Born Again
Member
Would anyone mind sharing their experience with or opinions of The MacArthur Study Bible and in particular the NASB updated edition? Thanks.
-
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!
The MacArthur Study Bible
- Thread starter Born Again
- Start date
one of the best modern versions of the bible combined with a calinistic Dispy to boot!
great study bible, in my opinion!
Bronconagurski
New Member
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'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.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
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:
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:
Last edited by a moderator:
You are correct, as he is like me, one of those weird Calvinists also holding to Dispy viewpoints at same time!
Born Again
Member
Thanks for your responses. It was given to me as a gift and I have enjoyed it so far. Come to find out, my pastor uses the same study bible during sermons but in the NKJV.
I have and use it. Solid stuff - but my theology has developed down much the same path as John (mission-minded, doctrinal-centered, calvinistic, pre-trib progressie dispensational).
Disadvantage is the NKJV. When he did his outstanding MacArthur NT Commentary series (exposition) he used the NASB and wish that format in the study Bible.
(Had the Geneva/Reformation Study Bible in the NKJV and then it was redone with the ESV which is light-years better translation. John would do well to think that option through)
Disadvantage is the NKJV. When he did his outstanding MacArthur NT Commentary series (exposition) he used the NASB and wish that format in the study Bible.
(Had the Geneva/Reformation Study Bible in the NKJV and then it was redone with the ESV which is light-years better translation. John would do well to think that option through)
Doesn't His study bible now come in Esv though?
Bronconagurski
New Member
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
Thanks for the links. Trust others reading will study this matter thru and get both the Study Bible and the Translation in which they have confidence.
(I still carry my Old Scofield 1769KJV revision to church each week - it was my choice in 1957 and still love it)
(I still carry my Old Scofield 1769KJV revision to church each week - it was my choice in 1957 and still love it)
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
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.
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.
Last edited: