Great work. I’m a mainline pastor in a “purple” congregation, and I am always so happy to find your work consistently even-handed, generous, and centered on the 8th commandment. Great info-not free of judgment, just respectful and open to respectful discussion.
DiscipleDojo, I like that you are your honest self, you have your own opinions, but still you read and respect scholar with whom you disagree. I like your adult attitude.
I'm extremely conservative in my beliefs, but I do have many 'liberal' study Bibles. Why? Echo Chambers will stunt your growth. Don't be afraid of different beliefs.
Yes, but in practice the term "liberal" tends to be thrown at those who do things or believe things differently from how the speaker does and believes, rather than at those who do or believe things differently from the Bible.
Great video! As a Bible nerd the New Interpreters Study Bible is my favorite academic study Bible out of those because of its notes. I feel like it offers more commentary on passages than other ones.
I am a moderate, too. I appreciate your videos. You are so respectful of other people's views. I have some to catch up on because we were without power for a while.
I think both liberals and conservatives have something to bring to the table. I don't want to discount anyone. All the same, it is important to be discerning. God gave us brains! Let's use them!
Thank you. I have been through evangelical and mainline theologies. I went to an extremely evangelical college and a mainline seminary. It is refreshing to hear your fair, calm genial approach. I REALLY appreciate your efforts to talk through these different Bibles in a thoughtful, civil way. As a mainliner, I thank you for your kindness.
I know this video is about Study Bibles and not translations, but, with that, I prefer more conservative Bible translations. Yet, last year I chose to read the RSV. I must admit, I really enjoyed it.
If I were building a library sized book collection, Isaac Asimov’s books on the Bible would be right at the top of my list. I once attended a Bible study class that always included it when we were searching for useful insights about the passages we studied.
It'd be nice someday to find someone approach the bible as normal ancient literature, and see where that goes. Instead, aside from the people who treat it as perfect, we get people who treat it as worse than normal ancient literature. When people discuss Herodotus, Virgil, or Aristotle, they don't conduct uncontrolled word studies to "prove" that multiple people wrote it. They don't say that any claim not found elsewhere is automatically false. They don't try to guess what community need a century later was redacted into the text
Appreciate this video and your views on this. I'm not a huge fan of study Bibles personally. I prefer my study materials and commentary options to be separate and to consult them in my studies. As far as labels, i really don't care for them, or what they do as far as separateting the body of Christ into factions. As far as i can see, both the so called "Conservative and Orthodox" traditions, Evangelical traditions, and the so called "mainline" "liberal" branches of the church have much truth, as well as error. Both "traditions" have very good scholarship and some not so good biased scholarship to try and fit their favorite traditions. For me the views or traditions of those whom God uses to get us translations of his word into our English language is of less importantance to me than the fact that they get us his word in our language. Can views and prejudice creep into translation? Absolutely, as much for Evangelical translations as for mainline translatios. And in fact as far as i can see sometimes the Evangelical biases and prejudice can present a translation choice that is not as accurate or as likely correct a translation option for certain Scriptures, where as the mainline versions and translators, who are not held to a so called Orthodox view that they have to fit the Bible to say, will actually present a better translation in the text, or perhaps at least in a footnote. Dan Wallace has pointed this out about the ESV and its translators. I still prefer mainline Bibles by far over Evangelical translations, and will likely do so for my entire life. Unless any revisions or new mainline translations go too far in any direction. Then i will avoid that version, and will stick the the RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, CEB. God bless 🙏
You are spot on about avoiding skeptical scholarship being hypocritical if you criticize liberals for doing the same. I have an ex-evangelical friend who complained that he couldn't use the IVP collection of dictionaries because they came from a conservative perspective. Who knows, maybe we will find a genuine observation someone makes from the same text we are looking at. Reading does not equal agreeing.
This was a super interesting video. The only ones I have are the two Oxford study Bibles, and, as a (former?) Catholic, I prefer the RSV over the NRSV. Although I DONlove the Psalms from the 5th edition! Not sure why. I guess maybe it’s because I prayed the Liturgy of the Hours faithfully every day for almost 25 years, and the NRSV Psalms are very close to the liberal translation the current LOTH uses. Love the LOTH and (used to) love the Catholic Church, but realized a few years ago that I was spiritually dying in the Catholic Church. So I left. You can get out of the Catholic Church but the Catholic Church won’t get out of you! I compare and contrast everything with my previous doctrinal understanding. Well, I’m not so bad at it anymore, but at first it was nonstop. Anyway, super interesting video, thank you! I have subscribed and eagerly await your next video.
You mentioned Richard Hays - any thoughts on his hard swing from "non-affirming" to "affirming"? I haven't read his latest book yet, but I know it's created quite the stir.
I was rather pleasantly surprised by my CEB Study Bible. Not my school of thought and not my favorite translation, but there's some parts of it that I really like even when I disagree with it. Just wish I'd gotten one with the Apocrypha.
When I first read “God’s DNA,” I did a spit take and then had a giggle fit. My kids’ reaction was really interesting: they said, “God knows what DNA is, he created it,” and, “It’s better than reading about God’s seed.”
