any of the commentaries written from about the turn of the last century or prior are good... The Biblical Illustrator... Pulpit... Langes... Preachers Homelitics... Joseph Parker... most of these go into each verse very deeply.. without a lot of Greek or Hebrew language quoted.. though Langes has a bit...the I.C.C.. is very thorough as well but heavy on Greek and Hebrew...I like a lot of those I mentioned here because.. they expound on the word in detail.. and as for Langes and Pulpit.. they have more than one preacher doing the exegetics on the passage.. so a person can look at the verses from different points of view.. Expositors Commentary... has many contributors as well...and Joseph Parker.. is Joseph Parker.. but he really brings out more of the devotional point of passages..Deeply... which is good.. for drawing one closer to God.. and we get a great perspective of the man/God relationship with his writings......//... contemporary wise... I prefer the James Burton Coffman.. which I believe You mentioned in your response to someone else here that your Dad had some of those... Coffman calls it as he sees it.. and does Not hold back.. if he thinks some other commentator has the passage wrong.. he just comes out and says so... and he is blunt about it... his picture on the inside covers is how his word comes across...direct.... I have even gone thru commentaries he has quoted and bactracked the quotes he has made..for His accuracy.... I also like R. Kent Hughes... he is very easy to understand... but.. then I do not feel R. Hent Hughes.. delves into many passages deep enough..... and I have been enjoying the NICOT an NICNT as of late.. but I an having trouble finding the complete Genesis of this set.. at a decent price.. since most are asjing over 40.00 for Volume 1 nad Volume 2 each.. nt sure if I want to spend 80.00 for 1 book of the bible...my Ideal commentary is one that goes thru Each verse of the bible one at a time and opens it up... many commentaries.. will skip verses or just glance over some of the topics of some verses..and Not attempt to explain them deeply...
Have you had a chance to weigh in yet on the NICNT commentary on Romans by Douglas Moo Second edition published in 2018 ? I just got the first edition of this las month. And now I see a second edition is out. Is this completely re written ? Or is there just a few more things added on to the previously written text ? Is this second edition worth the cost ? The lowest price I have found is like 55.00.
Thank you for asking...I am not familiar with that set so I won't be of much help! If you are just starting then NIV application or Interpretation series are great. I tend to avoid commentaries on the whole Bible by one person because one person cannot be nearly the degree of an expert on the whole Bible as dozens of scholars in other series who spent their whole lives studying a handful of books of the BIble or even a single book.
@@revolutionofordinaries Ty for your response and suggestion. Another question if you don’t mind, my bible is a KJV, is there a KJV commentary set that you would recommend?.
Another thing you may be able to shed light on The Geneva Bible Commentaries. Are these just reprinted texts from previous scholars volumes. For example Genesis the author is John Calvin. But I already have the complete John Calvin commentary set. Is this text in Geneva Commentary. Exactly the same only under their banner. ?
Yes I have been on the logos site. But as far as I can tell all of their stuff is digital. I like to have a library like you… that I can hold in my hands. Thanks
@Mike Godwin ... hello Mike...you have some catching up to do...... I have been a Christian for about 30 years... but I did Not start really buying commentaries until about 8 years ago... up until about 4 years ago you could purchase a 50 volume commentary set.. for about 300.00 off Ebay or Amazon... I was able to buy a lot of turn of the century commentaries.. back then.. but in the last 2 years or so.. sadly most of these good old commentaries.. have all but disappeared.. they are getting scarcer every day... you can still buy many mentioned in this video... but most ...unless you find them used will cost about 40.00 a book.... Anchor Commentary series are still very reasonable... for about 20.00 or less for each volume. used... but the only problem with those is.. there is close to 80 volumes in the first series.. and they have begun re releasing some volumes under different aurthorship.under series 2... so it sort of gets confusing... if you are trying to get a whole set... if you are not sure which commentary you might like... may I suggest... you type in "Bible commentaries read online..".. and go to the selection titled Bible hub... I believe... and you can actually read some of the older commentaries online to see which ones you like best... many newer ones will not be listed to read however.... I myself prefer the James Burton Coffman series... his books are about 22.00 new each on line..Amazon.... though some like Jeremiah may be a little more... and what I like about this series.. is that none of the books are divided up between 2 volumes or more except his commentary on Psalms... a lot of other commentaries such as the NICOT.. as mentioned here.. even split up Genesis and some other books of the bible into more than 1 volume... which can be a hassle...
The Pulpit. In all your research, can you share on the authority, origin, first use, first use by protestants? Why do some call the table an Altar? Thank you!
