MacArthur Study Bible in ESV??? Confirmed
I heard a pretty solid rumor that a ESV version of the MacArthur Study Bible is due out this fall. Maybe our favorite Pyromaniac can confirm this rumor for us. Has anyone else heard this?
It has been confirmed in the comments section that Crossway has given used of the ESV for a MacArthur Study Bible. I am very glad this is going to happen.
Posts
24 Spoke Up:
>Has anyone else heard this?
Nope.
"Leaky dispensationalist" notes? :-).
Honestly, I've never looked at that study bible. Any significant advantage over other study bibles?
as far as I know, Crossway hasn't licensed the ESV translation to anyone aside from Ligonier who publish The Reformation Study Bible and recently Cambridge University Press who will be publishing two editions for '08. HarperCollins publishes the ESV for the UK and Oxford publishes the Scofield Reference Bible in the ESV as well
Scott, will you get it in goatskin if available? ;-)
why would he do anything we the Even Suckier Version?
because between the ESV and the KJV, the ESV sucks less
I'm not sure of the timetable, but it is true that Crossway will be doing an ESV version of the MSB. Crossway and Nelson came to terms on agreement for this about a month ago.
Is it ego that causes men to put their name on a Bible, or is this just another marketing gimmick by the publishers?
I must be really messed up for I really like the ESV and the MSB. I find that the MSB has more helpful notes than any study bible on the market. And yes I am not a dispensationalist, but that doesn't matter since most of the notes are not about that at all.
I preach from the ESV but I recommend anyone looking for a study bible to get the MSB. The day the ESV MSB comes out they will just have to buy another one!
i am a kjver and not a militant one, i just like to get conversations going but Souldesaenz what makes you say that the ESV is a better version than the KJV?
i do have the Reformation Study bible in ESV but I mainly only use it for study because of the notes and such.
the ESV is not a better "version" as you put it, but it is a translation that uses source texts superior to those used by the KJV translators and thus, a better translation.
I do not have a problem with the archaic language used by the KJV or the older Geneva Bible but they did not have the luxury of the use of the older texts that were found in the 19th century. The Textus Receptus were from a minority Byzantine text-type and do not agree with older texts nor with the majority of source texts.
I find it foolish and irresponsible to be so cavalier in calling the Bible in what ever form it is translated as "suckier"
jesse from montebello
I have and have used my MSB. And I have used the ESV for prep and such. I really.like both
Still, I would *so* pass on the Study Bible gig, 'cause I'm waiting on a SHOEDEAL. dats right!
I'm thinkin a retro-type earthshoe, two-tone hightop. In both Gothard blue and tope
Souldesaenz but that is exactly it, we need to look at the texts from which they came. the KJV as you said came from the textus receptus or as we know it the majority text. why is it called the majority? because it is comprised of the 98% of the texts that agreed with each other. the other 2% include that of the vaticannus (excuse the spelling) and those found in alexandria where the gnostic gospels were also comprised.
Jimmy, this is a fallacious argument.
I took this from the aomin.com site
Very often you will hear a King James Version Only advocate claim that since the majority of Greek manuscripts that are extant today (which is a Byzantine text-form that is substantially behind the KJV translation) therefore the KJV is a superior translation. The following are eight reasons to debunk this fallacious KJV argument.
(1) The Greek text that is behind the KJV is not the “Majority Text”; rather it is called the Textus Receptus (TR). There are 1,838 differences between the Majority text and the TR! In other words there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts.
(2) To dovetail the last point, I adduce a few examples of numerous minority readings in verses found in the KJV, and the majority readings found in modern translations: Revelation 5:10; Acts 8:37; Acts 9:5; Revelation 22:19; Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 3:9 (the latter verse contains a variant attested by 99.5% of all Greek manuscripts, yet the KJV takes the .5% reading!). If the KJVO wanted to be consistent with the majority principle they should change these and many other readings.
(3) How did the Byzantine text-form end up having more attested Greek manuscripts than the other text-forms such as the Alexandrian and the Western? Here is a very important fact of history that KJVO advocates ignore. Given the supplanting of the Greek language for Latin in the West early on, and given the expansion of Islam into Egypt and other regions, it explains why Byzantine Greek manuscripts continued to be copied in the Byzantine corner of the empire and eventually became the majority Greek text around the ninth century onwards; and explains why the early Greek text-types such as the Alexandrian were not copied during later times in other areas of the Christian world.
If there were no Islam expansion and coupled with the West speaking Greek not Latin, certainly the Byzantine text would not have been the “majority.” The Alexandrian and Western Greek text-forms would have continued to be copied with frequent pace.
(4) Let’s take a step back from history and ask a logical question: Why should we simply assume that the fact of the majority of manuscripts somehow follows a logical necessity of being more accurate or faithful to the originals? Indeed, this assumed principle may be compelling for democratic nations—the majority rules. But why should this principle be carried over to the Holy Writ? Is a basket of 100 rotten apples more valuable than a basket of 10 good apples? Again, why does the fact of a majority (in this case Greek manuscripts) in itself warrant accuracy?
Say you begin with two manuscripts with two different readings: A=uncorrupted and B=corrupted. And manuscript B is copied 10 times. Since we now have 10 corrupted manuscripts versus 1 uncorrupted manuscript, it follows that the purest text of the two is found in A. Indeed, manuscripts need to be weighed not blindly counted.
