# For Fans of the KJV



## bookslover (May 11, 2015)

_Now, as the English-speaking people have the best Bible in the world, and as it is the most beautiful monument ever erected with the English alphabet, we ought to make the most of it, for it is an incomparably rich inheritance, free to all who can read. This means that we ought invariably, in the church and on public occasions, to use the Authorized Version. All others are inferior. And, except for special purposes, it should be used exclusively in private reading. Why make constant companions of the second-best, when the best is available?

The so-called Revised Version and modern condensed versions are valuable for their superior accuracy in individual instances. They may be used as checks and comments. But, for steady reading and in all public places where the Bible is read aloud, let us have the noble, marbly English of 1611._ - *William Lyon Phelps (1865-1943)*

William Lyon Phelps taught English at Yale University (1892-1933) and was Lampson Professor of English Literature (1901-1933). The quotation is from his book, _Human Nature in the Bible_ (1922), p. xi.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

I am a huge fan of the Authorized Version but I don't know if I would go so far as to call all others inferior. I mean if thou understandest what thou readest in the AV then continuest therein. If ye understandest not there art divers translations that art fair indeed and they shall sufficeth thee in thy study. lol sorry I had a little fun there.


----------



## JimmyH (May 11, 2015)

For beauty and elegance no translation in the English language surpasses the AV. For accuracy most philologists and Bible scholars in 1922 rated the ASV as superior. 

Certainly some of the translations since 1922, the 1984 NIV, the NASB and ESV are more accurate, and more accessible to modern readers unfamiliar with the archaisms of the AV. 

In the end we will read the Bible translation we are most comfortable with and pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our understanding.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

Jimmy, I would like to commend you. Though I have only been a member of the PB a few days you always seem to be a voice of reason and grace. And I agree that the AV is one of a kind and In my humble opinion every Christian should own a copy of it and make it a resource in their studies. That being said not everyone can understand it well enough to use it exclusively and they shouldn't be forced to do so. The 1901 ASV is a great translation to use for comparison I think it is arguably still the most literal English translation available. I've thinking of buying a copy of it from Star Bibles since it's rarely in print but I'm kinda weary of what the quality of their reprint may be. It is the teacher's edition but they want $100 for it. I must say to that the ESV has some very nice literary qualities. I think the ESV can be considered to be in the Tyndale/KJV line of bibles. Actually sometimes it sound more King Jamesish then the NKJV does, for instance "Luk 2:10 And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 
Luk 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."


----------



## yeutter (May 11, 2015)

*the NIV more accurate?!*



JimmyH said:


> For beauty and elegance no translation in the English language surpasses the AV. For accuracy most philologists and Bible scholars in 1922 rated the ASV as superior.
> 
> Certainly some of the translations since 1922, the 1984 NIV, the NASB and ESV are more accurate, and more accessible to modern readers unfamiliar with the archaisms of the AV.
> 
> In the end we will read the Bible translation we are most comfortable with and pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our understanding.


The NASB, the ESV and the old ASV are good literal translations of the text that they use. The NIV, the NASB, and the ESV are accessible to modern readers.
I am mystified as to why you believe the NIV is more accurate. Even if we concede the textual debate, the NIV translation is not more accurate.


----------



## JimmyH (May 11, 2015)

yeutter said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > For beauty and elegance no translation in the English language surpasses the AV. For accuracy most philologists and Bible scholars in 1922 rated the ASV as superior.
> ...


I have this impression from a great deal of reading on the subject. If it is not more accurate, it is certainly more accessible. At least to USA readers. In doing M'Cheyne's one year Bible reading plan daily for the past 5 months I read the AV first, than the 1984 NIV for comparison. So far I see nothing of any consequence omitted, and in many cases find the thought easier to understand completely in the NIV.

As I've noted in other threads, D.A. Carson, in his 'King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism,' says the NIV is the "best English translation", and John MacArthur, in his 'How To Study The BIble' series says though his primary English translation is the KJV, he sometimes refers to the NASB, or the NIV for clarification, because _they are the best English translations. _

In my younger days my mind was poisoned towards the NIV by all of the nay sayers who cried dynamic equivalence. It was only after reading the aforementioned D.A. Carson quote 20 years later that I dusted off my 1984 NIV study Bible and began reading it again. I also read NIV editor/translator Kenneth Barker's The Balance Of The NIV, and 'The Accuracy Of The NIV. 