I have the Noab w/apoc in the nrsv, college edition. Which is basically impossible to find. It's a wonderful study resource. It's not for everyone though. I do think you should have at least a semi solid foundation before approaching a bible like this. As I don't see it as an affirming bible. As my everyday read, Nasb is. I would call it academic, in being so, it could pose a challenge to some. But, if you're looking to bank knowledge without leaning, it's a strong resource. Many have very strong views against it. Something Ive come across first hand. For me it's helped strengthen my knowledge of biblical study as a whole. It hasn't been a crux in my faith and has actually helped broaden the scope of what it means to be a believer. 👍
I think the term "modernist" is more helpful and less confusing than "liberal". It also gets to the heart of the issue: some in the mainline denominations began to adjust their theology and their approach to interpreting the Bible to conform to what they saw as "scientific truth." Once you "know" miracles don't actually happen, how do you explain this passage?
I well remember our talking of ‘modernist’, when I was a lad of fourteen in Scotland in 1961! Even then, the Church of Scotland had its modernist ministers!
Is the Harper-Collins Study Bible the same or similar to the old Harper Study Bible edited by Harold Lindsell? I have one and like the minimal notes. I haven’t read every note. I generally don’t unless I have a question. I read this one so much the leather deteriorated to the point I had to have it rebound.
I'd prefer "academic" for some of them (Oxford or SBL Study Bible). Academic means that people can discuss things on a common ground in a common method with people who don't agree with you but still agree with your own method and ground. People can be conservative but still academic. Conservative doesn't mean stupid. And I see many conservative people do good academic jobs.
thanks for your thoughts, so I don't have to read these study bibles lol I often am irritated too much when a scholar talks about the scripture not being the Word of God. How can the Spirit breathe through that?
When I studied Theology (back in the 90's) one of the heads of Old Testament studies was a communist (it was seen as a joke) little did we know.. Having read Hebrew and Greek and studied translating under great teachers I usually translate for myself. I often find that the problem I have with any Bible is the way it is translated. Great posting....
Disciple dojo this is a heads up, I am an orthodox Catholic, you may be interested at the end of the year the same Ignatius Catholic study Bible will be published in full, I recommend you acquire a copy, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. I have ordered a copy for myself it comes in the revised standard version2 Catholic Edition. I have the Didache Bible RSVCE 2🔥🤟💪
Non-religious believer here. Nice video. Appreciate your tone. But you need to give a clearer definition of what you mean by “liberal” and “conservative” in the context of your discussion. Do you mean those words in a political sense (I.e. the translations can be interpretted as supporting liberal or conservative public policy, or in the sense of, for example, literal vs non-literal interpretations of scripture. Nice job.
I own five of the nine study Bibles you included in this grouping. The bulk of the study Bibles I own are in more conservative traditions, so I own an ESV, the NET, three NIV, and three KJV Bibles. Perhaps this means I somewhat prefer conservative or confessional scholarship, but in the last few years I find evangelicalism leaving a strong and decidedly unpleasant taste in my mouth. We now know that most self-described Evangelicals put politics and their vision of country far ahead of any legitimate theological consideration. In fact, we see every day that most Evangelicals strongly--vociferously, even violently--assert what can only be called demonic impositions over humanity. These assertions are to be reviled, brought into the full light of Biblical truth, and condemned as antithetical to Christianity and civility. These culturally-obsessed people, who erroneously call themselves Christian, daily and unceasingly work against Jesus. Yours is one of the few conservative voices I continue to respect. I submit that you and other genuine conservative Christians need to do some *serious and sustained* reflection on what your traditions really mean. If you don't do this now, people will eventually--and possibly quite suddenly, as in Canada--leave your churches, which will then be converted into parking lots.
@@DiscipleDojo Yes! And this has been true for at least the last 40 years, possibly since the 2nd World War. But people are not inherently evil, and this is true even if you believe the 'dung heap' is covered over with snow after we commit ourselves to Christ (i.e., after baptism). What this truth tells me is that some significant number of Evangelicals, after 8 or 10 or 12 years of believing their political leaders were God's anointed--and only after these many years discover the truth--that their great conservative leaders were self-serving liars, cheats, and criminals--are going to become deeply disillusioned, and not only in their politics, but more importantly in their faith. This is because they long ago stopped worshipping Jesus and instead worshipped their political leaders. Many of these who become disillusioned will turn away from the church, since their churches have, over the last 9 years, become dens of demon worship. These are not evil people--most of them--most of your friends and neighbors. They won't want to continue serving demons, so they'll either look for a real church or simply throw in the towel or come to think (or believe) that they were never true believers but instead were misled. You think it won't happen. My friend, look to Quebec, which until the mid-1950s--the beginning of the Revolution tranquille--was 95 to 99 percent Roman Catholic, and most of these Catholic Christians were deep into their faith. By the time we get to 1970, most RC churches have closed, RC schools have ended operations, and hardly anyone considers the RCC to have any relevance. "Ah," you say, "that's because Catholicism is not true Christianity." Look then to Europe or Canada as a whole. What took 15 years in Quebec took a bit longer in Europe and Canada, but the result is the same. Conservative Canadian Christian? The phrase is an oxymoron. There's practically no such animal north of the 49th. More than likely, you're going to lose your church, regardless of the particular confessional tradition you attempt to honor in your life and prayer. Maybe you believe your RC friends are true Christians. If so, you can learn a lot from what happened in Quebec. I know the basics--I've read several books on the Quiet Revolution--but I remain unable to account for the speed of the conversion and the extreme nature of the 180 from deep faith to agnosticism or outright atheism. Perhaps most people--like current-day Evangelicals--are cultural 'christians' who don't believe much of anything (but think they do) but act out of allegiance to cultural norms. I don't want to believe that, but the idea is consistent