(5) Related to this last point is an interesting observation that myself and others have noticed about the most fundamental criticism that KJVO advocates make against modern textual criticism. They incessantly denounce that modern critics use “rational principles” in the utilization of determining better readings from inferior readings. And yet this is clearly a double standard given that the most fundamental principle that govern their thinking is a rational principle! In the mind of the KJVO advocates is the deep-seated rational conviction: "This is the way that God must have preserved his Word.” Notice that this is not a Biblical, historical, or textual argument—it is a rational argument. Somehow they believe that they are privy to God’s mind and can see this rational reason. And stemming from this fundamental rational reason is another rational reason: the majority principle. So what KJVO advocates criticize the most, is what they are essentially guilty of themselves! And to be sure, there is nothing wrong with rational thinking—I would hope that we do not approach God’s Word with irrational thinking. The question should be: is this or that rational principle applicable and warranted in this or that context?
(6) When the Majority Text was not the majority before 900 AD, I ask the KJVO advocate: how was God's Word preserved for the first 900 years or so of church history? I'd like an answer for this. When the Alexandrian or the Western text-form was the majority in the early church, was God’s Word preserved in that text-form until the Byzantine became the majority?
(7) When that last Byzantine manuscript was copied circa AD 900 to make the Byzantine text-form the Majority, did God's Word all of a sudden become preserved in the Majority text that year? For KJVO to make preservation support the Majority text, it must imply accessibility for it to work. When did believers have accessibility to the Majority for the first 900 years?
(8) The points above have been mostly in reference to the New Testament, but it should be noted that the Old Testament text and the manuscripts that attest to it, is another embarrassing and glaring problem for KJVO advocates who invoke the majority criteria, which is why they most often completely ignore Old Testament discussions on its transmission history and textual realities.
In conclusion: What basis is majority rule correct? Reason? No, since there is no rational principle to accept the majority principle. Is more better? Is eating 1000 jelly beans better than eating 10? No. Is having 1000 dollars better than 10 dollars? Yes. Only the nature of a category can tell us if quantity is a variable in the worth of something. Is having more Byzantine manuscripts than Alexandrian manuscripts better? No, since the Byzantine MSS contain many corrupted readings. And if someone objects, then that brings us back to a discussion of the quality of a manuscript and not its mere existence.
this will be the last I post regarding the KJV issue, Jimmy if you want to continue this then take it to my blog.
also, you should read The King James Only Controversy by James White or read some the articles available on his site
http://aomin.org/index.php?catid=6&blogid=1
all "newer versions" (non KJV) have Wescott and Horts finger prints all over them, known Jesuits that were to put it gently "mislead".
here is a good video by a creation/evolutionist scientist apologist on the versions of the Bible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGWQx5z6-Xs
I have known about this Mac Bible in ESV for months. I didn't know it was a secret.
Anyways,...
Big Jimmy, I was a foaming at the mouth Edward Hills KJVer for nearly 10 years. God rocked my world with the truth when morally bankrupt G.A. Riplinger wrote her New Age Bible Version book. I had my eyes opened to the fact that KJV onlyism is based practically on conspiratorial, historical revisionism. Read my testimony here.
well why did you leave it up to gail riplinger to decide whether or not you were a KJVer. Riplinger was a fashion designer that had an illness that left her bed ridden so she decided to write a book on the "New Age Versions". I agree with you that she is morally bankrupt and had to reason to write a book. She never even had facts to base her ideas. She said Calvinism came from the 5 points of the Satanic star! She is certifiable. But she is what you would call a hyper KJVer or an extremist. she in no way represents KJVers. She is like that "God hates everyone" church, which is hyper-Calvinist.
the facts prove that if nothing else the KJV is the superior version and if you want to get into real serious Bible study its the one to use.
That's too bad! Now we'll have an ESV with dispensational junk in the footnotes!
What isayno said.
Big J,
Gail was the spark that got me examining the entire superstructure of KJVism. I wasn't as far gone as Ruckman or even Gail, but as I looked at other "credible" KJVers, like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, and even Ed Hills, I noticed a similarity in dishonesty with how they "prove" their theory about textual preservation. Primarily the selective citation of historical documentation, the dishonest portrayal of textual critics post-KJV, and the vilification of W-H.
Additionally, that led me to more sound anti-KJVers like Doug Kutelik and others at the kjvonly.org site that set me in the path of orthodoxy with regards to textual criticism and how God really preserved His Word.
Fred
P.S. Praise God for those Dispensational notes =-)
All I'm saying is the Shoe Deal comment was both strong and was all kinds of ignored.
That's all I'm saying...
does anyone EVER , READ DEUTERONOMY 4:2 ,OR REVELATIONS 22:18,19 OR Many others of THE KJV Which distincly says DO NOT ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM HIS WORD .ALSO HIS WORDS ARE PURE AS SILVER READ IN PSALMS..
GOD DOES NOT NEED HIS WORD CHANGED HE IS P E R F E C T.. MAN IS NOT SO WHEN MAN CHANGES HIS WORD..HIS CREATES LIES AND PER-VERSIONS AND SATAN LOVES THAT..DON'T YOU GET IT..
I just sent "Grace to You" website a question asking if they were going to release an ESV version of the Macarthur studybible and they said there were no future plans.
I heard him (MacArthur) mention the upcoming ESV version on his show yesterday, or today
Jim
Post a Comment