Tim, I appreciate you being respectful to MacArthur’s Study Bible even though you don’t agree with his view points. As one who agrees with some of MacArthur’s view points I thought you did a fair and justifiable review. Blessings brother!
John MacArthur didn’t translate any part of the LSB. It was done by scholars at the Master’s Seminary as a revision to the NASB1995 continuing on the philosophy of that translation versus the slightly more readable and gender inclusive language of the NASB2020.
Every appearance of “ebed” in the OT and “doulos” in the NT being translated as “slave” (even when it doesn’t fit the context) is because of JMac’s fixation on doing so. The committee did at times diverge from MacArthur’s preferences, but this was definitely more the exception than the rule. They regularly met with him during the process of producing the LSB, submitting their work for his feedback. To pretend his hand was not very much on the translation is inaccurate.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsJust add that statement for clarity based on what you said at 1:08. If you don’t get into it appears you are inferring he translated it.
@@shrewdthewise2840doulos in Koine Greek always meant slave and never meant bond servant or any other word per every high quality lexicon. Therefore, due to the word for word translation philosophy of the LSB, it is translated as such. It is true that the word slave in English carries a slightly different and more heinous connotation but to use bond servant is wrong because it doesn’t completely capture the meaning. So a translator is left with use a word that has a slightly different connotation, but is best for word for word or use a term from which there is a who other Greek word for.
I say it is his brainchild and his translation, anyone that says he didn’t have a heavy hand in it, is in denial. I have made multiple videos on the LSB regarding its translation process. I get your point, but saying it is his translation (it is) is not saying he alone translated it.
I already have a MacArthur Study Bible in a different translation, so I don't feel the need to buy this one. I do have the LSB hardcover upon its first release in a larger print (I can't recall the font at this time), and I enjoyed it so I ordered the least expensive Portable Paragraph Reference Red Letter, thumb indexed. It's a smaller font but printed well, and the verse numbers are nicely bolded, which is the only reason I bought the paragraph format. It's also purse size, though a tad on the thick side. But I finally, after about 10 years, gained an appreciation for the NASB and this translation is very close to it. I own other Study Bibles that bear a particular preacher's names, so I am always conscious of that fact. My favorite is still the ESV Study Bible though. Just sayin'. ;)
This is the Thomas Nelson version, there is a steadfast bibles version which is basically the same but has a different cover with some yap in it and follows the other bibles cover design language in the steadfast LSB family. For some reason, though, the font seems a little smaller or more crowded in that version, maybe the line spacing is closer and I feel it's a little harder to read.
Beautiful bible. I love the quality, well done. Pastor John loves Jesus, he live to pleased God not man. I am not a calvinist. I am pre-trib like Pastor John. I prefer men to be Pastors. We can agree to disagree and still love each other.
I’m a non-Calvinist, amillennial continuationist; the opposite of everything MacArthur holds to. Still waiting for a study Bible from anyone! I can’t see the LSB catching on. The NASB 95 and the LEB pretty much fill that niche.
I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure this study Bible is identical to the JM ESV, NKJV & NASB SB’s. Same notes and format but the biblical text have been substituted with the LSB translation. I already have one in NASB, so to snag this one is not needed for me.
I enjoyed reading his personal notes letter of why he wrote it. I have the hard copy edition and enjoy it. I keep it balanced with other types of study bibles as well. Thanks for video. That brown leather did look nice and not too floppy
I don’t have anything against the LSB but I think it’s a bit redundant. The NASB 95 is still being produced. If it was completely out of print then maybe I could understand the need for it a little more
From what I know MacArthur‘s notes in his study, Bible are off of the NASB translation. Is there any indication that the notes in this translation are any different or are they the same because I do have his second addition NASB study Bible already
Thanks for the review! I’ve been eyeing the premium calfskin one coming directly from Three Sixteen Publishing for a while. I wonder if there is any substantial difference in the layout or fonts?
I love NKJV. The scholars really stuck to the KJV, but most importantly, the textual basis in regards textus receptus and maseretic text. The newer Bible translations are really being tampered with. Scriptures are being removed from the texts. It is sad to say, the newer Bible translations are being written to suit people beliefs and comfort. It should be the other way around, the Bible is supposed to change us. It is best to stay away from the newer translations in my opinion. Not because it breaks the English down into simple language, but because Scriptures are being removed from it.