@Sonny Reeves... table / Altar.. you may as well ask why temple/tabernacle..?. I got into a debate on one of these review sites a while back where someone was pointing out.. that temple/tabernacle made a difference regarding what Bible translation they trusted.... really?.. does temple or tabernacle word use in God's word.. make such a difference.....?.. I can understand if a Bible verse was totally misconstrued.. due to a bad translation...... but I seriously cannot tell the difference between table/ Altar.. or temple/tabernacle.... does this really make a significant difference..?.... I did run into a more serius translation error on Haggai 1:10.. just the other day though... and many would ask.. really?.. Haggai... just 2 chapters in God's word.. but this error was more significant in my opinion...when I read God's word.. I go thru it for 2 reasons.. 1.. to draw nearer to God.. 2.. to understand his Word better.. the 2 ideas should go hand in hand... Haggai 1:9 Why...?.. saith the Lord of hosts..".... this is from the KJV... which I mainly use.. but look at verse 10..."therefore the Heaven over you is stayed with dew..".. where is the answer to the question Why..?... here is what I found..... the ASV has the words of Haggai 1:10..." for your sake".... and see the KJV.. trnslated...:For your sake".. as "Over you"...."Over You".. is ambiguous cuz it can mean over you literally or over you figuratively... and so what happens next.. ?.. the NKJV.. and other versions translate this "Over you".. as "Above you"... which totally skips the intended meaning "for your sake...".. the NASB.. at least translates.."for your sake".. as "because of you".. so I will not squabble over the difference in "for your sake".. as opposed to "because of you".. this is the same as the difference as between.. temple/tabernacle.. in my opinion.. at least the NASB has the intended meaning.. and the KJV could have the intended meaning if read properly.. but other versions.. totally missed that verse's meaning.. see my point?.....
@@jeffcarlson3269 understood. I see it about as well as some see my own views after 65 yrs in the RM. The Altar a follower of King Jesus has is our Knees, we can lay nothing else but our, mind, soul, body, our all on any altar, if we had one, we don't , we go directly into the throne room bypassing the old rules. No we have nothing to place on an altar of or any command to pray at one in the New covenant, not that would make any difference. To add to the sacrifice is ludicrous for only God's Grace makes our salvation possible. Our Worship, prostrate on the throne room floor "as a dog licks the masters hand" we all offer the lepers hand in our prayers by the Blood of Jesus in His precious Name , 1 John 3:22-24 We are invited to come to the Table and share the Bread and New Wine in fellowship with our family of Saints like the Corinthians, messy, divisive, fussy, sinning and accepting sin yet sealed, Saints, obedient to the simple Gospel we should all obey. Acts 5:32, Acts 18:8. We need no altar, no idols, no relics of the past. The origin of an altar in "christian" rituals and rules is pagan. Documented by early church history and can be verified, WE don't need "Altar Calls" we need a call to Worship, not the sip& chip between the entertainment and the sage on the stage. IMHO
I guess what I am thinking… is …if we understand what is meant by Altar/table/throne when reading. We will know how to apply what God’s word is saying. If we look at the word table for instance and we notice that those involved in the passage are bringing items to sacrifice on it. We should realize this is not like a dinner table but something consecrated for God. Such as an Altar. Now granted. Altar may sound more Sacred or Divinely inspired and more religious. But I personally would Not call a bible version a bad translation based on that reasoning ….anymore than I would dis a translation for using the words they or you instead of ye or thee. As long as they and you are used in the same sense of meaning as the old English words were. But sadly this is Not always true. Due to translators misinterpretation of the old English…. I have to wonder if some got their degrees out of Cracker Jack boxes.
@David Milliern... have you tried the James Burton Coffman series?.. or the Pulpit commentary?..some other good ones are Langes... Preachers Homelitics.. Biblical Illustrator.... Peoples Bible Commentary... Expositors C ommentary.. and of course the standbys... Matthew Henry.. John Calvin... or Barnes Notes.....the I.C.C. R. Kent Hughes... these are all pretty good... if you prefer simpler stuff... there are.. the Ironsides Commentary or J Vernon McGee Commentary.....
@@jeffcarlson3269 Thanks a bunch. I have tried the Matthew Henry (through Bible Gate) and John Calvin. I really appreciate the suggestion of the James Burton Coffman series. I found it online and I've begin reading it already.
Thanks Matt. Your audio went out the last couple of seconds. :) The Hermeneia series is very good but it's technical like the WBC. Though I think the WBC is just a little more conservative than the Hermeneia.
Thank you brother. I had a muted track that got used when the end screen came up! I started to fix when I noticed it but I had already put the link out.
@Jeremy O'Clair... good point regarding the Hermenia series.. I have a few of those... I would probably have more if I could get them a little cheaper cost.. and they are not always easy to find a lot.... at least that has been my experience with them...
Yes and trying to collect all the I.C.C. Volumes was a real challenge especially the early editions which I tried to get. Since the covers from the earlier editions are better made. Finally got them all from like 1890 ‘s to 1930 ‘s. Now trying to decide if I wish to try to buy the revision editions. 1 volume at a time. This is what I have started to do with the NICNT. so far I have 2 different editions if 1st Corinthians. One. Gordon Fee And the other is Groshiede
@@revolutionofordinaries thanks yes I realize that with some I could do that.. but I prefer to have the actual book in hand... and I love old books.. something about picking up an older book.. and wondering how many people have looked at this same book.. and how much did they glean from it?..And I have a separate room which I use for study apart from the room with my computer in it..y study desk is more of a hutch.. and though I do have an old computer in my study.. my laptop is in a different room... and the laptop would be the computer I would use to look at pdf files since it has a faster processor...
