-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
MacArthur Study Bible….Are study Bibles a good idea?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
http://www.roapm.com/store/#!/Bonded-Leather-Bible-5th-Edition-BROWN/p/45188113/category=8846043
I am not a fan of study bibles, as I always feel distracted by the notes, but if I were to recommend a study bible it would always be this one.
It is a written from a Fundamental, Independent, Dispensational,King James Only viewpoint.
I am not a fan of study bibles, as I always feel distracted by the notes, but if I were to recommend a study bible it would always be this one.
It is a written from a Fundamental, Independent, Dispensational,King James Only viewpoint.
Hey Jordan. What is the source of the commentary? (I don't see it on the site, but am assuming you have a copy as it carries your recommendation). Thanks.
Rock of Ages Ministries.
Thank you. I take it, then, that the study notes are the notes of Dr. Ed Ballew and Dr. Ron Gearis. I am not familiar with the duo, but appreciate your response. I'll have to research the gentlemen.
Several years ago MacArthur finally relented and published an NIV edition of his Study Bible despite his estimation of the NIV:The NIV is trash material.
"does anybody who reads the NIV care what it means? (Laughter) Obviously you get the question. You know what I’m saying, it’s sort of like a pew Bible." —"Shepherds" Conference transcript
He was given free rein to expose NIV errors in his notes:
"where the text needs to be corrected, can we be free to correct it.” And they came back and said, “Absolutely.”"
He was heartened by one move of the NIV folks:
"they dumped the TNIV which was horrific, gender stuff."
I notice that in The NIV Application Commentary on Hebrews, George Guthrie disagrees with the NIV interpretation at times.
Dr. Bill Mounce was on the NIV translation committee. He has stated that there are many places where he is convinced that the NIV mistranslated passages. This is probably the case with all translations…or at least all good ones that are not merely one man’s opinion…. It doesn't make the NIV "bad," it makes it a translation.
That is a problem with all study bibles but the notes provided can be helpful if you remember that they are the learned opinion of the editor. It would be nice to see several interpretations laid out side by side but we're talking study bibles (one volume) not commentaries.
The mods and administrators must be asleep at the wheel. I had reported this post of RW's days ago, and no action was taken.The NIV is [_ _ _ _ _ _] material.
Rob.Will., you have no reverence for the Word of God to make your ungodly remarks.
If you prefer the NASB, NKJV or whatever version --fine. But do not vilify other translations.
The BB used to enforce rules against your kind of conduct. It's a shame that those "rules" are a thing of the past.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
As far as study Bibles go, the MacArthur is one of the better ones. It is my favorite. I think though to the OP question, we don't seem to get ourselves all tied up in knots over the theological underpinnings of a standalone commentary like we do with a Study Bible. Who here on this board has never heard about that the danger of having study notes on the same page of Scripture that can cause confusion? It's an old argument.
How many people here have more than 1 commentary on the book of Romans? Looking for different viewpoints I guess. Same goes for Study Bibles. And Bible translations.
How many people here have more than 1 commentary on the book of Romans? Looking for different viewpoints I guess. Same goes for Study Bibles. And Bible translations.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Thanks for keeping the website safe.
The NIV is trash material.
The NIV is good [edited]
Please keep your comments directed to the OP, i.e. study Bibles, and not attacks on different translations or the Bible itself.
There is a Bible version forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
You apparently do not obey the injunctions of your favorite translations. And you like to flagrantly disregard the stated rules of the BB.
Hi JamesL, perhaps you could provide the study note for John 3:5, so we could compare it to Zondervan, Ryrie and MacArthur.
Here is the Life Application note on John 3:5:
"Of water and the Spirit" could refer to (1) the contrast between physical birth (water) and spiritual birth (Spirit), or (2) being regenerated by the Spirit and signifying that rebirth by Christian baptism. The water may also represent the cleansing action of God's Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5.) Nicodemus undoubtedly would have been familiar with God's promise in Ezekiel 36:25-26. Jesus was explaining the importance of a spiritual rebirth, saying that people don't enter the kingdom by living a better life, but by being spiritually reborn."
"Of water and the Spirit" could refer to (1) the contrast between physical birth (water) and spiritual birth (Spirit), or (2) being regenerated by the Spirit and signifying that rebirth by Christian baptism. The water may also represent the cleansing action of God's Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5.) Nicodemus undoubtedly would have been familiar with God's promise in Ezekiel 36:25-26. Jesus was explaining the importance of a spiritual rebirth, saying that people don't enter the kingdom by living a better life, but by being spiritually reborn."
For added comparison here the ESV study Bible notes.
"JOHN—NOTE ON 3:3–6 This discussion of the need for spiritual rebirth further develops the earlier reference to the “children of God” who are “born of God” (1:12–13; cf. 8:39–58; 11:51–52). The phrase born of water and the Spirit in 3:5 refers to spiritual birth, which cleanses from sin and brings spiritual transformation and renewal. Water here does not refer to the water of physical birth, nor is it likely that it refers to baptism. The background is probably Ezek. 36:25–27, where God promises, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean.*… And I will give you a new heart.*… And I will put my Spirit within you.” For further discussion of being born again, see 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. The kingdom of God, a major topic in the other Gospels, is mentioned in John only in 3:3, 5 (see the reference to Jesus’ kingdom in John 18:36"
"JOHN—NOTE ON 3:3–6 This discussion of the need for spiritual rebirth further develops the earlier reference to the “children of God” who are “born of God” (1:12–13; cf. 8:39–58; 11:51–52). The phrase born of water and the Spirit in 3:5 refers to spiritual birth, which cleanses from sin and brings spiritual transformation and renewal. Water here does not refer to the water of physical birth, nor is it likely that it refers to baptism. The background is probably Ezek. 36:25–27, where God promises, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean.*… And I will give you a new heart.*… And I will put my Spirit within you.” For further discussion of being born again, see 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. The kingdom of God, a major topic in the other Gospels, is mentioned in John only in 3:3, 5 (see the reference to Jesus’ kingdom in John 18:36"