Macarthur Study Bible
- Thread starter Javilo
- Start date
- Status
I think Kipp is right. Dr. MacArthur is pretty selective about the translations he will use. I think he only wants to associate his name with translations that he feels faithfully represent the Greek text. He might differ in his translation is certain places, but still feels like he can recommend that translation to others.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Because NIV stands for 'Nearly Inspired Version'.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
It's been said pretty well here already - don't expect it. His translation philosophy is much like his preaching style. The NASB would have been his first choice, but their copyright charges were cost prohibitive before Zonderman bought the rights. Then they jumped on it. The NKJV isn't the text type he'd prefer, but Nelson worked well with them. The ESV is popular and a good translation, embracing the more literal philosophy of translation. The NIV's dynamic equivalent philosophy of translation falls short often, which MacArthur has pointed out more than once.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'd like to see it released in the KJV but my guess is that there is not much chance of that happening. As Joe noted, it seems that it was first released in the NKJV for business reasons and also perhaps as a "bridge" for those who were KJV users and who might have been more likely to buy a NKJV as opposed to a NASB.
One thing that I have observed with the MacArthur Study Bibles is that the quality of construction has gone way down over the years, as has been the case with the industry in general. I have one that I bought in 1999 that is Genuine Leather and smyth sewn. It's one of the better Genuine Leather covers you're likely to see. I'm sure it was Nelson's handiwork, but it was released under the Word imprint, which was acquired by Nelson in the late 90's. It's still in very good condition. By contrast my wife's revised version that was purchased in 2009 is glued and bound in poor quality Bonded Leather. It looks like it has about another year left before it starts falling apart.
I haven't seen any of the ESV's up close to know if the quality with those is any better.
One thing that I have observed with the MacArthur Study Bibles is that the quality of construction has gone way down over the years, as has been the case with the industry in general. I have one that I bought in 1999 that is Genuine Leather and smyth sewn. It's one of the better Genuine Leather covers you're likely to see. I'm sure it was Nelson's handiwork, but it was released under the Word imprint, which was acquired by Nelson in the late 90's. It's still in very good condition. By contrast my wife's revised version that was purchased in 2009 is glued and bound in poor quality Bonded Leather. It looks like it has about another year left before it starts falling apart.
I haven't seen any of the ESV's up close to know if the quality with those is any better.
Jesus is my friend
Puritan Board Junior
I wish he would do a KJV edition,that would be the best,we need a good reformed KJV study Bible (I know about the Matthew Henry edition,it's good but we need some other choices too)
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Because the study portion copyright is with Nelson, I believe they still publish all the Mac Study Bibles, regardless of translation. I also noticed that the quality isn't what it once was, just in the past 5 years. For our grandson's first Christmas we bought him a genuine leather MSB. I really couldn't tell the difference between it and a bonded leather Bible. It was disappointing.
I wouldn't hold my breath for the MSB in KJV. They embrace the Alexandrian (NU) text type, and certainly prefer versions with more modern language.
The Nelson Study Bible isn't bad, and is available in KJV.
I wouldn't hold my breath for the MSB in KJV. They embrace the Alexandrian (NU) text type, and certainly prefer versions with more modern language.
The Nelson Study Bible isn't bad, and is available in KJV.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
What are the virtues of the Matthew Henry? I looked at one in the store a while back and there didn't appear to be that many notes. But admittedly I didn't look at it for very long.
Would you say that its virtues are more geared toward devotional use as opposed to doctrinal? in my opinion the devotional quality of Henry's commentary is probably its main strength.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Crossway is actually the publisher for the ESV MacArthur Study Bible. A similar example would be the Reformation Study Bible which was originally Nelson but the ESV Reformation Study Bible is published by a different publisher. But I don't think Nelson owned the rights to the Reformation Study Bible notes and articles. Either way, obviously some arrangement was made to have Crossway publish the ESV version.
