The MacArthur Study Bible

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, Jan 16, 2014.

  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    105
    http://www.christianbook.com/niv-ma...40&p=1167941&gclid=CPmKkK3TgrwCFe5aMgodxmQA3A

    Anyone know if Mac was behind this one? Its not available on the GTY website and this 2011 version looks to have some gender neutral language which I bet Mac does not agree with.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xwaLzuzg8Y

    However apparently he was so I answered my own question. This may also mean that the NIV 2011 faithfully translates the text and does not use gender neutral language as some critics have said. One can't expect much of anything good from KJVO or KJVP types, so what they say always goes in one ear and out the other.

    But when you have people whom were also involved in the ESV on board it gives credibility to the translation.

    Bill Mounce specializes in the Greek language and has written a number of Greek language textbooks, including the bestselling, Basics of Biblical Greek, and many other resources. He is a graduate of the University of Aberdeen (PhD) and Fuller Theological Seminary (MA). He is the Vice President of Content and Learning at Olive Tree Bible Software and the president of BiblicalTraining.org, a non-profit organization offering world-class educational resources for discipleship in the local church. Formerly he was a full-time Preaching Pastor, a professor of New Testament and Director of the Greek Language Program at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and a professor of New Testament at Azusa Pacific University. He served as the New Testament chair of the translation team for the English Standard Version of the Bible. Dr. Mounce joined the CBT in 2009.
     
    #1 evangelist6589, Jan 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2014
  2. Archie the Preacher

    Archie the Preacher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    John MacArthur and 'gender language'

    Good day, Evangelist.

    I don't know anything much about the MacArthur Study Bible from actually reading it. I have a perfectly good Bible now and a number of commentaries, so I'm not spending more on something I don't particularly need. It is probably okay in terms of content, but I don't buy things just for the name attached.

    I do listen to John MacArthur on the radio regularly. (He's on between two other programs to which I listen.) My impressions - and I could be wrong, I suppose - is that for a man who preaches a lot on the Sovereignty of God and predestination, he sounds very works oriented. And I have a deep rooted distrust of 'branded' items featuring the name of the person selling them; it strikes me as crass commercialism. I'm not against MacArthur, but I can't say I'm terribly impressed with him, either.

    'Gender neutral language' or 'Gender inclusive language'? Gender neutral would translate 'he' or 'she' as 'it'. Inclusive would translate 'brothers' as 'brother and sisters'.

    English is - and has been since prior to Shakespeare and the KJV - a 'gender' inclusive language. When the word 'he' or 'man' is found in text without specific restriction, the word includes the female gender. For instance, "A man desiring to ride the bus must pay his fare" does NOT imply women get to ride free. When Thomas Jefferson said "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" he wasn't limiting the discussion to males.

    From my understanding of both Hebrew and Greek the same applies. So when - unless otherwise specified - Paul uses the phrase, "I would not have you ignorant, bretheren..." Paul is NOT implying the sisteren can stay ignorant.

    On the other hand, the command to circumcise males has an obvious restriction built in. :tonofbricks:

    In fact, this whole 'gender neutral/gender inclusive' issue began in the 1960s as I recall with the early days of the 'Feminist' movement. It was merely another criticism - not all that far from mud slinging - of the Bible and Christianity as a whole. It is also a great demonstration of the lack of education of that faction.

    [...replacing soap box under desk...]
     
  3. Jacob_Elliott

    Jacob_Elliott
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    I heard he was coming out with an NIV but haven't picked it up yet, I do have his ESV and until I learn greek, I will use it as one of my primary bibles.
     
  4. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Archie,

    Would you say James (NT book of James author) was 'very works oriented' as well? I'd say 'yes' and in a positive and Biblical manner.

    I see MacArthur's teaching as in alignment with James', that is, that works are evidence of salvation, and believe that both are against easy-believeism (meaning just say a prayer, you're in). Such teaching (lawlessness -- Mt. 7:23) is to be exposed, addressed, corrected, and warned against.

    MacArthur isn't teaching works for salvation, but as the evidence of true salvation. Many don't like that, but in today's church I can understand why as works and evidence of regeneration are repudiated, something Christ created His elect for in the first place --Eph. 2:10.
     
  5. Archie the Preacher

    Archie the Preacher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps...

    Perhaps I should have said 'legalism'.

    Like I said, I'm not against him, merely underwhelmed. He reminds me too much of some preachers of my youth; that is, Christianity is best demonstrated by not drinking, not smoking, not dancing and not going to movies. I'm not claiming he actually says this, but I get the same feeling.

    There is another radio preacher to whom I don't listen mainly because I cannot stand his delivery. I don't disagree with his content, just can stand to hear him talk.

    If you like MacArthur, be my guest. I don't think he's heretical by any means; he just doesn't 'do' anything for me.
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    he wanted dto have his study bible available in that version, as is most popular selling one , but he also wanted to make sure his notes could correct any "mistakes" in it!
     