If I had to pick one it would be homilies of St. John Chrysostom. I typically use Catena Bible (catenabible.com) as it gives me patristic commentary, though sometimes it takes quotes out of context. Chrysostom is very clear, and most of the time when I disagree with him, his take still makes more sense. Clement of Alexandria and Origen did some study too. The Catena Aurea has a bit of Chrysostom too. My absolute favorite commentary on the Old Testament is the New Testament, however. Granted it isn't exclusively a commentary, but it builds on it. Second to that, I like Kiel and Dielitsch on the Old Testament but they are too anti-Septuagint. I also like Haydock (Catholic content warning) because most of the time Catholic makes more sense than protestant (sorry) and Orthodox is more wholistic than catholic when it comes to commentary IMHO. The four gospels and Acts by McGarvey and Pendleton are also Gold. The most humorous commentary is the Talmud, even though they were dead serious about it. It contains everything from "scriptural proof" that Esau committed Five crimes when he sold his birthright (including rape and murder!) to how to see demons (Why anyone would want to is beyond me.) to why you must listen to at least the first verse when you say the ritual prayer. I disagree with it about 90% of the time, but it is a hilarious read. Also, it contains the story of the oven of akhani: www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_59.html#PARTb
@Johnpaul Humphrey.. you might appreciate the "New Jerusalem Study Bible... or the Douay Rheims Study bible.. if you like Haydock studies.. I believe he had a hand in the Douay Rheims translation.....
I enjoy reading commentaries in the same series from different viewpoints. So I can partly understand updates. But. I do not agree the updates are necessary due to new information being discovered. Only perhaps the earlier scholars may have overlooked something that was there all along and by that same token. It works vice versa as well some new commentaries may miss things that the older ones covered solely due to viewpoints. Used.
I understand what you are saying regarding older commentaries. I have heard that as the reason the NICNT and NICOT have started revising their series by re issuing new commentaries under different authorship. But this is what I do not understand. Some of the first series were issued between the 1950 s and the late 1970 ‘s. So I am thinking. That it s not so much new information being discovered as much as it is the books are being reviewed from a different perspective. And as far as that goes why do so many think the scholars of today are more intelligent than the ones of yesteryear. ? Perhaps it is not new information. But perhaps seen from a more liberal perspective. Which does Not necessarily make it better in my opinion.
I like PNTC for readability / light technicals, otherwise NICNT for deep technicals (30% more verbose). TNTC leaves me wanting more technicals, NIGTC is too academic, and WBC is a bit too critical/liberal for me. Haven't read any NAC vols, will check it out.
The goal of the use of translations would be to understand the message not pick the differences apart. What can we agree on as the perfect law of liberty? John 13:34-35 raises the standard to the highest level over and above the greatest command of the old covenants. That is the message of all the good translations. If one is confused, it is not of God for He gives His children "Bread" and we are to "Consume" Jesus as the old prophets and John were told to eat the scroll. Confusion and division is found in the commentaries by all the common taters with each an opinion, each a favorite. Many good preachers have found that the Truth thins the flock as the "Goats" are not listening to the Truth. Many "hired hands" teach all sorts of nonsense about translations and make a god of a book. John 3:16 everybody knows, John 13:34-35 few practice. IMHO
@James Strohl... I agree I just finished my Coffman series last month... now I have all 37 volumes... And.. the Life and Times of James Coffman.. book..as well... all in hardcover.. I use it every day along with others in my studies.. but Coffman is my Go To Guy.. though I do Not believe that Baptism is necessary to be saved as I think Church of Christ believes..... I am a Baptist...
@@jeffcarlson3269 I understand that the "Baptist and others," believe that baptism isn't necessary. So, what is your reason why? In my case, without Baptism, one is not saved. Christ commanded in Matthew 28. Peter (under the influence of the Holy Spirit, which in order to understand the preaching on the Day of Pentecost, has to go back to John 16:15) that Jesus on that day proclaimed that baptism was necessary for salvation. There are other verses that I won't use to make my point because I don't want to make this reply cumbersome. Anyway Jesus commanded it. I do know that the Baptist and others have been pushing the narrative of Huldrych Zwingli basically since there founding.
@@jamesstrohl2016 yes I agree for the sake of brevity I will try to keep my response short as well.. in Acts 16:30 the Philippian jailer asks Paul "sirs what must I do to be saved?".. and in Acts 16:31... we read... "And they said Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved , and thy house."... then later they were baptized... in several places in God's word we see the same thing believing on the Lord.....Salvation... then at some point later baptism... Salvation comes by believing... Baptism.. is the visual sign that our belief is genuine... it is Like committing to serve in the Military....we are recruited.. then Baptism is the actual going forth into battle..... Baptism is an outward demonstration that we truly trust in the Lord... so yes... I believe anyone saved SHOULD be baptized... the same I believe anyone enlisting in the Military should be ready to do battle if so needed...but I do Not believe if we are not baptized we are not saved..any more than I believe people in the Military are Not soldiers... if one has accepted the Lord as their Savior.. why would they Not wished to be baptized though?...... Acts 2:38... is popular among ones who believe Baptism saves... ..."Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins..." this would sound as if Peter was saying that in order to have sins forgiven one must be baptized... but the word "for"... used here does Not translate as "in order to"... but "because of"... this is where many reading God's word get confused because they translate their readings incorrectly...