with events. Perhaps there is some other explanation that does not require placing most people who claim to believe into some great basket of deluded worshippers of culture and self. Maybe you think this is all a bunch of rubbish. The facts are not on your side. Most Evangelicals, when given a choice, have gone into the voting booth and chosen evil. They did so at least twice, and they are now poised to do so again for a third time. You know that's true, if you're honest with yourself, and that truth has to hurt A LOT. I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure, if you wish to save conservative Christian traditions, you're going to have to sit down with many, many other leaders--not with the ones who handed their souls over to political leaders--and you're going to have to figure out what it was in your various traditions that allowed such an alignment with evil to occur. What's broken in your traditions? Are there heretical elements in theology or practice? I don't claim to know. I'm as baffled as anyone else. Maybe there's nothing wrong with your theology or practice. But you need to scrutinize honestly and deeply, over many years. If not, I'm pretty sure your church is going to be paved over or become a nursing home or a school. People who live in glass houses--yes, absolutely. The RCC has lost many parishioners because of the pedophile priest scandal. We have plenty of very dirty laundry to deal with, there's no question. I'm not throwing rocks here, though I certainly live in a glass house. I'm a mainline Catholic Christian with some conservative beliefs. I am equally at home at a Presbyterian or Methodist service and the Catholic mass. In fact, for many years I attended Catholic mass, then coffee and donuts in the basement, and then drove my car across town to attend Sunday service at First Presbyterian. I'm definitely no militant Catholic. I consider just about any Christian denomination to at least have the ability to faithfully represent the teachings of Christ and the lessons of the Tanakh. I have no answers, only questions, and I don't know the future, but I believe I have learned some bitter and unpleasant lessons from the past, and thus my appeal to you in this forum. PM 2024
Ok. I looked around could Not find where your review might be of the NIV Study Bible would be? Where could I find your review, if there is one? Thanks?
For me, there's the Oxford Annotated, and then there are the inferior imitators. From what little I've read of it, the CEB Study Bible seemed okay, even if it felt like a stealth second edition of the New Interpreter's Study Bible. (Maybe it's just that Theodore Hiebert commentary in Genesis.)
@@my3461 Either one is solid. (And the first edition to use the NRSV was a light update of the RSV editions. It's with the 3rd Edition that major changes were made.)
It’s unfortunate that I didn’t see this video earlier. I purchased the Jewish Study Bible because I wanted a JPS translation and a Jewish perspective for reference. Now I will need to find a different reference for a traditional Jewish perspective.
Might be worth a rerelease where you don’t say liberal. So triggering for many. Judging from the comments (A) people were generally not encouraged to pick up a study bible with an academic approach, and (B) the thumbnail was effective
My Nrsv Bible is the Harper Collins Bible you have right there. I try to keep only one copy of any translation. As far as liberal or whatever, you are mostly saying you don't agree with them. I guess that is valid. As valid as any position.
There's a kind of wisdom in being able to learn from even one's enemies. Of course, one must first be firmly grounded in one's own beliefs and values, viz. biblically conservative Christianity. But given this rootedness, one can learn from others. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, as it were. 😊
Hi! I’m a progressive Christian. I hope I am not your enemy! If I am, I hope you can find it in your heart to obey the words of Jesus and love me! Yikes!
@@kjmav10135 Ah yes, of course I'd love you even if you're my "enemy"! 😊 And part of loving my enemy is telling them the truth, urging them to come back to the truth, which in the case of the progressive Christian would mean calling them to turn away from their progressive Christianity and turn toward biblical faithfulness. In fact, I've done that with progressive Christians like Randal Rauser, though sadly he didn't seem to take what I said too well and unfortunately he remains a progressive Christian.
@@philtheo I know you probably mean well. I am a faithful follower of Jesus and a careful reader of the Bible. I am sure your faith is very deep. So is mine. Obviously, TH-cam comments aren’t the place for deep theological discussions. I just wanted to point out that we don’t have to think of each other as “enemies”. I hold you in the wideness of God’s mercy. Be well.
@@kjmav10135 Sure, I appreciate it! 😊 Also I'll just point I never held you as my enemy. Nor did I ever say progressive Christians are my enemy. All I said was we can learn from even our enemies. That doesn't mean I think progressive Christians are my enemy. I was only attempting to make an a fortiori argument, that is, if it's true that we can learn from even our worst enemies, then surely we can learn from others as well.
I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to believe in Divine Insipration. If the evangelicals have the stronger case, how come are they inhabiting the chairs at Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Aberdeen, Heidelberg, Tübingen, Münster, Lund, Helsinki etc?
For those of us who didn't go to seminary, I would love a list that has which translations do the best job for specific verses. I am just curious what others are thinking since I do not know Greek.
@@flowerlassit's difficult because sometimes different translations of one verse can be valid. What matters is the arguments for translation choices and an explanation of why, but that would be too much info for a written Bible
It's odd to me that liberal and academic are synonymous. At the same time these books are mostly avoided by evangelicals. There's nothing wrong with reading scholarly opinions and educating yourself. We don't have to let these books obscure our faith. Faith is faith.
If that established orthodoxy is there for a reason, it should be there for all time. Like God’s view in homosexuality, the trinitarian view of God, etc.
I dunno man. I myself have a OASB just for understanding popular skepticism, so I get it to some extent. BUT I definitely think something like the MacArthur is infinitely more valuable than any of these. Yet you won't touch that one on your channel. Sometimes I think you are a little more liberal than you acknowledge to being (as you said in the video, let's not attach any negative connotation to that beyond the basic definitional meaning in this context). Tbh some of these SBs are poison to a Christian with a high view of scripture. You yourself know from your own former denomination (mine as well) the theological ruin that comes from cheapening God's word. I say this with respect as someone who has watched a lot of your content, bought one of your books, and donated just a little bit.
