# Legacy Standard Bible



## Timotheos

Did you hear that MacArthur and Co. are trying to improve on an older version of the NASB, calling it the Legacy Standard Bible?

Start at the 7:25 mark


----------



## KSon

What I found interesting, all other things aside (do we need yet another translation, etc.), is the fact that Lockman would allow another update of the '95 NASB while they themselves are in the process of updating it as well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan

Much of the video was edifying, thank you for sharing, I do share his hope that this pandemic will drive people to fear not the virus, but the God they will some day face.

The comments about what he desired in a translation was interesting. Although I should say that this year I have been using the "World English Bible", which was a copyright-free project. The three major benefits were 1) It uses the Robertson-Pierpont Byzantine Text for the NT, which I admire, 2) It seems to be a fairly literal and still highly readable translation, and 3) it translates God's name as Yahweh.

I had been wondering for a while why we traditionally translate God's name as "LORD". I admit "Yahweh" was a little jarring at first but it makes some passages a bit more personal and eye-opening, at least in my experience. So far I'm learning to like it.

I'll be interested to see what happens with this LSB.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jonathco

Translating God's name as Yahweh was one of the few things I really liked about the HCSB back in the day; sadly, they discontinued this when they updated to the CSB. Having said that, it does seem a hard sell to me that we need yet another English bible translation when there are so many out there already. With so many solid translations readily available (e.g. NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV), wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus on languages that do not yet have a translation?

Having said that, as a translation junkie, I will most likely purchase a LSB when it's available.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

The problem with transliterating the divine name as "Yahweh" is that it's a completely speculative way to transliterate it. There's no historical evidence for the pronunciation.

The only historically attested way to transliterate it is Jehovah/Yehovah/Yehowah. This is based on the vowel points in the Hebrew. Modern scholars have speculated that these points were carried over from Adonai, and that they don't represent the original pronunciation of the divine name--but again, that's speculation.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid

TylerRay said:


> The problem with transliterating the divine name as "Yahweh" is that it's a completely speculative way to transliterate it. There's no historical evidence for the pronunciation.
> 
> The only historically attested way to transliterate it is Jehovah/Yehovah/Yehowah. This is based on the vowel points in the Hebrew. Modern scholars have speculated that these points were carried over from Adonai, and that they don't represent the original pronunciation of the divine name--but again, that's speculation.


This is simply false. 
To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh. 
Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).
Third, the confirmation of this - and the reason why I suggest it is better to use "Lord" than the divine name in translating Scripture - is that this is what the NT universally does when it translates OT passages. It never transliterates them, whether as "pipi" (an attempt to render the four Hebrew characters into the nearest greek letters) or as some Greek version of the divine name. If kurios is the choice of Jesus and the NT authors in rendering OT quotations, why isn't it good enough for us?
One further comment on the LSB: I am bemused by Dr Macarthur's insistence in his new translation on the distinctive feature of always translating_ doulos_ as slave. First, because the NASB very often translates it this way anyway and second, because any linguist will tell you that it is very rare for the semantic range of a word in one language to exactly match that of a word in another language. There are many instances where slave is an excellent translation for doulos; there are others where in our context at least (where the meaning of "slave" is significantly colored by the American experience), servant is a better rendering. Wooden literality and one-for one word equivalence doesn't always give you the best translation.

Reactions: Like 9 | Informative 4 | Edifying 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

James White discusses this in his recent radio show. James has been involved in translation work so you might find his comments informative.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L.

Timotheos said:


> Did you hear that MacArthur and Co. are trying to improve on an older version of the NASB, calling it the Legacy Standard Bible?
> 
> Start at the 7:25 mark



Thanks for posting this. I really appreciate John MacArthur's ministry and am thankful to God for him. However, I'm a little disappointed in this launch video for the "Legacy Standard Bible." In my opinion we don't need another English translation and when I hear MacArthur tout this future work as being destined to be the "most accurate" and "most consistent" Bible translation ever it sounds like the same marketing lingo I hear about every other new or revised translation that comes out. It's tiresome to me.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Bill The Baptist

iainduguid said:


> This is simply false.
> To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.
> Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).
> Third, the confirmation of this - and the reason why I suggest it is better to use "Lord" than the divine name in translating Scripture - is that this is what the NT universally does when it translates OT passages. It never transliterates them, whether as "pipi" (an attempt to render the four Hebrew characters into the nearest greek letters) or as some Greek version of the divine name. If kurios is the choice of Jesus and the NT authors in rendering OT quotations, why isn't it good enough for us?
> One further comment on the LSB: I am bemused by Dr Macarthur's insistence in his new translation on the distinctive feature of always translating_ doulos_ as slave. First, because the NASB very often translates it this way anyway and second, because any linguist will tell you that it is very rare for the semantic range of a word in one language to exactly match that of a word in another language. There are many instances where slave is an excellent translation for doulos; there are others where in our context at least (where the meaning of "slave" is significantly colored by the American experience), servant is a better rendering. Wooden literality and one-for one word equivalence doesn't always give you the best translation.



