The MacArthur Study Bible

[evangelist6589]

http://www.christianbook.com/niv-ma...40&p=1167941&gclid=CPmKkK3TgrwCFe5aMgodxmQA3A

Anyone know if Mac was behind this one? Its not available on the GTY website and this 2011 version looks to have some gender neutral language which I bet Mac does not agree with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xwaLzuzg8Y

However apparently he was so I answered my own question. This may also mean that the NIV 2011 faithfully translates the text and does not use gender neutral language as some critics have said. One can't expect much of anything good from KJVO or KJVP types, so what they say always goes in one ear and out the other.

But when you have people whom were also involved in the ESV on board it gives credibility to the translation.

Bill Mounce specializes in the Greek language and has written a number of Greek language textbooks, including the bestselling, Basics of Biblical Greek, and many other resources. He is a graduate of the University of Aberdeen (PhD) and Fuller Theological Seminary (MA). He is the Vice President of Content and Learning at Olive Tree Bible Software and the president of BiblicalTraining.org, a non-profit organization offering world-class educational resources for discipleship in the local church. Formerly he was a full-time Preaching Pastor, a professor of New Testament and Director of the Greek Language Program at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and a professor of New Testament at Azusa Pacific University. He served as the New Testament chair of the translation team for the English Standard Version of the Bible. Dr. Mounce joined the CBT in 2009.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

John MacArthur and 'gender language'

Good day, Evangelist.

I don't know anything much about the MacArthur Study Bible from actually reading it. I have a perfectly good Bible now and a number of commentaries, so I'm not spending more on something I don't particularly need. It is probably okay in terms of content, but I don't buy things just for the name attached.

I do listen to John MacArthur on the radio regularly. (He's on between two other programs to which I listen.) My impressions - and I could be wrong, I suppose - is that for a man who preaches a lot on the Sovereignty of God and predestination, he sounds very works oriented. And I have a deep rooted distrust of 'branded' items featuring the name of the person selling them; it strikes me as crass commercialism. I'm not against MacArthur, but I can't say I'm terribly impressed with him, either.

'Gender neutral language' or 'Gender inclusive language'? Gender neutral would translate 'he' or 'she' as 'it'. Inclusive would translate 'brothers' as 'brother and sisters'.

English is - and has been since prior to Shakespeare and the KJV - a 'gender' inclusive language. When the word 'he' or 'man' is found in text without specific restriction, the word includes the female gender. For instance, "A man desiring to ride the bus must pay his fare" does NOT imply women get to ride free. When Thomas Jefferson said "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" he wasn't limiting the discussion to males.

From my understanding of both Hebrew and Greek the same applies. So when - unless otherwise specified - Paul uses the phrase, "I would not have you ignorant, bretheren..." Paul is NOT implying the sisteren can stay ignorant.

On the other hand, the command to circumcise males has an obvious restriction built in. :tonofbricks:

In fact, this whole 'gender neutral/gender inclusive' issue began in the 1960s as I recall with the early days of the 'Feminist' movement. It was merely another criticism - not all that far from mud slinging - of the Bible and Christianity as a whole. It is also a great demonstration of the lack of education of that faction.

[...replacing soap box under desk...]

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

I heard he was coming out with an NIV but haven't picked it up yet, I do have his ESV and until I learn greek, I will use it as one of my primary bibles.

 

[preacher4truth]

My impressions - and I could be wrong, I suppose - is that for a man who preaches a lot on the Sovereignty of God and predestination, he sounds very works oriented.

Hello Archie,

Would you say James (NT book of James author) was 'very works oriented' as well? I'd say 'yes' and in a positive and Biblical manner.

I see MacArthur's teaching as in alignment with James', that is, that works are evidence of salvation, and believe that both are against easy-believeism (meaning just say a prayer, you're in). Such teaching (lawlessness -- Mt. 7:23) is to be exposed, addressed, corrected, and warned against.

MacArthur isn't teaching works for salvation, but as the evidence of true salvation. Many don't like that, but in today's church I can understand why as works and evidence of regeneration are repudiated, something Christ created His elect for in the first place --Eph. 2:10.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Perhaps...

I see MacArthur's teaching as in alignment with James', that is, that works are evidence of salvation...

Perhaps I should have said 'legalism'.

Like I said, I'm not against him, merely underwhelmed. He reminds me too much of some preachers of my youth; that is, Christianity is best demonstrated by not drinking, not smoking, not dancing and not going to movies. I'm not claiming he actually says this, but I get the same feeling.