I have this on preorder from 316 publishing in the leather soft, I think that’s what they’re calling it. I wish I could get the goat skin but that’s just not my budget. Shoot I didn’t know that Thomas Nelson also had a version of it and that would be less expensive. Maybe I could’ve done an upgrade on it. I thought it was only available through steadfast/316
Once again, your nickel's worth of a Bible review is like the nickel in the late 1960s. I could actually buy 5 pieces of candy with that nickel. Try doing that nowadays! I don't agree with but don't mind MacArthur's Reformed doctrine. Though some of my best friends are classic Dispensationalists, I like to point out to my friends that "classic" in the case of Dispensationalism really means the 1820s. There certainly were Pre-Tribulationists in the early church. But, they were all Covenantalists, very much like Charles Haddon Spurgeon or R. A. Torrey. Of course, Covenantalism means that the Old Covenant is finished because the Blood of the New Covenant has been shed. Jesus Christ founded His Church using 12 Apostles and appointing 70 Evangelists who were all Jews, showing that Jews are now saved by believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Of course, whether one is a Covenantalist or a Dispensationalist is not a prerequisite for Salvation. Both are in Christ's Church. Now that I gave my penny's worth on that subject, I was impressed by you presentation. I will at the very least purchase a hardcover or inexpensive edition of the Thomas Nelson edition of this Bible. My favorite modern translation is the NKJV, but my favorite critical text translation has always been the NASB. The LSB, of course, is just latest update of the NASB, more or less. Thanks again, Pastor!
I’m not sure why we use Chinese publishers in light that they are communists and are persecuting the Christian church in their own country 🤦♂️, let’s support Western countries that produce the Bible. I recently bought a Cambridge NKJV Bible and love it, I personally won’t be buying any Chinese Bibles for the reasons I mentioned above.
Thank you for the review! I’ve been debating whether this is better than my NASB 1995 Inductive Study Bible. I don’t agree with McArthur, but I might get the LSB for the text alone.
I have the MacArthur Study Bible in the NKJV translation in two-toned brown Leathersoft. I got it last year for Christmas. It's a good Bible. The only thing I don't like is, the cross references and textual footnotes are all together below the text and the font for them is very small. I wish they were separate, like maybe having the cross references in the center column and the footnotes below the text. I don't agree with his Calvinist philosophy, but I do agree with him on other issues, like the young Earth theory. I agree with him that the six days in which God created the earth are six literal 24 hour days. I would like to try out other Study Bibles, like the David Jeremiah Study Bible, the Tony Evans Study Bible and the Charles Stanley Study Bible. It would be great if there was a single Study Bible that had the thoughts of all three in it so I wouldn't have to buy three separate Bibles. Before I start reading a new book, I always read the whole introduction to that book.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I imagine the craftsmanship and font would likely be the only positive things I'd have to say about it! 😅 So for now I'll point viewers who ask me about it to you for a more favorable review! 😊
I am on John MacArthur mailing list and they are offering the bible free but in an hardback addition. I like some of his teaching other parts i can leave. But I did send for the bible as on certain passages I wanted to see his study notes out of interest.
I own a Steadfast Bibles LSB from 2021. The translation is good, but my edition has no notes or cross references, plus it is single column. Those are reasons why I have not spent much time in it. I really prefer double column Bibles with textual notes and cross references. I already own a couple of NAS95s that fit that bill perfectly (Allan and Schuyler). Even though there are a few translation upgrades in the LSB over the NAS95 that I prefer, I still can't justify giving up my NAS95. It is amazing how layout and format options can make you pick "that" translation over "this" one.
A few years back, I bought a MacArthur study bible. I returned it. Almost every page had as much of his commentary as there was scripture. As far as I'm concerned, commentary is someones interpretation and opinion, which very easily could be wrong. It says in 1 John 2: 26-28 I write these things to you concerning those who would deceive you. As for you, the anointing that you received from Him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him. We really don't need study bibles because we have the Holy Spirit in us that tells us all things. That is more than sufficient.
So you don’t need pastor’s and teachers either I assume. You just sit and home and let the revelation drop on you like rain. The Bible is meant to be studied in community. Yes we study on our own, but it is filtered through the church.