The latter being Dr. Barker's answer to critics of the translation such as Rev. Robert Martin (Accuracy of Translation) which I also read. I've read Leland Ryken, James White, D.A. Waite among others. I've taken this question of translations very seriously and I'm personally satisfied that the CT is reliable, and so are the mainstream translations.

Finally, Erasmus had 5 Greek manuscripts from which he compiled his 'Received Text.' Where portions were missing from the Greek he translated the Vulgate. Modern translators have over 500 NT manuscripts, the advantage of discoveries of the papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the advances in philology that have occurred in the past 400 years. For a better idea of the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the AV, read The King James Bible, by David Norton, editor of 'The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible', on the nuts and bolts of the AV since its beginnings.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation Jimmy you may want to take a look at this review of the NIV. It's pretty fair.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 11, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Finally, Erasmus had 5 Greek manuscripts from which he compiled his 'Received Text.'



This is patently false. While it may be true that Erasmus relied most heavily on the five manuscripts that he considered the best, he also consulted many other available manuscripts. To say that Erasmus thus based the TR on just five Greek manuscripts would be akin to saying that the CT is based on just two Greek manuscripts since it relies so heavily on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The real issue here has more to do with translation philosophy. The NIV is not intended to be a literal translation, but rather a "dynamic equivalence" whereby the translators seek to discover the meaning of the original and reword it in common English that is easy to understand. That is a noble enough aim, however the problem arises when the translators seek to "discover" the original intent. This requires interpretation, and interpretation often results in error. As far as Carson is concerned, his endorsement is not particularly surprising considering he served as general editor of Zondervan's NIV Study Bible.


----------



## bookslover (May 11, 2015)

Here's some more Phelps:

_The absolute persistence of sin on the earth is the cardinal fact in human history; all the ocean and all the rain could not wash wickedness off the land. Although Noah knew that the inhabitants had been slain because of their evil-doing, and although he and his family had been miraculously spared, and although he had built an altar and worshipped as soon as he touched the ground, almost his next recorded act was to get drunk. It was like going to church in the morning and getting drunk in the afternoon - still a familiar sight in certain parts of the world. Perhaps, after so much water, wine seemed attractive.

Ham had the misfortune to see his father dead drunk; and Noah, when he awaked, *instead of being penitent for his disgrace, cursed his son for seeing him.* Noah is not the only person in history who felt worse about being caught than about doing wrong. I was never favorably impressed by Noah's cursing his own son; of course, he was in a bad temper when he woke up and probably had a desperate headache; but if he had said, "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner!" I should have had more respect for him than when he added to the sin of drunkenness the sin of cursing his own child, just like a drunken paterfamilias!_ - _Human Nature in the Bible_, pp. 17-18. (emphasis mine)

That hadn't occurred to me before. Did Noah lash out at his son as a way to shift attention away from his own sin?


----------



## JimmyH (May 11, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation Jimmy you may want to take a look at this review of the NIV. It's pretty fair.


 Thanks Edward, I've read that in the past. In Dr. Kenneth Barker's 'The Accuracy of the NIV', he answers many of the criticisms with specifics on the translation committee's reasoning in the translation choices they made. I haven't returned to Marlow's article to compare, but I will. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, Erasmus had 5 Greek manuscripts from which he compiled his 'Received Text.'
> ...



Erasmus, I've read, was the premier translator of Greek in his time. No doubt while in England, where he began entertaining the idea of compiling a Greek NT text he had many more manuscripts to examine, but he went to Switzerland to actually begin his work and James White ( The King James Only Controversy) says ;


> Erasmus's interest in the biblical text, seen in his publishing of Valla's work, prompted him to begin work on publishing the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Up to that time no one had printed it in its entirety, and everyone was still utilizing hand-copied manuscripts. Erasmus labored in England on the project until the summer of 1514, when he moved back onto the continent to Basel, Switzerland, hoping to find many excellent Greek manuscripts. *He was disappointed when he found only five,* but he set to work with these.
> 
> Erasmus obtained the assistance of John Froben, a printer at Basel who encouraged him to hurry with his work, possibly because he had heard that Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros had already printed his Complutensian Ployglot, which included the Greek New Testament, and was merely waiting for approval to arrive from Rome before publishing his work. Time was running out to be the first to actually publish the Greek New Testament. As a result, the first edition of Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum (The New Testament) was hardly a thing of beauty, and as soon as it was printed Erasmus got to work editing the second edition. In fact the first edition was so hastily edited and that it was "hurried out headlong." Since he was unwilling to wait for papal approval, he took a big risk and dedicated his work to Pope Leo X, the same man who excommunicated Martin Luther, hoping that the dedication would deflect any reprisals for rushing his work to press. The gamble worked and Erasmus had the first published Greek text on the market.





