The MacArthur Study Bible

one of the best modern versions of the bible combined with a calinistic Dispy to boot!

great study bible, in my opinion!

 

I don't have the NASB updated edition, but I do have the NKJV and my son has the ESV. One thing about MacArthur that some people do not like is that he is very dogmatic at times in his notes. Some notes in other study bibles give several different views, etc, and may or may not make known the preference of the writer. MacArthur does not do much of that, if any. I like the study bible, however, and haven't seen one yet that I agree with completely.

 

he is one of the best expositors of the Bible from a practical sense, and even though I disagree in some aspects, still really good notes to help you understand the Bible better!

 

I want to know what a calinistic Dispy is? :laugh:

 

I've got the NKJV and I refer to it often. As others have said I don't agree with all of his theology but he is a great expositor and his notes are very comprehensive. More so than many others I've access to. It is a brick and I mainly use it for reference and use other Bibles and various translations for my daily reading.

 

Really? You've never heard of superfragicalinisticdispyalidocious?

:laugh:

 

Lololol

Amy...say that 10 times REAL fast, take three aspirins, find somewhere to sit down before you fall down...and see your Dr. in the morning.:laugh:

Bro.Greg ( I got a headache just trying to say that ONCE):smilewinkgrin:

 

I believe he meant calVinistic, which is what John MacArthur is.

 

You are correct, as he is like me, one of those weird Calvinists also holding to Dispy viewpoints at same time!

 

I have his NKJV study Bible and enjoy it. He's an excellent historian who sets a nice background to understand context (even though I disagree with his interpretation on occasion)

 

Doesn't His study bible now come in Esv though?

 

Amazon has the NASB MacArthur study bible for 29 bucks hardcover. Christianbook has all kinds to choose from:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...on=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCQ&nav_search=1&cms=1

 

I've never been keen on MacArthur - from the few books I've read he's quite dogmatic and inflexible in his positions.

He's the foremost proponent of Lordship salvation (which some might consider a heresy in itself).

I'm a 'free grace' guy myself so don't appreciate his teachings as much as others.

My kids were given MacArthur NKJV Study Bibles when they were quite young and I wasn't disappointed when they switched to a standard reference bible as they grew older.

Rob

 

Still I trust John Macarthur is a great man of God used by the Lord.

However, in the arguments with some people I noticed he made some significant mistakes in the past.

He apparently reduced the importance of Blood of Jesus by saying that The BLood of Jesus is not what save us, but His Death, though I believe nothing can replace the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Check the following site:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/macarthur-blood.htm

In addition, he seems to have denied once a while the Deity of Jesus!

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/macarthr.htm


John may like Good News Bible

MacArthur Sounds Like Bratcher On The Blood
In his commentary on Hebrews, pages 236 to 237, I find further alarming statements as he deals with Hebrews 9:16-22. While he does say some good things, he clearly is talking in circles. When he says that "blood is a symbol of death," he sounds very much like the apostate Dr. Robert G. Bratcher, who translated the "Good News For Modern Man." This is what Bratcher believed, so he felt free to change "blood" to "death" in Eph.1:7, Heb.10:19, and Rev.1:5. He changed "blood" to "sacrifice" in I Pet. 1:19. He also managed to leave out "blood," or substitute another word in Matt. 27:4,24,25; Acts 5:28; 17:26; 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Col. 1:20; Eph. 2:13, and Rev. 5:9. Of course Bratcher's "Good News Bible" is one of the most corrupt translations of the 20th Century. It would appear that in regard to the blood at least, that MacArthur and Bratcher are on the same wave length.


http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/macarthr.htm

NASB wouldn't be bad to him too because

NASB states 1 JOhn 4:3

every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God ( NASB)

KJV states:

every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God ( KJV)


Do you see the difference?
Christ meant Deity, God. The Living God came to this world in human flesh form and walked along the lakeside and ate the meal. If such fact is denied, that person is not saved!

Such people are the JW's too.