@@MO-bo2du I appreciate the feedback. But I would put MacArthur in the harmful category alongside some of these, honestly. But I would probably be considered liberal by fundamentalists and fundamentalist by liberals. (To clarify though, I don't like reviewing celebrity preacher/author Bibles, even if I were to agree with their content, so that's why I haven't reviewed MacArthur, Evans, Ryrie, Scofield, Stanley, etc.)
@@DiscipleDojo I can't imagine considering MacArthur harmful. I know you are much more accomplished than myself so I am sure you have good reasons. Maybe you won't review his SB, but some day I would love to see a more in-depth explanation of your critiques in some form. I can see why you would disagree with him on various issues of interpretation and second-order doctrines, however it's hard for me to get to that level of calling him "harmful", you know what I mean? To the specific point we're discussing here, what I appreciate in particular is his unapologetic commitment to the Bible's inerrancy and authority. There's a quote in a lot of his books, something like [paraphrasing] "either science agrees with the Bible, or it is wrong". Now we all know there are many interpretive caveats to that statement (understanding genre and context and all that), but I absolutely love and agree with the underlying commitment. I have seen enough of Christian liberalism to be convinced of how CRITICALLY important this fundamental commitment is to our spiritual lives (thinking of the classic "descent of the modernists" drawing as I type this). Therefore, I would recommend any teacher with a high view of the scriptures all day long over any form of "high criticism". Covenantal, dispensational, doesn't matter at the end of the day as those are disagreements among brothers/sisters, whereas imho text criticism is 100% a slippery slope that can and does lead people into deadly errors. To be clear, I think you CAN be an orthodox Christian without believing in inspiration/inerrancy. But I also know from experience that so many that buy into an untrustworthy Bible ultimately end up in a place outside core Christian dogmatics. I hope I'm making sense. Sorry I'm always so long-winded, can never seem to help myself.
I'm glad you believe people can be orthodox Christians without believing in inerrancy. I can't imagine anyone being orthodox and not believing the scriptures are in some way inspired. Regarding MacArthur, he has no doubt helped many people come to faith in Christ. I appreciate his ferver for evangelism and the proclamation of the gospel. Having said that, not being a Calvinist, I don't agree with his interpretation of scripture on many levels. In addition, he's a very narrow kind of Calvinist. That disturbs be even more.
As a liberal Christian who preaches at my church, I have the Harper Collins and the CEB open in front of me when writing sermons. (Got my eyes on the NKJV study bible next though 😂)
My preference for translations and study Bibles is the CEB Study Bible, the SBL Study Bible (NRSVue) and the NOAB (NRSV). I also use The Inclusive Bible. So I would probably be a "liberal" by your standard.
Great work. I’m a mainline pastor in a “purple” congregation, and I am always so happy to find your work consistently even-handed, generous, and centered on the 8th commandment. Great info-not free of judgment, just respectful and open to respectful discussion.
DiscipleDojo, I like that you are your honest self, you have your own opinions, but still you read and respect scholar with whom you disagree. I like your adult attitude.
This is thoughtful, civil, really well-articulated content that I find truly informative. Thank you!
I'm extremely conservative in my beliefs, but I do have many 'liberal' study Bibles. Why? Echo Chambers will stunt your growth. Don't be afraid of different beliefs.
Yes! That is absolutely true. You need to know what you believe and why.
Other interpretations should not get us all freaked out.
Except when those beliefs are heretical
@@Silvercrypto-xk4zyThe only thing heretical is fundamentalism.
Liberal study Bibles will sharpen you and force you to study deeply and create strong arguments for your position
@@LATERANRUMAO Or you could actually try to understand what they’re saying, instead of assuming it’s wrong.
There is an irony in “liberal” being seen as less “by the book” when the Latin word liber means book.
Yes, but in practice the term "liberal" tends to be thrown at those who do things or believe things differently from how the speaker does and believes, rather than at those who do or believe things differently from the Bible.
Brother, I really appreciate your channel because of your content. God speed in your endeavors and I cantt wait for your next video
God bless this channel and ministry! To discipledojo, keep up the great work!
The CEB Study Bible with Apocrypha is back in print.
@@GeraldJMast that's good to know.
Great video! As a Bible nerd the New Interpreters Study Bible is my favorite academic study Bible out of those because of its notes. I feel like it offers more commentary on passages than other ones.
I am a moderate, too. I appreciate your videos. You are so respectful of other people's views. I have some to catch up on because we were without power for a while.
The man who introduced me to the newest NIV study Bible was my episcopal priest (you just never know).
I think both liberals and conservatives have something to bring to the table. I don't want to discount anyone. All the same, it is important to be discerning. God gave us brains! Let's use them!
Oh thank you, your Bible reviews are so helpful.
Thank you. I have been through evangelical and mainline theologies. I went to an extremely evangelical college and a mainline seminary. It is refreshing to hear your fair, calm genial approach. I REALLY appreciate your efforts to talk through these different Bibles in a thoughtful, civil way. As a mainliner, I thank you for your kindness.
I know this video is about Study Bibles and not translations, but, with that, I prefer more conservative Bible translations. Yet, last year I chose to read the RSV. I must admit, I really enjoyed it.
@@FredHenry1850 the RSV is a good translation.
