A few days back Jim West shared his thoughts on how the Christian faith and God don’t need defending, and I disagreed here. But what sparked Jim’s post was a recently published Apologetics Study Bible. It wasn’t until today, when Pat McCullough commented on that post, that I decided to see what this Bible was all about.
Initially I was skeptical about such a project because the one other apologetics driven Bible I saw some years back, the Evidence Bible was, in my estimation, sub-standard. It seemed more concerned with defending pet doctrines (especially creationism) than it did defending the Christian faith.
But when I read through the sample pages for this particular study Bible I was impressed first or all by the contributors. I saw names like: Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, John Frame, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Ronald Nash, Rob Bowman, and more… These guys are able scholars. Of course I saw some names that I wasn’t too impressed with, but time will tell what kind of a contribution they have made.
So after skimming through the sample pages, I decided to contact Drew Van Huss of B&H Publishing and see about obtaining a copy for review. He responded almost immediately, and with enthusiasm at that! So I am very pleased to announce that in the coming weeks I will be reviewing the Apologetics Study Bible.
Oh, and did I mention that it’s the HCSB translation? I’ve never read this translation but I hear good things.
B”H
Update: I know it’s St. Patrick’s Day, but Dr. West is wearing a whole other kind of Green. Don’t worry Jim, I’ll send you the Bible when I’m done with it. :-P
I enjoy the HCSB, it’s probably my favorite comparison bible. That is, I don’t use it as one of my main translations, but it’s usually the first one I go to when I want another take. I’ve heard mixed reactions to this particular SB so it will be nice to hear what your impressions are. Also, how is it that you keep coming into all of these free books?
By: Nathan Stitt on March 17, 2008
at 4:53 pm
Looking forward to hearing tell us what’s under the hood. The ad in the paper didn’t convince me to have a look ;-)
“It seemed more concerned with defending pet doctrines (especially creationism) than it did defending the Christian faith.”
And that is my problem with apologetics in general – it will always defend a specific brand of Christianity – especially today when the ideas and doctrines are so plural. I am not sure how an apologetics can begin from any other than a doctrinal perspective and a defense of specific doctrines.
I referenced another book on the other post you should check out. It’s superb. Catholic U. Press.
By: Drew on March 17, 2008
at 5:22 pm
Nathan: It’s simple. I ask. You should try it, seriously.
Drew: Thanks for the recommendation on the other post. I’ll check into that book as soon as possible. And I think there are certain doctrines that are essential to all brands of Christianity, i.e. the resurrection, deity of Christ, Trinity, etc. What turned me off about the Evidence Bible was the strong defense of non-essentials, and also the flippant way in which arguments to the contrary were dismissed.
For example, to say that there is “absolutely no evidence for evolution” seems to me a bit ridiculous. Now, I’m not exactly convinced that evolution did happen, but I can’t really see that the majority of the world’s scientists (Christian & non-Christian) for the last hundred years have espoused evolution based on nothing more than a naturalistic presupposition. I hope that this Bible doesn’t engage issues in the same manner.
By: Nick Norelli on March 17, 2008
at 5:54 pm
I use the HCSB a fair amount as it’s one of the few pocket-sized Bibles I own. Overall, it’s very readable and the text doesn’t differ all that much from the NIV or ESV. And now that I can access the ESV over the web on my blackberry….I’ll never leave home without a Bible again. : )
ST
By: Shaun Tabatt on March 17, 2008
at 6:16 pm
But what I have seen is that even with the essentials, each apologetic makes a judgment over the specific way to understand it. Atonement – essential. Penal substitutionary atonement – not.
I think we are basically on the same page, but I am, ironically, a skeptic with most current attempts at apologetics for the basic reasons that you indicate are wrong with the Evidence Bible.
By: Drew on March 17, 2008
at 6:17 pm
Drew: I hear ya. Out of curiosity, how do you personally go about giving a reason when it is asked of you?
By: Nick Norelli on March 17, 2008
at 6:35 pm
I’m glad you’re taking on the review, Nick. I read the first page of the Genesis introduction and my skepticism remains strong. Seems they argue for an only barely nuanced Mosaic authorship of the Torah.
I think we need an Apologetics Study Bible that doesn’t need this kind of stuff to be true, but wrestles more intensely with real historical problems. I’m interested to see what you have to say about it.
By: Patrick George McCullough on March 17, 2008
at 6:42 pm
Nick, God has met me through the medium of the Christian tradition in which I was raised and I have been seeking to understand what that experience means for humanity ever since.
Based on this it means that God is not beyond revealing God’s self outside of Christianity, but that Christ is still the singularity of that self revelation to humanity.
This is why I proclaim doctrine. I defend doctrine more or less on academic grounds for some arguments are clearly more rational than others. But I in no way confuse this behavior with a literal defense of God. I do not defend God because I am the one who continues to need salvation.
By: Drew on March 18, 2008
at 7:20 am
But, Nick, it’s not St Patricks’ Day, that is yesterday it wasn’t.
By: Peter Kirk on March 18, 2008
at 8:31 am