ESV Study Bible (Review)

ESVSB.jpgDennis, Lane T., ed.

The ESV Study Bible, English Standard Version

Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. Pp. 2752. Hardcover. $49.99.

Westminster Bookstore | Crossway | Amazon | CBD



With thanks to Michele Bennett at Crossway for this review copy!

Having worked with the ESV Study Bible (hereafter ESVSB) for about two weeks now I have to say that I’m both impressed and disappointed.  There was a lot of buzz surrounding the ESVSB in the blogosphere with some people touting it as being the greatest study Bible ever produced, even before its release!  This of course creates a level of expectation and when that’s not met it leaves one less impressed than they might have been had nobody said anything in the first place.  Having said that, I want to comment on what I perceive to be the ESVSB’s strengths and its weaknesses.

Aesthetically this Bible is magnificent!  In all honesty this is the nicest looking study Bible I’ve ever seen.  Whereas I commended the NLTSB for having a “simple and straightforward” look I have to commend the ESVSB for having a classy and elegant look.  For starters the main text is in a single column format which is nice and the lettering is all black (i.e., the words of Christ are not in red).  I don’t mind red lettering but a lot of Bible readers do so they’ll be especially pleased with this feature.  There are marginal notes for cross referencing and while I personally prefer center-column notes I realize that this is not possible when the text is in a single column format.  The study notes are in a double column format and appear in a smaller font beneath the main text.  The editors explain this choice saying:

The difference in font sizes serves to remind readers that the words of the Bible itself are infinitely more valuable than the words of the notes. [p. 9]

I quite agree!  That said, I still think that the notes are a good size because I can read them while sitting up straight with the Bible on my lap (and my eyesight has been failing over the years).  Also impressive was the tasteful and sparse use of color.  The text and notes appear in black and white with occasional beige highlighting for section headings in the introductions and articles, as well as some outlining features in the notes and charts, but the maps and illustrations appear in full color.  Below are two examples (click to enlarge):

Golgotha and the Temple Mount (p. 2066-67)

Table of Nations (p. 67)

Other strengths include the introductory articles and book introductions.  Much like the NLTSB, the ESVSB went above and beyond the usual 1-2 paragraph book introductions in providing 2 (Habakkuk) to 10 page (Revelation) introductions that provide the following information:

  • Author and Title
  • Date
  • Theme
  • Purpose, Occasion, and Background
  • Key Themes History of Salvation Summary
  • Literary Features
  • Timeline
  • Outline

These are the basic features in almost every book introduction but certain books include even more information!  In addition to the book introductions there are number of introductory articles (19 total!) for the Old and New Testaments as well as the intertestamental period.  And on top of these nineteen articles is another 100+ pages of articles in the back of the Bible!  Suffice it to say that the ESVSB is packed with information.

But like any study Bible the usefulness and accuracy of the information provided varies.  Fellow blogger Iyov offered some criticism of the article entitled “The Bible and Contemporary Judaism” [p. 2623-25] back in September at which time he found the scholarship lacking.  My Arminian sensibilities were offended by the article on “Salvation” [p. 2531] in which Eric Thoennes explains that regeneration precedes faith saying:

God’s calling produces regeneration, which is the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in which a spiritually dead person is made alive in Christ . . . The revived heart repents and trusts Christ in saving faith as the only source of justification. [p. 2531]

While I think it fair to criticize this for being unbiblical, I don’t know that it’s fair to criticize its appearance in this particular study Bible given that its doctrinal perspective is stated as being “that of classic evangelical orthodoxy, in the historic stream of the Reformation.” [p. 10]  This of course is what those with Calvinistic leanings believe the Bible to teach, and this is a Bible that leans towards Calvinism.

I very much appreciated the amount of space that was devoted to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology with articles on “What It Means to Know God” [p. 2509-10]; “The Character of God” [p. 2510-13]; “The Trinity” [p. 2513-15]; “The Person of Christ” [p. 2515-19]; “The Holy Spirit” [p. 2520-22]; and finally “The Work of Christ” [p. 2522-26].  The Bible as well as Church history (e.g., the Trinitarian & Christological controversies) are referenced throughout these articles and they sketch an overall accurate picture of the doctrine and events that contributed to its formation.  I did take issue with the article on the Trinity once it came to the “practical implications of the Trinity,” specifically implication #4 which says: “The Trinity provides the ultimate model for relationships within the body of Christ and marriage (1 Cor. 11:3; 12:4–6; Eph. 4:4–7).” [p. 2515]  My discontent with dragging the Trinity into the gender debate is well documented so I won’t go into it here.