Bill The Baptist said:


> *The NIV is not intended to be a literal translation, but rather a "dynamic equivalence"* whereby the translators seek to discover the meaning of the original and reword it in common English that is easy to understand. That is a noble enough aim, however the problem arises when the translators seek to "discover" the original intent. This requires interpretation, and interpretation often results in error. As far as Carson is concerned, his endorsement is not particularly surprising considering he served as general editor of Zondervan's NIV Study Bible.



God forbid ! Forgive the tongue in cheek response, but there is no shortage of dynamic equivalence in the AV. Referring again to Dr Barker's 'The Accuracy of the NIV', I am satisfied with his details of how and why the committee translated as they did. Speaking of the 1984 edition. I have no sympathy for later gender neutral revisions. I'm sure it is not perfect, but no translation is.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 11, 2015)

As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.


----------



## JimmyH (May 11, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.


Brother Bill, just to be clear, I'm not qualified to say any translation is accurate. I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries. I wouldn't think that Dr Carson's association with Zondervan would have influenced him to praise the translation if he didn't feel that way in his heart.

For me the English in the 1984 NIV is the lingua franca I've been accustomed to all of my long life. I don't doubt that the NASB, or even the ESV, could possibly be more accurate, but I prefer the way the NIV reads. As I said previously, I still consider the AV my primary Bible, but supplement it with the others.

For anyone who is interested in Dr Kenneth Barker's explanations of various translation questions here is a free PDF of 'The Accuracy of the NIV' from the NIV Translation and Resource Center, International Bible Society ;

http://www.biblica.com/uploads/pdf-files/niv_accuracydefined.pdf


----------



## Logan (May 11, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This is patently false. While it may be true that Erasmus relied most heavily on the five manuscripts that he considered the best, he also consulted many other available manuscripts.



Is it? I'm curious where you've gotten than information (I've looked for something like that). I've seen many sources (including Scrivener I thought, but I can't find it at the moment) that actually list the manuscripts used (at most it appears to be six). On the other hand, I've seen people interested in disputing it claim that Erasmus made extensive notes that amounted to many more manuscripts, or had access to many more, etc. but I haven't seen evidence for it. Either way, he did a great job with what he had.



Bill The Baptist said:


> As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism.



Out of curiousity, who would you consider an expert? Agree with him or not, he knows more about it than anyone living I can think of off the top of my head. Even though I think he tends toward the hard-nose, extreme side sometimes, I wouldn't disparage his scholarship.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.
> ...



I must admit Jimmy this is a pretty good defense of the NIV. My mom reads the NIV and loves it. Quite a few times when I have studied with her I liked some of the NIV translation choices. Hmm. I have an NIV study bible that I haven't used much maybe I'll take a second look at it. Maybe combine with my matthew henry KJVsb. Good stuff Jimmy that opened my mind a little, thanks.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 11, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.
> ...



I would encourage you to continue using the translation you are most comfortable with. I have no particular quarrel with them NIV , I just find it questionable to bestow the title of "most accurate" upon a translation that does not even seek to translate every word into English. I am also not sure where you are getting your quote from MacArthur because I have heard him say on many occasions that he did not care for the NIV. Regardless, blessings to you brother on your continued studies.


----------



## JimmyH (May 11, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH;1076301[Quote said:
> 
> 
> > I have great respect for D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, and if they characterize the NIV as an accurate translation I am impressed by their scholarship and by the fruits of their ministries.
> ...


 On Grace To You Ministry website, Dr MacArthur's series 'How To Study The Bible', the fourth and last mp3 in the series at the bottom of the page. Towards the very end of that recording he makes the statement that the 'NASB and NIV' are the "best English translations."


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 11, 2015)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQyMyRIIBdA

Notice Macarthur's comment around the 54 second mark.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQyMyRIIBdA
> 
> Notice Macarthur's comment around the 54 second mark.



Yeah He doesn't seem to be thrilled about the NIV but I respect why he would do an NIV study bible.


