting in the introduction to Psalms that showed unclothed and scantily clothed Egyptian women musicians, the only connection to the Psalms was that they were musicians.   Why? Why choose that one?  I don't care if they are ancient archaeological finds and are considered 'a work of art', I don't care how old it is,  there are bad/immoral works of art from history just as there are bad works of 'art' today!  I don't understand how a person can think that pictures depicting naked people are justified to have in a Bible, rather I see it as an affront and a contradiction to the teachings of the Bible itself.  Think of Christ's statement:  "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "(Mat 5:27-28 ASV).  What if a picture was placed beside it showing a lewdly dressed woman with the caption "ancient depiction of a prostitute", wouldn't that seem a little (sarcasm) contradictory? 

I'm sorry to have to be so negative but I simply had to say something.  I would have rated the study Bible higher if it hadn't been for the bad pictures. 

  

I received a free review copy of this book from the Booklook blogger program in exchange for my review which did not have to be favorable.

NIrV Study Bible for Kids

The NIRV Study Bible for Kids is and interesting concept, but not as well executed as I think that it could have been.  First, there were unnecessary pictures.  I don’t understand why almost everyone has to depict Adam and Eve before the fall, without clothing? Yeah it was okay before the fall, but we live after the fall so to depict them in that way now is shameful. It wasn't as bad a it could be (there were the usual bushes) but was worse than some I've come across…they showed enough to make me more uncomfortable with them than I normally would be.  Wouldn't it be wrong to depict the nakedness of the father and mother of all human beings?  Displaying what is now their shame as art?  Should Christians actually promote this?   Also, they had depictions of Christ, and I still think that that type of thing may break (or at least be on the edge of breaking) the commandment to "not make any graven image" to worship.

The NIrV translation itself seems rather good, but it may be a little too clear in some areas for kids….if that's possible in translating a Bible?  For instance, in Ezekiel, the part where God compares Israel and Judah as prostitutes is a bit graphic, but it may not be more graphic than other translations, just more modern in expression (they appear to be sticking to the text quite well and not unnecessarily expanding on it in those areas).  Just wanted to note that for parents' sake.  But I do think that translation is good overall (though I think that the translator(s) of Romans 7 may have thought that the man with conflicting desires is an unsaved person rather than a saved one).  Here are some examples of verses I liked the wording of:   

 "Don't live the way this world lives.  Let your way of thinking be completely changed.  The you will be able to test what God wants for you.  And you will agree that what he wants is right.  His plan is good and pleasing and perfect." - Rom. 12:2 

"Then Jesus spoke to his disciples, he said, "Whoever wants to be my disciples must say no to themselves." - Matt. 16:24 

"All who take part in the games train hard.  They do it to get a crown that will not last.  But we do it to get a crown that will last forever.  So I do not run like someone who doesn't run toward the finish line.  I do not fight like a boxer who hits nothing but air.." - 1 Cor. 9:26

As I alluded to above, the translation isn't perfect (no translation is), one mistranslation I feel I need to bring up is in Romans 9:  "It is written, "I chose Jacob instead of Esau" - vs. 13  That's a far cry from, "Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate."(YLT).  But they seem to be okay in other parts of the passage: vs 18, "So God does what he wants to do.  He shows mercy to one person and makes another stubborn…" Other places are not translated very accurately as well, but again, no translation is absolutely perfect across the board.   

Again, on the positive side, there are questions in little boxes throughout the Bible that kids can ponder, and a little dictionary at the back than can be pretty helpful, as well as maps.  Anyway, the translation was okay, but maybe a bit too specific in passages speaking sexual related things for kids..maybe… again, that's debatable. Again, can a Bible translation translate a word too clearly? As long as the word is actually translating, and is not expanding on a word or making it refer to more than it does in the actual Greek and Hebrew, is it too clear?  Again, parents should decide this for themselves, as to what there kids should or should not read/know at their ages.  My biggest problem was the pictures, so because of that I can't rate this edition as high as I would have without them.  Otherwise it was pretty good. 

 

I received a free copy of this book from the Booklook Blogger Program(My review did not have to be favorable)

HCSB Study BIble (Large Print) - Mahogany Leather-Touch

I was very impressed when I first opened up the package that contained my review copy of The HCSB Study Bible(large print), it has a beautiful cover, it looks very…..well, I guess the expression that seems most fitting as a description would be 'simply elegant'. I just hoped that the inside 'features' would be impressive as well, and that it wouldn't just be a study Bible that looks really good but doesn't have truly helpful/exegetical study notes. I am glad to report that this Bible is impressive inside and out. 
 

