|
benelchi -> RE: Ryrie Study Bible (KJV) (5/1/2008 11:27:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JordanW
I just had a question about this Bible. I usually like to use the KJV over the NKJV, but I have lately been using my NKJV. Anyways, my old Pastor told me that the Ryrie Study Bible isn't a good Bible because Charles Ryrie's commentary's and personal thoughts about the scriptures are incorrect. Now, he told me this after I had already bought the Bible, the funny thing is, is that it is the Bible that he uses when preaching his Sermon's. I'm confused, if any of you know about this Bible please help me!
The bibles I use most regularly are ones which contain no commentaries at all. I personally prefer my commentaries to be separated from my bible, and when I do look at them I always use a number of differing commentaries so that I can understand the issue from every perspective. The difficulty of having commentaries included in your bible (whether it is Ryrie's or someone elses) is that you are continually presented with a single point of view, and apart from the biblical authors, no ones view is "inspired" and should be unquestionably trusted. As you pastor pointed out, there are aspects to Ryrie's commentaries that are incorrect and not to be trusted, just as there are parts of every other commentator's work that are incorrect and not to be trusted. It is always much easier to spot the errors made by one commentator when you read commentaries from those holding positions on all sides of the issue.
If you continue to use your Ryrie bible, consider purchasing a few good commentaries from authors who hold opposing positions. Don't rely only on the commentaries you find in the Ryrie Bible.
quote:
As you search the Scriptures (interpreting Scripture by Scripture), you will discover for yourself that Ryrie's interpretations are totally in line with Scripture
Apart from the biblical authors, no man's interpretation is totally in line with Scripture; don't be fooled. We all come to the scriptures with our own personal biases (and sinful nature), and those that don't recognize this scare me. Until someone investigates all side of the issue, it is often nearly impossible to spot the errors presented in any one single argument. Commentators present errors for many reasons; their personal biases can sometimes blind them; they may be unaware of recent archaeological discoveries that contradict their position; because written works are always dated and discoveries may have been made since the publication of an authors work, the same author often will hold an opposing viewpoint despite an earlier work that presented something different.
|
|
|
|