Legacy Standard Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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.
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.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

B.L.

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

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."
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Moderator
Staff member
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 :)
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.

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.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

Broadus

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Stephen L Smith

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

 

pmachapman

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