If I were building a library sized book collection, Isaac Asimov’s books on the Bible would be right at the top of my list. I once attended a Bible study class that always included it when we were searching for useful insights about the passages we studied.
Love the Miles Davis shirt. Kind of Blue is the best jazz album of all time IMO, and his work with Gil Evans is unparalleled.
Agree! He and John Coltrane are consistently in my playlist.
So glad I wasn't the only one to see that. Davis is so good.
It'd be nice someday to find someone approach the bible as normal ancient literature, and see where that goes. Instead, aside from the people who treat it as perfect, we get people who treat it as worse than normal ancient literature.
When people discuss Herodotus, Virgil, or Aristotle, they don't conduct uncontrolled word studies to "prove" that multiple people wrote it. They don't say that any claim not found elsewhere is automatically false. They don't try to guess what community need a century later was redacted into the text
Appreciate this video and your views on this.
I'm not a huge fan of study Bibles personally. I prefer my study materials and commentary options to be separate and to consult them in my studies. As far as labels, i really don't care for them, or what they do as far as separateting the body of Christ into factions.
As far as i can see, both the so called "Conservative and Orthodox" traditions, Evangelical traditions, and the so called "mainline" "liberal" branches of the church have much truth, as well as error. Both "traditions" have very good scholarship and some not so good biased scholarship to try and fit their favorite traditions.
For me the views or traditions of those whom God uses to get us translations of his word into our English language is of less importantance to me than the fact that they get us his word in our language. Can views and prejudice creep into translation? Absolutely, as much for Evangelical translations as for mainline translatios. And in fact as far as i can see sometimes the Evangelical biases and prejudice can present a translation choice that is not as accurate or as likely correct a translation option for certain Scriptures, where as the mainline versions and translators, who are not held to a so called Orthodox view that they have to fit the Bible to say, will actually present a better translation in the text, or perhaps at least in a footnote. Dan Wallace has pointed this out about the ESV and its translators.
I still prefer mainline Bibles by far over Evangelical translations, and will likely do so for my entire life. Unless any revisions or new mainline translations go too far in any direction. Then i will avoid that version, and will stick the the RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, CEB. God bless 🙏
Having watch your "Recommended Study Bibles," I would like to know what are your own Study Bibles of reference accompanying your NIV Archeological.
You are spot on about avoiding skeptical scholarship being hypocritical if you criticize liberals for doing the same. I have an ex-evangelical friend who complained that he couldn't use the IVP collection of dictionaries because they came from a conservative perspective. Who knows, maybe we will find a genuine observation someone makes from the same text we are looking at. Reading does not equal agreeing.
Liked this video. I read the Apocrypha in the CEB last year and thought it was a comfortable read.
Have you read David deSilva's book "Transformation"? I feel like that's one that every Christian should read.
The CSB lost me at "The Human One" for "Son of God." Beam me up, Scotty! Joel Green made a video supporting this translation.
Someone pointed out that the Human One is used for "Son of Man." Thanks for the correction.
Me too. Nothing more than click bait to bring attention to the translation.
Do you mean the CEB? The CSB is the Christian Standard Bible from the SBC.
Common English Bible
This was a super interesting video. The only ones I have are the two Oxford study Bibles, and, as a (former?) Catholic, I prefer the RSV over the NRSV. Although I DONlove the Psalms from the 5th edition! Not sure why. I guess maybe it’s because I prayed the Liturgy of the Hours faithfully every day for almost 25 years, and the NRSV Psalms are very close to the liberal translation the current LOTH uses. Love the LOTH and (used to) love the Catholic Church, but realized a few years ago that I was spiritually dying in the Catholic Church. So I left. You can get out of the Catholic Church but the Catholic Church won’t get out of you! I compare and contrast everything with my previous doctrinal understanding. Well, I’m not so bad at it anymore, but at first it was nonstop. Anyway, super interesting video, thank you! I have subscribed and eagerly await your next video.
Miles Davis shirt! Love it man!
Thank you so much for this!
I did not know bibles could be liberal or conservative
He is talking about Study Bibles.
It’s the content of the notes and articles that are liberal or conservative not the text of the scriptures.
You mentioned Richard Hays - any thoughts on his hard swing from "non-affirming" to "affirming"? I haven't read his latest book yet, but I know it's created quite the stir.
@@e.m.8094 from the reviews I've read, it seems to be based not on anything exegetical, but rather on personal reasons, which is unfortunate.
If I remember correctly the CEB red flag that I found was its refusal to use “son of man”
I was rather pleasantly surprised by my CEB Study Bible. Not my school of thought and not my favorite translation, but there's some parts of it that I really like even when I disagree with it. Just wish I'd gotten one with the Apocrypha.
When I first read “God’s DNA,” I did a spit take and then had a giggle fit. My kids’ reaction was really interesting: they said, “God knows what DNA is, he created it,” and, “It’s better than reading about God’s seed.”
LOL! The translation is okay, but not great.
I have the Noab w/apoc in the nrsv, college edition.
Which is basically impossible to find.
It's a wonderful study resource. It's not for everyone though. I do think you should have at least a semi solid foundation before approaching a bible like this. As I don't see it as an affirming bible. As my everyday read, Nasb is.
I would call it academic, in being so, it could pose a challenge to some.
But, if you're looking to bank knowledge without leaning, it's a strong resource.
Many have very strong views against it. Something Ive come across first hand.
For me it's helped strengthen my knowledge of biblical study as a whole. It hasn't been a crux in my faith and has actually helped broaden the scope of what it means to be a believer.