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe James thought faith needed to be "evidenced." Instead, he was teaching that a dead faith, one that is spoken of but is without evidence, is not faith at all. I suppose you could stretch a point and say that is essentially the same thing, but I believe James was trying to show Christians that the faith they claimed had to be active, not to prove them to be justified, but to bring the message of justification to others.

    I may be misunderstanding you, and if so, I apologize, but when one says "works are evidence of salvation," I assume you reference something like what you went on to say.

    "Easy-believism" has become a buzz word among Reformed and Calvinist believers for something akin to an epidemic that doesn't really exist. Those who talk about "EB" (I think that's a good shorthand term for it) seem to think 90% of the church population is made up of "EBers" who aren't really saved, and claim to be able to prove it by their testimony ("I was at a Billy Graham crusade in the midst of some really bad moments in my life, and when I heard him speak, and call us to proclaim Christ, it was like my feet had a mind and will of their own, and I went forward and 'got saved' ".

    Let me say this: There isn't a thing wrong with such a testimony. Some may think that testimony is endemic to those they call "EBers" and is evidence that the modern church has "utterly failed' or some similar characterization of the evangelism efforts of today. Paul Washer is a primary suspect in engendering this false dichotomy of "simple salvation" being impossible.

    Here's reality: If one "just says a prayer," they are in!! That is, obviously, if that prayer is sincere. To claim "just saying a prayer won't get you into heaven" is to deny the ultimate and all-encompassing power, grace, mercy and love of God. Those who adhere to this false dichotomy claim it isn't that easy. Well, it is it? Or isn't it?

    The "father of our faith," Abraham --then still Abram -- did what for salvation? He believed!! That's all he did, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. It was a sincere, heartfelt, soul-searching faith, to be sure, but then, so should ours be. Did Abram have John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, A.W. Pink, or any "giants of the faith" to lead him? No.

    All he had was God. That was more than enough, and it is for us, too.
     
    #7 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jan 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2014
  8. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    'But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. James 2:18.

    Show = evidence. I'll stick with Scripture not man's arguments against clear revealed truth. James certainly believed in evidence. :)
     
    #8 preacher4truth, Jan 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2014
  9. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    105
    Well you are correct brother in that his SB is not the best. Its a good one, however the Crossway ESV SB is about twice as detailed as his and its not as popular as it does not have any big names, yet that Bible was worked on by more than just one person. The ESV SB is the best SB ever made to date. Get yourself a copy.
     
  10. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    366
    I’m not a big fan of study bibles (I prefer individual commentaries), but if I am thinking correctly (for a change)…well, there are some sort of “big names” who worked on it, i.e., J.I. Packer, Grudem, Schreiner, Kostenberger, etc.
     
    #10 JonC, Jan 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2014
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    The NIV is a so-called "dynamic Equivalence" translation. It may faithfully paraphrase the text but it does not translate.

    http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/biblecomparison.htm
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You are so-calling it such. In actuality it is a mediating translation.It occupies the middle ground between formal and functional.
    What bogus nonsense. Of course it translates. You are so right on the money in some areas and so dead wrong in others. It is certainly not a paraphrase. However,just about every Bible translation has to paraphrase the original to some extent or the resultant translation would look like gibberish.
     
  13. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Don't you get a study bible for the notes and not the text?
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The notes will not see major change whether Mac uses the NKJV (which his study Bible that I have given to me by my friend Tim Lee has), the AV, ESV or NASB (like Mac's commentaries have).

    Go for the notes, not the translation. You are looking for insights on understanding what God said, not how x or y or z might translate what God says into English. Notes should always point back to the inspired Words of God, not fallible words of men.
     
  15. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    105
    What if the notes are not deep enough as is the case with many SB's? Commentaries are far deeper and there are texts the MacArthur SB will not explain well.
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Well,coming from a big MacArthur fan that's quite the admission.

    I have always maintained that I don't think study Bibles are proper. I don't want to mix commentary with the Word of God. Commentaries should be kept separate.
     
  17. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    105
    His SB is excellent, but it does not explain as much as his commentaries do. But in general I think SB's were more designed for the maps, charts, tables, and such over the text of which commentaries usually fair far better. Commentaries are often laking the maps, charts, tables, etc..

    I know of people that think as you do, and why the prefer Reference Bibles or just plain Bibles. Often the text is so lacking in details they find it better just to get commentaries, but preach from a reference Bible. When I open air preach I use a plain old NKJV Bible with no references nor notes.
     
    #17 evangelist6589, Jan 18, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2014
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You still beating that dead horse, sorry donkey!
     
  19. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The only dead horse is the tired and false notion that the NIV isn't even a translation. That is absolutely absurd. Talk to the translators about that piece of fiction.
     

Share This Page

Loading...