NIV Study Bible - An Honest Review (of the bestselling study Bible!) 

Love your in-depth reviews! I love that they focus on the content not the binding or styles of the Bible’s 🙏🏾

I have a 1985 NIV Study Bible. It was my main bible for 20+ years. I mainly use the Orthodox Study Bible now, but compare the NIV as a translation and consult the notes in places were the OSB has sparse or absent notes.

My wife bought me a leathersoft copy of the 2020 version. It’s a beautiful Bible, so colorful, and the font is the best / easiest to read of any Bible I’ve ever owned. It has all the features of a “standard” SB. I love it! There’s no extra fluff though like in the NIV Biblical Theology or ESV SBs. If you added some targeted articles and a nice Systematic to the back of this then I’d call it pretty much the perfect Study Bible (unfortunately that unicorn doesn’t exist to my knowledge).

I've seen most of your Bible reviews. Great insights! I am very thankful for your time and effort invested into it. Although I haven't seen any reviews on the Open Bible. I'll certainly benefit from listening to your opinion.

My Disciples of Christ pastor earned his undergraduate degree from Oral Roberts, which. I know from graduates is quite good. His seminary degree is from the Southern Baptist seminary in New Orleans. I am an invalid. I take part online. Think your pastor is terrific. we used the NIVin our classes and services. I use the NVSV, but I think the NIV is fine.

I used the NIV Life Application Study Bible since 1984 (high school graduation gift). Just gave up that Bible last Christmas with a new NIV Every Man’s Study Bible. This choice was made without research and I’ll say now was a blessing, because the deficiencies of the Every Man Study Bible got me interested in Bible Reviews, thus other Translations, thus other formats, and premium bibles, thus rebindings and overall Bible nerditry. I’m fully down the rabbit hole of Bible nerditry and loving every minute of it. I appreciate this review. I picked up a used/clean NIV Study Bible last month for future use. But good to know the deficiencies.

I appreciate your reviews. Your dad recommended you.

I use it as a secondary Study Bible

I have the large print 2011 NIV Bible. It is not the Study Bible though. I have a concise study Bible in ESV. I like both of them. I'll consider later the study Bible type in NIV.

I Love This Bible I have the Hard Cover ❤

Just a quick comment - by the way love your work and glad I discovered you JM and your work for the gospel. I really like the NIV study bible - but on Romans 9:13, you didn't look at the 2020 version - it leaves out all the dogma about individual vs. national election. In fact, the overall note of 9:6-29, gives both options in a fair way. Thought I'd let you know that they left all that out that was a part of your complaint. Blessings and keep the work of Jesus moving ahead.

I like the NIV Study Bible-- except for their ultra-Protestant comment that there is no reason for any Christian to read the books in the Apocrypha. As an Anglican, I accept what the 39 Articles of Religion say, that the books in the Aprocrypha are useful for instruction in morals and manners, even though they are not used to establish any doctrine.