Anna, besides the verses you quoted, there are other verses that definitely say that the Holy Spirit has gifted people to be teachers. I'm going to submit that you should read about this. Since the Holy Spirit has gifted people to be teachers over the centuries, it is not wise to simply ignore/dismiss them. This is not to say they are infallible - They're not. But as was already stated: The Scriptures are meant to be studied in community. Also - Consider - Non-Christian cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons are the result of people taking the verses that you quoted, and going off on their own, independent of others in the body of Christ.
I'm curious if you actually believe everything written in your bible is real and true? If not than how do you differentiate what is true from what is not? And if you believe everything IS true than how do you explain how magic is real? Thank you and good luck.
Magic? Do you actually believe what the Bible says about a supernatural world? Ain’t no such thing as magic, but there are evil entities that can lull you into thinking so.
@@slickbill9488 No, I was saved 2000 years ago when Jesus Christ became the propitiation for my sins. I’m a monergist. It’s funny how Calvinist only think there are two options. They think you’re either Calvinist or Arminian. They can’t see that you can affirm election while denying limited atonement. Jesus Christ died for every person who has ever lived, and anyone can be saved, just like the Bible says by believing in him. I don’t know what you’re talking about about a prayer. You’re saved by believing not by saying a prayer.
@flowerlass It differs from most conventional English translations in that it doesn’t substitute the Tetragrammaton with a title but transliterates it into “Yahweh” instead. It doesn’t shy away from translating the Greek doulos as “slave” where many others use the less accurate but more politically correct “servant”. There’s also different little tweaks they made from the 95 NASB.
This opening was a bit confusing. 0:26 ... so you are going to have a Calvinist point of view, a once saved always save point of view, That's generally just... "Bible." "you're also going to have a strong complimentarian point of view, to where women are not to be in ministry" I don't know that that's the general view. Women can be in certain ministries. ... to women aren't to be pastors Exactly. As Scripture clearly teaches. ... to women aren't to hold office in the church although John MacArthur does allow female deacons " Because it's not that women can't do anything at all in the church. But they cannot be pastors. Though I acknowledge there's a bit of differing views on whether they can be deacons. But that women can't be pastors has always been clear to me. I'm a woman and I've never had a problem with that in the 35+ years I've been a Christian and involved in church. It's only lately that it seems it's become such a hot button issue. I find it all bizarre. Anyway, I would be curious to read the LSB just to see how it is. I'm not generally a fan of study Bibles done by one person/mostly one person, even if it is someone I've listened to for years, as I have with JMA.
I actually think he did a good job describing the theological position of the MacArthur Study Bible in as neutral of terms as possible. It was overall a great review.
God's word and the promise of His finished work on the cross is all the revelation we need. Please don't forget, Jesus came to save the souls of sinners in eternity. We have been constantly reminded to set our minds on things above. Obviously your comment is vague so I don't know what gifts you would personally include/exclude as being ongoing today but if you are engaged in, interested in, or even just see some significant value in things like tongues and prophesying and "hearing audibly from God" etc I would just challenge you to question what it has to do with eternity and the redeeming of souls and what exactly is it that is offered by these things that the bible does not provide? Remember when the many 'disciples' tried to make Jesus king by force (John 6:14-15 ), it was not because they wanted salvation but because they wanted the miracles (John 6:60-69). Most of them fell away. But Peter knew only Jesus had the WORDS of ETERNAL LIFE. There is no more real, practical need for apostolic gifts in the way of the salvation of souls, and Revelations 21:14 makes it quite clear there was only 12 apostles. Praying for all Christians to have wise discernment over this issue. God bless.
There are a gluttony of study Bibles bearing the names of men, which, as you say, “reflect their views”. Where do you draw the line, or do you? Seems too many are simply a distraction, in spite of the scholarly qualifications of the men in question. Maybe they could write a separate set of commentaries.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews There has been controversy about the way JM handled cases of domestic violence at his church. You can Google it if you want to read more. It is hard to know what really happened because so much of the information had to remain confidential, and some people have it in for JM. I think he is a good Bible teacher, even though I don't agree with everything he writes, says, or does.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews in 2022 came out that a leader under him had abused his children, and at the time (1990s), JMac's posture was to shame, discipline and pressure the wife to take the man back
It looks good, but John MacArthur refuses to call Mary the Mother of God. I can get over his anti-catholic rethoric, but that one goes waaaay too far for me. So I think I'll sit this one out.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews It doesn't matter if Christ is not the Godhead. If she is the mother of Christ and Christ is God then it follows logically and inescapably that Mary is the mother of God. When we say that Christ is God we are saying that he is a divine person, not that he is equivalent to the trinity. Mary most certainly is the mother of God in the sense that she is the mother of a divine person of the trinity. P1: Mary is the mother of Jesus. P2: Jesus is God. C: Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. (or mother of a divine person) Parallel argument: P1 : Mary is the mother of Jesus. P2: Jesus is a human. C: Therefore, Mary is the mother of a human. If my reasoning doesn't work, then you would have to also say that Jesus isn't God because he's not equivalent to the Godhead.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews This is a very strange point you're making. The Father is not Jesus' biological father. Jesus had no biological father. Mary is Jesus' biological mother and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the biological mother of God. This should not be so controversial. It makes us Protestants look very biased.