Completely agree. This is an unnecessary translation at best and it seems to me a reaction to the NASB update.


----------



## TylerRay

iainduguid said:


> This is simply false.
> To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.
> Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).


Did anyone hold this theory before the 19th century?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid

TylerRay said:


> Did anyone hold this theory before the 19th century?


The short answer is, Yes. There has been debate since at least the beginning of the 17th century. It is often discussed in conjunction with the question of the date of the Hebrew vowel points, though the argument for the pronunciation of the divine name does not depend on a particular view of that question. It is true that some notable Reformed divines were on the wrong side of this debate, such as John Owen. However, they didn't have access to some of the data that is now available. Can you give me specific reasons (apart from the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century) why you think the near universal agreement of scholars, conservative and critical, Christian and Jewish is wrong on the question of the pronunciation of the divine name? And, more pertinently, why we need to depart from the universal usage of the NT writers and translate the divine name as anything other than "LORD"?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jonathco

Bill The Baptist said:


> it seems to me a reaction to the NASB update.



Which is odd in itself, as Zondervan has already received permission to continue publishing the NASB95 after the NASB2020 is released.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Jonathco said:


> Which is odd in itself, as Zondervan has already received permission to continue publishing the NASB95 after the NASB2020 is released.



I have a feeling good old fashioned marketing is also playing a part. I suspect people can sense that many NASB fans will prefer the older version, and now they can not just have the old one, but an even better old one. At one point in the video, Macarthur said this new version would be “the Expositor’s dream Bible.” Sounds like marketing to me. 

P. S. I am an expositor, but it is not my dream Bible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## spunky01

Stephen L Smith said:


> One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.


 I was thinking the same thing with regard to the concern of a possible dispensational bias. It pains me to say that because I highly respect John MacArthur due to the fact that he was so pivotal in my coming to a biblical understanding of the Doctrines of Grace before I embraced Reformed Theology as a whole. I hope those concerns will not be realized.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover

Sounds like a rerun:

Just as Crossway took the 1971 version of the RSV and re-tooled it into the ESV, now MacArthur's team is taking the original version of the NASB and re-tooling into the LSB.

Since I don't like the NASB, I probably won't like the LSB, either.

Also, I smiled when John said that they were being "given" the opportunity to do this. They were probably "given" the opportunity after paying a hefty licensing fee.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

bookslover said:


> Sounds like a rerun:
> 
> Just as Crossway took the 1971 version of the RSV and re-tooled it into the ESV, now MacArthur's team is taking the original version of the NASB and re-tooling into the LSB.
> 
> Since I don't like the NASB, I probably won't like the LSB, either.
> 
> Also, I smiled when John said that they were being "given" the opportunity to do this. They were probably "given" the opportunity after paying a hefty licensing fee.



Considering how well this worked out for Crossway, you can hardly blame them for using a similar tactic here. Regardless, this seems unnecessary to me. Whereas the RSV was a very good translation that was spoiled by a slight liberal bias, and thus fixed by a slight revision, there’s nothing particular wrong with the NASB. Changing the way in which certain words like YHWH and doulos are translated is unnecessary and gimmicky, and has been done before without much success in terms of popularity.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay

iainduguid said:


> The short answer is, Yes. There has been debate since at least the beginning of the 17th century. It is often discussed in conjunction with the question of the date of the Hebrew vowel points, though the argument for the pronunciation of the divine name does not depend on a particular view of that question. It is true that some notable Reformed divines were on the wrong side of this debate, such as John Owen. However, they didn't have access to some of the data that is now available.


Thank you. That's very informative.



> Can you give me specific reasons (apart from the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century) why you think the near universal agreement of scholars, conservative and critical, Christian and Jewish is wrong on the question of the pronunciation of the divine name?


First, "the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century" is no reason to discount a view. I haven't made that argument.

My two reasons for rejecting the popular theory are that there is no evidence for the pronunciation "Yahweh" (nor any hard evidence that the vowel points have been carried over from Adonai), and that I'm convinced that the vowel points (or at least the inflections, etc., that they signify) are inspired.



> And, more pertinently, why we need to depart from the universal usage of the NT writers and translate the divine name as anything other than "LORD"?


I don't see a reason to make the change, either.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Don Kistler

My goodness, the judgment of charity seems pretty absent in this discussion. I can assure you all that MacArthur does not need the money at this point in his life.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## B.L.

Don Kistler said:


> My goodness, the judgment of charity seems pretty absent in this discussion. I can assure you all that MacArthur does not need the money at this point in his life.



I agree the driver for this new translation project likely isn't financial gain. The opinion I expressed, which could have been written better, is that we don't need another English translation.

I know many talk about how blessed we are to have so many good English translations available at our fingertips. This is indeed true in a sense and fuels part of my questioning the necessity of yet another translation. Do we not have enough options to choose from? Will the LSB really provide enough of a difference to distinguish itself from what is already a strong lineup? Obviously the views of many will differ on this.