There is another radio preacher to whom I don't listen mainly because I cannot stand his delivery. I don't disagree with his content, just can stand to hear him talk.

If you like MacArthur, be my guest. I don't think he's heretical by any means; he just doesn't 'do' anything for me.

 

[Yeshua1]

he wanted dto have his study bible available in that version, as is most popular selling one , but he also wanted to make sure his notes could correct any "mistakes" in it!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I see MacArthur's teaching as in alignment with James', that is, that works are evidence of salvation ...

I don't believe James thought faith needed to be "evidenced." Instead, he was teaching that a dead faith, one that is spoken of but is without evidence, is not faith at all. I suppose you could stretch a point and say that is essentially the same thing, but I believe James was trying to show Christians that the faith they claimed had to be active, not to prove them to be justified, but to bring the message of justification to others.

I may be misunderstanding you, and if so, I apologize, but when one says "works are evidence of salvation," I assume you reference something like what you went on to say.

... and believe that both are against easy-believeism ...

"Easy-believism" has become a buzz word among Reformed and Calvinist believers for something akin to an epidemic that doesn't really exist. Those who talk about "EB" (I think that's a good shorthand term for it) seem to think 90% of the church population is made up of "EBers" who aren't really saved, and claim to be able to prove it by their testimony ("I was at a Billy Graham crusade in the midst of some really bad moments in my life, and when I heard him speak, and call us to proclaim Christ, it was like my feet had a mind and will of their own, and I went forward and 'got saved' ".

Let me say this: There isn't a thing wrong with such a testimony. Some may think that testimony is endemic to those they call "EBers" and is evidence that the modern church has "utterly failed' or some similar characterization of the evangelism efforts of today. Paul Washer is a primary suspect in engendering this false dichotomy of "simple salvation" being impossible.

Here's reality: If one "just says a prayer," they are in!! That is, obviously, if that prayer is sincere. To claim "just saying a prayer won't get you into heaven" is to deny the ultimate and all-encompassing power, grace, mercy and love of God. Those who adhere to this false dichotomy claim it isn't that easy. Well, it is it? Or isn't it?

The "father of our faith," Abraham --then still Abram -- did what for salvation? He believed!! That's all he did, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. It was a sincere, heartfelt, soul-searching faith, to be sure, but then, so should ours be. Did Abram have John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, A.W. Pink, or any "giants of the faith" to lead him? No.

All he had was God. That was more than enough, and it is for us, too.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't believe James thought faith needed to be "evidenced."

'But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. James 2:18.

Show = evidence. I'll stick with Scripture not man's arguments against clear revealed truth. James certainly believed in evidence.

 

[evangelist6589]

Good day, Evangelist.

I don't know anything much about the MacArthur Study Bible from actually reading it. I have a perfectly good Bible now and a number of commentaries, so I'm not spending more on something I don't particularly need. It is probably okay in terms of content, but I don't buy things just for the name attached.

I do listen to John MacArthur on the radio regularly. (He's on between two other programs to which I listen.) My impressions - and I could be wrong, I suppose - is that for a man who preaches a lot on the Sovereignty of God and predestination, he sounds very works oriented. And I have a deep rooted distrust of 'branded' items featuring the name of the person selling them; it strikes me as crass commercialism. I'm not against MacArthur, but I can't say I'm terribly impressed with him, either.

'Gender neutral language' or 'Gender inclusive language'? Gender neutral would translate 'he' or 'she' as 'it'. Inclusive would translate 'brothers' as 'brother and sisters'.

English is - and has been since prior to Shakespeare and the KJV - a 'gender' inclusive language. When the word 'he' or 'man' is found in text without specific restriction, the word includes the female gender. For instance, "A man desiring to ride the bus must pay his fare" does NOT imply women get to ride free. When Thomas Jefferson said "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" he wasn't limiting the discussion to males.

From my understanding of both Hebrew and Greek the same applies. So when - unless otherwise specified - Paul uses the phrase, "I would not have you ignorant, bretheren..." Paul is NOT implying the sisteren can stay ignorant.

On the other hand, the command to circumcise males has an obvious restriction built in. :tonofbricks:

In fact, this whole 'gender neutral/gender inclusive' issue began in the 1960s as I recall with the early days of the 'Feminist' movement. It was merely another criticism - not all that far from mud slinging - of the Bible and Christianity as a whole. It is also a great demonstration of the lack of education of that faction.

[...replacing soap box under desk...]