The notes are a different issue and this is really where my disappointment comes in.  For example, in surveying the notes to John’s Prologue (Jo. 1:1-18) I noticed that there was no mention made that the prologue may have been added after the completion of the Gospel to serve as an outline of sorts.  There was also no mention made that many scholars believe this to have been an early Christian hymn or creed/confession.  Strangely, this information was also absent from the book’s introduction.

Sticking with John’s Gospel for a moment, in an extensive note on John 1:1 Köstenberger paradoxically provides both too much yet not enough information which will result in most reader’s being either confused or falsely confident.  He says:

From the Patristic period (Arius, c. a.d. 256–336) until the present day (Jehovah’s Witnesses), some have claimed that “the Word was God” merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article. However, in Greek grammar, Colwell’s Rule indicates that the translation “a god” is not required, for lack of an article does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness (“a god”) but rather specifies that a given term (“God”) is the predicate nominative of a definite subject (“the Word”). [p. 2019]

This provides more information than necessary in appealing to Colwell’s rule, yet not enough because he doesn’t give the reader any information on exactly what Colwell’s rule is, how it works, where it can be found, or criticisms of/arguments against it.  I can imagine it now, a Jehovah’s Witness will come knocking one Saturday morning and a ESVSB user will want to debate them on the translation of John 1:1.  When they appeal to Colwell’s rule in the course of conversation they might feel extremely confident, until the knowledgeable (or unknowing) JW asks them exactly what that is or why they should consider it.  I think Köstenberger could have done much better here.

As I said earlier, I can’t really criticize this study Bible for having a Calvinist bent since that’s its stated doctrinal perspective, but when they do seek to present alternative interpretations of passages they don’t really seem to give the full picture or best arguments set forth by those who hold these other views.  The Hebrews “warning passages” are a prime example.  I’d prefer that no mention was made to alternative interpretations rather than insufficient reference.  But this is really the main problem with producing a study Bible that’s theologically driven; whether the notes are accurate or not, there’s always going to be readers that disagree due to differing theologies.  This is an area where I believe the NLTSB has the advantage over the ESVSB.

I want to end this review on a positive note and speak of the online ESVSB.  In a word it’s GREAT!  It contains the full ESV text (which is searchable), all of the translation and study notes, cross references, articles, charts, pictures, and maps (which I utilized above).  Perhaps the best feature is the ability to compose your own notes and highlight the Bible’s text.  You can even listen to the Bible read aloud if you don’t feel like making your eyes work.  Below is a screen shot so you can see some of the features (click to enlarge).

I’ve promised this Bible to my mother upon the completion of my review but because I have online access to all of the content I’m not as distraught as I would be otherwise.  And it is with the confidence that my mother will grow in her understanding of the word, but also with the caveat not to believe everything that she reads, that I’ll present her with this Bible.

It’s tough to rate this one because of my theological perspective; as a non-Calvinist I disagree with so much of the commentary, but I recognize that Calvinists will find this to be the best study Bible they’ve ever encountered.  It’s a beautiful Bible but it’s usefulness isn’t determined by its aesthetic appeal.  I think that the book introductions and other introductory articles are extremely helpful.  I think there is much worth reading in the end-of-Bible articles as well.  The concordance and daily Bible reading plan are also a plus, but sadly it lacks a dictionary.  While I certainly cannot agree with C. J. Mahaney who said, “I can’t imagine a greater gift to the body of Christ,”1 I can agree that this would make a great gift to your friend or family member who has Reformed leanings.  I think that those of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Arminian persuasions will find themselves quite frustrated at times.  At the end of the day I’ll give this three strong stars3.0 out of 5 starsand I have no hope that what I perceive to be its deficiencies will ever improve given the intended audience and underlying doctrinal perspective.


1 I think it would be fair to say that the Holy Spirit is a greater gift to the body of Christ, as is salvation, faith, grace, etc.

52 thoughts on “ESV Study Bible (Review)

  1. Norelli,

    If I may offer a bold, yet respectable, interjection here: I am concerned that your being enamored with the NLTSB has biased your view of the ESVSB.

