Thread: Reformation Study Bible vs. The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible

Friends:

I have before me two study Bibles:

R.C. Sproul and Keith Matheson, general editors, Reformation Study Bible, (Orlando: Ligonier, 2005).

Richard Pratt, general editor, Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

Both Bibles claim to be outworkings of the older "New Geneva Study Bible" that RC Sproul edited.

Besides general editor and version (Sproul's ESV; Pratt's NIV) does anyone know what the differences are? How could Zondervan publish theirs when the list of contributors is the same from both?

They are both excellent Bibles. I have both. I like the binding better on the ESV and the text font, but I think the notes are better in the S.O.T.R Study Bible. It is also a bonus to have the Creeds & Confessions at the end of the NIV which Sprouls doesn't have. I like the ESV translation better, than the NIV.

With all that said, the S.O.T.R study Bible is the winner because of the overall notes and additional materials.

My suggestion. Get both!

Both. ESV better. However, notes and confessions in SOTRSB are GREAT!!! Just wish it wasn't NIV.

I prefer the notes and confessions available in the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible over the Sproul bible; however, I do not prefer the NIV translation.

Does anyone know why the SOTR Bible has not been made available in a translation that is acceptable to Reformed people?

Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Does anyone know why the SOTR Bible has not been made available in a translation that is acceptable to Reformed people?

The NIV is acceptable to many Reformed people, but it's losing popularity.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Does anyone know why the SOTR Bible has not been made available in a translation that is acceptable to Reformed people?

Actually the New Geneva Study Bible was supposed to be NIV! The publishing house that started the project (and had a license from Zondervan) went out of business. Another group stepped up to the plate on this but did not have a NIV license, so it was done with the NKJV text, which was later replaced with the ESV text.

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

...why not get the original...

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).

Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.

Email PB member: jawyman

He used to work for Zondervan and I think that he has a few copies.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).

Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.

Email PB member: jawyman

He used to work for Zondervan and I think that he has a few copies.

Benjamin--Ligonier Ministries Store has both hardcopies and genuine leather editions of the New Geneva Study Bible in the NKJV.

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

...why not get the original...

Seth,

I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.

BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, IMHO, do not meet this confessional requirement.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

...why not get the original...

Seth,

I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.

BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, IMHO, do not meet this confessional requirement.

Oh, don't get me wrong: I love my New Geneva Study Bible (NKJV) for that exact reason. I do, however, believe the 1599GB is easier to read than the KJV and is a great tool.

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by sastark

Seth,

I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.

BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, IMHO, do not meet this confessional requirement.

Oh, don't get me wrong: I love my New Geneva Study Bible (NKJV) for that exact reason. I do, however, believe the 1599GB is easier to read than the KJV and is a great tool.

Me too!

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Me too!

Originally Posted by caddy

They are both excellent Bibles. I have both. I like the binding better on the ESV and the text font, but I think the notes are better in the S.O.T.R Study Bible. It is also a bonus to have the Creeds & Confessions at the end of the NIV which Sprouls doesn't have. I like the ESV translation better, than the NIV.

With all that said, the S.O.T.R study Bible is the winner because of the overall notes and additional materials.

My suggestion. Get both!

However, (though I have both) I find that I tend to reach for the (NKJV) New Geneva Study Bible before either of the others. I prefer the NKJV over either NIV or ESV ... but I'm wierd like that.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).

Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.

Try Third Millenium Ministries. The leaders of it are basically who produced the NIV SOTR. Apparently they are out of the hardcover but their prices on the leather are barely more than you'd pay retail for hardcover. It looks like supplies are becoming scarce and I wouldn't be surprised if this goes out of print soon, a casualty of the NIV's decline in popularity among the Reformed as well as the ESV Reformation Study Bible coming out soon after this did. I never saw many copies of this bible in the stores anyway compared to the ESV RSB.

Also see here.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

...why not get the original...

Seth,

I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.

BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, IMHO, do not meet this confessional requirement.

I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.

In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

How could Zondervan publish theirs when the list of contributors is the same from both?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Margaret

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by sastark

Seth,

I do have this as well. Maybe I am a bit crazy- I have all three earlier mentioned: New Geneva, SOTR Bible, and Reformation Study Bible.

BUT, the reason that I am not a big fan of the Geneva translation or even the AV, is that I am confessionally bound to the Word of God being translated into the vulgar tongue (WCF 1.7) The Geneva, and AV, IMHO, do not meet this confessional requirement.

I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.

In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.

I don't know what happened to the "thanks" button, but thankyou for this post - I agree completely!

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.

In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.

Not wanting to debate either, but I will only ask one question in response: Can you name a single, living person who speaks King James English?

And, just so you know, I don't think either of us were saying our comments resolve any disputes, only that we both agree on this point, which is why we use modern translations like the NKJV.

Again, not wanting to debate, just wanting to clarify (and ask a rhetorical question).

Originally Posted by sastark

Again, not wanting to debate, just wanting to clarify (and ask a rhetorical question).

Isn't this a contradiction? I believe rhetorical questions are a tool of rhetorics in general.

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

I don't wish to debate this topic, but I would suggest reading one of the many threads dedicated to your point. May I just point out that your comment does not necessarily resolve all disputes on the matter.

In our case the vulgar tongue is English. The Geneva and AV are both translated into English and English in its finest and most accurate form regardless of who may be literate or illiterate - it is proper and recognized English. "Vulgar" as used by the authors of our confessions, does not mean slang or dumbed down English simply because the vast majority of the English speaking population has failed in speaking or understanding the English tongue.