Well you are correct brother in that his SB is not the best. Its a good one, however the Crossway ESV SB is about twice as detailed as his and its not as popular as it does not have any big names, yet that Bible was worked on by more than just one person. The ESV SB is the best SB ever made to date. Get yourself a copy.

 

[JonC]

Well you are correct brother in that his SB is not the best. Its a good one, however the Crossway ESV SB is about twice as detailed as his and its not as popular as it does not have any big names, yet that Bible was worked on by more than just one person. The ESV SB is the best SB ever made to date. Get yourself a copy.

I’m not a big fan of study bibles (I prefer individual commentaries), but if I am thinking correctly (for a change)…well, there are some sort of “big names” who worked on it, i.e., J.I. Packer, Grudem, Schreiner, Kostenberger, etc.

 

[OldRegular]

http://www.christianbook.com/niv-ma...40&p=1167941&gclid=CPmKkK3TgrwCFe5aMgodxmQA3A

Anyone know if Mac was behind this one? Its not available on the GTY website and this 2011 version looks to have some gender neutral language which I bet Mac does not agree with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xwaLzuzg8Y

However apparently he was so I answered my own question. This may also mean that the NIV 2011 faithfully translates the text and does not use gender neutral language as some critics have said. One can't expect much of anything good from KJVO or KJVP types, so what they say always goes in one ear and out the other.

The NIV is a so-called "dynamic Equivalence" translation. It may faithfully paraphrase the text but it does not translate.

http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/biblecomparison.htm

 

[Rippon]

The NIV is a so-called "dynamic Equivalence" translation.

You are so-calling it such. In actuality it is a mediating translation.It occupies the middle ground between formal and functional.

It may faithfully paraphrase the text but it does not translate.

What bogus nonsense. Of course it translates. You are so right on the money in some areas and so dead wrong in others. It is certainly not a paraphrase. However,just about every Bible translation has to paraphrase the original to some extent or the resultant translation would look like gibberish.

 

[go2church]

Don't you get a study bible for the notes and not the text?

 

[Dr. Bob]

The notes will not see major change whether Mac uses the NKJV (which his study Bible that I have given to me by my friend Tim Lee has), the AV, ESV or NASB (like Mac's commentaries have).

Go for the notes, not the translation. You are looking for insights on understanding what God said, not how x or y or z might translate what God says into English. Notes should always point back to the inspired Words of God, not fallible words of men.

 

[evangelist6589]

The notes will not see major change whether Mac uses the NKJV (which his study Bible that I have given to me by my friend Tim Lee has), the AV, ESV or NASB (like Mac's commentaries have).

Go for the notes, not the translation. You are looking for insights on understanding what God said, not how x or y or z might translate what God says into English. Notes should always point back to the inspired Words of God, not fallible words of men.

What if the notes are not deep enough as is the case with many SB's? Commentaries are far deeper and there are texts the MacArthur SB will not explain well.

 

[Rippon]

What if the notes are not deep enough as is the case with many SB's? Commentaries are far deeper and there are texts the MacArthur SB will not explain well.

Well,coming from a big MacArthur fan that's quite the admission.

I have always maintained that I don't think study Bibles are proper. I don't want to mix commentary with the Word of God. Commentaries should be kept separate.

 

[evangelist6589]

Well,coming from a big MacArthur fan that's quite the admission.

I have always maintained that I don't think study Bibles are proper. I don't want to mix commentary with the Word of God. Commentaries should be kept separate.

His SB is excellent, but it does not explain as much as his commentaries do. But in general I think SB's were more designed for the maps, charts, tables, and such over the text of which commentaries usually fair far better. Commentaries are often laking the maps, charts, tables, etc..

I know of people that think as you do, and why the prefer Reference Bibles or just plain Bibles. Often the text is so lacking in details they find it better just to get commentaries, but preach from a reference Bible. When I open air preach I use a plain old NKJV Bible with no references nor notes.

 

[OldRegular]

You are so-calling it such. In actuality it is a mediating translation.It occupies the middle ground between formal and functional.

What bogus nonsense. Of course it translates. You are so right on the money in some areas and so dead wrong in others. It is certainly not a paraphrase. However,just about every Bible translation has to paraphrase the original to some extent or the resultant translation would look like gibberish.

You still beating that dead horse, sorry donkey!

 

[Rippon]

You still beating that dead horse, sorry donkey!

The only dead horse is the tired and false notion that the NIV isn't even a translation. That is absolutely absurd. Talk to the translators about that piece of fiction.