For Fans of the KJV

[Bill The Baptist]

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]

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. How to Study the Bible

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]

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. How to Study the Bible

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.

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]

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. How to Study the Bible

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.

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.

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]

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.

So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"—the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...astest-growing-bible-translation-niv-KJV.html

 

[God'sElectSaint]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"—the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.
The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn't What You Think It Is | Gleanings | ChristianityToday.com

Thanks Dennis. Wow that is rather surprising.

 

[Pilgrim]

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. How to Study the Bible

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.

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]

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]

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. How to Study the Bible

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.

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.

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]

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]

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. How to Study the Bible

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.

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.

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.

It is the 2011.

 

[JimmyH]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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?

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.