Personally, I'm tired of the flood of new/revised translations. My church recently switched to a newly revised translation for all of its preaching/teaching/reading. This has happened a couple of times to me in the last 15 years. My wife and I follow along in our Bibles the best we can, but my children are the ones who are really impacted the most and unless we purchase them Bibles of the currently favored translation they're out of step with others during Bible studies, scripture memorization, and have to navigate between two or more translations when at home or at church. For me it's all quite exhausting. I wish there was a single standard version used in our churches, but I'm probably in the minority.

To each his/her own I reckon. If the future LSB excites people that's wonderful! I just hope it's not the translation of choice for my future pastor or the brand new pew Bibles our church recently purchased will need to be given away and swapped out again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

If we "need" anything translation-wise, we "need" a good translation, completed by a committee of confessional Reformed scholars, that uses the Majority Text for the New Testament. But for me that's more of a desire rather than a necessity, which is why I put "need" in quotes.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Citizen

Will be interested to see the result! 

As far as the question of financial motives are concerned, I can see how some may be ready to question Pastor MacArthur's motives (with this and other endorsements/projects)...I am always reminded and heartened, though, by Grace to You's readiness to distribute so much of their material, in print and online, totally free of charge. But I do imagine the folks who make the MacArthur designed 'Preacher's Bible' may feel caught in the lurch!

(Incidentally, Pastor MacArthur's most recent sermons in light of the current crisis are - like so many of his expositions - worth a listen.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Timotheos

Stephen L Smith said:


> One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.


I wondered the same thing.

But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Timotheos said:


> I wondered the same thing.
> 
> But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?


It can really only happen if it's annotated or chain-referenced. If all they do is translate the text without marginal or footnote commentary, I don't see a way to insert dispensationalism into the translation--the text is what it is.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH

My guess is that MacArthur is offering an update without gender inclusiveness, which I've heard will be included in the 2020 revision. He has seen where revisions of other translations have gone, and wants to remain traditional.

One thing I hope his committee doesn't do in terms of translating to Yahweh is follow in the footsteps of the ASV and translate every occurrence of God as Jehovah. I searched and searched for a clean textblock, had it rebound, and then found the 'consistency' very annoying.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Timotheos said:


> But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?


I have not looked at the specifics for some time, but recall this being discussed a few years ago. 2 Thess 2:7
ESV: For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
NKJV: For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains _will do so_ until He is taken out of the way.

I know some have argued that the NKJV shows a pre trib dispensational bias. Robert Thomas discusses this in his book "How to chose a Bible translation" Revised ed. I am in self isolation so I cannot check my copy. But I recall the book has a very helpful chapter on this.


----------



## Delahunt

An LSV edition coincides with MacArthur's work on the intra-dispensational debate on Lordship Salvation. Such an translation works well with "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "Slave", two popular books he has authored. I highly doubt it is done for the money, but rather provides additional consistency with his own legacy (said with pun intended, no cynicism intended).
The use of Yahweh is common with a number of TMS grads in the various TMS online watering holes. Jesse Johnson, head of the DC TMS extension campus and regular contributor to Cripplegate, very consistently chooses Yahweh over LORD in his writings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

So, I guess we're going to wind up with three versions of the NASB available simultaneously:

1. The original, from 1973 (I guess that's the one he's using), as updated by MacArthur.

2. The 1995 update, which Zondervan will continue to publish.

3. The 2020 update, forthcoming from the Lockman Foundation.

So, take your pick! We're awash in NASBs!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jonathco

bookslover said:


> So, I guess we're going to wind up with three versions of the NASB available simultaneously:
> 
> 1. The original, from 1973 (I guess that's the one he's using), as updated by MacArthur.
> 
> 2. The 1995 update, which Zondervan will continue to publish.
> 
> 3. The 2020 update, forthcoming from the Lockman Foundation.
> 
> So, take your pick! We're awash in NASBs!


It's actually more than that even; the NASB 1973 is still being published by several entities as well, so there will be the 73, the 95, the 2020, _and _the LSV all being published and available simultaneously.


----------



## B.L.

Jonathco said:


> It's actually more than that even; the NASB 1973 is still being published by several entities as well, so there will be the 73, the 95, the 2020, _and _the LSV all being published and available simultaneously.



Hopefully nobody dreams up making a parallel Bible out of those! That would be pretty boring.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Jake

JimmyH said:


> My guess is that MacArthur is offering an update without gender inclusiveness, which I've heard will be included in the 2020 revision. He has seen where revisions of other translations have gone, and wants to remain traditional.



The NASB 77/95 is actually less gender inclusive than the KJV overall and certainly less than the ESV. I imagine he'll maintain that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

BLM said:


> Hopefully nobody dreams up making a parallel Bible out of those! That would be pretty boring.


Our pastor uses '73 and I usually follow along during worship with '95. The differences are interesting.


----------



## TylerRay

iainduguid said:


> To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.


I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but an answer to this has occurred to me.

In all the words you listed, the first syllable of the divine name is put at the end of a word, and is accented. The Sheva would naturally be lengthened in such a case, would it not? So "yeh" would become "yah."