----------



## MW (May 11, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> there art



The word should be "are," just as it remains.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > there art
> ...



lol Thank you for the Elizabethan grammer lesson.


----------



## MW (May 11, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > God'sElectSaint said:
> ...



As this continued to be the language of subsequent translations, we can add Georgian, Victorian, and at least Edwardian.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



I like Edwardian lol


----------



## bookslover (May 11, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > God'sElectSaint said:
> ...



"Grammer"? What does your grandmother have to do with any of this? LOL


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

bookslover said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



Lol


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 12, 2015)

Logan said:


> Out of curiousity, who would you consider an expert? Agree with him or not, he knows more about it than anyone living I can think of off the top of my head. Even though I think he tends toward the hard-nose, extreme side sometimes, I wouldn't disparage his scholarship.



From the CT side of things, I would consider people like Metzger or Mounce to be experts. As a general rule, in order to be considered an "expert", one would need to possess a Ph.D in a related discipline and engage in textual criticism as their primary endeavor.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 13, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > As much as we all appreciate Dr. White, his work in this area leaves a bit to be desired, and in truth he is nor really an expert in textual criticism. It is also true that all translations engage in a form of dynamic equivalence in order to facilitate the translation process, however the more literal translations will seek to translate every word into English. This is simply not the case with the NIV, and so the claim that it is the most accurate is questionable at best.
> ...



See Robert P. Martin's Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version for an opposing view regarding the NIV translation philosophy.


----------



## Physeter (May 13, 2015)

The Authorized Version is my favorite for its beauty. It reads better for me than the other translations.


----------



## JimmyH (May 13, 2015)

Pilgrim said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...


As previously mentioned, I've read it. Dr Barker defends against it, and others, in his 'The Accuracy of the NIV, and 'The Balance of the NIV.' In my humble opinion.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 13, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



Dr.Barker does do a decent job of defending the NIV but in terms of accuracy the NIV is wanting in manner areas Jimmy. It's a good bible for beginners and in terms of readability it's very nice. Nevertheless, for serious study of the bible it is not transparent enough to the original languages to be a good candidate for that type of use In my humble opinion. I think HCSB is a much better quality of dynamic equivalent than the NIV. I think the NIV is useful for some things but unless they tighten up it's accuracy I don't see it being embraced by many serious Pastors or bible students. I respect your open mindedness but compared to the KJV it doesn't come close to in terms of accuracy.


----------



## JimmyH (May 13, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...



Well, as I noted in a previous post, I'm not qualified to make that judgment. Those of us who rely on translator's efforts go with the general consensus of which translations are the most accurate, and with which we find the most readable/understandable for ourselves.

We read forums, listen to others, who praise or dismiss this or that translation, and we are influenced by them. I put my NIV (1984) on the shelf for 20 years due to the opinions of a few and was quite surprised to see Carson and MacArthur characterize the NIV as "the best English translation." (MacArthur said NASB and NIV). 

So I can listen to you, to others on the Internet, and elsewhere who have their opinion, or I can delve into the 1984 NIV day after day, verse after verse, and compare it to the AV in terms of content. I've been doing this daily for the past 5 months, and I did it quite a bit, if randomly, the past couple of years. 

The 1984 NIV passes muster for me, though I cannot comment of later revisions, since I haven't read any of them.

This has been an interesting thread and I will continue to monitor it, but I think I've said all I can say, and will probably just remain an observer rather than a participant henceforth.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 13, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> I put my NIV (1984) on the shelf for 20 years due to the opinions of a few and was quite surprised to see Carson and MacArthur characterize the NIV as "the best English translation." (MacArthur said NASB and NIV).



The statement regarding Macarthur has already been refuted, so I am sure that Dr. Macarthur would probably appreciate it if you would stop repeating this assertion. I went to the link you provided and brought up the actual transcript of this sermon. First of all, this sermon was given in 1979, well before the ESV or even the NKJV existed. Secondly, he does not say what you are claiming he said. This is the quote in full context,* " I normally read of course in the King James, but just for my own edification I’ll read invariably the N.A.S. passage or the N.I.V. Passage, New International Version, those two, I think, are the best available comparison translations. "*

Here is the full transcript of this sermon. http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1382/how-to-study-the-bible


----------



## JimmyH (May 13, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I put my NIV (1984) on the shelf for 20 years due to the opinions of a few and was quite surprised to see Carson and MacArthur characterize the NIV as "the best English translation." (MacArthur said NASB and NIV).
> ...