Not being very impressed with the notes, and having many other study Bibles (including Zondervan resources and NIV resources) I didn't keep it. Vanilla is a great word for it, lol. Here is my review of the NEW revised notes, from an equality perspective. To also help people decide. The New Expanded NIV Study Bible This Bible has a nice layout with center column cross-references, color pictures, charts and maps and sidebars, an article about the Intertestamental Period (very important and oft missing!) and decent size print even in the regular version. No separate word studies. No women scholars were assigned to write notes for any of the books although a woman is listed as an assistant editor. I had heard the notes were “so much better” in this new edition, so I had higher hopes. The only superiority I see compared to other study Bibles is they do give more space to opposing views in the clobber passages. But they still strongly downplay egalitarian interpretations. And give less space to Bible women in ministry than most other study Bibles I have reviewed. Almost as if they want to ignore them so that you don’t notice them, or so they can avoid controversy. I can’t speak to whether or not they are improved over older editions, but I do see a general trend in resources to be moving in the right direction. Gen 3:16 The NIV translation is particularly bad here (the Hebrew says “I will increase your toil and conception” not pain in childbirth.) “The Hebrew for ‘desire’ here may mean the desire of intimacy or the desire to rule over her husband. But God’s judgment is that the husband will dominate her.” Thus implying that God wants men to dominate, not that He is warning that it will happen, especially if women turn to their husbands instead of God. Try some real scholarship on this verse, like the Tru316 Project. Miriam: Ex 2 notes point out that all of Pharaoh’s efforts to suppress Israel were thwarted by women. In Numbers 12, no inappropriate Miriam bashing. No notice taken of Miriam in Micah 6:4. Deborah: “The only judge said to have been a prophet.” (Although most people consider Samuel to be a judge, and Moses, so this refers to judges in the book of Judges only.) Other named female prophets listed. Huldah: “Female prophets ministered among the Israelites.” Esther: Of Vashti it is said her punishment fit her crime. The note at 2:8 emphasizes that Mordecai and Esther would have had no choice about Esther being taken into the harem. Mat 20:25 All it says is “Power corrupts.” However it refers one to the note in Mark 10. Mat 23:8 “The warning is against seeking titles of honor to foster pride. All disciples are equal under their God and Messiah.” Not just that, the titles themselves are forbidden because equality has to be demonstrated in reality or you don’t take it seriously. Mark 10:42 “Jesus overturns the authoritarian leadership model of his world. The life of discipleship is to be characterized by humble and loving service.” Luke 22:26 “Jesus urges and exemplifies servant leadership - a trait that was as uncommon then as it is now.” Acts 18:26 Priscilla’s teaching is ignored-- there aren’t any notes at all on this verse, but previously it was noted that her name comes first and so she might have been more prominent. Act 21:9 Notes that Phillip’s daughters may have been unmarried to be specially dedicated to ministry, which is an excellent point. Almost zero notice to dedcated singleness for ministry purposes is given in evangelical circles. Rom. 16 Phoebe is said to probably be a female deacon and the carrier of the letter. Junia is said to be definitely female, possibly Andronicus’ wife and they probably were apostles, not just known by the apostles. Very bad definition of apostle though, since there were plenty of second and third generation apostles besides the 12, both Barnabas and Saul being “2nd generation” apostles. 1 Cor. 11 Sensible discussion in the notes on vs. 3 about the meaning of “head” beginning with the idea of “origins,” then “honor,” and finally “authority” without taking sides until claiming that Eph 1:22 clearly refers to authority, which isn’t true. The NIV itself translates vs 10 well as the woman having authority over her own head, and offers as a textual note a translation option where Paul is taking about women having long hair, not a cloth covering. However then the notes proceed to give an authoritative interpretation: “Paul’s message to women was: Show respect for and submission to your husband by covering your head during public worship…Man, who was created first, is to have authority over his wife…She is to honor her husband by submitting herself to him as her head.” In spite of the fact that there is no mention of submission in this passage and the only mention of authority is the woman’s authority. Another idea mentioned is that the women might have been pressured by someone to NOT wear head coverings, and Paul is combatting that. No mention of the possibility that Paul is quoting the Corinthians and then answering them, so that some of these “verses” might not be Paul’s teaching at all. Sidebar articles at least engage with the fact that few apply head covering literally today, and the notes mention mutual dependence and equality, and cultural decorum in worship, but I wasn’t impressed with the quality of the discussion. At best it can be said they do a good job of showing it is controversial, and that most of the controversy surrounds the arguments for the subordination of wives to husbands. 1 Cor. 14:34 Large article titled “Women Remaining Silent” which first presents several views; that these verses are a quotation of the Corinthians with an emphatic rebuttal by Paul, a scribal addition, or are about women being disruptive. But then proceeds to say those are unlikely and presents 2 views as more probable: that women are allowed to speak but not judge prophecies, or that we can’t know what the real reason was, and the application for today would be to conform to social practices; i.e. if your culture bans women from speaking or from some ministry, don’t try to do that. This whole discussion is then repeated almost exactly in the notes, in reverse order. So a LOT of space is devoted, but wasted by repeating themselves, and of course no mention of how many conservative scholars argue for no restrictions on women speaking and ministry based on the example of all the women’s ministry in the whole Bible, and all of Paul’s female co-workers. If no one ever bucks wicked customs, they will continue, so although we need to be respectful of others and led by the Lord, always conforming to custom is not godly. Eph. 5 The heading “Instructions for Christian Households” is placed before vs 21 instead of the usual vs 22. However it still cuts right through Paul’s sentence and the NIV changes the participles about being filled with the Spirit into separate imperatives. But the notes accurately discuss this. “Head” is again said to mean either authority or source. They say vs 22 does not put the woman’s husband in the place of the Lord. Col 3:18 refers you to the notes in Ephesians 1 Tim 2:12 Article titled “Women and Authority in the Church” ignores the fact that “authority in the church” is never a topic of discussion in scripture, unless you count Jesus forbidding us to exercise authority over one another. Presents the usual views and also that Paul might be prohibiting a kind of “domineering teaching over men.” But no direct engagement with the word “authentien” which is the key to interpreting the verse. Then makes the mistake of arguing from consensus that Paul’s prohibition against ostentatious display doesn’t apply today. (I certainly believe it does!) Concludes with an appeal to charity for believers who disagree on these things. The notes mention that allowing women to learn is counter cultural. And they give the 3 possible interpretations of vs 15. Titus 2:5 Notes direct you to Ephesians again. Heb 13:17 The NIV demands that we submit to our leaders’ authority even though the word “authority” has been added to the text. The Greek says for us to allow ourselves to be persuaded by them and yield, which has to be walked out in the context of mutual submission by everyone in the Body, including leaders, and following them is always based on their character and example, not their position. 1 Pet 3: 1-7 An article near here on household codes talks about the revolutionary nature of addressing the less powerful members first (wives, children, slaves) and the command for mutual submission and husbands honoring their wives. The notes emphasize how Peter is talking to wives of unbelieving husbands who need to be concerned about their unsafe position and the souls of their husbands. Which is the correct angle on this passage.