    I strongly disagree with a 3 star rating of the ESVSB.


  2. Michael: Actually, I’d say my Arminianism has biased my view of the ESVSB more than anything else.

    But it would be impossible for me to review this without some reference to the NLTSB just as it was impossible for me to review the NLTSB without reference to the other study Bibles I owned before it.

    I gave it a “strong” three stars which is like me saying 3.5 stars (but I don’t give half stars). I can’t give it four or five because I don’t feel it will reach a broad enough audience.

  3. Good, open-handed review. As a Calvinist, I will concede that the ESV Study Bible is made for Calvinists or those leaning towards it, which is sad since I’d have liked more a broadly evangelical one. It also makes all the naysayers right – which tends to be never cool.

    That said, I like it a lot BUT the NLT still has an edge on it for me, seeing as I’m into Biblical studies a lot more than systematic theology which seems to be the focus of this Bible.

  4. Douglas: Amen brother, amen! This is a great study Bible for the corner of Christianity that it’s intended to serve, but I just wish it had reached out a little further.

  5. Nick, great review as always. The Calvinist slant was my first impression, but wanted to review it more before I made that conclusion. I have been so darn busy that I have not had the time to review it as well as you have. But what I thought would be seems to be true, it does have a Calvinist slant.

    With that said I so long as you know that I still think that it is a good study bible. It seems to be fair towards Charismatics. Also the on-line version will get a lot of use from me, but before I commit I need to purchase a NLTSB, then I’ll see which one I use on line.

  6. Robert: Yeah, while my Arminian sensibilities were offended at times, my Charismatic sensibilities haven’t been (yet). As far as online versions go I actually think that the ESV has the NLT beat. The highlighting and note taking are great features. But the online NLTSB is still beta testing so we’ll see what they come up with in the future.

  7. Doug,

    When you say “As a Calvinist, I will concede that the ESV Study Bible is made for Calvinists or those leaning towards it, which is sad since I’d have liked more a broadly evangelical one.” are you implying that those outside the Calvinist (Arminians and Open Theists, but Arminians in particular) camp remain evangelicals?

  8. Open Theists, from my understanding, are NOT evangelicals because the God of process theology/Open Theism contradicts the God of the Bible who makes no bones about the fact that He knows the end from the beginning and even prophesies it.

    That said, there are Arminians who are solidly evangelicals, such as Ben Witherington III and Roger Olson, so yes I would say that conservative Arminians are part of the broadly evangelical movement.

  9. Great review of the ESV Study Bible. I actually won one from a blog but have not received it yet. I love the ESV as a translation and have thumbed through the ESV Study Bible at our local bookstore and thought it to be impressive. As an Arminian myself the notes will probably not fully appeal to me. I have prepared myself for that. The ever popular NIV Study Bible simply avoided any issues critical among evangelicals especially among Arminians and Calvinists. I also noted that the ESVSB in the book of Revelation tends to avoid the issues relating to the end times debate.

    Overall, I know that any “evangelical” study Bible is quite hard to make. Arminians don’t fully agree with one another nor do Calvinists! An example is the MacArthur Study Bible versus the Reformation Study Bible. Both are reformed but the MacArthur is dispensationalist while the Reformation is not. I well remember the old Wesley Study Bible (that Wesleyans disliked) versus the Full Life Study Bible (Pentecostals) that agreed on many aspects of Arminianism but not on the person and work of the Holy Spirit and end times.

  10. Roy: Thanks. I entered some of those giveaway contests too (because I promised my copy to my mother and I wanted one for myself) but didn’t win. Congrats on your win though!

    Of course you’re right that it’s difficult to make an evangelical study Bible that’s going to appeal to all evangelicals. I think that the target audience of this Bible will be extremely satisfied, and even those looking for a Calvinistic-evangelical view on certain subjects will benefit from it as well, even if they don’t agree with what’s said.

    In the end it boils down to simply not being able to please everybody.

  11. Nice assessment. I certainly wouldn’t have given it 3 stars, but you are more qualified for that sort of judgment, and much more graceful.

    The fact that the ESVSB is NOT garnered solely for Calvinists but to the public at large makes this study Bible more than just “less appealing” to me. I’ve read several of the study notes in a bookstore, which promotes classical Reformed Calvinism ~ and this they are doing NOT just for Calvinists but for the Church. Nowhere is this study Bible advertised as one which is great for Calvinists. Thumbs way down!

