Do Protestant Bibles have explanatory footnotes and / or commentary ?

If yes, why? I wouldn't think that a commentary would be needed if sola scriptura is self explanatory.

A lot of the commentary and footnotes that my Bible has include cross-references, other possible translations for the Greek or Hebrew word, and sometimes also archaeological information. I see nothing wrong with any of these being included with the Bible. They are not presented as Scripture, only as supplementary information.

I see. Who writes this "supplementary information"?

The editors.

Theology Experts?

There are many scholars, protestant and Catholic, who comment on the meaning of certain passages or provide historical or cultural context for certain passages. All such comments are useful to the person who studies God's word.

No one man, and no one denomination, has all the answers.

The Bible translation I use is the New Revised Standard. The main editor was Bruce Metzger. From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger

quote:

---

Bruce Manning Metzger (9 February 1914, Middletown, Pennsylvania – 13 February 2007, Princeton, New Jersey) was a professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament and Old Testament Bible, and wrote prolifically on these subjects.

---

Contributors include: Bernhard Anderson, George Anderson, Wiliam Beardslee, John Breck, Walter Brueggemenn, Mary Callaway, John Collins, Robert Dentan, Walter Harrelson, William Holladay, Leslie Hoppe, Philip King, Burke Long, Cary Moore, Roland Murphy, Pheme Perkins, John Reumann, and James Sanders.

the difference is you are free to disagree with their interpretation of the scripture, because that's what it is: their interpretation. no one is saying that John Macarthur's commentary in Luke is dogmatic and infallible. BIG difference.

You misunderstand what Sola Scriptura means, 73.

And as for me, I have several bibles that I read and study, including a New Jerusalem "Catholic" edition.

My most common readings come from an NIV Study bible, with commentary from a wide variety of biblical scholars, theologians and language specialists. I also have a very cool bible that is the NASB and "The Message" in parallel, and recently I have taken to reading the ESV, as many of the pastors I trust feel that this version is the closest we have available to an English language word-for-word translation.

I also frequently use a couple of different concordances and some different study guides (which can be either topical or on a book-by-book basis).

I also frequently use this site:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

... which I find to be the most useful online bible and reference tool I've found to date. It has topical and keyword searches, lets you view multiple versions (and topics!) in parallel, and even has multiple languages. It's a great tool.

To be clear, I don't study scripture as well or as often as I should, but it gives me great comfort and pleasure when I do.

quote:

---

no one is saying that John Macarthur's commentary in Luke is dogmatic and infallible. BIG difference.

---

And there is no dogmatic and infallible pronouncement on any Biblical book by the Vatican either.

Tech, that is a pretty neat website. I use a similar one http://bible.crosswalk.com/

The one you posted would be pretty useful if I spoke other languages.


I agree with yall on here, that the footnotes and commentaries are definitely the opinion of the contributors and not written as infallible scripture.

Has this helped 73?

I am convinced that most Catholics are willfully ignorant of sola scriptura because it makes sense if you really know what it means.

Thanks for the link, Sandy! I'll check that out.

One of my favorite features of the online Bibles is the parallel capabilities.

For instance, here's John 1 in the ESV, The Message, and The KJV all on one page:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201;&version=47;65;9;

Here's another example, but this time in parallel based on topic. In this example, here are the passages related to the Lord's Supper:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:17-30;%20Mark%2014:22-24;%20Luke%2013:26;22:19,20;%20%20John

This would take me hours to get all together using print bibles.

73, another link you may find useful:

http://www.esv.org/translation/team

This link is the credential page for the English Standard Version of the Bible. It points to the criteria used in creating this translation, and the qualifications of the (large number of) people involved in the translation project.

It is a significant and impressive body of work; I think just about anyone would appreciate credentials of the scholars involved.

There are similar pages on the web describing the processes and qualifications of the translators who worked on just about any popular translation, such as the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, etc.

quote:

---

And there is no dogmatic and infallible pronouncement on any Biblical book by the Vatican either.

---

JK, I'm confused by this statement. Could you elaborate?

For instance, it seems to me that there is a dogmatic position on the "real presence" in the Eucharist, isn't there?

Or on the immaculate conception, which I gather from another thread has been dogmatically proclaimed as scriptural?

Genuinely confused, and I feel like I'm walking on eggshells in this forum over the past couple of days.

Fill me in when you get a chance, please.

TechDiver- What I meant by that statement was that there are no dogmatic pronouncements that state this verse means this and only this or that verse means that and only that. Yes the Church use certain verse to support what it believes but it hasn't ever ruled dogmatically on any verse. I fail to see how this is any different than any other Christians.

quote:

---

I am convinced that most Catholics are willfully ignorant of sola scriptura because it makes sense if you really know what it means.

---

OK...I am 99% sure that I know what it means. Please, however, tell me what it means just in case I have it wrong.

Thanks all. It just seems silly to me to have any kind of commentary at all when your philosophy of sola scriptura says that you don't need an interpreter for you, that the Holy Spirit tells you what it means.

Since the Bible was written several millenia ago, in different languages, with different idioms and sayings, of course one needs an interpreter with commentaries. Otherwise, you lose the meaning of what the bible is really saying.

quote:

---

It just seems silly to me to have any kind of commentary at all when your philosophy of sola scriptura says that you don't need an interpreter for you, that the Holy Spirit tells you what it means.

---

73, again, you don't understand what sola scriptura means.

Try this as a definition:

http://www.theopedia.com/Scripture_alone

quote:

---

Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer.
None of this denies that the Church has the authority to teach God's word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.
Sola Scriptura "does not mean that the Reformers rejected everything that every Christian in earlier ages has said: indeed, they often cited the early Christians as supporters of their own positions. However, they recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ." [1] (James White)
In all of this, the role of the Holy Spirit is vital. The Word can only be received and obeyed by the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

What I meant by that statement was that there are no dogmatic pronouncements that state this verse means this and only this or that verse means that and only that. Yes the Church use certain verse to support what it believes but it hasn't ever ruled dogmatically on any verse. I fail to see how this is any different than any other Christians.

---

Thanks JK.... appreciate the clarification!

I was under the impression that the Catholic church held that only the church (in the form of the clergy, I guess) could interpret scripture. I'm probably mistaken on that.

73 is confusing sola scriptura with solo scriptura.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

quote:

---

a third position, often confused with sola scriptura, is that of solo, which is the belief that it is up to the individual to interpret the Bible, discarding all conciliar and ecclesiastical authority.

---

Solo scriptura isn't part of mainstream reformed belief.

quote:

---

Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer.

---

Thanks Tech.

BTW, Where is the canon of the Bible located in scripture? Can I consider the Gospel of James to be infallible? What about the Book of Enoch? And where are the words "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" in the bible? Altar calls? Where are they?

And I would ask you what the definition of "found in Scripture" means. The doctrine of the Trinity is not "found in Scripture". It was defined centuries after the death of Jesus. Does "found in Scripture" mean explicitly spelled out in black and white in one sentence or paragraph, or are there things implied in the bible when different scripture verses from the Old and New Testament are put together side by side?


Col 1:24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

texasag73, check this out:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/bonocore01.html

I think it addresses the very question you raise.