@@jamesstrohl2016 more times than Not... Salvation is mentioned in the Bible with No mention of Baptism.... but again... I do believe that Baptism should be adhered to... just as I believe in the regular partaking of the Lord's Supper...and the assembling of ourselves together regularly...
@Songs and Spirits.. I noticed that as well... but in the video it's hard to tell if those are crosses or crucifixes.... it would Not surprise me if they were Crucifixes.. though... since many Catholics on the web... propose they are great bible students.. when they don't know much at all... this guy I assume had a dad that was a preacher... so if so.. those wall hangings are more than likely... crosses... ny question is take a look at the background behind his chair...between 2:52 and 2:54... what disappears behind his chair?...
@James Strohl. I have already explained that I believe for the remissions …is actually saying because of the remission. As for God commanding Jesus to be baptized. Do you have a scripture verse.? The rest regarding what the Baptist preacher taught I believe is true all of it. And Korah s rebellion. I. Believe that not being baptized is a rebellion against God. But I do not think that is the sin of blasphemy. Which Jesus states in the Gospels is the only unpardonable sin. Not accepting Christ is the only unpardonable sin. Not being baptized though it may be a rebellion. Will be pardoned by God. Only not accepting Jesus as Savior will not. But as Paul in so many words has stated we should not do things contrary to the will of God. Yes not being baptized is contrary to God s will but Christians sin. Which is contrary to Gods will and I. Believe I will see Christians who have sinned in heaven one day as well since we are not great mature or complete or perfect.
@@revolutionofordinaries Ray Gane is the Seventh-day Advents author of this book and he has inserted heretical SDA doctrine directly and indirectly into the commentary. The Seventh-day Adventist prophet (Ellen White) had a vision regarding abstinence from certain foods (1 Tim. 4:1-4) and in the SDA it is called the "Health Message." Ray Gane recommends the SDA health message (vegetarianism) on page 215 using very typical "SDA:health message" doctrine and the reason to become a vegetarian. In this commentary, Roy Gane cites his book altar call 35 times. There is a total of 96 SDA unique citations in this book, with Altar Call as the single most cited source. I have many, many, examples from Altar Call, but one will suffice. On page 123 of Altar Call, Roy Gane shows he upholds the SDA doctrine of a Christ who did not die on the cross for the sins of man. For example on page 106 he states "The cross was not the end of atonement" and this is standard SDA denial of the atonement of Christ (John 19:30) and the SDA believe in a Christ with a two phased atonement. Zondervan and the editors of the NIV Application Commentary set failed to do their job.
@@AcademyApologia I am not asking for examples from altar call. I am asking for examples of poor exegesis in his commentary where his view, in your opinion, is twisting the meaning of the text (eisegesis). He actually cites his book 32 times ;) Can you explain specifically what you are seeing on p.215? I have it pulled up.
@@revolutionofordinaries I provided direct and indirect examples. Page 215 is the SDA health message to persuade vegetarianism. Altar Call is a book referenced by this commentary author in this commentary. A cited reference is an encouragement for further study and Altar Call denies the atonement of Christ. No, he cites Altar Call 35 individual times and this count includes pages where it is cited twice, i.e. page 542. Any book with references supporting its work and from non-Christian sources is not a book for Christians.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Which set would you recommend and why? Thanks for watching!
any of the commentaries written from about the turn of the last century or prior are good... The Biblical Illustrator... Pulpit... Langes... Preachers Homelitics... Joseph Parker... most of these go into each verse very deeply.. without a lot of Greek or Hebrew language quoted.. though Langes has a bit...the I.C.C.. is very thorough as well but heavy on Greek and Hebrew...I like a lot of those I mentioned here because.. they expound on the word in detail.. and as for Langes and Pulpit.. they have more than one preacher doing the exegetics on the passage.. so a person can look at the verses from different points of view.. Expositors Commentary... has many contributors as well...and Joseph Parker.. is Joseph Parker.. but he really brings out more of the devotional point of passages..Deeply... which is good.. for drawing one closer to God.. and we get a great perspective of the man/God relationship with his writings......//... contemporary wise... I prefer the James Burton Coffman.. which I believe You mentioned in your response to someone else here that your Dad had some of those... Coffman calls it as he sees it.. and does Not hold back.. if he thinks some other commentator has the passage wrong.. he just comes out and says so... and he is blunt about it... his picture on the inside covers is how his word comes across...direct.... I have even gone thru commentaries he has quoted and bactracked the quotes he has made..for His accuracy.... I also like R. Kent Hughes... he is very easy to understand... but.. then I do not feel R. Hent Hughes.. delves into many passages deep enough..... and I have been enjoying the NICOT an NICNT as of late.. but I an having trouble finding the complete Genesis of this set.. at a decent price.. since most are asjing over 40.00 for Volume 1 nad Volume 2 each.. nt sure if I want to spend 80.00 for 1 book of the bible...my Ideal commentary is one that goes thru Each verse of the bible one at a time and opens it up... many commentaries.. will skip verses or just glance over some of the topics of some verses..and Not attempt to explain them deeply...
