I'm wanting to purchase a new study bible, and I'm overwhelmed at the choices.  Can anyone personally recommend one?  I'm looking for one with good study content in a widely used translation such as KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc.  Thanks for your help!
208790
gablue430 has listed some of the very best choices.  My list would be similar, with one addition:\n\nNIV Study Bible\nNIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible\nESV Reformation Study Bible\nNIV Quest Study Bible \n\nBut I'd like rather to suggest a METHOD for you to make a good choice for YOU.\n\nThings to consider:\n\n1) Which TRANSLATION(s) are you comfortable with?  If you have a fairly strong preference for one you should take that seriously.   Of course, if you're mainly using this book at your desk and happy to keep a copy of your favorite translation at the ready, this may be less important for you --you can focus on Point #2.\n\n(NIV and ESV seem to be the dominant versions in evangelical circles these days [ESV is esp. claiming the old NASB crowd and many NKJV users].  I use both [with others] for study & teaching, but just for reading --silently or aloud-- I think the NIV is superior.  Comparing their Study Bibles, the NIV Spirit of the Reformation vs. ESV Reformation Study Bible are very close in quality -- you translation preference might well be the tie-breaker.)\n\n2) Are there specific study aids within the TEXT that you think would find especially helpful?  and do you know what you want them to do?\n\na) is it cross references that give you a lot of related passages to check out on your own?   -all of those listed ar pretty solid in this area (I have a slight preference for the NIV Study Bible on that; they did an excellent, thorough process of assmebling USEFUL parallels)\n\nb) book introductions, overviews: \nAll of those listed include some helpful book introductions (The book outlines are just OK -- haven't yet found one that is consistently helpful at this point.  At some point they tend to break down into a mere list of contents, without any analysis of WHY they are organized the way they are.  But it's a reasonable start.)\n\nc) text notes:  are you looking for 'topical notes' that answer common theological questions, esp practical ones?  (try Quest);  do you want some good, reliable discussions of what the Bible teaches on many key doctrines?  (try the two "Reformation" Bibles);   do you mainly want note that focus on special features of the specific text you are looking at, the structure of this psalm, etc? (NIV Study Bible probably beats everyone on this point -- this is my own preference and why I've always preferrd this one over the rest for MY use)\n\n3) What about the EXTRA resources in the back?  ( I don't think these are generally as imporant as those under #2 --which tend to be the *main* reason people get a study bible, but do give them some thought, esp. if things are coming out pretty even to this point!)\n\na) MAPS  - how many? how readable are they for YOU?  (some Bible map sections are great... some are awful!)\n\nb) INDEXES:   esp. 'topical guides' & Concordance -- are these enough for your own needs?  will they help you find things you are looking for? (I mostly use a separate complete concordance, but for some folks having more IN their Bibles is important to them)\n\n3) "PHYSICAL" matters, layout, etc.  (some of this may come into play more AFTER you've decided which version you want, when you're looking at size, shape, etc)\n\na) Readability of print:   All of these probably have pretty decent, readable print, etc. but that is not ALWAYS the case.  But you might find you prefer reading a single column ['like other books'] or that two-columns works well for you [tends to decrease the page count, so may lead to a smaller book to carry, or to thicker paper]\n\nb) Some have better quality paper than others as well (oddly I've found some hardcover editions have better, thicker paper than the leatherbound).  \n\nc) binding: You might have a preference on binding, and that may depend on how and how much you use the Bible, as well as the size.  (I have found that I like a smaller leatherbound cross-reference Bibl
37738
I will give you the scholarly perspective:  The NIV is more accurate than the KJV.  And the NIV is much easier to read in my opinion.  But the New Revised Standard Version is the most often recommended by Biblical Scholars (including Christian Biblical Scholars) for its accuracy and faithfulness to the original languages.  (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
567401
If I was still working at the Christian Bookstore, I would do this for you:\n\nSince the thing that will limit your choices most is type-size, we'd start there.\n\nVERSION is the next question, and the NASB is a good one, so I would not worry about changing it if you like it.\n\nFORMAT usually comes next- electronic, pocket size, large print (your key need), thin-line, etc.\n\nBINDING is next- leather, leather-like, paper, hardcover, etc. \n\nHELPS comes last in most cases- Ryrie, Thompson Chain Reference, Life Application, maps, red-letter, etc. Large print Bibles are so big they rarely offer much in the way of helps.\n\nIn your case, we'd hit the NASB section and look at the large type offerings. in our store, that would limit your choice pretty fast- so choose the largest store you can!\n\n\nOne idea- get a good Bible with few helps for church and daily reading, then find a good on-line Bible and helps you can read easily when you set your screen to larger fonts. On-line you can find MANY good versions and helps! Try the site below for a start.\n\n\nDISPOSAL: If the book is in OK condition, many ministries will be happy to have it- ask at church for ideas in your area. \n\nIf the overall condition is pretty beaten up, I have no problems throwing them away. They really cannot be easily recycled for one reason or another, and in most places burning is not an option either. Burying it is even weirder to me than throwing it away. Even Bible bookstores and churches have to throw some away from time to time.
