When is the Steve Gregg study bible coming out?

[Guest]

I have ordered and read "How to read the bible for all that it is worth" it is heavy reading, to say least. I heard it advertised on the Hank Hanegraff show. Though I like the the show, the book is as hard reading and understandable as Hank's answers, maybe a little bit above the laymans reading comprehension. The authors suggest the TNIV translation bible to read. I have been listening to Steve Greggs verse by verse teachings, and it sounds like most of those are from a King James or a New King James translation. Is the TNIV the way to go?

[Guest]

I think he would be opposed to such a bible, preferring that people read the bible without footnotes of a particular view guiding them as the read the scripture.

A Steve Gregg Commentary, on the other hand, would be awesome and provide good balance to what's out there. I've thought of keeping notes as I listen to lectures in a verse-by-verse format for my own later reference purposes.

[Guest]

My hand is high in the air for a Steve Gregg study Bible--New King James Version, of course!

[Guest]

I think he would be opposed to such a bible, preferring that people read the bible without footnotes of a particular view guiding them as the read the scripture.

A Steve Gregg Commentary, on the other hand, would be awesome and provide good balance to what's out there. I've thought of keeping notes as I listen to lectures (Steve's and others') in a verse-by-verse format for my own later reference purposes.

[Guest]

Any thoughts on the newer translation, like the TNIV, which is suggested from "Reading the Bible for all that it is worth" to get the meaning/translation of scriptiure for reader of 2007?

[Guest]

the book is as hard reading and understandable as Hank's answers, maybe a little bit above the laymans reading comprehension


How about Steve becoming the new host of the BAM show!

[_Paidion]

Any thoughts on the newer translation, like the TNIV, which is suggested from "Reading the Bible for all that it is worth" to get the meaning/translation of scriptiure for reader of 2007?

I have just looked at some passages from the TNIV. There seems to be an almost heroic attempt to make the Bible understood by the contemporary reader. In doing so, the translators had to employ more interpretation than would otherwise be necessary. Doing this increases the likelihood of mistaking the intention of the authors.

I, myself, prefer a more literal translation. Even if such a translation is not as well understood by the modern reader, he would probably be less likely to interpret the Bible incorrectly because of ideas injected into the text which were not intended by the Biblical authors.

Here is an example that appears to be misleading.

First --- a fairly literal translation of John 1:18:

No one has ever seen God; the only-generated God who is in the bosom of the Father has revealed Him

Christians of the first and second centuries understood that Jesus was the only-generated (or "begotten" if you prefer) before all ages. Thus He could properly be called "Deity" or "God". But God the Father was unbegotten.

Now let's look at the TNIV translation of the verse:

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

I think one could fairly say that this is a Trinitarian translation of the verse. Mind you, even the NIV translates "monogenās" (only-generated) as "the one and only", a translation I believe to be incorrect, and effectively removes Biblical support of the generation of the Son of God before all ages, that is, at the beginning of time.

[Guest]

How about Steve becoming the new host of the BAM show!

Is Hank retiring?

[Guest]

Is Hank retiring?

No, it was just kinda tongue in cheek. 8)

[Guest]

Can anyone recommend a good Bible handbook or Commentary?