    I use the TNIV Study Bible (which can at times hint at a Calvinistic slant), but it is by far NOT as in-your-face Calvinism as the ESVSB, and I will not be purchasing one. I already own Sproul’s ESV “Reformation Study Bible,” MacArthur’s Calvinistic-Dispensational Study Bible, and the NIV “Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible.” That’s quite a bit too much Calvinism for this Arminian! Why would I want to purchase another?

    Moreover, I don’t even like the ESV, let alone would I spend a lot of money for a study Bible in the ESV. It’s literary and snobbish style is too much for me: “and supremely so toward you” (2 Cor. 1:12). Really?

    Nonetheless, you gave it an honest review. Thanks for the hard work.

  12. William,

    MacArthur & Sproul I get shivers (the bad kind) just saying both of their names in the same breath. Yeah, other then the on-line benefits not sure what you would gain by owing the ESVSB.

  13. William: I don’t know how much more qualified I am, but I sense that you’re holding back. Go ahead and tell us what you really think. ;)

    Robert: To be fair I think there’s a lot of good things in the various articles and book introductions. I’m less impressed with the notes than anything.

  14. Scott,

    There is no reason for Arminian Theology to make one be no longer evangelical. I asked Doug this question here because I have read on his blog where he has put Arminian Theology in such a horrible context that I honestly would have trouble seeing how he could, on the one hand, affirm Arminians as Evangelical while on the other hand, putting Arminian Theology is such a bad context. For example, when commenting on a recent debate between Rev. Angus Stewart, from Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship in Ballymena, N. Ireland, and Timothy Ramsey, a Word of Faith preacher, Doug said here:

    “Ladies and gentleman, I think what we have seen here today has been a clear demonstration of why Arminianism is wrong. To quote Steve Lawson in his book Foundations of Grace, the Calvinism-Arminianism debate is a continental divide in theology. Arminianism will lead all sorts of heresy and stupidness, as we saw tonight.”

    I can’t help but scratch my head and wonder how can Doug affirm Arminians as evangelicals while also simultaneously saying “Arminianism will lead to all sorts of heresy and stupidness.” This kind of thinking abounds in the minds of young calvinists (If you are an Arminian, just start a topic on the subject over at the forum board of reach-records and see a prime example of this).

  15. Well firstly, Troy, thanks for calling me on it. I will openly admit that I went too far in that comment on my blog. While I do not disown the sentiment behind that statement, I put it completely wrong and not in a very graceful way. For that I apologise.

    That said, one does not have to speak favourably ofl a theological system to think of its adherents as saved. I disagree strongly with Arminianism even though it is within the pale of evangelicalism

  16. Doug, your humility is admirable ;-). If only the bunch that regularly defend Calvinism over at Reach Records would learn from you!

  17. Nick, you are right.

    For me personally I don’t find much use for the printed copy, as I do the on line version. Which by saying that I am saying that there is a lot of good use from the ESVSB. The big advantage are all of the charts, maps, and some of the notes/articles that can be easily transfered to a Word doc, or power point for the purpose of teaching, that is very useful.

    I just don’t have the need for a printed one, as nice as it is. If I was on a budget I would consider the NLTSB.

  18. Robert: I tried to win a printed one but it didn’t work out. I’d like to have one for the collection but it’s just not in my budget to buy one right now. Plus my mother really wanted the one I had so I kind of had to give it up.

  19. On the charismatic bent of the ESVSB:

    Was at a lecture by Wayne Grudem (general editor of ESVSB), last Friday at a relatively cessationalist bible college. Our bible college being charismatic (they kindly invited us to come).

    He strongly, though gently disagreed with the more extreme cessationalists, said he could work with the mild ones, though he disagreed. But on the other hand, his reaction to one of my lecturers comments; “I think the holy spirit also helps show us how to love our neighbours”, his reply was “Oh, I’d never thought of that.”

    That said, he was far more open to our charismatic arguments, – no matter his unfamiliarity with it, than he was the cessationalist’s. – He later used my lecturer’s comment answering someone else’s question.

    I was also very impressed with his character; for example, even though it was the last day of the week (we only came down for that day) of lectures, he made sure he knew everyone’s names before he started. Very friendly, very warm guy.