I really liked the goal of the study Bible as stated in the introduction, "As servants of the text, the study tools are designed to keep the focus on Scripture and never on the tools themselves."  And, from what I can tell, they do a pretty good job at meeting that goal.  Even the font for the text of Scripture doesn't hinder or distract one hermeneutically as even the words of Christ are printed in black, not red(I don't know if I've ever seen a Bible where they weren't), so they do not stand out from the rest of God's revelation in the New Testament.   I was also very pleased that the study notes in this Bible have a 'premillennial' bias, at least the ones I read did, the writers of the notes evince a belief in God's future plan for the Jews as a sanctified ethnic people, and His reestablishment of them in the land of Israel with the Messiah reigning over them.  Even in Galatians 6:16 they view the "Israel of God" as being saved Jews, and I've read 'dispensationalists' who doubt the meaning of that phrase, so it was refreshing to have it taken at face value.  

The book has several lists/charts to aid in your reading, charts of the Priests of the OT, Kings, and even charts of the sacrifices/offerings listing which type of offering had what sacrifice.   It also has maps throughout and some neat renditions of what Rome and Corinth  may have looked like, and it also has full color photos of various biblical places throughout. 

Of course(no study notes are perfect), there were some things that I don't think were biblically accurate, for instance, there were some notes holding to the common belief that Christ permitted remarriage after a divorce that was instigated by adultery.  But if marriage is annulled (before God) by adultery then there would be no room for forgiveness because divorce would be a mandate, not an option.  If God views marriage as ended by adultery then the couple would absolutely have to get a divorce otherwise they would be living together out of wedlock….right? And they'd also have to divorce if one of the spouses was lustful in their mind as well because Christ said that that type of lust is adultery.  

 

Also, I was disappointed that there is not an assumption that the Apostle's quotations of the OT were accurate and not simply paraphrased or adjusted to fit what they were saying.  When you get to Hebrews 10, they don't even mention that, though the author of Hebrews' quotation of Psalm 40 doesn't match up with the Hebrew manuscripts available to scholars(they read something like, "sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened") it does match the Greek translation of the Old testament that would have been around in that day(and that that translation was probably used by the Apostles) in that they both read, "a body you have prepared for me"(instead of ears being opened).  I wish they would have at least mentioned in the textual footnotes that other manuscripts agree with certain texts of the Apostles quotations.  

Anyway…moving on.  Other than things like what I addressed above, I like this study Bible a lot(including its large print), it truly seems like a helpful study Bible, though I must warn you, though I don't mind it,  it is very large and a bit heavy - for me that adds to its overall appeal. Its a bit reminiscent of the reformation era style of books...though I guess I'd have to except some editions of Tyndale's Bible and the other ones that were designed to be smuggled...

 

Many thanks to B&H Publishers for sending me a free review copy of this Bible to review!(My review did not have to be favorable)

 

This Bible may be purchased at Amazon and directly from the publisher.

NIV Proclamation Bible

This is going to sound wrong, but for a study Bible, this is a lame one.  Not the Scriptures themselves of course, but the study notes, or rather, lack of notes in this edition.  It has several essays at the beginning of the book, on topics such as "the historical reliability of the Bible', "From text to doctrine:  the Bible and theology", "Biblical interpretation: a short history.  But I didn't like them much as they had several concepts and statements that were more biased towards Covenant Theology, promoting concepts like Christian Jews and Gentiles all being a part of the 'Israel of God', and the Promised land not being limited to a small geographical location like Israel, but now includes the whole earth…or something along those lines.

 Also promoted is a 'Christocentric' hermeneutic…which I still don't quite get.  Why not use a Theocentric hermeneutic, or what about a literal grammatical historical one?  Some of the sections in the Bible, like some of the historical narratives, or some of the genealogies, just point to concepts of God's sovereignty rather than God's plan of salvation. Some just show human depravity like Judges 19.  I just don't see a Biblical case for a Christocentric Hermeneutic. 

Okay, moving on from the beginning essays, all this Bible has are rather short introductions to each book of the Bible, and a cross reference column down the center of each page of the Scriptures.  The introductory notes didn't strike me as very profound but they did include short lists of commentaries for further reading on whichever book of the Bible you're studying. At the back of the Bible is a Concordance.

This Study Bible doesn't strike me as even remotely as great as several of the promotion reviews on the cover make it out to be. 

 

I received a free copy of this book from the Booklook Blogger Program(My review did not have to be favorable)