On the other hand, when it is at the beginning of a word, such as Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Jehoshaphat, or Jehoshuah, it conforms to the traditional pointing and pronunciation.

So, in both cases, it's just as you would expect it to be if the traditional pointing and pronunciation were correct.

Please correct me if I'm wrong at any point. I'm learning Hebrew, but my understanding certainly isn't as great as yours.


----------



## iainduguid

TylerRay said:


> I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but an answer to this has occurred to me.
> 
> In all the words you listed, the first syllable of the divine name is put at the end of a word, and is accented. The Sheva would naturally be lengthened in such a case, would it not? So "yeh" would become "yah."
> 
> On the other hand, when it is at the beginning of a word, such as Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Jehoshaphat, or Jehoshuah, it conforms to the traditional pointing and pronunciation.
> 
> So, in both cases, it's just as you would expect it to be if the traditional pointing and pronunciation were correct.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong at any point. I'm learning Hebrew, but my understanding certainly isn't as great as yours.


Not quite; it's more that an original "Ya" might be shortened to "Ye" in an open syllable distant from the accent like Ye/ho/ya/KIM. And of course, these are all theophoric names, ascribing an attribute to Yahweh, which I haven't seen anyone argue for meaning of the divine name itself.

Moreover, as far as I know, a word beginning "Yeho" could not then be followed by a consonantal vav. In Hebrew, a consonantal vav generally follows a closed syllable (preceded by a silent sheva, as in mitzvah, or doubled consonants like qivvah) or it ends a closed syllable (like qav). Or it begins a word, when it is the conjunction. But can you find any other case where a consonantal vav is preceded by an open syllable (apart from obviously non-Semitic names like Darius)?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist

To me it seemed obvious that this is in response to the 2020 update. 

If he is not happy with the new update as most people aren't, then it would be difficult for him to keep using and recommending the "NASB" as the 2020 would become the new standard NASB, if someone goes to the store to buy an NASB because MacArthur preaches from it, it would be the 2020.

After looking forward to the new update, I ended up very disappointed and have no interest in the 2020 update, so I'm looking forward to the LSB and highly doubt there will be any dispensational bias, most the team is probably not even dispensational.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Spurgeonite said:


> most the team is probably not even dispensational.


I disagree. MacArthur's original video said scholars from the Masters University and Seminary will be the key men revising the NASB. These institutions are dispensational.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Stephen L Smith said:


> I disagree. MacArthur's original video said scholars from the Masters University and Seminary will be the key men revising the NASB. These institutions are dispensational.



Hopefully, they aren't more dispensational than MacArthur, who isn't very.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

bookslover said:


> Hopefully, they aren't more dispensational than MacArthur, who isn't very.


Are there degrees of dispensational? It seems you either drink the Kool-aid or you don't. Didn't he write a book about why he thinks every Calvinist need to be a pre-trib-rapturist?
In nearly every one of his discourses that I'm subjected to, the Dispensational is apparent, either stated as part of some comment, or by the omission of obvious OT texts that speak loudly to the issue at hand, but must be allocated to some far-distant imaginary future Israely state in order for DPM to work.


----------



## bookslover

Ben Zartman said:


> Are there degrees of dispensational? It seems you either drink the Kool-aid or you don't. Didn't he write a book about why he thinks every Calvinist need to be a pre-trib-rapturist?
> In nearly every one of his discourses that I'm subjected to, the Dispensational is apparent, either stated as part of some comment, or by the omission of obvious OT texts that speak loudly to the issue at hand, but must be allocated to some far-distant imaginary future Israely state in order for DPM to work.



MacArthur believes that there is a definite difference between Israel and the Church, but he doesn't believe in the classical 7 different dispensations, and hasn't for many years. He calls himself "a leaky dispensationalist." His soteriology is thoroughly Reformed. He wrote an essay (not a book, as I recall) about how Calvinists need to be pre-trib.


----------



## bookslover

Spurgeonite said:


> Do you believe the many reformed men who come to Masters are already dispensation, or end up becoming when they're there?



Some guys go there as dispensationalists and come out as Calvinists.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Spurgeonite said:


> Do you believe the many reformed men who come to Masters are already dispensation, or end up becoming when they're there?


Reformed men would not go to Master's Seminary. They would look for something confessionally Reformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

bookslover said:


> MacArthur believes that there is a definite difference between Israel and the Church


I would describe him as a Calvinist Dispensationalist. He defends Dispensationalism in his books "The Gospel according to Jesus" and "The gospel according to the Apostles". He dislikes covenant theology. He disagrees with a Reformed view of the Sabbath Thus he denies important Reformed truths.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

bookslover said:


> MacArthur believes that there is a definite difference between Israel and the Church, but he doesn't believe in the classical 7 different dispensations, and hasn't for many years. He calls himself "a leaky dispensationalist." His soteriology is thoroughly Reformed. He wrote an essay (not a book, as I recall) about how Calvinists need to be pre-trib.