  20. Regarding the ESVSB being Calvinistic, I’m wondering if anyone have a list of verses with comments that are extremely biased in this regard?

  21. Jon: I’ve not made a list, sorry. When I get some extra time I’ll skim through it and see if I can’t come up with something for you.

  22. Hi all,

    I’ve just come across with site, while I’m not a Christian, I’m still interested in reading The Bible…would this be a good choice?

    Thanks and kind regards

  23. I just received this week from a friend of mine the MacArthur Study Version of the ESV Bible. I think this bible is ok. However, since I am a Catholic Christian, it seemed that this bible is definitely a Non- Catholic Bible. For one thing it excludes the Deutero-Canonicals/Apocrypha, and said in the introduction that those books are “uninspired”. However the books from the Apocrypha such as Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, and others were books used in Catholic, Orthodox, and even the very original 1611 copy of the King James Bible. Plus the notes on Matthew 16:18 about the Primacy of Peter is interpreted in a way where it seems to take away or lessen any power of Papal, or even any type of hierarchy that some churches have, ad which a lot of churches had in the time of the early church, when the apostles passed on the teachings of Christ that were written down (from scripture) and oral tradition (not written, but still taught by Christ).
    Overtime, especially in the twentieth century, churches started to look at scientific views of the origins of the universe…however MacArthur believes still that the world was created in “six,twenty-four hour length days”. It seems that the real evangelical movements of Christianity, like those that MacArthur is apart of, still believe this without taking into account that there were organisms and parts of the Universe that were around millions of years ago; and that the reason why the bible separates the times of creation in days was done during the time of the ancient world, a time where people did not understand how the world came into form. Also the views about the Eucharistic Presence, the Lord’s Supper, and other beliefs which have been around for thousands of years by the church are different.
    I agree with Nick Norelli…..that anyone who is Catholic or Orthodox would have trouble with reading this bible.

  24. Why are there so many versions of the Bible anyway? I mean after two thousand years the church which the apostles started has broken down and splintered….mainly because every different denomination has different interpretations of Scripture. I mean the Mormons (not to offend anyone) have a second book talking about Jesus being present in North America and converting the Native Americans…..I do not doubt the Bible as being the infallible word of God, but when there are churches that say that one verse means this and another means that is something that can cause fallibility with the way it is taught. Why are there so many different types like the New English/Good News Bible or different versions of the Vulgate, KJV, etc?
    God prayed at the last supper that we may all be one “just as You [the Father] and I [Jesus] are One”…..If we want to be unified i honestly think we need to take a good look at the Bible in its original language, be open minded to different doctrines, and have every single denomination in the world come together as one in this process. Tell me what you guys think.

  25. Matthew: MacArthur is about as far from a Catholic as one can get and pretty much any study Bible in the ESV translation is not going to be heavy on Catholic dogma.

    As to why there are so many versions of the Bible I think there’s all kinds of reasons. Different languages, different eras, different manuscripts, different translation philosophies, different audiences, etc. From the earliest times there have always been a proliferation of translations (that’s how Origen was able to compile his [sadly lost] Hexapla).

  26. Nick, I know I’ve come to the discussion a little after the fact. I liked your review about the ESV. Came to the conclusion awhile back that I needed to get a more literal translation and started the investigation. I’ve had a NIV for a good 20 years I think. After getting really serious about what God wants to convey (to me) I started reading online sites for info. I’ve had a KJV (30 +years) and wore that out (it’s got a lot of yellowed scotch tape holding it together along with GOOP adhesive holding the binding on), and my NIV is pretty worn too. Still have both and read each as prompted to do so. In any case I started reading the comments above and was surprised to find that Calvanism and Arminiansm seemed to be a deciding factor in how they “understood” the ESV. I found that to be strange since “it” is the Word. I didn’t know that God had exerted the efforts He had to place the revelation in front of man only to screw it up because “it ” didn’t fit neatly into those two opposing views! I view all this as “straining at a nat” so to speak. I think that the fellows from those two camps really do miss the forest for the trees and it is a peripheral ring of debate. Still I can’t imagine reading the Word of God through a filtered viewpoint that dictates that I approach it through another mans viewpoints, ie, the fellows Calvin and Jacobus. I only know their names because I had to look that up on the web. I know what a cult is, I know what a counterfiet is, I understand what deception is. I don’t view those two systems above as either. I think a man should read his scripture and pray to the Lord for an understanding of it. I never understood why men construct a spiritual identity based on the musings of another man. It’s our nature as men I suppose. One thing has become most apparent though; it seems to be mans persuit to take anything that exists and continually ramp it up to the “next level” until it all becomes vanity. Wheather it is a secular or a spiritual endeavor it just seems to be our nature to one up the other guy. Like I said originally Nick, it was a good review and helped me get a good handle on the ESV as a reliable choice. By the way, I had “The Way” as my first Bible back when I first believed in 1974 and one day I was reading a passage out of Corinthians, and the Spirit of God engulfed me (with His Presence) with the revelation of what Jesus Christ had done for us when He was on the cross. It was one of a few similiar spiritual experiences that the Lord blessed me with. And to think that happened from reading “The Way.” I’ll meet you in Heaven brother.