Have you had a chance to weigh in yet on the NICNT commentary on Romans by Douglas Moo Second edition published in 2018 ? I just got the first edition of this las month. And now I see a second edition is out. Is this completely re written ? Or is there just a few more things added on to the previously written text ? Is this second edition worth the cost ? The lowest price I have found is like 55.00.
I would stick with the first edition...you should be fine. I have never compared them but the first edition is sufficient.
I love your library
Thank you so much!
What do you think about Dr. David Sorenson 11 volume commentary set? Do you think that would be a good commentary beginner set?
Thank you for asking...I am not familiar with that set so I won't be of much help! If you are just starting then NIV application or Interpretation series are great. I tend to avoid commentaries on the whole Bible by one person because one person cannot be nearly the degree of an expert on the whole Bible as dozens of scholars in other series who spent their whole lives studying a handful of books of the BIble or even a single book.
@@revolutionofordinaries Ty for your response and suggestion. Another question if you don’t mind, my bible is a KJV, is there a KJV commentary set that you would recommend?.
Another thing you may be able to shed light on The Geneva Bible Commentaries. Are these just reprinted texts from previous scholars volumes. For example Genesis the author is John Calvin. But I already have the complete John Calvin commentary set. Is this text in Geneva Commentary. Exactly the same only under their banner. ?
Do you have a link?
Great video, thank you!
Glad you liked it!
Yes I have been on the logos site. But as far as I can tell all of their stuff is digital. I like to have a library like you… that I can hold in my hands. Thanks
Correct. All digital.
I am still new to using commentaries. 1 st year Christian studies major.
God bless you in your studies!
@@revolutionofordinaries Thank you sir!
@Mike Godwin ... hello Mike...you have some catching up to do...... I have been a Christian for about 30 years... but I did Not start really buying commentaries until about 8 years ago... up until about 4 years ago you could purchase a 50 volume commentary set.. for about 300.00 off Ebay or Amazon... I was able to buy a lot of turn of the century commentaries.. back then.. but in the last 2 years or so.. sadly most of these good old commentaries.. have all but disappeared.. they are getting scarcer every day... you can still buy many mentioned in this video... but most ...unless you find them used will cost about 40.00 a book.... Anchor Commentary series are still very reasonable... for about 20.00 or less for each volume. used... but the only problem with those is.. there is close to 80 volumes in the first series.. and they have begun re releasing some volumes under different aurthorship.under series 2... so it sort of gets confusing... if you are trying to get a whole set... if you are not sure which commentary you might like... may I suggest... you type in "Bible commentaries read online..".. and go to the selection titled Bible hub... I believe... and you can actually read some of the older commentaries online to see which ones you like best... many newer ones will not be listed to read however.... I myself prefer the James Burton Coffman series... his books are about 22.00 new each on line..Amazon.... though some like Jeremiah may be a little more... and what I like about this series.. is that none of the books are divided up between 2 volumes or more except his commentary on Psalms... a lot of other commentaries such as the NICOT.. as mentioned here.. even split up Genesis and some other books of the bible into more than 1 volume... which can be a hassle...
The Pulpit. In all your research, can you share on the authority, origin, first use, first use by protestants? Why do some call the table an Altar? Thank you!
I really don't know that history...it goes back many, many years though.
@Sonny Reeves... table / Altar.. you may as well ask why temple/tabernacle..?. I got into a debate on one of these review sites a while back where someone was pointing out.. that temple/tabernacle made a difference regarding what Bible translation they trusted.... really?.. does temple or tabernacle word use in God's word.. make such a difference.....?.. I can understand if a Bible verse was totally misconstrued.. due to a bad translation...... but I seriously cannot tell the difference between table/ Altar.. or temple/tabernacle.... does this really make a significant difference..?.... I did run into a more serius translation error on Haggai 1:10.. just the other day though... and many would ask.. really?.. Haggai... just 2 chapters in God's word.. but this error was more significant in my opinion...when I read God's word.. I go thru it for 2 reasons.. 1.. to draw nearer to God.. 2.. to understand his Word better.. the 2 ideas should go hand in hand... Haggai 1:9 Why...?.. saith the Lord of hosts..".... this is from the KJV... which I mainly use.. but look at verse 10..."therefore the Heaven over you is stayed with dew..".. where is the answer to the question Why..?... here is what I found..... the ASV has the words of Haggai 1:10..." for your sake".... and see the KJV.. trnslated...:For your sake".. as "Over you"...."Over You".. is ambiguous cuz it can mean over you literally or over you figuratively... and so what happens next.. ?.. the NKJV.. and other versions translate this "Over you".. as "Above you"... which totally skips the intended meaning "for your sake...".. the NASB.. at least translates.."for your sake".. as "because of you".. so I will not squabble over the difference in "for your sake".. as opposed to "because of you".. this is the same as the difference as between.. temple/tabernacle.. in my opinion.. at least the NASB has the intended meaning.. and the KJV could have the intended meaning if read properly.. but other versions.. totally missed that verse's meaning.. see my point?.....
