God's Word are His Words, Man's Words about the Words Are Man's Words

The words of man and the words of God...

I want to say up front, I have enjoyed John MacArthur's preaching since 1974.

What I want to say is John's study notes are not a substitute for the Word of God. But with that said, I respect what he preaches and what he says about the bible. 

 

I am 100% against any Bible translation that is political correct. The Bible is the Word of God and is meant to be His Words. What I am seeing is this Gender-neutered Bibles which is taking out the He and She. So just maybe we need to stick to the old bible uh! Easy to read easy to mislead.

MacArthur Study Bible goes for it...

by David and Tim Bayly on February 20, 2012 - 1:34pm

(TB: Since posting this, I've changed the last word of the title from 'gold' to 'it' and changed a couple other places to tone things down slightly. I'm sorry I was too flippant the first time around.)

Keeping a stiff upper lip, the guys at Pyro announced the release of the MacArthur Study Bible notes joined to the text of the neutered NIV2011. Triumphantly they tell us Zondervan is going to let them keep their notes just as they are. The Words of God are gone--deleted, that is--but the words of man are intact. Chalk one up for man...

Listen brothers, you needn't have "discussed" this for "a year." Two minutes should have been sufficient unless there was influence and sales and money involved. 

Aaargh! So many friends would stay friendly if only I were ignorant of the hordes of filthy lucre that drives Christian publishing. No one's above it. And if you think it matters that John MacArthur himself doesn't collect all the royalties, you don't understand how the system works.

 

 

by David and Tim Bayly on March 12, 2012 - 1:19pm

At the beginning of our initial post two weeks ago were these words: "The Words of God are gone--deleted, that is--but the words of man are intact." So, to repeat ourselves, the MacArthur NIV 2011 Study Bible is two things: the Word of God and the words of man explaining the Word of God. Which one is more important? Which one should be guarded most carefully?

Before John MacArthur made the decision to yoke his study notes with the NIV 2011, he submitted his notes to the publisher for approval and was pleased they kept his words intact. Thus this...
announcement:

We submitted to Zondervan's editors a generous sampling of notes adapted to the (NIV 2011) wording. We purposely chose notes that deal with some of the key problem passages. Zondervan and Nelson both have assured us they want to retain the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text, and the sample notes were all accepted as submitted.

It seems apparent that John's final decision hinged on his notes being kept intact. Not until they assured him they wouldn't alter his words did he agree to the new line of Bible products.

But men, think about what has just been said: "Zondervan and Nelson both have assured us they want to retain the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text."

How have we gotten to the point that the deal-breaker would have been not "retain(ing) the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text" rather than the full integrity of the text of the Holy Spirit Himself?

It seems clear John MacArthur believes that, in the final analysis, his own words matter more than the words of God. The words of God can be altered as long as the words of John MacArthur are kept intact to clean things up.

Or are we missing something, here?