👍
What is different about the college edition?
I have a hard time memorizing Scripture when I read versions that are all worded differently.
@@Th3BigBoy memorization is good...but personally I think understanding is more important in the end.
I think the term "modernist" is more helpful and less confusing than "liberal". It also gets to the heart of the issue: some in the mainline denominations began to adjust their theology and their approach to interpreting the Bible to conform to what they saw as "scientific truth." Once you "know" miracles don't actually happen, how do you explain this passage?
I well remember our talking of ‘modernist’, when I was a lad of fourteen in Scotland in 1961! Even then, the Church of Scotland had its modernist ministers!
@@alex-qe8qn Oh, this has been going on for more than 100 years.
Both liberal and conservative theology stem from modernist philosophy, so I think it would actually get more confusing.
Is the Harper-Collins Study Bible the same or similar to the old Harper Study Bible edited by Harold Lindsell? I have one and like the minimal notes. I haven’t read every note. I generally don’t unless I have a question. I read this one so much the leather deteriorated to the point I had to have it rebound.
@@aldeureaux5184 they are different, I believe.
I'd prefer "academic" for some of them (Oxford or SBL Study Bible). Academic means that people can discuss things on a common ground in a common method with people who don't agree with you but still agree with your own method and ground. People can be conservative but still academic. Conservative doesn't mean stupid. And I see many conservative people do good academic jobs.
thanks for your thoughts, so I don't have to read these study bibles lol I often am irritated too much when a scholar talks about the scripture not being the Word of God. How can the Spirit breathe through that?
When I studied Theology (back in the 90's) one of the heads of Old Testament studies was a communist (it was seen as a joke) little did we know.. Having read Hebrew and Greek and studied translating under great teachers I usually translate for myself. I often find that the problem I have with any Bible is the way it is translated. Great posting....
How do I find your merch? I clicked the link but don’t see it on the site…🤔
@@Taai02 www.zazzle.com/DiscipleDojo
I enjoy my CEB study bible.
Disciple dojo this is a heads up, I am an orthodox Catholic, you may be interested at the end of the year the same Ignatius Catholic study Bible will be published in full, I recommend you acquire a copy, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. I have ordered a copy for myself it comes in the revised standard version2 Catholic Edition. I have the Didache Bible RSVCE 2🔥🤟💪
Non-religious believer here. Nice video. Appreciate your tone. But you need to give a clearer definition of what you mean by “liberal” and “conservative” in the context of your discussion. Do you mean those words in a political sense (I.e. the translations can be interpretted as supporting liberal or conservative public policy, or in the sense of, for example, literal vs non-literal interpretations of scripture.
Nice job.
@@GoodmanBrown1 I thought I made that pretty clear throughout, no?
I own five of the nine study Bibles you included in this grouping. The bulk of the study Bibles I own are in more conservative traditions, so I own an ESV, the NET, three NIV, and three KJV Bibles. Perhaps this means I somewhat prefer conservative or confessional scholarship, but in the last few years I find evangelicalism leaving a strong and decidedly unpleasant taste in my mouth. We now know that most self-described Evangelicals put politics and their vision of country far ahead of any legitimate theological consideration. In fact, we see every day that most Evangelicals strongly--vociferously, even violently--assert what can only be called demonic impositions over humanity. These assertions are to be reviled, brought into the full light of Biblical truth, and condemned as antithetical to Christianity and civility. These culturally-obsessed people, who erroneously call themselves Christian, daily and unceasingly work against Jesus. Yours is one of the few conservative voices I continue to respect. I submit that you and other genuine conservative Christians need to do some *serious and sustained* reflection on what your traditions really mean. If you don't do this now, people will eventually--and possibly quite suddenly, as in Canada--leave your churches, which will then be converted into parking lots.
American evangelicalism is not that of other countries!
@@AncientNovelist actually, if we're going by the numbers, it is usually the progressive denominations whose churches are hemorrhaging members.
@@DiscipleDojo This is true, and we’re usually not losing them to more conservative traditions, but to secularism.