I'm waiting for the Ignatius Bible Study Bible edited by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. Should come out in 2022. Otherwise, I use Orchard's commentary (three volumes) which came out in the UK in the 1950's I

I’m not a huge fan of the NIV translation so I think I’ll get the biblical theology study Bible instead as that seems more meaty and more of what I am looking for.

I just want to ask does the NIV FULLY REVISED has illustrations like City of ur,Jerusalem in times of Hezekiah, the Tabernacle?

So do you recommend if I have the niv study bible and the niv archeological study bible should I go back and forth like read genesis in one and genesis and the other or should I read one bible though and go to the other next?

Have you reviewed the CSB study Bible?

Do the conditions of the time affect the applicability of scripture. For instance, we now have women with Ph.Ds in Theology. I am allowed to speak in church, but not this woman who knows much more than I do? SHE has to go home and ask her husband what the sermon meant???

Use a 1995 printing of this study Bible as my primary. Have more translations now with more commentary.

The mid 80's version was my 1st study bible, in the days of my darkest rebellion I burnt it. Why do I mention this? Some days I really loathe my own existence and feel like killing my high-horse. To any young Christians out there that are thinking of switching sides, just don't. Don't tempt (test) God and especially, don't suck up to evil dignitaries that say doing evil stuff is trivial. They are not your friend and the only reason they don't kill you is because the Lord won't sanction your death until His purpose for you is complete. You can never push God to do anything, He loves you, He loved you before He washed you in the blood of Christ and unlike us, Jesus will never turn His back on you. Sorry this is so random, I hate what I've done, I hate all my evil BS, I just feel compelled to let somebody know that Satan is a liar, God really does love you, when God made mankind, rather at the end of the 6th day, God was very pleased with His work, you hear? Nothing pleased God more than to wash you in His Son's blood so He could fellowship with you. Don't take my word for it. Thanks for the book review 😉 Btw, 20:20 ..... yep, I'm a detail nerd.

First comment I guess.

Hello brother in Christ, I bought the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible. It is a wealth of information but the font size is small. Could you tell me if the font & font size of the NIV Study Bible is the same as the NIV Bibl. Theo. SB. Thanks & God bless

Do you feel this bible.is.accurate for any Christian