@@jeffcarlson3269 understood. I see it about as well as some see my own views after 65 yrs in the RM. The Altar a follower of King Jesus has is our Knees, we can lay nothing else but our, mind, soul, body, our all on any altar, if we had one, we don't , we go directly into the throne room bypassing the old rules. No we have nothing to place on an altar of or any command to pray at one in the New covenant, not that would make any difference. To add to the sacrifice is ludicrous for only God's Grace makes our salvation possible. Our Worship, prostrate on the throne room floor "as a dog licks the masters hand" we all offer the lepers hand in our prayers by the Blood of Jesus in His precious Name , 1 John 3:22-24 We are invited to come to the Table and share the Bread and New Wine in fellowship with our family of Saints like the Corinthians, messy, divisive, fussy, sinning and accepting sin yet sealed, Saints, obedient to the simple Gospel we should all obey. Acts 5:32, Acts 18:8. We need no altar, no idols, no relics of the past. The origin of an altar in "christian" rituals and rules is pagan. Documented by early church history and can be verified, WE don't need "Altar Calls" we need a call to Worship, not the sip& chip between the entertainment and the sage on the stage. IMHO
I guess what I am thinking… is …if we understand what is meant by Altar/table/throne when reading. We will know how to apply what God’s word is saying. If we look at the word table for instance and we notice that those involved in the passage are bringing items to sacrifice on it. We should realize this is not like a dinner table but something consecrated for God. Such as an Altar. Now granted. Altar may sound more Sacred or Divinely inspired and more religious. But I personally would Not call a bible version a bad translation based on that reasoning ….anymore than I would dis a translation for using the words they or you instead of ye or thee. As long as they and you are used in the same sense of meaning as the old English words were. But sadly this is Not always true. Due to translators misinterpretation of the old English…. I have to wonder if some got their degrees out of Cracker Jack boxes.
Great work, thanks a lot! 🤩🤩🤩
You are very welcome Johannes! God bless you in your studies and thanks for taking the time to leave a comment...appreciate you!
Thanks for the systematic info.
You are very welcome David! Glad you watched it and found it helpful...do you have any recommendations for us?
@@revolutionofordinaries No recommendations, but I wonder what your experience has been with "The Story of God Bible Commentary."
@@milliern good question... I have a couple in this series.. but I do not knpw if I should pursue this any farther...
@David Milliern... have you tried the James Burton Coffman series?.. or the Pulpit commentary?..some other good ones are Langes... Preachers Homelitics.. Biblical Illustrator.... Peoples Bible Commentary... Expositors C ommentary.. and of course the standbys... Matthew Henry.. John Calvin... or Barnes Notes.....the I.C.C. R. Kent Hughes... these are all pretty good... if you prefer simpler stuff... there are.. the Ironsides Commentary or J Vernon McGee Commentary.....
@@jeffcarlson3269 Thanks a bunch. I have tried the Matthew Henry (through Bible Gate) and John Calvin. I really appreciate the suggestion of the James Burton Coffman series. I found it online and I've begin reading it already.
Thanks Matt. Your audio went out the last couple of seconds. :) The Hermeneia series is very good but it's technical like the WBC. Though I think the WBC is just a little more conservative than the Hermeneia.
Thank you brother. I had a muted track that got used when the end screen came up! I started to fix when I noticed it but I had already put the link out.
I like Hermenia on a number of books. Especially Romans and Hebrews.
@Jeremy O'Clair... good point regarding the Hermenia series.. I have a few of those... I would probably have more if I could get them a little cheaper cost.. and they are not always easy to find a lot.... at least that has been my experience with them...
Yes and trying to collect all the I.C.C. Volumes was a real challenge especially the early editions which I tried to get. Since the covers from the earlier editions are better made. Finally got them all from like 1890 ‘s to 1930 ‘s. Now trying to decide if I wish to try to buy the revision editions. 1 volume at a time. This is what I have started to do with the NICNT. so far I have 2 different editions if 1st Corinthians. One. Gordon Fee
And the other is Groshiede
You might look at getting them through logos Bible software. They can be cheaper if you can wait for a sale.
BTW, the older ones are out of copyright and are free in pdf online.
@@revolutionofordinaries thanks yes I realize that with some I could do that.. but I prefer to have the actual book in hand... and I love old books.. something about picking up an older book.. and wondering how many people have looked at this same book.. and how much did they glean from it?..And I have a separate room which I use for study apart from the room with my computer in it..y study desk is more of a hutch.. and though I do have an old computer in my study.. my laptop is in a different room... and the laptop would be the computer I would use to look at pdf files since it has a faster processor...