@@DiscipleDojo Yes! And this has been true for at least the last 40 years, possibly since the 2nd World War. But people are not inherently evil, and this is true even if you believe the 'dung heap' is covered over with snow after we commit ourselves to Christ (i.e., after baptism). What this truth tells me is that some significant number of Evangelicals, after 8 or 10 or 12 years of believing their political leaders were God's anointed--and only after these many years discover the truth--that their great conservative leaders were self-serving liars, cheats, and criminals--are going to become deeply disillusioned, and not only in their politics, but more importantly in their faith. This is because they long ago stopped worshipping Jesus and instead worshipped their political leaders. Many of these who become disillusioned will turn away from the church, since their churches have, over the last 9 years, become dens of demon worship. These are not evil people--most of them--most of your friends and neighbors. They won't want to continue serving demons, so they'll either look for a real church or simply throw in the towel or come to think (or believe) that they were never true believers but instead were misled. You think it won't happen. My friend, look to Quebec, which until the mid-1950s--the beginning of the Revolution tranquille--was 95 to 99 percent Roman Catholic, and most of these Catholic Christians were deep into their faith. By the time we get to 1970, most RC churches have closed, RC schools have ended operations, and hardly anyone considers the RCC to have any relevance. "Ah," you say, "that's because Catholicism is not true Christianity." Look then to Europe or Canada as a whole. What took 15 years in Quebec took a bit longer in Europe and Canada, but the result is the same. Conservative Canadian Christian? The phrase is an oxymoron. There's practically no such animal north of the 49th. More than likely, you're going to lose your church, regardless of the particular confessional tradition you attempt to honor in your life and prayer. Maybe you believe your RC friends are true Christians. If so, you can learn a lot from what happened in Quebec. I know the basics--I've read several books on the Quiet Revolution--but I remain unable to account for the speed of the conversion and the extreme nature of the 180 from deep faith to agnosticism or outright atheism. Perhaps most people--like current-day Evangelicals--are cultural 'christians' who don't believe much of anything (but think they do) but act out of allegiance to cultural norms. I don't want to believe that, but the idea is consistent with events. Perhaps there is some other explanation that does not require placing most people who claim to believe into some great basket of deluded worshippers of culture and self. Maybe you think this is all a bunch of rubbish. The facts are not on your side. Most Evangelicals, when given a choice, have gone into the voting booth and chosen evil. They did so at least twice, and they are now poised to do so again for a third time. You know that's true, if you're honest with yourself, and that truth has to hurt A LOT. I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure, if you wish to save conservative Christian traditions, you're going to have to sit down with many, many other leaders--not with the ones who handed their souls over to political leaders--and you're going to have to figure out what it was in your various traditions that allowed such an alignment with evil to occur. What's broken in your traditions? Are there heretical elements in theology or practice? I don't claim to know. I'm as baffled as anyone else. Maybe there's nothing wrong with your theology or practice. But you need to scrutinize honestly and deeply, over many years. If not, I'm pretty sure your church is going to be paved over or become a nursing home or a school. People who live in glass houses--yes, absolutely. The RCC has lost many parishioners because of the pedophile priest scandal. We have plenty of very dirty laundry to deal with, there's no question. I'm not throwing rocks here, though I certainly live in a glass house. I'm a mainline Catholic Christian with some conservative beliefs. I am equally at home at a Presbyterian or Methodist service and the Catholic mass. In fact, for many years I attended Catholic mass, then coffee and donuts in the basement, and then drove my car across town to attend Sunday service at First Presbyterian. I'm definitely no militant Catholic. I consider just about any Christian denomination to at least have the ability to faithfully represent the teachings of Christ and the lessons of the Tanakh. I have no answers, only questions, and I don't know the future, but I believe I have learned some bitter and unpleasant lessons from the past, and thus my appeal to you in this forum. PM 2024
@@alex-qe8qn Yep, this is very true. It's been true since the founding of our country.
The way Americans use the words conservative and liberal so badly.
Ok. I looked around could
Not find where your review might be of the NIV Study Bible would be? Where could I find your review, if there is one? Thanks?
@@20Hikecdt23 it's one of the early ones I did. It's in the Bible Reviews & Stuff playlist near the beginning.
For me, there's the Oxford Annotated, and then there are the inferior imitators. From what little I've read of it, the CEB Study Bible seemed okay, even if it felt like a stealth second edition of the New Interpreter's Study Bible. (Maybe it's just that Theodore Hiebert commentary in Genesis.)
The CEB Study Bible is really good. Im using it for Philippians and it has very useful notes.
Do you mean the oxford annotated with RSV or the new oxford annotated with NRSV?
@@my3461 Either one is solid. (And the first edition to use the NRSV was a light update of the RSV editions. It's with the 3rd Edition that major changes were made.)
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896The notes are better than the translation.
Its more complex than a black/white situation
Who canonized the Bible?
Yay! A list of study bibles not to add to my library.
It’s unfortunate that I didn’t see this video earlier. I purchased the Jewish Study Bible because I wanted a JPS translation and a Jewish perspective for reference. Now I will need to find a different reference for a traditional Jewish perspective.
I should have paid attention to it being from Oxford.
Dojo, are you a Calvinist? If so, would you call a study Bible that is from the Arminian side “liberal”? Thanks.
@@20Hikecdt23 No and no.
Thank you
Might be worth a rerelease where you don’t say liberal. So triggering for many. Judging from the comments (A) people were generally not encouraged to pick up a study bible with an academic approach, and (B) the thumbnail was effective
My Nrsv Bible is the Harper Collins Bible you have right there. I try to keep only one copy of any translation. As far as liberal or whatever, you are mostly saying you don't agree with them. I guess that is valid. As valid as any position.
There's a kind of wisdom in being able to learn from even one's enemies. Of course, one must first be firmly grounded in one's own beliefs and values, viz. biblically conservative Christianity. But given this rootedness, one can learn from others. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, as it were. 😊
Hi! I’m a progressive Christian. I hope I am not your enemy! If I am, I hope you can find it in your heart to obey the words of Jesus and love me! Yikes!
@@kjmav10135 Ah yes, of course I'd love you even if you're my "enemy"! 😊 And part of loving my enemy is telling them the truth, urging them to come back to the truth, which in the case of the progressive Christian would mean calling them to turn away from their progressive Christianity and turn toward biblical faithfulness. In fact, I've done that with progressive Christians like Randal Rauser, though sadly he didn't seem to take what I said too well and unfortunately he remains a progressive Christian.
@@philtheo I know you probably mean well. I am a faithful follower of Jesus and a careful reader of the Bible. I am sure your faith is very deep. So is mine. Obviously, TH-cam comments aren’t the place for deep theological discussions. I just wanted to point out that we don’t have to think of each other as “enemies”. I hold you in the wideness of God’s mercy. Be well.
