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

[Logos1560]

My problem is that the MacArthur study Bible, and other study Bibles I’ve seen, simply present their views as being the right view.

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.

 

[JonC]

Thanks Jon C. Here is my study note from Zondervan: .....

Thank you also for correcting the error in my quote. :wavey:

 

[JonC]

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.

:thumbsup: Good point......Yes, I believe that the same is true. Interpretation is a necessary part of translation, but perhaps not as extensive as many commentators. I think that we always need to take care with translations, and realize they are exactly that - translations.

 

[Rippon]

My concern is that they are printed alongside Scripture. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "But my Bible says...." and then a reading of Scofield's notes. My concern is that it becomes a shortcut for legitimate study (that some will not take the notes for what they are and research a bit more).

I also believe that we should read Scripture, initially, without the influence of commentaries. But sometimes we want the easy way out.

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.

 

[Rippon]

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 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.

 

[Van]

Thank you also for correcting the error in my quote. :wavey:

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Most, if not all, study notes are biased to a degree. Even those efforts to "edify the body of Christ," to include dispensationalism or Calvinism. One should not take a Calvinistic OR an anti-Calvinistic stand, for example, based on the interpretations or opinions of another. One should stand on Scripture.

My point is that the study notes portion of study Bibles are not Scripture. They typically present the view point of an author as the correct view (understandably). I have no problem with the commentary. I do have an issue with the commentary being in the Bible.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Rippon]

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.

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

 

[JonC]

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.

Sorry Van, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that I find those mini commentaries in study bibles insufficient and misplaced, not anti-Calvinistic. I meant that even "correct" interpretive notes bother me when published on Scripture.

 

[Van]

Yet another off topic post from Mr. Rippon.

Returning to topic:

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

Or “born of water and wind” (the same Greek word, πνεύματος [pneumatos], may be translated either “spirit/Spirit” or “wind”).

sn Jesus’ somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born “from above,” because water and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word πνεύματος is anarthrous (has no article) in v. 5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women.

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.

 

[Van]

Sorry Van, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that I find those mini commentaries in study bibles insufficient and misplaced, not anti-Calvinistic. I meant that even "correct" interpretive notes bother me when published on Scripture.

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.

 

[Rippon]

Yet another off topic post from Mr. Rippon.

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!

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Rippon]

Mr Rippon again claims he is a mind reader, knowing what I supposedly did not know.

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.

 

[JonC]

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 both agree and disagree with your first statement. I agree that for many, probably both you and I, the study notes may kick start a study of Scripture. My concern is those who would take these notes as definitive and equal to Scripture. I have experienced this occur (e.g., my comment about "my Bible says..").

I grant that this may not be the purpose of these study notes, but I have not really seen a stark disclaimer printed in these Bibles cautioning readers to take the commentary with a grain of salt. I think that this is important because we live in a world where people have to be told not to eat the silica packet, not to miss with the line voltage wires, not to point the laser in one's eye.....etc. Sure they should have been taught not to eat the silica packet at home, and sure Christians should have been taught the difference between interpretation/translation and inspired Scripture....but the problem is often they have not.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

 

[Van]

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

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."

 

[Robert William]

I just used MacArthur's notes as an example since it's the one I engaged this morning. My questions concern study Bibles in general.

I was reading a passage in John today, and for some reason looked it up in the MacArthur Study Bible. I agree completely with MacArthur’s notes, but the passage is in no way self-defining (there are other interpretations).

If someone is using these study notes, however, is there a danger of merely “taking a pastor’s word for it”? Can this be elevating the pastor’s notes to the place of Scripture? I don’t always agree with the interpretations in the notes, and sometimes they are a minority interpretation with little evidence.

My problem is that the MacArthur study Bible, and other study Bibles I’ve seen, simply present their views as being the right view. They do not, typically, explain why they believe their interpretation to be superior….and indeed, they do not even present the other positions. I have no issues with good commentaries, but the commentary of a study Bible is not good commentary (even if they come to the right conclusion, they don’t explain how you arrived at that conclusion). It seems to me that study Bibles short-cut the learning process and the reader is left with a belief that they don’t really understand (they cannot base their view on Scripture because they merely accepted the explanation of another).

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.