Bible Study Any thoughts on "The Preacher's Bible"?

[EvolvingChristian]

I'm still trying to figure out which bible I should use. What do you think of this?

The Preacher's Bible - Designed by John MacArthur: NASB Bibles by Steadfast Bibles, John F. MacArthur: 9781937212315: Amazon.com: Books

The Preacher's Bible - Designed by John MacArthur [NASB Bibles by Steadfast Bibles, John F. MacArthur] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Preacher's Bible - Designed by John MacArthur

www.amazon.com

 

[for_his_glory]

All I know about that Bible is that John MacArthur who is a Calvinist Pastor who believes in reformed theology that teaches that God has already pre-determined who will go to hell and who will go to heaven as he teaches Calvinist theology and wrote this bible commentary. Calvinist associate themselves more with what John Calvin taught than what is already written in the word of God. It sort of sends up a red flag to me when I hear of a Pastor writing his own Bible and preaching from it.

Here is a website you might want to check out as you are deciding which Bible to use.
medium.com - Five Reasons Calvinism is a false doctrine.

We do have a few Calvinist members we discuss with in here and even if we do not agree with their theology there are times we do not always agree with every member, but our common ground is Christ Jesus and our love for one another.

BTW, I personally like the KJV as that is what I have always read and it's not that hard to understand. I just feel a lot of the newer versions take away from the true doctrine of Christ, but everyone has their preference.

 

[jasonc]

All I know about that Bible is that John MacArthur who is a Calvinist Pastor who believes in reformed theology that teaches that God has already pre-determined who will go to hell and who will go to heaven as he teaches Calvinist theology and wrote this bible commentary. Calvinist associate themselves more with what John Calvin taught than what is already written in the word of God. It sort of sends up a red flag to me when I hear of a Pastor writing his own Bible and preaching from it.

Here is a website you might want to check out as you are deciding which Bible to use.
medium.com - Five Reasons Calvinism is a false doctrine.

We do have a few Calvinist members we discuss with in here and even if we do not agree with their theology there are times we do not always agree with every member, but our common ground is Christ Jesus and our love for one another.

BTW, I personally like the KJV as that is what I have always read and it's not that hard to understand. I just feel a lot of the newer versions take away from the true doctrine of Christ, but everyone has their preference.

the Anglican church of 1611 was reformed


you read the Cambridge edition of the that bible updated in 1803 ,and before then 1768. 1611 versions have the apochrypha and less then a dozen exist .
as that is all that was printed

 

[for_his_glory]

the Anglican church of 1611 was reformed


you read the Cambridge edition of the that bible updated in 1803 ,and before then 1768. 1611 versions have the apochrypha and less then a dozen exist .
as that is all that was printed

I realize this, but I also have the apocrypha in my Jerusalem Bible. Just because you do not prefer the KJV we have today, many of us do over the more modern translations that have been found to omit and add to the word of God. It all boils down to us letting and hearing the Holy Spirit teach us.

 

[jasonc]

I realize this, but I also have the apocrypha in my Jerusalem Bible. Just because you do not prefer the KJV we have today, many of us do over the more modern translations that have been found to omit and add to the word of God. It all boils down to us letting and hearing the Holy Spirit teach us.

it helps a lot to use other translations ,my phone is kjv

 

[for_his_glory]

it helps a lot to use other translations ,my phone is kjv

I say to each their own. I have several translations, but prefer the KJV.

 

[Serving Zion]

I'm still trying to figure out which bible I should use. What do you think of this?

The Preacher's Bible - Designed by John MacArthur: NASB Bibles by Steadfast Bibles, John F. MacArthur: 9781937212315: Amazon.com: Books

The Preacher's Bible - Designed by John MacArthur [NASB Bibles by Steadfast Bibles, John F. MacArthur] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Preacher's Bible - Designed by John MacArthur

www.amazon.com

NASB is pretty good, considering. The bible looks beautiful, you will have a lot of people admiring it! I think three ribbons is enough for most usage of studying. Personally I would want to buy a non-leather edition. It also looks quite thick and heavy which you won't find comfortable to hold in your hand when you're reading casually.