Good point Bill. Matter of fact D.A. Carson's statement regarding the NIV , "best English translation" was made in 1979, so they may have revised their opinion with the publication of the NKJV, and the ESV. 

It is worth noting, AFAIC, that MacArthur published his study Bible in NKJV, ESV, NIV, and NASB. R.C. Sproul & Ligionier Ministries have published their study Bible in NKJV and ESV. As far as I know, the latter is only in print in the ESV translation currently. Say that to say, their choices of which translations to use may reflect which they feel are the most reliable for serious study.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 13, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



Just to make sure we are on the same page, Macarthur did not say that the NIV was one the best available English translations, but one of the best available comparison translations. This is quite a big difference. As far as Macarthur making his study Bible available in the NIV, if you watched the video I linked in post #17 above, Macarthur says that he only made it available in the NIV because it is the Bible that much of the English speaking world uses and he wanted to get his study notes into their hands. He clearly states that one of the conditions he had for making it available in the NIV was that he be allowed to "correct" in the notes passages that he felt were poorly translated.


----------



## JimmyH (May 13, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...



I confess I didn't watch the video. I'll take your word for it. I'm sure he corrects anything he feels is 'poorly translated' in the NIV. I've heard/read MacArthur, Lloyd-Jones, others do the same thing with every mainstream translation they are referring to at one time or another. No translation is perfect.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 13, 2015)

Not to throw too much more dirt onto the already muddy portrait, but . . .


> When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.
> 
> The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.
> 
> ...


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 13, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



You make an excellent point Jimmy. The NIV is a good comparison bible and I am glad that it helps you grow in your understanding of God's word. I was simply stating that using the NIV as a primary translation would put one at a disadvantage. But clearly you use it with other translations so I'm sure that makes the NIV valuable for you. It is very smart to use several English versions if you don't know Hebrew or Greek. Sounds like you have a good study routine and I am certainly not attempting to discourage your use of the NIV, especially since you use the 1984 edition which is much better than the 2011 one. Ya know Jimmy there are some nice parallel bibles that the KJV and the NIV side by side at Christianbookstore.com. You may have one already but if not you should check it out.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 13, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Not to throw too much more dirt onto the already muddy portrait, but . . .
> 
> 
> > When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.
> ...



Thanks Dennis. Wow that is rather surprising.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



A lot of it seems to have to do with business, plain and simple. My recollection is that the New Geneva Study Bible (later retitled the Reformation Study Bible) was originally supposed to be issued in the NIV. But the deal with Zondervan (the NIV publisher) fell through and it eventually came out in the NKJV instead after a deal was reached with Nelson (the NKJV publisher.) I (and others) found the timing of the publication of the MacArthur SB in the NIV to be very interesting as it occurred not long after Harper Collins' acquisition of Nelson, thus putting Zondervan and Nelson under the same umbrella. I have no idea what the contractual details are or if that was in the works prior to the acquisition of Nelson. But is there a possibility that it was going to come out in the NIV whether MacArthur liked it or not? He strongly denounced the TNIV (and NIV 11) gender-neutral practice in no uncertain terms just a year or two before. You would have thought that there was 0% chance of the Study Bible being issued using the NIV. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought there was as much chance of that happening as him soliciting donations for TBN. In defense of themselves, they (I refer to a post by Phil Johnson) expressed a desire to get the SB in the hands of as many as possible and in the hands of those who needed the most help, in that case ostensibly various broad evangelicals. I asked at the time that if that was the case when can we expect to see a KJV MacArthur Study Bible. (Note the study posted by Dennis.) I think all would admit that many who use the KJV have some very bad theology. How many of them would buy a MacArthur Study Bible is another question, but I've even seen MacArthur study guides in the office of a Oneness Pentecostal minister. So he is quite well known across the spectrum of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. (Despite some differences, all things considered I'm a big MacArthur "fan" and am not looking to attack him here.) 

As for the choices of translations to use reflecting that which they feel is the most reliable for serious study, MacArthur has preached from the NASB for many years. To my knowledge he has never preached from the NKJV. Yet the Study Bible was released in the NKJV with the NASB only being issued some 9 years later. The Lockman Foundation (the copyright holder of the NASB) is reportedly difficult to deal with regarding that kind of thing, so I would imagine that is why they went with Nelson and the NKJV instead. Perhaps it was also thought that regular KJV readers would be more likely to buy a NKJV edition. Evidently he does consider the NKJV reliable for serious study (and likely much more so than the NIV) but he has expressed a clear opinion in favor of the Critical Text, which is made clear in the notes.


