A commentary book to go with the NIV bible? (vanity)

me

[Leaning Right]

I'm looking for a good commentary book to go with the NIV bible. I like the Standard Lesson Commentary series, but it jumps around too much for me. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

And any larger-print suggestions would be doubly appreciated!

[chesley]

thanks

[Gamecock]

If Sproul says this it’s good enough for me!

[Disambiguator]

Just Kidding!!! I appreciate the KJV but I really can’t stand the shallow thinking by the KJV only crowd. I believe it really compromises many men that are otherwise extremely faithful expositors of the Word of God. Some men, while they will not state it outright, behave like the KJV is the “Inspired” translation.

The heart of the issue is really which manuscripts were used in a given translation. The KJV used the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") which is mostly similar to the Majority Text. Some translations used a different set of manuscripts that were assembled in the late 1800s, using a different philosophical approach. That's where the real differences in the translations lie.

[Leaning Right]

Lots of good info there. Thanks.

[Col Freeper]

You're quite welcome.

I find it very useful and the guy really provides lots of free stuff.

He doesn't push it, but he has a link for voluntary donations (PayPal I think).

Good reading and Have a great weekend.

[kosciusko51]

Not a study bible, but for the New Testament, I found value in the NIV-NASB-Greek interlinear bible. So you have two versions, and the Greek text with a literal English translation between the lines of Greek.

For the Old Testament, there is also a NIV-Hebrew interlinear bible.

[Ouderkirk]

It depends on which version you were raised with. I grew up with KJV and it’s what I prefer it to the others because I found the grammar to be more explicit

[monkeywrench]

Thanks again, and you have a nice weekend too.

[Lee N. Field]

What would recommend as a good a-mil or post-mil perspective?

ESV Study Bible.

(There's a lot more to an eschatological perspective than "where does your scheme put the millenium?".)

[ealgeone]

The NASB is considered to be the most literal of our English translations. I use it along with the Greek.

[Jemian]

That’s the one I read, too.

[Mr Rogers]

On the other hand, the KJV deliberately mistranslated some stuff to reflect the political desires of King James. For example, he insisted they use “Bishop” instead of elder, because “No Bishop, No King” - ie, if the church did not have a linear, top-down structure, then society might follow and what good is it to be king if no one follows?

[chesley]

Thanks.

And of course there is; but I consider it a very important part.

[HarleyD]

It is important to pick one translation and stick with reading it as your primary Bible.

That is true for the most part. I remember I used the Revised Standard Versions for years and years until at a Bible study someone asked me to read a passage out loud. When I read it the leader said, "Er...thanks. Would someone else care to read it." I couldn't believe how much difference there was in the verses. I promptly stopped using the RSV.