 

[jasonc]

I say to each their own. I have several translations, but prefer the KJV.

my point was the the Anglicans who made it were reformed .

you blasted him on a commentary bible and ignored that ,john Calvin's commentary are in German and in fact his translation and missionary works is why modern German even still exists

 

[Serving Zion]

It sort of sends up a red flag to me when I hear of a Pastor writing his own Bible and preaching from it.

John MacArthur hasn't been the translator of the NASB, he is just the one who has designed this particular book (that actually if you watch the movie at the link, I think his son did most of the designing of it as a gift for his father). The NASB is a well-respected translation, more respected than the KJV in some circles.

(edit: I withdraw the above comment after having found that he has in fact made changes to the text that wasn't apparent in the advertised product).

 

[jasonc]

John McArthur hasn't been the translator of the NASB, he is just the one who has designed this particular book (that actually if you watch the movie at the link, I think his son did most of the designing of it as a gift for his father). The NASB is a well-respected translation, more respected than the KJV in some circles.

Nasb is an older translation early 1900s irc

 

[Serving Zion]

Nasb is an older translation early 1900s irc

This link explains that the NASB has been revised a few times, and had a most recent revision in 2020:

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com

This article, which I found, shows that in fact John MacArthur has not simply taken the NASB and re-presented it, but he has used it as a starting point for his own translation just as for_his_glory has said:

John MacArthur Given Rights to NASB Bible Translation, Announces Changes: "Yahweh" Will Replace "Lord"

John MacArthur has announced that Master’s Seminary has been given the rights to update and refine the legendary New American Standard Bible (NASB) translation and that the linguistic team overseen by Dr. Abner Chou at the seminary will be making “subtle” changes to it. Examples MacArthur gave...

reformationcharlotte.org

... however, it says that he intends to only make "subtle" changes, but... although the full text has not been released online yet, they do show some comparisons on their website:

Comparisons - Legacy Standard Bible | Your Translation for a Lifetime

...Read More...

lsbible.org

But you look at their second example Proverbs 1:7 where they have departed from the traditional (universal) rendering "fools despise wisdom and instruction", instead they have called them "ignorant fools". What's the problem I see? It's in the question of why they had done that, and I can perceive only two reasons why:

If they are saying that there is a type of fool who isn't ignorant, then they are defining the particular type of fool who despises wisdom and instruction as being an ignorant type of a fool, whereas the original Hebrew text does not make that distinction, it only names those who despise wisdom and instruction as "fools".

OTOH, if they haven't chosen to go beyond merely translating the text, it must mean that they have wanted to describe more graphically what type of person the fool is who despises wisdom and instruction. So they have augmented the name "fool" in order to express more particularly the part of the fool that is so offensive: that they are ignorant. The only reason a person would do that, is because they are particularly offended that a fool who despises wisdom and instruction is so ignorant, and they feel that it needs to be expressed in order to properly convey that the fool is offensive in their view. But the root of offense is hatred, so it shows that they want to express their hatred of ignorant fools and to encourage their readers to feel the same way.

That's exactly why I stopped reading the NWT translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses - I found that their resentment was conveyed through their words and it was rubbing off on my views.