Whatever he chooses to call himself does not alter the fact of what he is: looking for a pre-trib rapture and a future Israeli state makes one a Dispensational. Dispensational error is not monolithic: every author of a DP study Bible has had a different interpretation. Otherwise they would have stopped at Scofield and not carried on to Ryrie and MacArthur.
If we pick and choose in what way one is "Reformed" because their theology converges with ours here and there, we lose the meaning of the term. Even Pentecostals might be called "Reformed" because they believe in heaven! MacArthur may be a calvinist, but his wholesale rejection the Reformed confessions, his antinominaism, antisabbatarianism, and fanciful eschatology take him to a place far removed from the Reformed religion.


----------



## B.L.

Ben Zartman said:


> If we pick and choose in what way one is "Reformed" because their theology converges with ours here and there, we lose the meaning of the term. Even Pentecostals might be called "Reformed" because they believe in heaven! *MacArthur may be a calvinist, but his wholesale rejection the Reformed confessions, his antinominaism, antisabbatarianism, and fanciful eschatology take him to a place far removed from the Reformed religion.*



The main thrust of this point is one that I've been thinking about a lot lately. I'm convinced the terms and labels we use to describe ourselves and others have such elasticity to them today that we've rendered them void of any real substance. Take the category "Reformed"...it's become a massive theological color wheel with primary, secondary, and tertiary beliefs accepted and allowed. Why is this? It's because we've become untethered from our confessions of faith or perhaps never had one to begin with.

Take what Ben wrote in bold above. You can swap out "MacArthur" and insert any number of people or groups most might consider to be "Reformed" and the statement would still work. Heck, take the largest member denomination of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA)....you can probably replace "MacArthur" and insert large swathes of that entire denomination into that statement and it would be accurate for today.

The same critique is applicable to our other favorite labels as well...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith

MacArthur has done a more in-depth discussion of the Legacy Standard Bible*. *I am afraid some parts of the conversation confirm my suspicion it may have a Dispensational bias.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Georgiadis

Stephen L Smith said:


> MacArthur has done a more in-depth discussion of the Legacy Standard Bible*. *I am afraid some parts of the conversation confirm my suspicion it may have a Dispensational bias.



Wow, his definition of a "real bible" hinges upon formal equivalence? Did I understand that correctly? I guess I'm not that surprised. MacArthur doesn't pull his punches. But this kind of translation-shaming coming from a Christian leader isn't helpful. Perhaps he just meant it was his opinion or preference.


----------



## Pilgrim

Georgiadis said:


> Wow, his definition of a "real bible" hinges upon formal equivalence? Did I understand that correctly? I guess I'm not that surprised. MacArthur doesn't pull his punches. But this kind of translation-shaming coming from a Christian leader isn't helpful. Perhaps he just meant it was his opinion or preference.



Which yet again, makes the NIV MacArthur Study Bible all the more questionable, unless maybe the publisher forced it on him. (He had harshly denounced the 2011 not long before the Study Bible was adapted to the NIV. 



Jonathco said:


> Which is odd in itself, as Zondervan has already received permission to continue publishing the NASB95 after the NASB2020 is released.



I doubt that will go anywhere, except maybe with the premium market. There isn't much demand for the 95 now, and I can't imagine it getting better when the update finally comes out. Now that Lockman has given Masters the license to do this, I would think the demand would be virtually nil except maybe for people who disagree with the decisions on Yahweh and slave.


----------



## Pilgrim

Stephen L Smith said:


> MacArthur has done a more in-depth discussion of the Legacy Standard Bible*. *I am afraid some parts of the conversation confirm my suspicion it may have a Dispensational bias.



What parts would that be? The only one that came to mind was the discussion of Christ having dominion, relating to the Great Commission, I think. (I can't recall the specifics.) Of course _he_ thinks that's "millennial" but so do postmils.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Georgiadis said:


> Wow, his definition of a "real bible" hinges upon formal equivalence? Did I understand that correctly?


Yes. I do think there are real strengths of a formal equivalence translation for serious study.


Pilgrim said:


> What parts would that be? The only one that came to mind was the discussion of Christ having dominion, relating to the Great Commission,


Yes indeed. We will have to see the final product to see the degree (if any) that dispensationalism has influenced the translation. That said, one gets the impression it will be a very careful and scholarly translation. Time will tell I guess.


----------



## Georgiadis

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes. I do think there are real strengths of a formal equivalence translation for serious study.


Totally. And I hope that’s all MacArthur meant. Maybe I’m reading too far into it but he seemed to imply that other translations weren’t “real” bibles. I guess that makes them unreal?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Georgiadis said:


> Totally. And I hope that’s all MacArthur meant. Maybe I’m reading too far into it but he seemed to imply that other translations weren’t “real” bibles. I guess that makes them unreal?


Make sure you read him in his context. The ESV is less literal than the NASB but MacArthur has been generous in his praise of the ESV. For example see here:


----------



## Georgiadis

Stephen L Smith said:


> Make sure you read him in his context. The ESV is less literal than the NASB but MacArthur has been generous in his praise of the ESV.