@@CodyBuchanan700The Bible clearly presents the same ideas when Jesus is quoted in John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. “ Or in 1 John 2:19. “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us. “ Or many other places, but the phrase once saved always saved is not in the Bible.
Tim, I appreciate you being respectful to MacArthur’s Study Bible even though you don’t agree with his view points. As one who agrees with some of MacArthur’s view points I thought you did a fair and justifiable review. Blessings brother!
Yeah calvinism 👍
Although I do believe in eternal security
@@Ruben27780”Eternal Security” is the common term for Calvinism’s “Perseverance of the Saints”.
Thanks for sharing (not only the Bible, but the brief thoughts on MacArthur's theology for those who may not know).
John MacArthur didn’t translate any part of the LSB. It was done by scholars at the Master’s Seminary as a revision to the NASB1995 continuing on the philosophy of that translation versus the slightly more readable and gender inclusive language of the NASB2020.
And no one claimed he did. But it is indeed his effort.
Every appearance of “ebed” in the OT and “doulos” in the NT being translated as “slave” (even when it doesn’t fit the context) is because of JMac’s fixation on doing so.
The committee did at times diverge from MacArthur’s preferences, but this was definitely more the exception than the rule. They regularly met with him during the process of producing the LSB, submitting their work for his feedback. To pretend his hand was not very much on the translation is inaccurate.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsJust add that statement for clarity based on what you said at 1:08. If you don’t get into it appears you are inferring he translated it.
@@shrewdthewise2840doulos in Koine Greek always meant slave and never meant bond servant or any other word per every high quality lexicon. Therefore, due to the word for word translation philosophy of the LSB, it is translated as such. It is true that the word slave in English carries a slightly different and more heinous connotation but to use bond servant is wrong because it doesn’t completely capture the meaning. So a translator is left with use a word that has a slightly different connotation, but is best for word for word or use a term from which there is a who other Greek word for.
I say it is his brainchild and his translation, anyone that says he didn’t have a heavy hand in it, is in denial. I have made multiple videos on the LSB regarding its translation process. I get your point, but saying it is his translation (it is) is not saying he alone translated it.
I already have a MacArthur Study Bible in a different translation, so I don't feel the need to buy this one. I do have the LSB hardcover upon its first release in a larger print (I can't recall the font at this time), and I enjoyed it so I ordered the least expensive Portable Paragraph Reference Red Letter, thumb indexed. It's a smaller font but printed well, and the verse numbers are nicely bolded, which is the only reason I bought the paragraph format. It's also purse size, though a tad on the thick side. But I finally, after about 10 years, gained an appreciation for the NASB and this translation is very close to it. I own other Study Bibles that bear a particular preacher's names, so I am always conscious of that fact. My favorite is still the ESV Study Bible though. Just sayin'. ;)
This is the Thomas Nelson version, there is a steadfast bibles version which is basically the same but has a different cover with some yap in it and follows the other bibles cover design language in the steadfast LSB family. For some reason, though, the font seems a little smaller or more crowded in that version, maybe the line spacing is closer and I feel it's a little harder to read.
I have both. Not the premium for Steadfast but the same block.
The best part about it is all of the scripture cross referenced so yes it is the opinion of men per se but you have all the texts to wrestle with
Beautiful bible. I love the quality, well done. Pastor John loves Jesus, he live to pleased God not man. I am not a calvinist. I am pre-trib like Pastor John. I prefer men to be Pastors. We can agree to disagree and still love each other.
