The Reformation Study Bible ESV, 2005 Edition
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- A review of the Reformation Study Bible, copyright 2005 (ISBN: 9781596381384). This older, lighter and thinner edition of the Reformation Study Bible features the 2007 ESV text formatted into two text columns. The paper is not very opaque and ghosting is troublesome. But the print is darker than that in the 2013 edition of the Reformation Study Bible, and I greatly prefer the two-column format to the very wide single-column format currently in print. The 2005 edition of the Reformation Study Bible is far smaller and more portable than the 2013 edition; but the 2005 edition’s study notes are often shorter, and it offers none of the topical articles and creedal material featured in the later edition.
At about the 19:47 point, I show how to identify the ESV text edition by examining a few verses in Genesis.
Detailed Contents
00:00 Dimensions, margins, layout, font (four charts)
00:32 A look at the box
01:15 Size compared to the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible
01:30 Size compared to the 2013 Reformation Study Bible (NKJV)
01:55 Page layout
03:20 The font in the text
04:01 The center column references
04:20 Column order versus page order references (as in the Allan 62 Longprimer)
04:50 The page-bottom notes
05:04 Paper qualities
05:40 Show-through (ghosting) is annoying
05:55 The text is NOT line-matched
06:05 The “newsprint” effect
06:52 Print non-uniformity (fading)
07:10 Book and section introductions
09:15 The words of Christ are in black ink
09:42 The concordance
10:00 A reading schedule, 14 blank pages, and eight glossy, color maps
11:05 The vinyl, paste-down liner and the burgundy genuine leather
11:30 The ribbon marker and the tail band
11:55 The Bible lies open in Genesis
12:45 The associate editor was Keith Mathison, who wrote a book on postmillennialism
13:29 The copyright page and various ISBNs
15:50 A close-up look at the typeface
16:40 Font compared to that in the Orthodox Study Bible
17:13 Font compared to that in the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible
17:48 Font compared to that in the 2013 Reformation Study Bible (NKJV)
18:28 Font compared to that in the Allan 62R, and a few words in opposition to study Bibles and in favor of one-volume commentaries
19:47 How to tell which ESV text edition you have (2001, 2007, 2011, or 2016)
22:37 The note at Genesis 6.2. Who were the sons of God?
23:36 The footnote at 2 Peter 3.9, “not wishing that any should perish”
25:03 The introduction to 2 Peter … did Peter write that book?
25:31 The introduction to the book of Revelation on the millennium
27:27 The 2005 edition of the Reformation Study Bible had more theological notes than the 2013 edition
28:11 Summary: one major difference between the two editions of the Reformation Study Bible is the additional study material included in the 2013 edition
I reviewed the newer Reformation Study Bible (NKJV) here: ruclips.net/video/wWUlfUIe-QY/видео.html .
Found a hardcover copy like new for $2 today. I appreciate your review which had made me aware of this Bible! Glad to know the 2005 has more theological notes since that's primarily what I want it for.
That's a fantastic find!
These are some of the most thorough and thoughtful review videos on RUclips.
Thank you, Ignis Rosaque! I try to provide enough detail to allow the viewer to decide whether the subject Bible is one he or she would like to own.
I have that bible in hard cover, I love the dark print, also printed in the USA. I wish the 2013 had the darker printing like the 2003. Also, this was the Bible that my dad was reading as his personal devotions when he went home with the Lord.
Thanks for commenting, Michael! I agree with you about the darker print, absolutely. I wish they had used more opaque paper, but I understand that not everyone has the same trouble with ghosting that I do. The notes and translation are very good, and it sounds as if God used this Bible to comfort your father and strengthen his faith.
I have this edition also and I liked the double column format. The new editions are single column. The newer ones are better made though. Very good review here. I enjoy these very much and learn a lot.
The 2011 ESV is the only one I particularly like. Earlier editions were essentially just the RSV with a thin coat of Evangelical paint, and the 2016 edition botches Genesis 3. The 2011 edition is just different enough from the RSV to warrant its own existence.
My feelings as well. The two ESVs I regularly use are the 2011 text and I can't imagine moving to the 2016. Unfortunately the planned obsolescence of the text in favor of the 2016 may force my hand eventually...
Yeah, I have a lingering affection for the R.S.V., even though I strongly prefer the A.V. (K.J.V.). I obtain every important variant of the R.S.V., even if now I use it less than the A.V., the E.S.V., and the N.K.J.V.
I have this earlier edition of the Reformation Study Bible (E.S.V.) as well as the later one (in the N.K.J.V.). I keep the earlier one one in the kitchen, for "quick reference" and the later one near my armchair, where I would do deeper study. It is convenient to have both. If I were to go to a lay Bible study group, I would take the earlier one along, as it is more portable. I prefer the N.K.J.V. translation, but the E.S.V. translation is more elegantly worded. If I had to choose between them, though, it is the later edition (with the N.K.J.V.) that I would opt for.
Being Lutheran, though, I consulte the Lutheran Study Bible (of Concordia Publishers) more often than either edition of the Reformation Study Bible.
I agree with a point you made that the earlier KJV bibles did center column cross-references better. The format you featured in the video from the Reformation Study Bible works well enough in a single column format (like the ESV Study Bible), but leaves much to be desired in a double column format. The very worst cross-reference layout is in modern ESV bibles, like the Systematic Theology Study Bible, where they are dumped in an ignominious pile at the bottom right of the page.
I agree. Thanks for viewing and commenting!
Do you know the dimensions of the original bible from '95 in this line (New Geneva Study Bible)?
Thanks for the review of the ESV Reformation Study Bible 2005 edition. I love this Bible except for the show through. I also prefer biographical entries in Bible concordances which the ESV Concordance does not have. Have you done a review of the ESV Study Bible?