----------



## Logan (May 14, 2015)

Pilgrim said:


> The Lockman Foundation (the copyright holder of the NASB) is reportedly difficult to deal with regarding that kind of thing, so I would imagine that is why they went with Nelson and the NKJV instead.



I can confirm that. I have one of the "pre-order" original MacArthur Study Bibles and I do recall that MacArthur desired to publish it in NASB first, but due to quotation restrictions and copyright, they went with the NKJV instead.


----------



## JimmyH (May 14, 2015)

Pilgrim said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...



Perhaps I am 'close minded', but I have never seen, nor do I wish to see, a TNIV, or an NIV11. I understand intellectually how some may see the gender neutral revisions being appropriate, at least from a worldly perspective. That said I would never use a Bible with those changes. Maybe I'm just an old man, or maybe I'm standing for what is right in the Lord's eyes. 

My copy of the MacArthur SB is a NKJV, and I'm very satisified with that translation. I'm not sure which of the NIV translations MacArthur published his NIV version in, but I do hope it was 1984 or previous.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 14, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> I'm not sure which of the NIV translations MacArthur published his NIV version in, but I do hope it was 1984 or previous.



Sadly, it is the 2011 version as that is the only version that Zondervan will license.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



It is the 2011.


----------



## JimmyH (May 14, 2015)

Being that it is the 2011 it is no wonder that MacArthur isn't enthusiastic about it. Worse yet, from what I understand Zondervan doesn't give the option of obtaining the 1984, or earlier, in digital formats. It is the latest or nothing.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 14, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Being that it is the 2011 it is no wonder that MacArthur isn't enthusiastic about it. Worse yet, from what I understand Zondervan doesn't give the option of obtaining the 1984, or earlier, in digital formats. It is the latest or nothing.



That is unfortunate of them. Makes you wonder what their motives are. You can still get some 1984 editions though. The Scofield NIV is the 1984 edition, I know it's scofield lol I have a Scofield 3 NKJV bible from before I became reformed. It's actually very nicely made, the leather is nice quality and very flexible, symth-sewn. The cross reference system is very useful and there's plenty of room for notes. The concordance is extremely extensive for a study bible. To be honest beside the Dyps notes the Oxford Scofield bibles are of good quality for an affordable price. I still use my Scofield NKJV quite a bit for church and bible study because I can write alot of notes in it.


----------



## JimmyH (May 14, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Being that it is the 2011 it is no wonder that MacArthur isn't enthusiastic about it. Worse yet, from what I understand Zondervan doesn't give the option of obtaining the 1984, or earlier, in digital formats. It is the latest or nothing.
> ...


My first two Bibles were Scofield reference Bibles. A 'New' Scofield KJV, and an NIV (1984). I still have the New Scofield, but gifted the NIV to my former pastor's wife because she really liked the leather cover and 'the way it reads.' 

In case you weren't aware of it, going back to John MacArthur, he still uses the Scofield KJV he began with in Seminary, though he is particular to say he doesn't agree with all of the study notes. Perhaps he has replaced the original copy, as I imagine after all these years it must be worse for wear, but he believes in sticking with one Bible, because he knows where verses can be found in that particular edition. He says he doesn't necessarily remember verse numbers, but knows the chapters, and the place on the page where he can find whatever he is looking for. This from being so familiar with his default hard copy.

As for Oxford, they do indeed publish a well constructed Bible. So does Cambridge though, and speaking of cans of worms ........ Google 'Oxford Bible versus Cambridge Bible' and there is another fierce debate. Not in construction, but in content. There are slight differences in the text between the two.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 14, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



Yes the KJV pure text debate. Are you sure your not listening to old MacArthur? I'm pretty sure he uses the NASB now a days at least he almost always preaches from it. I use my KJV Matthew Henry study bible a lot. It was only $20 it's made decently for that price but it's flexisoft leather and not of great quality. Whats nice though is that along with a lot of Matthew Henry's commentary it also has most of the original 1611 KJV translation notes. They had a good set of marginal notes a lot alternative translations in them some of which I think should of been in the KJV text itself. It's a shame they don't include the 1611 translation notes in a lot of KJV bibles today they very helpful.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2015)