 

[jasonc]

This link explains that the NASB has been revised a few times, and had a most recent revision in 2020:

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com

This article, which I found, shows that in fact John MacArthur has not simply taken the NASB and re-presented it, but he has used it as a starting point for his own translation just as for_his_glory has said:

John MacArthur Given Rights to NASB Bible Translation, Announces Changes: "Yahweh" Will Replace "Lord"

John MacArthur has announced that Master’s Seminary has been given the rights to update and refine the legendary New American Standard Bible (NASB) translation and that the linguistic team overseen by Dr. Abner Chou at the seminary will be making “subtle” changes to it. Examples MacArthur gave...

reformationcharlotte.org

... however, it says that he intends to only make "subtle" changes, but... although the full text has not been released online yet, they do show some comparisons on their website:

Comparisons - Legacy Standard Bible | Your Translation for a Lifetime

...Read More...

lsbible.org

But you look at their second example Proverbs 1:7 where they have departed from the traditional (universal) rendering "fools despise wisdom and instruction", instead they have called them "ignorant fools". What's the problem I see? It's in the question of why they had done that, and I can perceive only two reasons why:

If they are saying that there is a type of fool who isn't ignorant, then they are defining the particular type of fool who despises wisdom and instruction as being an ignorant type of a fool, whereas the original Hebrew text does not make that distinction, it only names those who despise wisdom and instruction as "fools".

OTOH, if they haven't chosen to go beyond merely translating the text, it must mean that they have wanted to describe more graphically what type of person the fool is who despises wisdom and instruction. So they have augmented the name "fool" in order to express more particularly the part of the fool that is so offensive: that they are ignorant. The only reason a person would do that, is because they are particularly offended that a fool who despises wisdom and instruction is so ignorant, and they feel that it needs to be expressed in order to properly convey that the fool is offensive in their view. But the root of offense is hatred, so it shows that they want to express their hatred of ignorant fools and to encourage their readers to feel the same way.

That's exactly why I stopped reading the NWT translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses - I found that their resentment was conveyed through their words and it was rubbing off on my views.

so God who wrote the bible simply called me a fool and abomination when I was sin.

I lied and also commited the acts of sin of gay sex.

I would have to inquire the local Jewish member of my church who is fluent in Hebrew more then my pastor .she was raised in the temple.

think how the left and its supporters ,love the transgender movement verses how the liberals were 40 or more years ago.

 

[jasonc]

its a minor change ,but an emphasis ,the cultures around is real had Gods who were similar to modern transgender ideas,murdered babies to offer and a host of other things despite hearing what God did for and in isreal .

that's from a Jewish commentary ,video on Chanukah that I heard them say that about Egypt and Greece ,Babylon .

 

[for_his_glory]

my point was the the Anglicans who made it were reformed .

you blasted him on a commentary bible and ignored that ,john Calvin's commentary are in German and in fact his translation and missionary works is why modern German even still exists

It's my red flag as I see it, but like I said, to each their own. If the Holy Spirit is teaching us then we should have no problem learning truth no matter what the language is.

 

[jasonc]

he uses languages ,he rarely just reveals himself without sending a called person to teach.

meaning how can they here if there is no one to warn them ?

 

[for_his_glory]

he uses languages ,he rarely just reveals himself without sending a called person to teach.

meaning how can they here if there is no one to warn them ?

It's not that they have not heard, but reject that which they have heard preached to them.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

 

[Serving Zion]

If the Holy Spirit is teaching us

That's the problem with using bad translations - because it is no longer the Holy Spirit who is speaking in the place of God.

 

[for_his_glory]

That's the problem with using bad translations - because it is no longer the Holy Spirit who is speaking in the place of God.

The intents of making the Bible an easier read with many translations is that much is left out that needs to be understood as many translations are based on a logical understanding. I'll stick with my KJV as it works best for me.

 

[GodsGrace]

John MacArthur hasn't been the translator of the NASB, he is just the one who has designed this particular book (that actually if you watch the movie at the link, I think his son did most of the designing of it as a gift for his father). The NASB is a well-respected translation, more respected than the KJV in some circles.

(edit: I withdraw the above comment after having found that he has in fact made changes to the text that wasn't apparent in the advertised product).

He also makes comments that are reformed in Theology.

A bible should not have an individual commenting on the verses..

I agree that the NASB is a good translation.

If that's too much for a first bible, I'd suggest the NIV.