The Ryrie Study Bible Nkjv

[Alayna Rother]

Ialso started with the Ryrie NIV study bible. I later moved to the Ryrie NASB study bible and used it for many years. I still use it regularly as I study and prepare my Sunday School lessons. Currently, my preferred study bible is the ESV study bible. I switched to the ESV a couple years ago and eagerly awaited the release of the study bible. It is now my everyday bible. I have also wanted the MacArthur NASB study bible. At some point I will get it.

I was looking over your advice concerning study Bibles and wanted to ask your opinion of the Thompson chain reference Bible. This Bible has an interesting system of references and topic chain of verses, etc. Do you know of it and have you used it? I am somewhat aware of the other study Bibles you reviewed (i.e., Ryie, Scofield). I was considering the purchase of the Thompson and thought I'd get some advice about it, if possible, to help decide if I want to purchase it. Any comments would be appreciated.

As to which version is best, as you have noted, my preference is toward both the NKJV and the NASB versions. This is because both the NKJV and the NASB provide reliable word-for-word translation of their respective Greek texts.1 I prefer the NKJV over the NASB because I prefer the Byzantine family of Greek texts behind the Majority Text (MT) and Textus Receptus (Received Text, TR) over the Alexandrian family of Greek texts favored by the Critical Text (CT) which is behind the NASB and most other modern translations. I also like the NKJV because it footnotes places where the CT and MT vary significantly from the TR (of the KJV and NKJV). This can be especially helpful when teaching, especially in a home group where others are using translations which follow the CT (e.g., NIV, NASB).

The reason I mention both the NKJV and the NASB is that I prefer the Greek text behind the NKJV, but it has also been my experience that the NASB generally does a superior job of translating its Greek terms into English. So my ideal doesn't really exist: a version which follows the TR (or MT which TR differences noted), but translates individual words with the accuracy and consistency of the NASB. If you get both translations, you will be well served because you will be able to compare readings from the Textus Receptus (TR), Majority Text (MT), and Critical Text (CT) as well as have two excellent word-for-word renderings of the original language.

In regard to the Ryrie Study Bibleb, I consider it a superior study bible to the Thompson Chain-Reference Study Bible. The main reasons are that the Ryrie Study Bible includes a more complete set of cross-references (although only a small subset are topically arranged) and treats prophetic passages on an equal footing with non-prophetic material. Even though the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible may include a larger number of topical chains and offer greater assistance for character studies, I believe the Ryrie Study Bible gives a more consistent treatment of the text and avoids the errors (in my view) of imposing Covenant Theology over the text. Although it is my understanding that the Ryrie Study Bible was once available in the NKJV text, it has been out of print for some time. Therefore, I would recommend purchasing the NASB version (or the KJV if you are comfortable with the "King's English").

As I mention elsewhere, I do not recommend the NIV for detailed bible study. While its thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence) translation method can be very helpful for the new believer, over time it will not hold up for detailed study because of the inconsistent ways in which it loosely renders the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. In some cases, the translation includes the interpretation of the translators2 leaving the reader without any indication of the other possible ways to understand a particular phrase. The rule of thumb is: if the translation does not mark words in italics then it is probably not what you want for detailed study. (The words in italics indicate additional English words added for readability, but not reflected in the original language. If you are placing great emphasis on a word or phrase that appear in italics, then you know immediately that you are on thin ice!)

1 A superior word-for-word English translation is the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) by Jay P. Green available from Sovereign Grace Publishers. This is not a study bible and does not include cross-references or notes, but its consistent literal treatment of the underlying text can be most helpful for those who do not have access to the original languages.

2 All translations include some interpretation. But good translations will minimize the amount of interpretation and preserve the ambiguities of the underlying text. Rather than simplifying the text by providing one interpretation (which may not be the correct one), they will pass the ambiguity on in the English and allow the reader to be aware of the various interpretive possibilities.