I’m a non-Calvinist, amillennial continuationist; the opposite of everything MacArthur holds to. Still waiting for a study Bible from anyone!
I can’t see the LSB catching on. The NASB 95 and the LEB pretty much fill that niche.
I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure this study Bible is identical to the JM ESV, NKJV & NASB SB’s. Same notes and format but the biblical text have been substituted with the LSB translation. I already have one in NASB, so to snag this one is not needed for me.
You are correct.
I enjoyed reading his personal notes letter of why he wrote it. I have the hard copy edition and enjoy it. I keep it balanced with other types of study bibles as well. Thanks for video. That brown leather did look nice and not too floppy
I have pre-ordered, cancelled, then ordered on Kindle for that same reason. I really should cancel that Kindle order 🤔
I don’t have anything against the LSB but I think it’s a bit redundant. The NASB 95 is still being produced. If it was completely out of print then maybe I could understand the need for it a little more
The LSB makes some great updates though.
From what I know MacArthur‘s notes in his study, Bible are off of the NASB translation. Is there any indication that the notes in this translation are any different or are they the same because I do have his second addition NASB study Bible already
It is the second edition. Same.
Thanks for the review! I’ve been eyeing the premium calfskin one coming directly from Three Sixteen Publishing for a while. I wonder if there is any substantial difference in the layout or fonts?
I don’t believe so. I looked it up and the pictures look pretty much the same. It is rumored the margins will be wider.
Just got the NKJV version of this and love it! Such a helpful study Bible!
I love NKJV. The scholars really stuck to the KJV, but most importantly, the textual basis in regards textus receptus and maseretic text. The newer Bible translations are really being tampered with. Scriptures are being removed from the texts. It is sad to say, the newer Bible translations are being written to suit people beliefs and comfort. It should be the other way around, the Bible is supposed to change us. It is best to stay away from the newer translations in my opinion. Not because it breaks the English down into simple language, but because Scriptures are being removed from it.
I'm assuming they are the exact same study notes from the previous MacArthur Study Bible translations.
Correct. Second edition.
I have this on preorder from 316 publishing in the leather soft, I think that’s what they’re calling it. I wish I could get the goat skin but that’s just not my budget. Shoot I didn’t know that Thomas Nelson also had a version of it and that would be less expensive. Maybe I could’ve done an upgrade on it. I thought it was only available through steadfast/316
Not for me but it looks like a very nice study Bible. Good looking paper
Once again, your nickel's worth of a Bible review is like the nickel in the late 1960s. I could actually buy 5 pieces of candy with that nickel. Try doing that nowadays!
I don't agree with but don't mind MacArthur's Reformed doctrine. Though some of my best friends are classic Dispensationalists, I like to point out to my friends that "classic" in the case of Dispensationalism really means the 1820s. There certainly were Pre-Tribulationists in the early church. But, they were all Covenantalists, very much like Charles Haddon Spurgeon or R. A. Torrey.
Of course, Covenantalism means that the Old Covenant is finished because the Blood of the New Covenant has been shed. Jesus Christ founded His Church using 12 Apostles and appointing 70 Evangelists who were all Jews, showing that Jews are now saved by believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Of course, whether one is a Covenantalist or a Dispensationalist is not a prerequisite for Salvation. Both are in Christ's Church.
Now that I gave my penny's worth on that subject, I was impressed by you presentation. I will at the very least purchase a hardcover or inexpensive edition of the Thomas Nelson edition of this Bible. My favorite modern translation is the NKJV, but my favorite critical text translation has always been the NASB. The LSB, of course, is just latest update of the NASB, more or less.
Thanks again, Pastor!
I’m not sure why we use Chinese publishers in light that they are communists and are persecuting the Christian church in their own country 🤦♂️, let’s support Western countries that produce the Bible. I recently bought a Cambridge NKJV Bible and love it, I personally won’t be buying any Chinese Bibles for the reasons I mentioned above.
I think this comment is a bit short sighted, but I respect your conviction.
Cool I have one of these in NKJV but I don’t use it because I’m Pentecostal, I’ve never looked in the back , I may have to check that out
They need to make a large print, maybe 12 point like they did with the first one.
😂 "Lay it flat, on it's side, as God intended."
Haha.
Thank you for the review! I’ve been debating whether this is better than my NASB 1995 Inductive Study Bible. I don’t agree with McArthur, but I might get the LSB for the text alone.