As more knowledgeable fundamentalist KJVO's will tell you, even Scofield embraced the Alexandrian text but was persuaded that the ASV would have less appeal. (Reformed and other nondispensational critics of Scofield can only wish that it would have come out in the ASV!) Of course those were the only two choices at the time. But yes, MacArthur & co. don't seem to have much use for the KJV. Before switching to the NASB he used the New Scofield (which featured a modernized KJV) for years, but that was basically because it was what he was used to. It's hard to stop using a Bible when you know right where everything is.
If the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) was ever available in the KJV it's been some time ago.
Nelson's King James Study Bible is a different production entirely from the Nelson Study Bible/NKJV Study Bible. It was originally published as the Liberty Annotated Study Bible. At the risk of getting infracted or banned from the board, I'll say it's the best KJV Study Bible in print with which I'm familiar.
Not that there are a lot of other contenders, as we've noted. It's a little more dispensational than the MacArthur, but less so than the Ryrie or the Scofield. (I'm not too familiar with the Nelson/NKJV Study Bible, but I think this one might put more meat on the table.) What I like about it is 1) a large readable font, especially for a Study Bible. 2) Archaic words are defined in the margin, which is a nice feature for those who are unfamiliar with the KJV, although it tends to be a little much for those who would be more familiar with it. (Quite often the margin has exactly what the NKJV has.) It also has more thorough book introductions than many other Study Bibles and has helpful historical and archaeological information at times. The notes are also more Calvinistic than one would expect from Liberty Seminary. I'm not saying it's Calvinist of course (and some of the notes seem to contradict each other) but there are definitely a good many notes that would be quite objectionable to more Arminian and Semi-Pelagian types. Apparently the Liberty faculty were more Calvinistic in the 80's.
I've seen reports that the original editors of the Nelson Study Bible (Dr. Radmacher et. al.) are disappointed that the updated version (renamed the NKJV Study Bible) was revised to teach Lordship Salvation. I guess they worked under contract for Nelson and didn't own the rights to the notes. I'm thinking it might have been an unacknowledged nameless, faceless revision as with the periodic tinkering with the text of the NKJV that is not even acknowledged with a copyright update.
Last edited:
jayce475
Puritan Board Freshman
Crossway is actually the publisher for the ESV MacArthur Study Bible. A similar example would be the Reformation Study Bible which was originally Nelson but the ESV Reformation Study Bible is published by a different publisher. But I don't think Nelson owned the rights to the Reformation Study Bible notes and articles. Either way, obviously some arrangement was made to have Crossway publish the ESV version.
As more knowledgeable fundamentalist KJVO's will tell you, even Scofield embraced the Alexandrian text but was persuaded that the ASV would have less appeal. (Reformed and other nondispensational critics of Scofield can only wish that it would have come out in the ASV!) Of course those were the only two choices at the time. But yes, MacArthur & co. don't seem to have much use for the KJV. Before switching to the NASB he used the New Scofield (which featured a modernized KJV) for years, but that was basically because it was what he was used to. It's hard to stop using a Bible when you know right where everything is.
If the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) was ever available in the KJV it's been some time ago.
Nelson's King James Study Bible is a different production entirely from the Nelson Study Bible/NKJV Study Bible. It was originally published as the Liberty Annotated Study Bible. At the risk of getting infracted or banned from the board, I'll say it's the best KJV Study Bible in print with which I'm familiar.
It's a little more dispensational than the MacArthur, but less so than the Ryrie or the Scofield. (I'm not too familiar with the Nelson/NKJV Study Bible, but I think this one might put more meat on the table.) What I like about it is 1) a large readable font, especially for a Study Bible. 2) Archaic words are defined in the margin, which is a nice feature for those who are unfamiliar with the KJV, although it tends to be a little much for those who would be more familiar with it. (Quite often the margin has exactly what the NKJV has.) It also has more thorough book introductions than many other Study Bibles and has helpful historical and archaeological information at times. The notes are also more Calvinistic than one would expect from Liberty Seminary. I'm not saying it's Calvinist of course (and some of the notes seem to contradict each other) but there are definitely a good many notes that would be quite objectionable to more Arminian and Semi-Pelagian types. Apparently the Liberty faculty were more Calvinistic in the 80's.