@@jeffcarlson3269 I totally get it!
If I had to pick one it would be homilies of St. John Chrysostom. I typically use Catena Bible (catenabible.com) as it gives me patristic commentary, though sometimes it takes quotes out of context. Chrysostom is very clear, and most of the time when I disagree with him, his take still makes more sense. Clement of Alexandria and Origen did some study too. The Catena Aurea has a bit of Chrysostom too.
My absolute favorite commentary on the Old Testament is the New Testament, however. Granted it isn't exclusively a commentary, but it builds on it.
Second to that, I like Kiel and Dielitsch on the Old Testament but they are too anti-Septuagint. I also like Haydock (Catholic content warning) because most of the time Catholic makes more sense than protestant (sorry) and Orthodox is more wholistic than catholic when it comes to commentary IMHO. The four gospels and Acts by McGarvey and Pendleton are also Gold.
The most humorous commentary is the Talmud, even though they were dead serious about it. It contains everything from "scriptural proof" that Esau committed Five crimes when he sold his birthright (including rape and murder!) to how to see demons (Why anyone would want to is beyond me.) to why you must listen to at least the first verse when you say the ritual prayer. I disagree with it about 90% of the time, but it is a hilarious read.
Also, it contains the story of the oven of akhani: www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_59.html#PARTb
I had a copy of K&D but didn't keep it when I had to pair things down!
@Johnpaul Humphrey.. you might appreciate the "New Jerusalem Study Bible... or the Douay Rheims Study bible.. if you like Haydock studies.. I believe he had a hand in the Douay Rheims translation.....
I enjoy reading commentaries in the same series from different viewpoints. So I can partly understand updates. But. I do not agree the updates are necessary due to new information being discovered. Only perhaps the earlier scholars may have overlooked something that was there all along and by that same token. It works vice versa as well some new commentaries may miss things that the older ones covered solely due to viewpoints. Used.
I have been enjoying the college press NIV commentaries. Also I like Ben Witherington and Craig Keener and N.T. Wrights New Testament for everyone.
Those are all really helpful! I have read many of those and enjoyed them! Thanks for sharing.
I understand what you are saying regarding older commentaries. I have heard that as the reason the NICNT and NICOT have started revising their series by re issuing new commentaries under different authorship. But this is what I do not understand. Some of the first series were issued between the 1950 s and the late 1970 ‘s. So I am thinking. That it s not so much new information being discovered as much as it is the books are being reviewed from a different perspective. And as far as that goes why do so many think the scholars of today are more intelligent than the ones of yesteryear. ? Perhaps it is not new information. But perhaps seen from a more liberal perspective. Which does Not necessarily make it better in my opinion.
I like PNTC for readability / light technicals, otherwise NICNT for deep technicals (30% more verbose). TNTC leaves me wanting more technicals, NIGTC is too academic, and WBC is a bit too critical/liberal for me. Haven't read any NAC vols, will check it out.
That's a really good summary of the main options...spot on Josh!
You might benefit from a group I run on facebook for spotting/posting Logos deals - facebook.com/groups/logosbiblesoftwarediscounts
The goal of the use of translations would be to understand the message not pick the differences apart. What can we agree on as the perfect law of liberty? John 13:34-35 raises the standard to the highest level over and above the greatest command of the old covenants. That is the message of all the good translations. If one is confused, it is not of God for He gives His children "Bread" and we are to "Consume" Jesus as the old prophets and John were told to eat the scroll. Confusion and division is found in the commentaries by all the common taters with each an opinion, each a favorite. Many good preachers have found that the Truth thins the flock as the "Goats" are not listening to the Truth. Many "hired hands" teach all sorts of nonsense about translations and make a god of a book. John 3:16 everybody knows, John 13:34-35 few practice. IMHO
James Burton Commentary. Church of Christ preacher and very easy to understand.
I have owned those at various times in my ministry. My dad also had a set growing up. Thanks for chiming in!
@James Strohl... I agree I just finished my Coffman series last month... now I have all 37 volumes... And.. the Life and Times of James Coffman.. book..as well... all in hardcover.. I use it every day along with others in my studies.. but Coffman is my Go To Guy.. though I do Not believe that Baptism is necessary to be saved as I think Church of Christ believes..... I am a Baptist...
@@jeffcarlson3269 I understand that the "Baptist and others," believe that baptism isn't necessary. So, what is your reason why?
In my case, without Baptism, one is not saved. Christ commanded in Matthew 28. Peter (under the influence of the Holy Spirit, which in order to understand the preaching on the Day of Pentecost, has to go back to John 16:15) that Jesus on that day proclaimed that baptism was necessary for salvation. There are other verses that I won't use to make my point because I don't want to make this reply cumbersome.
Anyway Jesus commanded it.
I do know that the Baptist and others have been pushing the narrative of Huldrych Zwingli basically since there founding.