I’d like to get this one but it’s $200 up here in Canada. Can’t justify that.
Wait for a bit. They will go on sale.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews and actually the goatskin is $360 up here. The leather soft is $200.
@@colchaThat's crazy! What about a hardcover? $37.00 down here right now
@@desireegrosgebauer6526I agree. A hardcover is $50.
Are the wrods of Jesus in red? Thanks Tim!
No.
I have the MacArthur Study Bible in the NKJV translation in two-toned brown Leathersoft. I got it last year for Christmas. It's a good Bible. The only thing I don't like is, the cross references and textual footnotes are all together below the text and the font for them is very small. I wish they were separate, like maybe having the cross references in the center column and the footnotes below the text. I don't agree with his Calvinist philosophy, but I do agree with him on other issues, like the young Earth theory. I agree with him that the six days in which God created the earth are six literal 24 hour days. I would like to try out other Study Bibles, like the David Jeremiah Study Bible, the Tony Evans Study Bible and the Charles Stanley Study Bible. It would be great if there was a single Study Bible that had the thoughts of all three in it so I wouldn't have to buy three separate Bibles.
Before I start reading a new book, I always read the whole introduction to that book.
Totally agree that references and notes should have a line and be separated at the bottom. Think Stridon.
"Like God intended" 😅😅
Thank you for doing this review so I don't have to! 😁
Ha ha. I say that about the spine every time they do it that way. 😂😂
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I imagine the craftsmanship and font would likely be the only positive things I'd have to say about it! 😅 So for now I'll point viewers who ask me about it to you for a more favorable review! 😊
I got a laugh out of that too
I am on John MacArthur mailing list and they are offering the bible free but in an hardback addition. I like some of his teaching other parts i can leave. But I did send for the bible as on certain passages I wanted to see his study notes out of interest.
How do we get on the mailing list ?
Really hoping a super giant print edition of the LSB comes out soon.
Never read anything by John. God bless this channel!
I agree. He teaches lordship salvation. That means that people get saved by faithfulness instead of faith alone. Grace and works.
@@bartleby1807 God bless you brother as we proceed to follow the Holy Spirit. Put your trust in No man…
Fair statement they're stuff in the LSB I had no idea was changed, I was new to Gods word so I was foolish now its KJV-NKJV or nothing.
@@JS-lv5pn I am German and LOVE the NKJV. I wish we had such an excellent translation in our language. It is just great in any aspect.
@@bartleby1807I feel like the Luther Bibel is pretty close to the KJV/NKJV. Do you not like it?
I own a Steadfast Bibles LSB from 2021. The translation is good, but my edition has no notes or cross references, plus it is single column. Those are reasons why I have not spent much time in it. I really prefer double column Bibles with textual notes and cross references. I already own a couple of NAS95s that fit that bill perfectly (Allan and Schuyler). Even though there are a few translation upgrades in the LSB over the NAS95 that I prefer, I still can't justify giving up my NAS95. It is amazing how layout and format options can make you pick "that" translation over "this" one.
A few years back, I bought a MacArthur study bible. I returned it. Almost every page had as much of his commentary as there was scripture. As far as I'm concerned, commentary is someones interpretation and opinion, which very easily could be wrong.
It says in 1 John 2: 26-28 I write these things to you concerning those who would deceive you. As for you, the anointing that you received from Him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him. We really don't need study bibles because we have the Holy Spirit in us that tells us all things. That is more than sufficient.
So you don’t need pastor’s and teachers either I assume. You just sit and home and let the revelation drop on you like rain. The Bible is meant to be studied in community. Yes we study on our own, but it is filtered through the church.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsthese people just can’t help themselves. MacArthur causes Tourettes-like symptoms!!
Anna, besides the verses you quoted, there are other verses that definitely say that the Holy Spirit has gifted people to be teachers. I'm going to submit that you should read about this. Since the Holy Spirit has gifted people to be teachers over the centuries, it is not wise to simply ignore/dismiss them. This is not to say they are infallible - They're not. But as was already stated: The Scriptures are meant to be studied in community.
Also - Consider - Non-Christian cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons are the result of people taking the verses that you quoted, and going off on their own, independent of others in the body of Christ.
That's interesting, a Calvinist Dispensationalist Interpretation. Aren't Calvinists normally post-millennialist?