Not wanting to debate either, but I will only ask one question in response: Can you name a single, living person who speaks King James English?

No I cannot. I am not even sure the confessional divines whom you quoted in regards to using vulgar tongue spoke in King James English. However, whether the common man understands his language or not, the language is still English. I do not believe the language used to interpret holy writ should be based on the democratic majority of the use of that language. The language is what it is whether ignorant man wants to twist the meanings of words or not. If I start a new fad that catches on where the word "righteous" means "wicked," shall we update the Bible due to man's corruption and or ignorance of his own language?

My overarching point is not that you or anyone else should only read the AV (I personally use ESV primarily these days), but that the "vulgar tongue" argument or excuse does not apply.

I prefaced my original comment because I realize this is off topic, I just couldn't let one side remark go by without another side remark in response.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by sastark

Again, not wanting to debate, just wanting to clarify (and ask a rhetorical question).

Isn't this a contradiction? I believe rhetorical questions are a tool of rhetorics in general.

yes, thus the sticking out of the tongue smiley (a vulgar tongue I might add).

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

Although I agree it is very handy and nice to have the creeds and confessions in the back of the SOTR Bible, I find myself almost never using it because it is NIV which I try not to use, especially for studying.
I got the NKJV New Geneva Study Bible about a year ago which I really like (because of the version). Mind you, this was the version I believe the other two were based off of...why not get the original (or all three).

Know a good place to buy this? The only place I could find was Amazon.

Try Third Millenium Ministries. The leaders of it are basically who produced the NIV SOTR. Apparently they are out of the hardcover but their prices on the leather are barely more than you'd pay retail for hardcover. It looks like supplies are becoming scarce and I wouldn't be surprised if this goes out of print soon, a casualty of the NIV's decline in popularity among the Reformed as well as the ESV Reformation Study Bible coming out soon after this did. I never saw many copies of this bible in the stores anyway compared to the ESV RSB.

Thanks for the tip. I already ordered my leather copy of SOTR. It was practically the same price just as you indicated. Thanks again, for poiinting that out. Now if we could get the text to be something other than NIV . . . .

If we argue that English is the 'vulgar' then why don't we use something even more pure like Chaucer English or Beowolf English... why go for such a watered down modern form like Elizabethan?

There was a time when the western world spoke Latin and the Vugate would have been fine- but the Papists made an idol out of their translation... should we do that with the AV, or should we give the people the Bible in their language?

Originally Posted by nleshelman

If we argue that English is the 'vulgar' then why don't we use something even more pure like Chaucer English or Beowolf English... why go for such a watered down modern form like Elizabethan?

There was a time when the western world spoke Latin and the Vugate would have been fine- but the Papists made an idol out of their translation... should we do that with the AV, or should we give the people the Bible in their language?

Nate, that is an excellent point. In fact why even go for a watered down language like English at all, why not keep it in Latin?

The English Language is good for business purposes, the German for War, and the Latin to speak to God (Popular Spanish Remark).

Originally Posted by nleshelman

If we argue that English is the 'vulgar' then why don't we use something even more pure like Chaucer English or Beowolf English... why go for such a watered down modern form like Elizabethan?

There was a time when the western world spoke Latin and the Vugate would have been fine- but the Papists made an idol out of their translation... should we do that with the AV, or should we give the people the Bible in their language?

It sure sounds like someone wants to start a debate...

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

The English Language is good for business purposes, the German for War, and the Latin to speak to God (Popular Spanish Remark).

Most interesting...

I am not a big "fan" of Study Bibles. I would rather have my King Jimmy and a Matt Henry commentary set! I kick it old school!

I agree about English and German. But, why would anyone try speaking in Latin to God? Don't they know he put the Gospel into GREEK, not Latin? Latin was for corrupt political types, effete elites, and PB scholarly wannabees. "Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!"

Originally Posted by etexas

I am not a big "fan" of Study Bibles. I would rather have my King Jimmy and a Matt Henry commentary set! I kick it old school!

Kind of a Matt Henry study Bible?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

I agree about English and German. But, why would anyone try speaking in Latin to God? Don't they know he put the Gospel into GREEK, not Latin. Latin was for corrupt political types, effete elites, and PB scholarly wannabees? "Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!"

Well, it's all Greek to me...even English sometimes.

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Originally Posted by etexas

I am not a big "fan" of Study Bibles. I would rather have my King Jimmy and a Matt Henry commentary set! I kick it old school!

Kind of a Matt Henry study Bible?

No they make a Matt Henry Study Bible but the notes are MUCH shorter! I mean what I said I like my Allan King James , and the 6 volume Matthew Henry Commentaries.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

I agree about English and German. But, why would anyone try speaking in Latin to God? Don't they know he put the Gospel into GREEK, not Latin? Latin was for corrupt political types, effete elites, and PB scholarly wannabees. "Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!"

It has more to do with the Western Church and the Holy Roman Empire, when there was a time in the church (western church primarily) when theologians, teachers, bishops, etc. wrote in Latin. A good example is Martin Luther thesis which he wrote in Latin.

Well, after much consideration, I have ordered a copy of the SRSB. The NIV is not my favorite translation (I guess there ARE much worse out there), but it is what is being used at the parish I am serving in. After reading some of posts here, I am very attracted to the idea of the additional features and better notes the SRSB has over the RSB (which I have a copy of as well).