355059
The content of the Bible has remained constant for many centuries.  It has been translated many times, into different languages.  It has also been "revised" to make the language more accessible to the masses.  For example, the King James Version (my personal favorite) is written in Shakespeare-like language.  The Revised Standard and the New Revised Standard update the language so people can understand it, but when you line up the 3 Bibles and read all 3 versions, the meaning is the same.  It is like reading "Taming of the Shrew" by Shakespeare, and then reading a modern version of the story written by the New York Daily News.  Same story, different words.
131155
Crosswalk.com is the most incredible resource ever!  It has a great many commentaries, bible versions (including the NASB and KJV with Strongs numbers) online bible studies, sermons to listen to, references and notes. Go for it!\n\nBiblegateway.com is also excellent and has the amplified bible as a version- which crosswalk is missing.
343793
Could be a different Bible version.\n\nToday people love modern Bibles rather than the KJV.\n\nWhen i was doing my Bible studies with 8 Bibles I quickly tossed the "Living Word" as being trash.  The translators took so many liberties with phrases in that one I couldn't deal with it.\n\nI have a friend who collects Bibles and she gives a lot of them away keeping only the ones she personally likes.\n\nBUT, to get to YOUR question, how can YOU say MEAN AND VIOLENT and then use a phrase like IS THIS RETARDED?\n\nIsn't that the pot calling the kettle black?\n\nAnd yes, religious people do play with words.  A sad fact of life.  That's why I don't belong to an organized religon.\n\nThe sad fact of life is these people tell you how to live your life and they go home, get drunk, beat their wives up and make them give them oral sex, like any good Christian should do, right!
133450
Try this: \n\nBibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible. Enter the Bible passage (e.g. John 3:16), keyword (e.g. Jesus, prophet, etc.) or topic (e.g. salvation) you want to find. \nwww.biblegateway.com\n\nAny good? Let me know
399712
The KJV is just that---a human's version of the original manuscripts. The translators of the KJV left out God's name in thousands of places. \nHow do you think Jehovah (PSALMS 83:18) feels about that? The NWT respectively put it where it belongs and we show honor to his name and sanctify it just as Jesus said to do in the model prayer he gave in the book of Matthew. There are many new translations that have been put into our modern English language. Do you have a problem with those too? \nWhich translation do you think Jehovah God approves of---one that treats his holy name as a substitute for a mere title, like God or LORD--or the NWT that shows love and respect for his most holy name.?\nJOEL 2:32--"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered."\nWe also use whatever translation a person prefers when we conduct free home Bible studies with them. We can teach the truth about Jehovah and his Kingdom using any version or translation.
398172
the complete Jewish bible  but I have most of those you mention\nking ?James I rarely look at,  NIV,  American standard,  My complete Jewish bible. American children's bible   since I was a child  one of the king James I received as a child.amplified bible and more. I do not use all ever day  but can cheek verses when I wish to
180506
2005 cd rom is better, I like it because of the Daily Text that opens at the beginning, also the schedule of the Ministry School,  cannot say that it helps me any more, except it it up to date.  Did you install the complete library or just using the disk, if you have the space on your harddrive you should install all of it.\n\nNow why would any Jehovah's Witness, call themselves a Kingdom Hall Witness when we are a Witness for Jehovah as John called Jesus:  \nJesus faithfully carried out his assignment and became Jehovah’s greatest witness ever on earth. With every right, then, the apostle John, who stood near Jesus at the time of his death, calls Jesus “the Faithful Witness.” (Rev. 1:5) And at Revelation 3:14, the glorified Jesus calls himself “the Amen” and “the faithful and true witness.
214486
I stick to my good ol King James Version.  Here's a site that really lays out the differences in bibles......\nhttp://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html
326265
Ehem...Every single answer-WRONG!\nThe Catholics have a few translations of their own, and like your average protestant, don't get too worked up over translations, since almost all translations are pretty good.\nNew American Bible\nJerusalem Bible\nRevised Standard Version (composed by scholars from alot of different denominations-and some secular scholars, accepted by pretty much everyone, conservatives tend to prefer not to use it. But Catholics use it often)\nNew Revised Standard Version (a killer translation, also includes extra books in the catholic bible)\nDouay-Rheims Bible\n\nFor the record, the King James is far from the most accurate translation. It's still not a BAD translation, dont' get me wrong. But we've learned SO much in the last 400 years that there are a couple places (not hugely important places, but bible nonetheless) that are simply wrong, and alot of places that have been cleared up by extra manuscripts found, especially the dead sea scrolls, and some other things.\n\n\nThe King James is a disctinctly protestant Bible, although it originally had the extra 'catholic books' in it.\n\nEvery now and then you'll hear someone assert that the King James is the best translation, or even that it is THE PERFECT GOD-BREATHED translation, but this is simple ignorance. And they'll quote a couple of books, etc. but it's all from misunderstood history, bad scholarship, etc.\nThere is not a single scholar on the planet, Christian, atheist, or otherwise, that believes the KJV is the most accurate Bible on the market today. There are, however, a number of Christians who think this. These Christians are wrong.