Yes. That’s what makes it so interesting.
Calvin himself (and many Reformed) was amillennial. So perhaps more properly, "not premillennial".
@@timothydietz Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
I think Amillennialism is the official Catholic position as well.
@@timothydietzAmillenialism is a form of postmillennialism, technically. They didn't have that distinction during Calvin's time.
@@WontonDisciple I see what you mean, yes, thanks for that clarification.
This is a fascinating bible and the review was excellent. Thank you for sharing.
john macarthur doesn't hold to OSAS, he holds to the perseverance of the Saints. both are different.
I don’t see a difference.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews There is a huge difference. Blessings
Interesting that John decided to take away 2 of the 5 post-ascencion gifts Christ gave to the Church.
So very nice of him.
Wow J Mac seems to bring out the opinions in the comments haha 😄
For sure!
"Like God intended " 😁
Ha ha!
I'm curious if you actually believe everything written in your bible is real and true? If not than how do you differentiate what is true from what is not? And if you believe everything IS true than how do you explain how magic is real? Thank you and good luck.
Magic? Do you actually believe what the Bible says about a supernatural world? Ain’t no such thing as magic, but there are evil entities that can lull you into thinking so.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews good answer, Tim!
I don't follow MacArthur. I will not be buying this Bible. Thank you for your review, Tim. 😃
@@slickbill9488 i disagree
@@joyg7575actually he is one of the best preachers
Calvinism is blasphemy. It’s a putrid heresy that denies the very work of Christ.
@@slickbill9488 No, I was saved 2000 years ago when Jesus Christ became the propitiation for my sins. I’m a monergist. It’s funny how Calvinist only think there are two options. They think you’re either Calvinist or Arminian. They can’t see that you can affirm election while denying limited atonement. Jesus Christ died for every person who has ever lived, and anyone can be saved, just like the Bible says by believing in him. I don’t know what you’re talking about about a prayer. You’re saved by believing not by saying a prayer.
@@slickbill9488 yeah Satan believed in Jesus, but he certainly did not trust in Jesus to forgive him of his sins.
I don't understand why TV preachers feel the need to endorse a particular translation, or a bible with their name on it
He’s really not exactly a TV Preacher, but he is certainly a polarizing figure.
The LSB? Is that thing still going?
It’s still here.
It’s my main translation. It’s popular enough that I don’t see it going anywhere for quite some time.
@@FlyTour69 What is different about the LSB?
@FlyTour69 the LSB is a useless translation that is fading and will soon be a very niche translation.
@flowerlass
It differs from most conventional English translations in that it doesn’t substitute the Tetragrammaton with a title but transliterates it into “Yahweh” instead. It doesn’t shy away from translating the Greek doulos as “slave” where many others use the less accurate but more politically correct “servant”.
There’s also different little tweaks they made from the 95 NASB.
This opening was a bit confusing.
0:26
... so you are going to have a Calvinist point of view, a once saved always save point of view,
That's generally just... "Bible."
"you're also going to have a strong complimentarian point of view, to where women are not to be in ministry"
I don't know that that's the general view. Women can be in certain ministries.
... to women aren't to be pastors
Exactly. As Scripture clearly teaches.
... to women aren't to hold office in the church although John MacArthur does allow female deacons "
Because it's not that women can't do anything at all in the church. But they cannot be pastors. Though I acknowledge there's a bit of differing views on whether they can be deacons. But that women can't be pastors has always been clear to me. I'm a woman and I've never had a problem with that in the 35+ years I've been a Christian and involved in church. It's only lately that it seems it's become such a hot button issue. I find it all bizarre.
Anyway, I would be curious to read the LSB just to see how it is. I'm not generally a fan of study Bibles done by one person/mostly one person, even if it is someone I've listened to for years, as I have with JMA.
There’s nothing confusing about what I said. You are just confused yourself.
I actually think he did a good job describing the theological position of the MacArthur Study Bible in as neutral of terms as possible. It was overall a great review.
john macarthur only holds to reformed soteriology. so he is calvinistic but not reformed.
I really love the triple column feature for the commentary. This is a unique feature from what I've seen.
Some completely unique, it is actually a common method.
I bought a Macarthur study bible years ago but i once i read some of his cessationist commentary i took it back to thr store and exchanged it
I don’t mind a perspective different than my own.