@@jamesstrohl2016 yes I agree for the sake of brevity I will try to keep my response short as well.. in Acts 16:30 the Philippian jailer asks Paul "sirs what must I do to be saved?".. and in Acts 16:31... we read... "And they said Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved , and thy house."... then later they were baptized... in several places in God's word we see the same thing believing on the Lord.....Salvation... then at some point later baptism... Salvation comes by believing... Baptism.. is the visual sign that our belief is genuine... it is Like committing to serve in the Military....we are recruited.. then Baptism is the actual going forth into battle..... Baptism is an outward demonstration that we truly trust in the Lord... so yes... I believe anyone saved SHOULD be baptized... the same I believe anyone enlisting in the Military should be ready to do battle if so needed...but I do Not believe if we are not baptized we are not saved..any more than I believe people in the Military are Not soldiers... if one has accepted the Lord as their Savior.. why would they Not wished to be baptized though?...... Acts 2:38... is popular among ones who believe Baptism saves... ..."Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins..." this would sound as if Peter was saying that in order to have sins forgiven one must be baptized... but the word "for"... used here does Not translate as "in order to"... but "because of"... this is where many reading God's word get confused because they translate their readings incorrectly...
@@jamesstrohl2016 more times than Not... Salvation is mentioned in the Bible with No mention of Baptism.... but again... I do believe that Baptism should be adhered to... just as I believe in the regular partaking of the Lord's Supper...and the assembling of ourselves together regularly...
You said you’re a student of the Bible and yet you have a cross in the background?
Sorry, what are you actually asking? Please forgive my ignorance/naivety.
@@chrisinf-11b10 it’s probably a JW.
@Songs and Spirits.. I noticed that as well... but in the video it's hard to tell if those are crosses or crucifixes.... it would Not surprise me if they were Crucifixes.. though... since many Catholics on the web... propose they are great bible students.. when they don't know much at all... this guy I assume had a dad that was a preacher... so if so.. those wall hangings are more than likely... crosses... ny question is take a look at the background behind his chair...between 2:52 and 2:54... what disappears behind his chair?...
Hassan Abvas som ja trode va min kusin per sjöström Ordet består
@James Strohl. I have already explained that I believe for the remissions …is actually saying because of the remission. As for God commanding Jesus to be baptized. Do you have a scripture verse.? The rest regarding what the Baptist preacher taught I believe is true all of it. And Korah s rebellion. I. Believe that not being baptized is a rebellion against God. But I do not think that is the sin of blasphemy. Which Jesus states in the Gospels is the only unpardonable sin. Not accepting Christ is the only unpardonable sin. Not being baptized though it may be a rebellion. Will be pardoned by God. Only not accepting Jesus as Savior will not. But as Paul in so many words has stated we should not do things contrary to the will of God. Yes not being baptized is contrary to God s will but Christians sin. Which is contrary to Gods will and I. Believe I will see Christians who have sinned in heaven one day as well since we are not great mature or complete or perfect.
I have the moody one
Do you enjoy it/find it helpful?
Yes I did I was looking for one that goes with all my translations
I also have the believers commentary
Beware of the NIV commentary on Leviticus/Numbers. This is by a non-Christian Seventh-day Adventist. Zondervan has failed their Christian audience
Can you point to specific problems in the commentary? What issues does this bring up in the accuracy of his interpretation?
@@revolutionofordinaries Ray Gane is the Seventh-day Advents author of this book and he has inserted heretical SDA doctrine directly and indirectly into the commentary. The Seventh-day Adventist prophet (Ellen White) had a vision regarding abstinence from certain foods (1 Tim. 4:1-4) and in the SDA it is called the "Health Message." Ray Gane recommends the SDA health message (vegetarianism) on page 215 using very typical "SDA:health message" doctrine and the reason to become a vegetarian.
In this commentary, Roy Gane cites his book altar call 35 times. There is a total of 96 SDA unique citations in this book, with Altar Call as the single most cited source. I have many, many, examples from Altar Call, but one will suffice. On page 123 of Altar Call, Roy Gane shows he upholds the SDA doctrine of a Christ who did not die on the cross for the sins of man. For example on page 106 he states "The cross was not the end of atonement" and this is standard SDA denial of the atonement of Christ (John 19:30) and the SDA believe in a Christ with a two phased atonement.
Zondervan and the editors of the NIV Application Commentary set failed to do their job.
@@AcademyApologia I am not asking for examples from altar call. I am asking for examples of poor exegesis in his commentary where his view, in your opinion, is twisting the meaning of the text (eisegesis). He actually cites his book 32 times ;)
Can you explain specifically what you are seeing on p.215? I have it pulled up.
@@revolutionofordinaries I provided direct and indirect examples. Page 215 is the SDA health message to persuade vegetarianism. Altar Call is a book referenced by this commentary author in this commentary. A cited reference is an encouragement for further study and Altar Call denies the atonement of Christ. No, he cites Altar Call 35 individual times and this count includes pages where it is cited twice, i.e. page 542.
Any book with references supporting its work and from non-Christian sources is not a book for Christians.
What's a non-Christian Seventh-day Adventist?
Kan lätt bätetta om honnom Inte jättelätt men du ska få vetta Så det sp