Featured MacArthur Study Bible….Are study Bibles a good idea?

Is not the same thing true of Bible translations? Bible translators usually present their view or renderings as being the correct or right ones when there may be other ways to translate that are just as accurate and sometimes may be even more accurate.

 

I agree with the above.

I think Bible commentaries should be in separate volumes --not placed on the same page as the biblical text.

A one page introduction to the books of the Bible may be okay. Explanatory footnotes are necessary and helpful.

As most know, I am a big fan of the NIV. A completely new NIV study Bible is coming out with commentary by biblical scholars I admire. But I wish I could buy their commentary without the text of the Bible on the same pages. Let's keep things distinct.

 

I disagree.Bible translators are usually team efforts. Different members may differ with one another as to a more ideal way to render a particular text. But by consensus one reading has to be put in the text. Most of us would agree that a good translation should not be designed along the lines of The Amplified.

No translators that I am aware of think that only their translations are the end-all. They even give alternate renderings in the footnotes of a number of passages. They recognize that there are other ways to express the text that are just as accurate and perhaps superior. There is humility.

 

The point of the post was to demonstrate that Study Notes differ depending of the source. Some are biased toward a particular point of view, i.e. dispensationalism or Calvinism, but others actually are efforts to edify the body of Christ, such as Zondervan and Ryrie.

 

You had a problem with the MacArthur note, supporting just one view, but seemed not to see that two other study bible's presented several alternate views, i.e. actual study notes rather than indoctrination. Any study bible that is not biased in favor of Calvinism could be claimed to be "anti-Calvinistic. Thus you could claim Ryrie and Zondervan were "anti-Calvinistic." However the truth seems to be they are less biased and more objective.

Not sure if they do not present the range of views in the literature, rather than only one view, more often than not. In the one example we looked at, that was certainly the case.

 

I'm glad you think so highly of Zondervan. It is the major publisher of the NIV.

 

Yet another off topic post from Mr. Rippon.

Returning to topic:

Here are the footnotes from the NET for John 3:5:

Note the NET presents just one view, water and spirit/wind both figures for the Holy Spirit, but does provide some references for further study.

 

Well, my friend, I think we disagree. I believe well done study bibles, like Zondervan and Ryrie kick-start study of scripture, just as the abbreviated concordance does. But I suspect we agree, the study notes should not be used as a single source of commentary, but more as a trigger for further study from diverse sources.

 

I was just informing you of a fact you were unaware of. You had commended Zondervan, yet you have made a practice of demeaning the NIV for a long time on the BB (until the admin. here put a stop to your nonsense.) The primary publisher of the NIV is Zondervan. O the irony!

 

Mr Rippon again claims he is a mind reader, knowing what I supposedly did not know. Pay no attention to these off topic posts. Using well done study notes is very helpful.

 

I find it simply delicious that you had regularly trashed the NIV but without knowing --commended the major publisher of the NIV. I'm relishing the irony.

 

"Delicious!?! " simply delicious????? OHHHH Kkkkkkkk

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaHCs8yMR6c

 

Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes the posts of others is naive.

Here are a few words from Zondervan, "But why a study bible when the text itself is clearly written? Surely there is no substitute for the reading of the text itself, nothing people write about God's word can be on the level with the word itself. Further, it is the Holy Spirit alone - not fallible human beings - who can open the human mind to the divine message.
However the Holy Spirit uses other people to explain God's word to others."

 

My wife and I own an NASB MacArthur Study bible, correction, my wife's is a new King James. We both believe they are the best in the world.