@@kjmav10135 Sure, I appreciate it! 😊 Also I'll just point I never held you as my enemy. Nor did I ever say progressive Christians are my enemy. All I said was we can learn from even our enemies. That doesn't mean I think progressive Christians are my enemy. I was only attempting to make an a fortiori argument, that is, if it's true that we can learn from even our worst enemies, then surely we can learn from others as well.
Enemies?
Dude, nice shirt...
When you said "John Collins", do you mean C. John Collins or John J. Collins?
@@js1423 John J. Collins
@@DiscipleDojo Ok!
I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to believe in Divine Insipration. If the evangelicals have the stronger case, how come are they inhabiting the chairs at Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Aberdeen, Heidelberg, Tübingen, Münster, Lund, Helsinki etc?
Common English Bible
@@billmcreynolds6935 what about it?
@@DiscipleDojo Someone asked what CEB means.
The "God's DNA" bit is wack, but the CEB and CEV are arguably the only translations that get 1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1 right.
For those of us who didn't go to seminary, I would love a list that has which translations do the best job for specific verses. I am just curious what others are thinking since I do not know Greek.
@@flowerlassit's difficult because sometimes different translations of one verse can be valid. What matters is the arguments for translation choices and an explanation of why, but that would be too much info for a written Bible
It's odd to me that liberal and academic are synonymous. At the same time these books are mostly avoided by evangelicals. There's nothing wrong with reading scholarly opinions and educating yourself. We don't have to let these books obscure our faith. Faith is faith.
God’s DNA is hilarious! I’m gonna start using that now. Lol.
🌹🌟🔥🌟🌹
"Liberal" can mean different things. Sometimes it only means not being a slave to established orthodoxy.
If that established orthodoxy is there for a reason, it should be there for all time. Like God’s view in homosexuality, the trinitarian view of God, etc.
I dunno man. I myself have a OASB just for understanding popular skepticism, so I get it to some extent. BUT I definitely think something like the MacArthur is infinitely more valuable than any of these. Yet you won't touch that one on your channel. Sometimes I think you are a little more liberal than you acknowledge to being (as you said in the video, let's not attach any negative connotation to that beyond the basic definitional meaning in this context). Tbh some of these SBs are poison to a Christian with a high view of scripture. You yourself know from your own former denomination (mine as well) the theological ruin that comes from cheapening God's word.
I say this with respect as someone who has watched a lot of your content, bought one of your books, and donated just a little bit.
@@MO-bo2du I appreciate the feedback. But I would put MacArthur in the harmful category alongside some of these, honestly. But I would probably be considered liberal by fundamentalists and fundamentalist by liberals.
(To clarify though, I don't like reviewing celebrity preacher/author Bibles, even if I were to agree with their content, so that's why I haven't reviewed MacArthur, Evans, Ryrie, Scofield, Stanley, etc.)
@@DiscipleDojo I can't imagine considering MacArthur harmful. I know you are much more accomplished than myself so I am sure you have good reasons. Maybe you won't review his SB, but some day I would love to see a more in-depth explanation of your critiques in some form. I can see why you would disagree with him on various issues of interpretation and second-order doctrines, however it's hard for me to get to that level of calling him "harmful", you know what I mean?
To the specific point we're discussing here, what I appreciate in particular is his unapologetic commitment to the Bible's inerrancy and authority. There's a quote in a lot of his books, something like [paraphrasing] "either science agrees with the Bible, or it is wrong". Now we all know there are many interpretive caveats to that statement (understanding genre and context and all that), but I absolutely love and agree with the underlying commitment.
I have seen enough of Christian liberalism to be convinced of how CRITICALLY important this fundamental commitment is to our spiritual lives (thinking of the classic "descent of the modernists" drawing as I type this). Therefore, I would recommend any teacher with a high view of the scriptures all day long over any form of "high criticism". Covenantal, dispensational, doesn't matter at the end of the day as those are disagreements among brothers/sisters, whereas imho text criticism is 100% a slippery slope that can and does lead people into deadly errors.
To be clear, I think you CAN be an orthodox Christian without believing in inspiration/inerrancy. But I also know from experience that so many that buy into an untrustworthy Bible ultimately end up in a place outside core Christian dogmatics.
I hope I'm making sense. Sorry I'm always so long-winded, can never seem to help myself.
I'm glad you believe people can be orthodox Christians without believing in inerrancy. I can't imagine anyone being orthodox and not believing the scriptures are in some way inspired.
Regarding MacArthur, he has no doubt helped many people come to faith in Christ. I appreciate his ferver for evangelism and the proclamation of the gospel.
Having said that, not being a Calvinist, I don't agree with his interpretation of scripture on many levels.
In addition, he's a very narrow kind of Calvinist. That disturbs be even more.
As a liberal Christian who preaches at my church, I have the Harper Collins and the CEB open in front of me when writing sermons. (Got my eyes on the NKJV study bible next though 😂)
The amount of prostrating before the social tyranny mob every has to do before every video these days is getting fatiguing.
@@Simrealism not sure what that means, but ok.
@@DiscipleDojo *everyone, sorry typo
But is Jesus a liberal? 😅😅
Not in the sense that's discussed here, i.e. demythologizing the Bible and regarding it as a purely human document.
Use THE HOLY BIBLE aka The King James version and you won't have these problems.😎
Study Bibles in the KJV are generally quite bad. It's usually a bunch of dispensationalist stuff.
Which King James?
Love the TShirt
My preference for translations and study Bibles is the CEB Study Bible, the SBL Study Bible (NRSVue) and the NOAB (NRSV). I also use The Inclusive Bible. So I would probably be a "liberal" by your standard.