I wanted to ask your opinion on something. Like you, my primary Bible has been the Ryrie Study Bible. I use the Ryrie NASB is my own personal reading. I think the NASB is a great bible for personal reading and study. Like you and many others I am really big on grace and the clear gospel. I was raised Catholic and saved nearly ten years ago, so I have experienced firsthand the deadly mixture of faith and works. Let me say first off, I really really value Dr Ryrie. His book So Great A Salvationa is a great thesis on salvation. I agree with him that believers will bear fruit at sometime, somewhere. Even deathbed conversions have the fruit of peace etc. However his note in the Ryrie Study Bibleb in James 2:24 is troubling.

This verse is the reply to the question of v.14. Unproductive faith cannot save, because it is not genuine faith. Faith and works are like a two-coupon ticket to heaven. The coupon of works is not good for passage, and the coupon of faith is not valid if detached from works.

What do you make of this comment? It seems to fly against what I know Dr Ryrie believes. I know he is big on grace and is not lordship. Yet his note here seems to indicate he would believe in Perseverance of the Saints as opposed to Eternal Security.

Will believers have good works? Probably . . . but we cannot qualify it and [this] rules out deathbed conversions. Deathbed conversions have the fruit of peace, but hardly works. Same same thing with the thief on the cross.

Curious on what insight you may offer. I love my Ryrie NASB and KJV study bibles and don't want to have to find something else! I do not think there is one with better cross references. (I just wish they made it in NKJV as I like that text better).

The footnote in the Ryrie Study Biblea to which you refer has been pointed out by many in the grace community as problematic and inconsistent with what Ryrie has said elsewhere in his brilliant critiques against Lordship Salvation in books such as So Great A Salvationb.

The basic problem with the footnote is that it asks a question from James 2 that the epistle is not designed to answer. The saving faith of James audience is presumed throughout the letter. The faith of his audience already exists and is being matured and tested (Jas 1:2-4). Thus, James refers to his audience as "brethren" throughout the letter. Rather than asking the question about whether faith exists based upon the presence of fruit as the Ryrie Study Bible footnote assumes, the real question James asks is whether one's faith, that already exists, is useful or productive in the Christian life. The issue in James 2 is not existent vs. non-existent faith but rather is productive vs. non-productive faith.

Except for a few problems like these, the Ryrie Study Bible is a very fine study Bible. I do not think that you can find a study Bible that is 100 percent perfect. Even if there is one that is soteriologically perfect, they usually have defects in their Eschatological understanding. This goes to show that no human Bible interpreter, even an outstanding one like Charles Ryrie, is perfect. As you well know, our eyes need to be consistently on the Lord and not man.

Choosing a Bible can be a complicated task. With a plethora of versions and editions to choose from, with an equal number of study/reference editions, along with bindings. It seems like a daunting task.

There are other considerations as well which are minor but still merit consideration: (1) text format [verse v. paragraph], (2) binding [genuine leather v. bonded v. imitation leather v. hardcover v. paperback], and (3) other features.

1: In terms of translation, my highest preference and recommendations are for a conservative protestant, multi-denominational, formal equivalence translation [such as the NASB or NKJV]. While I will refer to other translations occasionally, such as dynamic equivalent translations like the NIV, ESV, or HCSB, my use of them is limited as more of a commentary and to examine how others may draw different conclusions of the meaning and application of a text based on their translational choices. I have absolutely no use whatsoever for paraphrases such as The Message, the Good News Bible, or the Contemporary English Version.

2: In terms of text format, I prefer a verse format over a paragraph format. Bibles which follow the verse format are becoming fewer as new editions of versions which appeared originally in a verse format [the NKJV and NASB] are now being issued in paragraph format. Unfortunately, these are getting harder to find. [See paragraph which follows]

CC = Center-column references, a system in which cross references and certain notes appear in a center column between two columns of text [as used in the MacArthur Study Bible and the NKJV Study Bible].

D = Dispensational, a theological perspective which teaches that God has revealed Himself successively via different covenants and has instituted different economies dictating how faith is properly demonstrated/expressed within those economies.

3a8082e126