To claim he meant that all translations less literal than the NASB are not praiseworthy would be, yes, way out of context. He is clearly not splitting hairs between the NASB and the ESV here. His comment is excluding translations that are outside the formal equivalence wheelhouse from being classified as a “real bible”.


> “The Bible, if you want a real bible, has to be a word-for-word translation, as close as you can get to the original Hebrew, the original Greek.”



To your point, perhaps he meant “real” like “really good”, as in, “If you want a real[ly good] bible [for expository study]...”


----------



## retroGRAD3

Ben Zartman said:


> Whatever he chooses to call himself does not alter the fact of what he is: looking for a pre-trib rapture and a future Israeli state makes one a Dispensational. Dispensational error is not monolithic: every author of a DP study Bible has had a different interpretation. Otherwise they would have stopped at Scofield and not carried on to Ryrie and MacArthur.
> If we pick and choose in what way one is "Reformed" because their theology converges with ours here and there, we lose the meaning of the term. Even Pentecostals might be called "Reformed" because they believe in heaven! MacArthur may be a calvinist, but his wholesale rejection the Reformed confessions, his antinominaism, antisabbatarianism, and fanciful eschatology take him to a place far removed from the Reformed religion.


I don't think I have ever seen MacArthur advocate Antinomianism, not sure that is a fair charge. Isn't The Gospel According to Jesus, and many of his other works a rebuke of that?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't think I have ever seen MacArthur advocate Antinomianism, not sure that is a fair charge. Isn't The Gospel According to Jesus, and many of his other works a rebuke of that?



It's not a matter of openly _advocating_ antinomianism. Dispensationalism itself by definition is, to one degree or another, antinomian. Granted, MacArthur describes himself as only a "leaky" Dispensationalist, but he is Dispensational nonetheless.


----------



## retroGRAD3

Taylor Sexton said:


> It's not a matter of openly _advocating_ antinomianism. Dispensationalism itself by definition is, to one degree or another, antinomian. Granted, MacArthur describes himself as only a "leaky" Dispensationalist, but he is Dispensational nonetheless.


Sounds like guilty by association. I don't agree with his eschatology, but that appears to be the only place his dispensationalism extends to. It just seems really disrespectful to lay that charge at MacArthur's feet (antinomianism) in light of the great battles he has had over the Lordship issue and standing against cheap grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

retroGRAD3 said:


> Sounds like guilty by association. I don't agree with his eschatology, but that appears to be the only place his dispensationalism extends to. It just seems really disrespectful to lay that charge at MacArthur's feet (antinomianism) in light of the great battles he has had over the Lordship issue and standing against cheap grace.



No disrespect intended to MacArthur, brother. I never said MacArthur is antinomian. I’m just laying out a fact: Dispensationalism is antinomian by definition. R. C. Sproul, one of MacArthur's closest friends, said the same thing, knowing full well that MacArthur, his friend, is Dispensationalist. If MacArthur isn't antinomian to some degree or another (and I don’t think he is antinomian, by the way), it is in spite of his Dispensationalism, not irrespective of it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

Taylor Sexton said:


> No disrespect intended to MacArthur, brother. I never said MacArthur is antinomian. I’m just laying out a fact: Dispensationalism is antinomian by definition. R. C. Sproul, one of MacArthur's closest friends, said the same thing, knowing full well that MacArthur, his friend, is Dispensationalist. If MacArthur isn't antinomian to some degree or another (and I don’t think he is antinomian, by the way), it is in spite of his Dispensationalism, not irrespective of it.


That is a fair response. Kind of like, if a Romanist is saved, it is in spite of the church, not because of it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

*The Bible, if you want a real bible, has to be a word-for-word translation, as close as you can get to the original Hebrew, the original Greek.” *

Note: I did not make this statement. I don't know who did.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Georgiadis said:


> His comment is excluding translations that are outside the formal equivalence wheelhouse from being classified as a “real bible”.


It is possible he meant Dynamic Equivalent translations. Yes, the ESV is a Formal Equivalent translation but I think sometimes it comes close to an Optimal Equivalent translation. For my part, I stick to FE and OE translations.


----------



## Georgiadis

Stephen L Smith said:


> *The Bible, if you want a real bible, has to be a word-for-word translation, as close as you can get to the original Hebrew, the original Greek.” *
> 
> Note: I did not make this statement. I don't know who did.


I was quoting MacArthur, from the video you posted. That's what I was referring to when I originally posted how I was surprise that his definition of a "real bible" hinged upon formal equivalence. Scrub to 2:00 and you can watch it. I've always known it was his preference but I didn't know he felt _that_ strongly about it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Georgiadis said:


> I was quoting MacArthur,


It is best to put the name with your quote, so it is clear who made the statement. When you quote a Puritan Board member, the website automatically does this.


Georgiadis said:


> I've always known it was his preference but I didn't know he felt _that_ strongly about it.


