Legacy Standard Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 
Last edited:

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
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)?
 

Spurgeonite

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.

Puritan Board Sophomore
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...
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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.

 

Georgiadis

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.

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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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

Moderator
Staff member
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.
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Moderator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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

Moderator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top