I've seen reports that the original editors of the Nelson Study Bible (Dr. Radmacher et. al.) are disappointed that the updated version (renamed the NKJV Study Bible) was revised to teach Lordship Salvation. I guess they worked under contract for Nelson and didn't own the rights to the notes. I'm thinking it might have been an unacknowledged nameless, faceless revision as with the periodic tinkering with the text of the NKJV that is not even acknowledged with a copyright update.
I hold in my hands a bible called "The King James Study Bible" and on one of the pages it says that it was previously published as "The Liberty Annotated Study Bible". I just bought it off the shelves last year, though I think it was printed in 1988, meaning that it had been untouched for 2 decades. I don't see anyone named Radmacher on the editors page though, and there are many copies of it Down Under and in Singapore. I do love this study bible and it's been serving myself and many of my fellow brethren very well. Then again, we're "(reformed) fundy KJVonlies"
Okay, sorry for detracting. By the way, aren't MacArthur's notes also available individually? I'll be interested.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Jason,
Sorry for my long winded post. It seems to have caused some confusion since what you post here is basically what I posted.
The New King James Study Bible (NKJV) formerly the Nelson Study Bible is the one edited by Radmacher et al. I think it was first published in the early-mid 1990's and is only available in the NKJV.
The King James Study Bible, the one you have, was edited by Jerry Falwell and other members of the Liberty faculty at that time. It was copyright 1988, but if the one you have is entitled The King James Study Bible it was printed some time after that, probably some time in the 90's at the earliest. (Christian Book Distributors has 1998.) The one I have was purchased brand new recently but has no more copyright or other dates other than 1988.
I don't have it, but I understand the one volume MacArthur Bible Commentary published by Nelson is based on the Study Bible and includes some additional commentary and other material. So that may be a better choice for someone who wants the notes but doesn't want yet another Study Bible. The first review on Amazon by Pastor Paul Lamey is very helpful in describing the differences between the Bible and commentary.
Sorry for my long winded post. It seems to have caused some confusion since what you post here is basically what I posted.
The New King James Study Bible (NKJV) formerly the Nelson Study Bible is the one edited by Radmacher et al. I think it was first published in the early-mid 1990's and is only available in the NKJV.
The King James Study Bible, the one you have, was edited by Jerry Falwell and other members of the Liberty faculty at that time. It was copyright 1988, but if the one you have is entitled The King James Study Bible it was printed some time after that, probably some time in the 90's at the earliest. (Christian Book Distributors has 1998.) The one I have was purchased brand new recently but has no more copyright or other dates other than 1988.
I don't have it, but I understand the one volume MacArthur Bible Commentary published by Nelson is based on the Study Bible and includes some additional commentary and other material. So that may be a better choice for someone who wants the notes but doesn't want yet another Study Bible. The first review on Amazon by Pastor Paul Lamey is very helpful in describing the differences between the Bible and commentary.
Last edited:
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Thanks Chris. Good info.
As one who was a somewhat rabid KJVO fundamentalist, I can assure you that Scofield never entered my argumentation. Interestingly, though I came from such a background, I've never owned a Scofield Bible. While I know that the KJVO crowd tends toward dispensationalism, there is no monopoly there. For me, it was ALL about text type. Part of the error was considering the TR to be MT. It's a common presumption based on dogmatic assertions by many within the... er... movement. I still hold that the MT is more accurate. But the TR is not the MT.
Not to derail an informative thread - yes, the notes are available in the MacArthur Bible Commentary. It's a good option.
As one who was a somewhat rabid KJVO fundamentalist, I can assure you that Scofield never entered my argumentation. Interestingly, though I came from such a background, I've never owned a Scofield Bible. While I know that the KJVO crowd tends toward dispensationalism, there is no monopoly there. For me, it was ALL about text type. Part of the error was considering the TR to be MT. It's a common presumption based on dogmatic assertions by many within the... er... movement. I still hold that the MT is more accurate. But the TR is not the MT.
Not to derail an informative thread - yes, the notes are available in the MacArthur Bible Commentary. It's a good option.
- Status