If one believes in verbal, plenary Inspiration of the scriptures, it logically follows that a word for word translation fits best with this approach to inspiration. True, one needs some flexibility applying this, but I do believe it is no accident MacArthur has a very high view of both the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures, and a word for word approach to translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

retroGRAD3 said:


> Sounds like guilty by association. I don't agree with his eschatology, but that appears to be the only place his dispensationalism extends to. It just seems really disrespectful to lay that charge at MacArthur's feet (antinomianism) in light of the great battles he has had over the Lordship issue and standing against cheap grace.


I use "antinomian" in the technical sense, in that he doesn't believe that the Decalogue is the rule of life for God's people. It is not a slanderous accusation: it is an accident of dispensationalism to believe that the Ten Words were only for God's OT people, and that having been abrogated, only those repeated by Christ apply.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## B.L.

Georgiadis said:


> His comment is excluding translations that are outside the formal equivalence wheelhouse from being classified as a “real bible”.





Georgiadis said:


> I was quoting MacArthur, from the video you posted. That's what I was referring to when I originally posted how I was surprise that his definition of a "real bible" hinged upon formal equivalence. Scrub to 2:00 and you can watch it. I've always known it was his preference but I didn't know he felt _that_ strongly about it.



Interestingly enough, here is what was posted by MacArthur on Grace to You (GTY) back in 2009 in response to the question "Which Bible Translation is Best?" It is a balanced response in my opinion. The blurb on the dynamic-equivalence translations available is quoted verbatim below. Now, again this is from 2009...two years prior to the NIV 2011 revision, so I imagine MacArthur's view of the NIV today has soured considerably. (The underlining below is mine.) 

_"The most popular dynamic-equivalency translations, which dominate the evangelical world, are the New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), The Message (MSG), The Living Bible (TLB), the Good News Bible (GNB), and the New Living Translation (NLT). Of those, the NIV is the most reliable.

The NIV was completed in 1978. Its translators did not attempt to translate strictly word for word, but aimed more for equivalent ideas. As a result, the NIV doesn’t follow the exact wording of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as closely as the King James Version and New American Standard Bible versions do. Nevertheless, it can be considered a faithful translation of the original texts, and its lucid readability makes it quite popular, especially for devotional reading."_

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

BLM said:


> _The NIV was completed in 1978. Its translators did not attempt to translate strictly word for word, but aimed more for equivalent ideas. As a result, the NIV doesn’t follow the exact wording of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as closely as the King James Version and New American Standard Bible versions do. Nevertheless, it can be considered a faithful translation of the original texts, and its lucid readability makes it quite popular, especially for devotional reading."_


Where does it say in the post that MacArthur wrote this? I cannot find anything about MacArthur there.

MacArthur did a study Bible in the 2011 NIV. He made it clear then he did not like the NIV but wrote study notes to help those who use it. 

As a matter of interest the article has a link to the book by Robert Thomas "How to chose a Bible translation". This is a very balanced treatment of the subject In my humble opinion.


----------



## retroGRAD3

Ben Zartman said:


> I use "antinomian" in the technical sense, in that he doesn't believe that the Decalogue is the rule of life for God's people. It is not a slanderous accusation: it is an accident of dispensationalism to believe that the Ten Words were only for God's OT people, and that having been abrogated, only those repeated by Christ apply.


I see what you are saying. However, he still believes in the two commands Jesus gave which really are an extension/summary of the 10.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor Sexton said:


> If we "need" anything translation-wise, we "need" a good translation, completed by a committee of confessional Reformed scholars, that uses the Majority Text for the New Testament.


Funny you say that because I have just been thinking that the 'ideal' translation for ordinary people would be a revision of the ESV based on the Optimum Equivalence approach to translation by confessional scholars. It would be good to get the Critical text and Byzantine Priority text scholars to talk to each other and have a text based on the best outcome of these discussions. Just a dream of mine

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer

Those of you that don't think MacArthur is very dispensational need to read through his study Bible notes on the OT Prophets and count how many times the phrase "millenial kingdom" comes up. Also, note how hard he emphasizes that every promise made to ethnic Israel will be fulfilled by ethnic Israel. 

As has been said, he is Calvinistic in his soteriology. He has attacked Reformed views like Amillenialism and Covenant Theology. Best to see him for what he is and not what you want him to be.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## B.L.

Stephen L Smith said:


> Where does it say in the post that MacArthur wrote this? I cannot find anything about MacArthur there.



MacArthur is the chairman and featured teacher of Grace to You, which is the media arm of Grace Community Church - the church he pastors. The website has his picture running across the banner. 

My attributing authorship to MacArthur was an assumption on my part. It's certainly possible one of his staff members wrote the article, though I doubt the response to such an important question would contain information contrary to MacArthur's own views. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> MacArthur did a study Bible in the 2011 NIV. He made it clear then he did not like the NIV but wrote study notes to help those who use it.



I was unaware of this. Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Ben Zartman

retroGRAD3 said:


> I see what you are saying. However, he still believes in the two commands Jesus gave which really are an extension/summary of the 10.


