I think it's a bit of a misnomer to call it "gender neutral". Speaking generally when the specific word in question whether it is in Greek or Hebrew is known to masculine it is always rendered masculine. When the word in question is known to address a group of people where there is females included it generally says "brothers and sisters". In English we have something extremely similar. I will use my Texas vernacular to explain. "Y'all want to go get some pizza? That's how I would ask the question if there was a room full of people both male and female. The NIV 2011 does the same thing.
I own a MacArthur study bible in NIV and NASB. And thank you Tim for defending the NIV. But yeah, I'm quite puzzled that Johnny Mac and some others that are critical of NIV, have partnered with the publishers of NIV. More power to your YT channel. God bless!
I believe MacArthur made a statement where he said he would be able to "correct the NIV" in his study notes. I'm not sure how much of that is actually going on in the notes, but I at least READ that that's what he said.
@@sorenpx I believe I watched a video of him saying the exact thing. He only agreed if changes could be made in phrases that he didn't see as properly translated. I think Zondervan wanted JM study Bible more in the NIV than JM.
NT Wright hates the NIV as well. He stated that "if you have the NIV you will not understand Romans chapter 3" for example. I've compared Romans 3 in the NIV with NT Wright's own contemporary translation and I don't see any difference.
Wright's complaints were about the NIV 1984. Since then, the NIV 2011 has made some improvements in Romans 3. First, it offers the alternative interpretation of "faith of Christ" ("faithfulness of Christ" as opposed to "faith in Christ") in the margin for verse 22. Second, it more literally translates "works of the law" in verses 20 and 28 instead of the more interpretive "observing the law" from the 1984 edition.
I’ve found that the NIV1984 is the true New Age Bible that people are always slamming when they slam on the NIV. I noticed when I got a 2011 to proof check it that the most notable Gnostic verses from the 1984 were changed to fit the majority text reading. It’s as if they realized all the things people were saying online about their Bible were starting to get noticed by the body of Christ and so when they made the NIV2011 update they changed the most talked about Gnostic verses back to a true Bible reading and then changed some Gender language throughout the Bible. Actually the NIV2011 is not a terrible Bible IMHO, it’s just not complete like most Bibles because it’s missing verses that the Majority text and several church fathers verified as original to the New Testament
@@narrowistheway77 Any "missing verses" in the NIV are in the footnotes or noted in the footnotes why it's no longer in the text (e.i, earliest manuscripts don't contain the verse)
Thank you for calling this out. It is interesting to say the least, that Mohler would criticise a particular translation and then be general editor of a study Bible in that translation.
I was stationed in Germany with the Army for 3 years. I used to see the word 'Frisch' on billboards, supermarkets, and fresh produce stands. It is good to hear your opinion about Al Mohler and John MacArthur. I happen to love the NIV translation. Have used it for several years. I am not a perfect Christian and I have some quirks in my spiritual life. I guarantee it is not because I've been reading the wrong bible translation.
Great topic... I’ve heard McArthur slander NIV but saw he had a study Bible of it... didn’t understand at all... but I respect McArthur , but idc I love the NIV it’s a blessing to me not being a great reader, I compare with ESV , and NASB constantly and I don’t feel like it’s much different at all
Tim, great job as always. I have tried several other translations and really love the ESV, however, as I started my journey with Christ some 35 years ago, I started out with the NASB and gave up. I distinctly remember when I went and bought my first NIV, it was a massive relief. Although I was not not a super-scholar at the time. it was so much easier to read and really spoke to me. It seams that the anti-NIV crowd are just jealous, and all other translations since have been moving more and more towards the NIV than the other way around. Bottom line, I decided in the end that Christ called us to make disciples teaching them to obey His commands, and I would not ever suggest the NASB or ESV as a first bible for a new believer for fear that they lose interest because they got bogged down on one of the more word for word translations. The success of the NIV speaks for itself. With the exception of John MacArthur's study bible (which he did not update for the latest round of his study bibles), the study bibles available for the NIV are overwhelming. The text blocks with the inclusion of the bible harmonies above the sections are widely overlooked and to me are so much better than the old harmony of the gospels found in some study bibles. For sure I have NASB, NKJV, and ESV versions by my side, but for all the griping folks do about the NIV, I have not found anything in the NIV that would change any foundational belief's or radically change my interpretation of scripture. People want to sell bibles, I get it. It really seems that it's also very much a pride thing as well as a little bit of tribalism in the end. Don't get me wrong, I love the other translations, but in the end, our role is first to evangelize, and the NIV is so much better than the other alternatives. God bless you Tim for your ministry and as Michael R. Burgos noted, your always evenhanded presentation. I have found you to always be fair, informative, and a calming influence to us Bible geeks.