\nI don't mean to complain about the KJV, though. It's a pretty decent Bible, as most of them are. But there is stuff that would be easier to read, and virtually everything since then, especially the newer translations, will be a bit clearer in spots.\n\n\nFurther, the apocrypha:\n\nFor forever, the church had a section of writings called the Deutero-Canon (which means '2nd canon.') and they were esteemed writings but not quite on the level as the rest of the Bible. \nWell, when the Protestant Reformation took place, alot of reformers (especially Martin Luther) said "What do we have this crap around for?!?!? Either it's Bible, or it's not!" which sounds perfectly logical to your average person today, but at the time (and even now, if we stop to weigh things) it was a pretty contreversial thing to say. \nSo Luther cut that stuff out.\nSo  the Catholic Church responded by saying "Fine, then IT IS Bible!" and put it in with the rest of the Bible, exactly the same. So it didn't have a 2nd tier of authority right behind the regular Bible, it became part of the regular Bible.\n\nThis is (part of) what Protestants call the Apocrypha.\nSo now you understand the debate.\n\nVery few major doctrines are based on the Apocrypha (although the idea of Purgatory finds it's strongest support there), but there are various works of various merit.\n\nIf I were you, I'd go buy a New Revised Standard Version. It's a great translation, it's got the extra books (and even some extra books only used by the Eastern Orthodox churches) , but they are set apart, so you know where they're at, and when you're reading 'protestant bible' and 'catholic bible.'\n\nFor the record, I'd like to return to a Deutero-Canon. I think it fits better with how the early church and Jewish thinkers thought. But that's just commentary.\n\n-stephen\n\nAmendments:\nAll modern translations (with the exceptions of the Living Bible and 'The Message', which are translated from English) are based on Hebrew & Greek manuscripts.\nThe Masoretic text IS a Hebrew manuscript that is the firmest basis for not only the KJV, but also every other modern translation, as it is, almost always, the best text.  So note please, that all the Bibles, inc
490122
I have not heard of it.  My opinion is that the best English translation of the Bible is the New Revised Standard Version.  Better than this is to understand the original languages of course, but since that is a big task, one ought to have an interlinear version available.  This has each word in Hebrew or Greek with the meaning of that word below it, together with a translation.  You can make use of Strong's Concordance, and a Hebrew Lexicon or dictionary (or Greek as the case may be) and get a pretty good idea of what the verses are really saying.
73190
Was the Old Testament originally written in Hebrew?\n----YES\n\nWas the New Testament originally written in Greek?\n--------YES, although Christians claim there was, originally, a Hebrew version. The fact that it did not survive shows that the Greek version was more important to the early Christians than the Hebrew, indicating the degree to which they were assimilated into Greek religion and Culture.\n\nHow difficult are these languages to learn?\n-------Hebrew is easy, i cannot speak for Greek. I teach people to read (vocalize) the Hebrew text, not to translate, just to pronounce, in just 3 hours.\n\nHow beneficial would it be for me to learn them?\n------if you dont want to rely on someone else's translations, it is vital that you learn them!\n\nAnd where would I get a copy of the Bible in both English and Greek/Hebrew\n--------I recommend the Koren Publishing Company's translation. The Koren Publishing Company is in Jerusalem, so, unfortunately, they called their translation The Jerusalem Bible, which, in the U.S., is the name of a Catholic translation, and they are not the same thing. Most Barnes and Nobles have the Koren translation, which has the Hebrew on the left and the English on the right. Unfortunately the English still sounds like something from King James, but at least the translation tried to be literal. Of course, this is only the Hebrew Scriptures, and a Greek/English, i know nothing about.\n\nI would urge you NOT to get what is called an Interlinnear translation. All they do is take their copyrighted translation and match those individual words to the Hebrew that they want translated that way, regardless of whether or not it means what their copyrighted translation says.
294382
I dont believe there are any versions outside of the original texts that are more accurate than the next. There are flaws in the 1611 KJV as well as the NIV and every other version... I dont like the NWT though because it deliberately changes text to fit the Jehovah's Witness doctrines. (if you dont believe the KJV has flaws, contact me and I'll be happy to share them with you)
371572
The KJV was meticulously translated.  By man.  And, no surprise, it isn't perfect.\nThere IS no perfect translation because, even if you have a Hebrew, Greek or Chaldean lexicon, you don't have the meaning of the words from 2,000 years ago.  Meanings change.  Take the word "gay" for example - means something VERY different today than it did 20 years ago.\nWithout taking the time to learn the original languages, then do have the lexicons as well as a Strongs (or other) Concordance.  Read the same passages in different versions for richer comprehension.  A passage read from the KJV, the NIV and The Message takes on new dimension.\nRead it - and read it sloooowly and patiently!  Read it reguarly.  And read it again and again.  What had no relevance (seemingly) last month can suddenly leap out at you today.
353932
I can attest that the KJV does mistranslate a lot of words. My trusty NIV holds up pretty well, I think I've only found two slight errors, but the KJV is definitely shaky at best. And no, the "thee" and "thou" parts of the KJV are not problematic, that is simply the language of the day and it doesn't matter if you translate, "thou art happy" or "you are happy", its the same thing. I love Greek.