God's word and the promise of His finished work on the cross is all the revelation we need. Please don't forget, Jesus came to save the souls of sinners in eternity. We have been constantly reminded to set our minds on things above.
Obviously your comment is vague so I don't know what gifts you would personally include/exclude as being ongoing today but if you are engaged in, interested in, or even just see some significant value in things like tongues and prophesying and "hearing audibly from God" etc I would just challenge you to question what it has to do with eternity and the redeeming of souls and what exactly is it that is offered by these things that the bible does not provide?
Remember when the many 'disciples' tried to make Jesus king by force (John 6:14-15 ), it was not because they wanted salvation but because they wanted the miracles (John 6:60-69). Most of them fell away. But Peter knew only Jesus had the WORDS of ETERNAL LIFE. There is no more real, practical need for apostolic gifts in the way of the salvation of souls, and Revelations 21:14 makes it quite clear there was only 12 apostles.
Praying for all Christians to have wise discernment over this issue. God bless.
There are a gluttony of study Bibles bearing the names of men, which, as you say, “reflect their views”. Where do you draw the line, or do you? Seems too many are simply a distraction, in spite of the scholarly qualifications of the men in question. Maybe they could write a separate set of commentaries.
I don’t think you can have too many things that lead you to read a Bible.
Hey Tim. Good job reviewing this. Kudos for putting up with YT comments 😂
The Lord bless you my brother.
Thank you for the opening talk
I knew John MacArthur was a Calvinist and pray for him every night.
Calvinism is very bibical unlike armininianism which is heresy
Thou wast predestined to review this Bible. Understandest thou what thou readest? 😂
Hard pass on anything JM related. Sickening behavior handling with abusers
I don’t guess I know what you’re talking about.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews There has been controversy about the way JM handled cases of domestic violence at his church. You can Google it if you want to read more. It is hard to know what really happened because so much of the information had to remain confidential, and some people have it in for JM. I think he is a good Bible teacher, even though I don't agree with everything he writes, says, or does.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews in 2022 came out that a leader under him had abused his children, and at the time (1990s), JMac's posture was to shame, discipline and pressure the wife to take the man back
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews very easy to find all the reporting and proof on Google
@@lufaxDo you have firsthand knowledge of all the events and specifics or did you just adopt the talking points of one of MacArthur’s enemies?
🤢
OK.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews My comment was directed towards the translation and the guy behind it. Not you or your channel.
I suspected that. I certainly have my disagreements with MacArthur, but I wouldn’t say he makes me sick.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews McArthur as a person doesn't make me sick. It's his calvinism.
I mean yeah, he’s a bit pompous, but he’s entertaining.
It looks good, but John MacArthur refuses to call Mary the Mother of God. I can get over his anti-catholic rethoric, but that one goes waaaay too far for me. So I think I'll sit this one out.
I think most Protestants refuse to call Mary “Mother of God”. That’s not unusual.
I do not believe Mary is the mother of God. She is the mother of Christ, who is God, but Christ is not the Godhead.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews It doesn't matter if Christ is not the Godhead. If she is the mother of Christ and Christ is God then it follows logically and inescapably that Mary is the mother of God. When we say that Christ is God we are saying that he is a divine person, not that he is equivalent to the trinity. Mary most certainly is the mother of God in the sense that she is the mother of a divine person of the trinity.
P1: Mary is the mother of Jesus.
P2: Jesus is God.
C: Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. (or mother of a divine person)
Parallel argument:
P1 : Mary is the mother of Jesus.
P2: Jesus is a human.
C: Therefore, Mary is the mother of a human.
If my reasoning doesn't work, then you would have to also say that Jesus isn't God because he's not equivalent to the Godhead.
God is his father, yet the Holy Spirit conceived him. Mary was a vessel. She gave birth. The end.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews This is a very strange point you're making. The Father is not Jesus' biological father. Jesus had no biological father. Mary is Jesus' biological mother and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the biological mother of God. This should not be so controversial. It makes us Protestants look very biased.
Once saved always saved is the truth.
So says you.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews THE BIBLE says it
@@CodyBuchanan700The Bible clearly presents the same ideas when Jesus is quoted in John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. “
Or in 1 John 2:19. “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us. “
Or many other places, but the phrase once saved always saved is not in the Bible.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Can you share your stance on eternal security? Does Pentecostal not believe in eternal security?