We have to make the distinction between the NIV '84 and the NIV '11. You were obviously reading the '84 35 years ago. It was a different text. It has been changed a lot since then.
@Kenneth, I totally agree. I really like the NASB and KJV as well, but I have found the NIV to be accurate and easy to read. The NIV has not changed my faith at all since switching over about 10 years ago. To each his own I guess.
Very interesting that I ran across this today. Just last night I was reading John MacArthur's booklet "How to Study your Bible" and noted that he suggests getting a Narrated Bible which presents Scripture in chronological order to help in studying God's Word. The Narrated Bible is only available in NIV. I am with you Tim in that, even though the NIV is not the preferred translation of any of the preachers I listen to, it is not heretical. I used to read the NIV years ago and I don't remember The Holy Spirit sounding any alarms over what I read.
I hold to verbal plenary inspiration of scripture and think the NIV is a great translation. It’s as accurate to the original as any other. There is no real formal equivalent English translation. But it’s ok to take the NIV word for word.
It really is pretty interpretive. I have an NIV study Bible but I would never use it as a primary translation. It's a good secondary translation to work alongside an NASB or NKJV.
Thank you Tim, for your comments on the NIV. I grew up on the KJV translation but over time have opened up to more modern ones. These days I prefer the ESV for primary bible study. That said, I'm open to others like the NIV, NASB, CSB and the NET Bible. When the NIV 2011 came out I was at first put off by the gender-neutral language but over time I've come to accept it. I find it helpful to read from a variety of translations during study.
Getting sound teaching into the hands of as many Christians as possible is important. Even though I don’t agree with JMacs dispensational ideas, his study notes are really sound and helpful. If the NIV is the medium that can get sound teaching to more people, I’m all for it. The NIV is good enough so I don’t think it’s appropriate to send people to hell over using it.
@@mjc32991 I have many translations in my digital and physical libraries. KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB, NIV, NET and probably some others too. It’s a little embarrassing but I’ve actually lost track… oops. But, my daily reader right now is a Thompson Chain with the 77 NASB text that I just bought a few days ago. I love it. For me, it’s just one of those Bibles I want to hold in my hands. But the 3 I would recommend to people are usually the NKJV, ESV, or NASB (either 77 or 95 is fine). Of course the KJV is great too if you’re okay with ye olde English!
@@mjc32991 also, the most important thing is to get a Bible that you’ll read everyday. Translations, study notes, build quality, etc are all important things to consider but it does you no good if it just sits on the shelf collecting dust.
@@mjc32991 well Catholicism is a works based false gospel. We’re justified by faith. Go to Ligonier or search here on UA-cam “justification by faith alone.” R.c. Sproul has a good lecture on it. He also edited the Reformation Study Bible and I highly recommend it.
Johnny Mac: "I really could not recommend the NIV. It's not literal enough" Also Johnny Mac: "The Johnny Mac NIV in essence coveys the correct meaning of the best translations available today". BTW, I'm just being sarcastic everyone...lol.
Another Good Video Tim Thank you. I like your observation you made, just to add...I think it also Teachers us that Mohler and MacArthur they are still humans meaning not every Judgment they make will always be correct, yet they are still Best Teachers of the Bible
There is a video on Sharla Yates channel of MacArthur speaking a little more detailed as to why he published the NIV study Bible. Name of the video is “John MacArthur on the NIV and other controversies”
I used to be KJV only and bought into all the hysteria about modern translations being heretical but I gradually changed my mind on this and since then have almost exclusively used the NIV. I have no problem with any other translation although I would say that the KJV is outdated, though beautiful, and can be hard to understand for 21st century readers. The NIV is not heretical, it just follows a translation philosophy where the translators assess, 'How would we say that in modern English?' whilst being true to the meaning of the text. That's the only difference. That can make the NIV and other translations easier to read compared to more literal translations but I have no problem with either. If you have a problem with the gender neutral language of more recent NIV versions then try to get your hands on an older version, the 1984 translation for example, where this isn't the case.