  27. Keith: I appreciate your viewpoint but I just wanted to clarify that I don’t think the ESV as a translation has a Calvinist slant to it. It’s this particular study Bible and the notes that show the influence of Calvinist theology. The ESV is very much like its predecessor the RSV. I like them both as translations. In terms of study Bibles, I’d say that the ESV Study Bible is the nicest looking of the bunch but it’s notes aren’t that impressive. To be honest, I prefer regular reference Bibles to study Bibles.

  28. Thanks for the reply, I don’t really understand all this Calvinist stuff though. I just read the scriptures to see God and Jesus in it. I try to stay away from man’s influence. It bothers me. Anyway is there a Bible out there that has just the translation of the Hebrew interlinear scripture without the Hebrew, Greek Aramaic texts included? I read a couple of pages from a site that showed inside their interlinear Bible and I was amazed at the Hebrew scripture texts shown: Genesis1-2; God’s spirit moved gently over the waters. Moved gently? Never ever read that before. Or this: Genesis1-21: “And created the great sea animals and all that creeps having a living soul…” A living soul? Just two scriptures with profound revelation. Is there a bible of just the interlinear texts without the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic scripture included? Let me know. Now that would be a direct pipeleine to our God!

  29. Keith: As I understand it, an interlinear wouldn’t be an interlinear without one text and a translation, so I don’t think you’ll be able to find what you’re looking for. Sorry.

  30. Nick, thanks for your time on the questions, I appreciate that. I was wondering about something that maybe you can help me out with. I’ve been to a website numerous times that deals exclusively with people who are taken to both (either) Heaven and Hell. I suppose these visions could fall under Joel 2:28″ And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.” Could you give it a look and tell me what you think? It’s pretty extensive and there are a lot of accounts so it’s probably not possible to to read it all in a few nights. One thing seems to be consistent in them and that if it is either the Heavenly visions or the Hell experiences they pretty much are all the same in the context of the realm described. Thanks again…
    Here’s one particular of Heaven that I found most intriguing:
    Again, Nick thanks.

  31. Keith: If I can find some time to check out the website I’ll take a look and tell you what I think. I can’t make any promises though. Hope you understand.

  32. Thanks Nick, I didn’t want to say too much about the contents of the sites to you and bias your evaluation any. I liked your ESV review and consider that you can give honest assessments. I’ve read experiences of the Heavenly realm there that I’d put in the ” not lawful for a man to utter” catagory!

  33. Keith: I took a look at the video you linked to and had to turn it off after a couple of minutes. Sounded completely nonsensical to me. Sorry.

  34. No need to apologize, that’s why I asked because I run across a lot of various sites and needed anothers unbiased opinion. Back to the Word eh?

  35. I came here searching in Google on the ESV SB, which I’m thinking of buying in Bibleworks; still not sure, but I was fascinated by the calvinist-arminian chat: and that as an ex-calvinist. I’m now a no-ism Christian.
    And…I remain undecided, even tho its only $US20.
    BTW there’s a boxing match being shown on the footer of the blog; just to let you know I’ve got no interest in the stupid brutality of boxing!

  36. Watcher: I don’t know that I’d get it for BibleWorks. Maybe for Logos 4, but I’m not sure that I’d like the layout in BibleWorks. For the same money you can purchase access to the ESVSB online.

    And that’s not a boxing match; it’s an MMA match. I’ve got great interest in mixed martial arts. It’s my favorite sport at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s