Theological perspective of commentaries

[phydaux]

I just wanted to confirm that the theological perspective of these commentaries in, in fact, reformed before I bought them:



Matthew Henry Commentary

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary

Matthew Poole Commentary



Thanks!

 

[AMR]

They are all good reformed commentaries.

Note:
Jamieson- Teaching Elder, Moderator Church of Scotland
Fausset: Anglican Presbyter, Prebendary of York
Brown: Teaching Elder, Moderator, Free Church of Scotland

So you will get some various flavors of reformed doctrine in JFB. Good nonetheless!

BTW, these should be available online at no cost, too.

 

[hedrick]

Note that two of the three on the original list are 17th Cent. The other is 19th Cent. There's nothing wrong with historical commentaries. I use Calvin's regularly. But for many purposes you probably want a commentary that presents and engages with current scholarship.

Incidentally, if you're going to use historical commentaries, I would think Calvin's should be at the top of your list.

 

[phydaux]

BTW, these should be available online at no cost, too.

Yes, but I'm a dead tree version guy.

And that leads me to a funny story.


There's a new church opening in my town, very dynamic, lots of young people. I went to the "vision night" to meet the leadership and see how I might get involved. Spent about two hours in the ball room of the local Holiday Inn with about 75 people.

As I moved among them, I noticed something. Of all these people, pastors, elders, volunteers, I was the only one carrying a Bible. That struck me as very odd, and made me start to doubt this group's authenticity.

I had struck up a conversation earlier that night with one of the pastor's wives, so I found her and I asked her if she thought that was odd. She just sort of looked at me askance and said "I have a bible on my phone."

 

[BryanW92]

Yes, but I'm a dead tree version guy.

And that leads me to a funny story.




I had struck up a conversation earlier that night with one of the pastor's wives, so I found her and I asked her if she thought that was odd. She just sort of looked at me askance and said "I have a bible on my phone."

I own quite a few paper bibles. But, I use the ones on my iPad for study, teaching, and preaching. I had a person ask me one day if I thought that it was appropriate to use "one of those things" for teaching. I replied that we are not Muslim. The book is not sacred. A leather bound bible is not more holy than a paperback bible and neither is more holy than an electronic bible.

My iPad contains 8 translations, 2 study bibles, a bible dictionary, an atlas, and a copy of Strongs. My Olive Tree software permits me to highlight, bookmark, and annotate.

Don't doubt their authenticity because they carry more than one bible around. (Before you ask, I'm not some kid who grew up with this technology. I'm 52 years old.)

 

[phydaux]

Thanks for pointing me toward Olive Tree. I've been looking for something like that, and it seems like Quick Verse is a dead app. I'll give Olive Tree a try.

 

[JM]

A few months back a minister I’m friends with on fb posted the findings of a recent study that indicated more and more accurate information is retained from reading a physical book. It has something to do with the physicality of the book, the tactile element missing from ipads and ereaders. It was a significant amount of accurate information retained from reading a physical book compared to an electric devise. I can’t recall much more than what I posted above because, after all, I read it on my ipad.

I've never been able to read my Bible on my iphone or ipad for very long. Last night my wife and I read the Bible together and I had to get my physical copy and read from it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[BryanW92]

I've seen this study. Even the author of the study admits that she only used two experienced ereader users in her study.

But other studies have shown that ereader users read and average of 24 books a year versus 15 for paper readers. For the casual reader, perhaps the paper is better , but for the person who commits to the ereader, the ereader is as good as a paper book.

I have used an ereader for 3 years and have grown so accustomed to them that a paper book feels strange in my hands now.

 

[JM]

I've seen this study. Even the author of the study admits that she only used two experienced ereader users in her study.

But other studies have shown that ereader users read and average of 24 books a year versus 15 for paper readers. For the casual reader, perhaps the paper is better , but for the person who commits to the ereader, the ereader is as good as a paper book.

I have used an ereader for 3 years and have grown so accustomed to them that a paper book feels strange in my hands now.

I’m pretty sure it was more than one study, at least it was more than one article I read on the subject.

I work in a library. Have for 21 years (since I was 16) and can tell you people love eBooks. They LOVE them to death! But the research shows people who love ereaders also read more fiction. Not only do they sign out more eBooks than the average physical copy reader they tend to never finish the works they sign out or fail to even start them. It’s not the fault of the ereader or iPad, but society itself is changing the way we digest information. It seems people today can’t seem to stay focused long enough to actually read a book!

All that I really care about is that people read the Bible, that they retain what they read and apply to their lives.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[BryanW92]

I work in a library. Have for 21 years (since I was 16) and can tell you people love eBooks. They LOVE them to death! But the research shows people who love ereaders also read more fiction. Not only do they sign out more eBooks than the average physical copy reader they tend to never finish the works they sign out or fail to even start them. It’s not the fault of the ereader or iPad, but society itself is changing the way we digest information. It seems people today can’t seem to stay focused long enough to actually read a book!

I agree about the changes in people's brains. But that will apply to print media as well as eBooks.

It comes down to a personal preference. If you like paper books, keep using them. If you prefer eBooks, use them. But most studies on something as new as eReaders are probably going to miss some variables. I looked at several studies and they all seemed to ignore experienced eBook users. They were all basically, "I gave a book and an eReader to a group of people and then administered a comprehension test afterwards."

One downside to eReaders is that they keep packing in new features, like a web browser and Facebook, so people get a *ding" and leave the book to check FB. I always turn the WiFi and Cellular off on my iPad when I'm reading to prevent those kinds of distractions.

Of course, readers of paper books probably get distracted by their smart phones too.

Too much technology! :-(