Great review! Esv is smaller then N.k.j.v. what is the reason? Both look good, maybe good to get both of them?
Thanks for commenting, Robert! The NKJV is a later edition. It has additional articles and lengthier notes. I prefer the layout of the earlier edition.
For comparison, will you be doing a review of the ESV Gospel Transformation Study Bible - 1st edition?
Also, for our Pentecostal friends, the ESV Fire Bible is an amazing production - well printed and annotated (would love to see you review of the ESV Fire Bible)!
What would you choose esv study bible vs mccarther study bible vs rc sproul study bible???
i didn't realize someone could do such an in depth and detailed review on a bible, amazing. One thing that i don't understand is when i am reading the foot notes (2005 edition) for example page 16 Genesis 4:9 "Where is Able", See note 11:5, what is the see note referring to? I see the same thing throughout the entire bible now its bugging me hahha. Is there a separate book that has these notes? i have been looking but have not seen a mention of it. Appreciate your time.
Thanks for taking the time to comment! "See note 11:5" means that you should turn to page 27 and read the note that starts with these words in bold: "11:5 the LORD came down to see". It refers back to Genesis 4.9.
@@RGrantJones oooohhh, thank you so much!
I own 2 editions of this in black leather. One, like pictured here, has the maps in the back and tremendous show-through. The other, ISBN 978-0-87552-786-4, is a bit different. It features no maps (I believe this was originally printed with no maps, the maps to be added in 2008), and considerably less bleed-through. It is also much thicker, featuring thicker pages than the near T. P. thickness of thr 2008 edition. My wife thinks the print in the thinner one is a bit darker, but I'm willing to trade the darkness, thinness, and maps for less bleed-through. The thicker paper also seems to be of a higher quality. It is the Bible I take with me to Sunday morning worship, though I am neither Reformed nor Presbyterian. (We attend a Calvinistic, credobaptist Covenant Theology church.)
the 2005 reformation study bible has more notes than the recent ones?
Hey thanks for the video! I’m reading a lot from the esv recently and getting annoyed with it’s Yoda like wording I am. Although I been eyeballing the esv English-Greek reverse interlinear and that seems very valuable as a study tool since it has the transliteration Of Greek and strongs concordance I think. Have you seen this or reviewed a similar type of study tool? I seen the jay p greens one you did and the Internet works fine but I like having a book, in case if a zombie apocalypse of course. Thanks again
And here am I the Yoda speak loving! I have a theory that the reaction people have to the ESV's Yoda-like language depends on the translation they grew up with. It must seem odd to those who started with the NIV or the HCSB. But I grew up hearing and then reading the KJV, and I wish the ESV committee hadn't modernized so much of the KJV-style language the RSV retained. But I think the majority is against me, and I can always rely on the Authorized Version, the Geneva Bible, the Douay-Rheims, and the NKJV. No, sorry, I don't own the ESV reverse interlinear. I've thought about getting a copy of the ESV interlinear, mostly to compare it to the Brown and Comfort NRSV Interlinear, but I haven't done so. Thanks for viewing and commenting, G String!
@@RGrantJones thanks I’ll check out that nrsv interlinear video. And if you get esv interlinear make sure you consider the esv reverse interlinear over the esv Old Testament and the New Testament interlinear. The reverse interlinear has like 4 lines: Greek, transliterated Greek, English, and strongs. The other esv interlinears are original language and English below, not very helpful for me not being very fluent at all in Greek or Hebrew.
The ESV text itself would have been updated 3 times since that Bible was done. That's I'd one of the hard things with using the ESV, you have to be buying a new Bible ever r Dr k often. Can you imagine buying one of those $150-200 ones and then it'd useless because it's been updated, no less than 4 times in the 19 years of its existence.
Thanks for commenting, Edward! I think there are only three revisions (2007, 2011, and 2016). In preparing to review the Augustine Bible recently, I listened to Max McLean read through the complete 2001 ESV New Testament while I followed along in the 2016 edition. The differences were infrequent and minor! I think that, if he wanted, a person who owned a 2001 ESV could mark all of the changes in the margin of his Bible and bring it up to 2016 standards in a couple of hours time. (I've done that to military regulations -- make pen and ink changes.) But even if he didn't, I don't see why his 2001 wouldn't still be perfectly useful. I use the 2001 and 2007 editions (including a fairly expensive calfskin ESV Study Bible) all the time.
Some of the changes bother me because they dumb down the vocabulary or remove the classic style (e.g., "Here I am" for "Here am I"), but they're mostly insignificant, in my opinion. Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to view and comment, even though we disagree on this point.
@@RGrantJones Yes, it was indeed 3 times. I have a copy of the 2011 text in the study Bible and like you I prefer it to the 2016 text and as you said the changes are minor, I think I'll do what you suggested and write all those changes in the margin. I also don't like some of their changes, especially the one in Genesis 3, it would have been better as a foot note rather than the actual text. I don't have too much issue with revisions per se, the kjv was revised quite a few times, it's the frequency I take issue with. Still, I use it in combination with the Nkjv which is my main translation in my studies and still think it's a good translation, the study notes are for the most part quite good I believe.
@@edwardgraham9443 - I think that the ESV committee wanted to get something on the market quickly in 2001, so they made minimal changes to the 1971 RSV and went with it. At that point, they should have taken 20 years or so to prepare a more careful revision. For some reason, they decided to do it in a piecemeal fashion. That was unfortunate.
@@RGrantJones Yes, I agree. I thought the 2011 text was good though, I don't think the 2016 one was that necessary.
@@edwardgraham9443 I agree with you that the 2011 text is better. If you are like me and want a digital copy of this version, I use Wordsearchbible, which has not been updated to the 2016 text, unlike Logos and e-Sword.