MacArthur used to use (and preach) from the New Scofield of 1967 which had the "word changes." In other words, a slightly modernized KJV. But my guess is that he has been using the NASB since some time in the 80's, first the '77 and then the '95. With the Grace to You broadcast, you might have a series from last year one week and a series from 1975 the next.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 14, 2015)

Pilgrim said:


> MacArthur used to use (and preach) from the New Scofield of 1967 which had the "word changes." In other words, a slightly modernized KJV. But my guess is that he has been using the NASB since some time in the 80's, first the '77 and then the '95. With the Grace to You broadcast, you might have a series from last year one week and a series from 1975 the next.



The textual criticism debates on the PB would not hold a candle to a "textual critical" debate over MacArthur. He evolved from a pretty standard dispensationalist in the early '70s, to an advocate of the puritans in the early '80s, to a "leaky dispensationalist" with a 5pt Calvinist soteriology. If they mix the years of his broadcasts, I can only imagine how much fun one would have sorting out his evolving views. It would be a kind of theological version of "Where's Waldo."


----------



## Pilgrim (May 15, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > MacArthur used to use (and preach) from the New Scofield of 1967 which had the "word changes." In other words, a slightly modernized KJV. But my guess is that he has been using the NASB since some time in the 80's, first the '77 and then the '95. With the Grace to You broadcast, you might have a series from last year one week and a series from 1975 the next.
> ...



I don't know that there is that big of a difference, especially to the untrained ear. And no doubt, whatever messages there may be that clearly don't represent his current teaching would not be aired. With most of the frequently aired series I don't know that his teaching would be much different today. He was always more Calvinistic than not, I think, although he didn't fully embrace particular redemption until some time later (in the early-mid 90's?) from what I understand. My guess is that Lloyd-Jones and Pink were his "gateway drugs" to the Puritans, as they were for many. Those reprints by Banner and other publishers didn't become widely available until around the time that his ministry started, with more and more being published as time went on. He had also written at least one earlier "Lordship Salvation" type book. But it was him "naming names" in _The Gospel According to Jesus_ that caused the controversy to break wide open. 

It appears that what he means by "leaky dispensationalism" is that he sees it as only having to do with eschatology and ecclesiology and not sanctification and so on the way the teachers in the DTS line did. He goes into this in the appendix to "Faith Works." He also indicated that at least some of his teachers at Talbot and other formative influences did not agree with the extremes of the "Dallas teaching" (I think that's what Boice called it) that basically makes discipleship optional. "Leaky" also refers to not having the kind of emphasis on seven dispensations that previous generations did, with the thought apparently being that making harder distinctions between some of them contributed to the problem. I don't know that he ever emphasized that. (Some like McClain and Sauer did not either.) Although there seems to be a tendency to equate "leaky" with Progressive, I don't know that it is correct to put him in the Progressive Dispensational (PD) category, at least not the Blaising and Bock category when it comes to hermeneutics and the Kingdom. In terms of "end times" events or whatever, he basically teaches "traditional" dispensationalism. The recently retired Dr. Robert Thomas (i.e. retired from TMS) has long been a traditionalist critic of PD. Some of the younger men there now (such as Dr. Vlach) seem to be closer to Saucy's view and maybe somewhere in between the two. 

Most ministers I know of have had some doctrinal shifts over time, some much more than others. But most don't write a complete NT commentary series either. (As far as I know, he is the only one to have done that in recent times.) That might be the most promising ground for those on the lookout for inconsistencies as I don't know that any of them have been significantly revised over the years.

Well, we've gotten way off track from the subject of the OP. But I'm probably as much to blame for that as anyone and maybe more so.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 15, 2015)

bookslover said:


> Here's some more Phelps:
> 
> _The absolute persistence of sin on the earth is the cardinal fact in human history; all the ocean and all the rain could not wash wickedness off the land. Although Noah knew that the inhabitants had been slain because of their evil-doing, and although he and his family had been miraculously spared, and although he had built an altar and worshipped as soon as he touched the ground, almost his next recorded act was to get drunk. It was like going to church in the morning and getting drunk in the afternoon - still a familiar sight in certain parts of the world. Perhaps, after so much water, wine seemed attractive.
> 
> ...



I don't know. But it does appear that at least one faculty member in that day had some concern about "God and Man at Yale" to quote the title of a significant book that was published a generation later.


----------