Yes, that's part of the inconsistency baked in to dispensationalism.


----------



## retroGRAD3

TheInquirer said:


> Those of you that don't think MacArthur is very dispensational need to read through his study Bible notes on the OT Prophets and count how many times the phrase "millenial kingdom" comes up. Also, note how hard he emphasizes that every promise made to ethnic Israel will be fulfilled by ethnic Israel.
> 
> As has been said, he is Calvinistic in his soteriology. He has attacked Reformed views like Amillenialism and Covenant Theology. Best to see him for what he is and not what you want him to be.


I can attest to this. As I read through the Bible, I use a MacArthur and Sproul (the reformation) study Bible. Millenial Kingdom comes up all the time in the JM one and I have to just roll my eyes (Amill myself). Sproul is really the one to got me to first question premill eschatology. Unfortualately, premill pre-trib is taught almost universally in non-denominational churches. In matters outside of eschatology though, Sproul and MacArthur are pretty close. They basically both have their own areas where they like to go deeper on so I get a lot out of reading both. I would like also purchase a MacArthur LSB study bible should it come out, which it probably will.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Here is an updated brief discussion on MacArthur's views on Bible Translations - Parts 1-5


----------



## Broadus

TheInquirer said:


> Those of you that don't think MacArthur is very dispensational need to read through his study Bible notes on the OT Prophets and count how many times the phrase "millenial kingdom" comes up. Also, note how hard he emphasizes that every promise made to ethnic Israel will be fulfilled by ethnic Israel.
> 
> As has been said, he is Calvinistic in his soteriology. He has attacked Reformed views like Amillenialism and Covenant Theology. Best to see him for what he is and not what you want him to be.



I agree, not to mention that dispensational eschatology is explicitly presented in the doctrinal statement of Grace Church, Master's University, and Master's Seminary. 

I suspect that the forthcoming Legacy Bible will become popular among those who hold to MacArthur's fairly unique systematic theology. The six members of the translation committee are scholars who align with the doctrinal statements of the university and seminary, and those statements are Pastor MacArthur's beliefs. I'm not sure that the legacy the new Bible will be very long or widespread. The doctrinal viewpoints of the translation committee are simply too uniform, in my opinion.

Like many others on the Puritan Board, MacArthur's expositional preaching was very helpful in my formative years as a Christian--1970s and 1980s--and I appreciate that. I came to the place where I could no longer defend dispensational eschatology and ultimately embraced amillennialism, not to mention a covenant view of theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Broadus said:


> I suspect that the forthcoming Legacy Bible will become popular among those who hold to MacArthur's fairly unique systematic theology. The six members of the translation committee are scholars who align with the doctrinal statements of the university and seminary, and those statements are Pastor MacArthur's beliefs. I'm not sure that the legacy the new Bible will be very long or widespread. The doctrinal viewpoints of the translation committee are simply too uniform, in my opinion.


I tend to take a 'middle of the road' view. I have made earlier comments about my concerns about a dispensational bias. However I believe it will be a light revision because they are using only 6 scholars. This means, I believe, it will retain many of the strengths of the NASB.

It this light revision makes the NASB more consistent, I would consider using this revision as my main translation. It does depend if it does end up with a dispensational bias.


----------



## Broadus

Stephen L Smith said:


> I tend to take a 'middle of the road' view. I have made earlier comments about my concerns about a dispensational bias. However I believe it will be a light revision because they are using only 6 scholars. This means, I believe, it will retain many of the strengths of the NASB.
> 
> It this light revision makes the NASB more consistent, I would consider using this revision as my main translation. It does depend if it does end up with a dispensational bias.



Were I a user of the NASB, I would probably be hoping for and doing the same. However, I’ve been quite pleased with the ESV for almost two decades, having moved from the NKJV. And I hope you’re right. 

I’m certainly not anti-MacArthur or anti-Grace Church / Master’s Seminary. Our church wanted to move from the SBC Baptist Hymnal several years ago (too many hymns in it that we simply could not sing) and moved to Hymns of Grace, an excellent hymnal. I was concerned about dispensational eschatological bias but did not really find any. Those folk have resources and connections to produce and distribute materials as though they were a small denomination. In many ways, I suppose, they are.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

I received notification from the publishers that the LSB New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs is now available for preorder. 








LSB – New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs


IMPORTANT ORDERING INFORMATION! PLEASE READ! Since this product is only available for pre-order, our website will not allow you to put multiple editions of this product in your cart at the same tim…




316publishing.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pmachapman

If you are like me and your curiosity cannot wait to see what the LSB is like, the publisher has posted the Gospel of Mark for free download at https://316publishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LSB-The-Gospel-of-Mark.pdf.

I've just spent the evening going over the first couple of chapters of Mark, and at this stage am fairly impressed by the light hand that the translation team have shown, and how (at least in Mark) it appears to be a more literal translation than the NASB95.

I've recorded a comparison of Mark chapter 1 showing this up close.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist

I'm even more excited about this translation. Glad to hear that there is external review and input.


----------