Another solid video. Frisch's expressions are gold....ie when talking about Johnny Mac's money. I love Johnny Mac even though the guy annoys me sometimes. Sorry JMac...I'm not buying your NIV. I can get a regular NIV for $10 at the thrift store.
I don’t see how the study notes would change based on the translation. Whatever is happening in the text is happening in the text no matter how it is presented. If a translator changes the pronoun the actual meaning of the text does not change because the author of the study notes should be working with the original language. MacArthur probably produced an NIV study bible because it is so popular.
Just listen to what John Macarthur says, actually listen. Correct interpretation is more important than correct translation, 'a fish is not a dog with gills, a fish is a fish'. Take it to the original languages and build from that.
Popularity, Popularity, Popularity... Popularity will then = $$$. I don’t have a problem with this as long as they own up to it. I think you are exactly correct, once someone gets their hands on a product, they will most likely get more products, watch your sermons, and maybe some will give to their ministry.
I love the NIV and it also amuses me that so many people lose so much sleep over what I use to feed my soul. It's like I tell my children, you have enough to worry about, worrying about yourself.
They were both desperate to get the HarperCollins imprints (Zondervan and Thomas Nelson) to publish and promote their Bibles. With this publisher, their other options are the NKJV (with its outdated scholarship), KJV (with its outdated language), NASB (with its relatively small market share compared to the NIV and NKJV), and NRSV (with its stigma among Evangelicals for being associated with Mainline Protestantism and academia).
To be fair I think it's possible to be critical of the NIV but still appreciate it in other aspects. Like you can criticize the NIV for its gender language but still appreciate it for its scholarship or its readability or what have you. That could be a thing right?
Why don't they just sell their study notes separate from the Bible(s) as single volume commentaries? I MUCH prefer my Bibles to just contain the inspired words from the Prophets and Apostles.
NIV removes 64,000 words..not kidding do research..when I was a baby Christian I have a NIV but some have the missing verses as footnotes...nkjv evidence study Bible is one I plan to get. Go UA-cam - are you a good person by living waters
My understanding is that he is the general editor and had control over the direction of the Bible. I went to the masters college (which Dr MacArthur was president of many years) for a year and many of my professors had contributed to the study notes. John MacArthur would have had final say over the content though. This is very common because of the amount of work needed to create a scholarly work of this scope. The ESV study Bible has a massive list of contributors, but even study bibles more closely related to a specific individual have several contributors including the MacArthur study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible (RC Sproul), Zondervan Study Bible (DA Carson), and most likely even Mohlers new study Bible. The biggest problem I have is that at least from what I can find there is no list of contributors available for the Jmac study Bible
Frisch....can you do a video on what Johnny Mac "corrected" in the original NIV? I want to know all three things that Johnny Mac disagrees with. Lol. (I'm willing to bet there are only a couple very minor points that Johnny Mac disagrees with). Johnny Mac is funny.
NIV was helpful for me as a baby Christian but now realise it has 64,000 words missing..do research on it..they even do confusing things like replace angel with eagle in book of revelation among many other things..removes when Jesus said this kind of spirit comes out by prayer and FASTING..nkjv has the simple or language of today but stays true to Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.. anyways go UA-cam - are you a good person by living waters
I think we need to be more critical of the critical text and ask ourselves why 45 manuscripts with questionable dating and questionable authenticity in some cases and only 70% textual agreement are somehow superior to the over 5,000 manuscripts with over 99% textual agreement that the Church fathers actually quoted from and used? The majority text should be the current standard Greek New Testament text. The fact that it isn’t is the real argument we should be addressing as a body of Christ. For some reason the rules of textual criticism work in reverse with approximately one book on Earth in scholarly circles, and that book is the Bible.
I appreciate and agree with your observations. But the "gender neutral" term you were looking for in the beginning is S-A-L-E-S-P-E-O-P-L-E. Just spreading the Word.
i think i know why Al Mohler is using the NIV text for this study bible: because there are so many within the SBC who are familiar with the NIV,... the NIV has been very popular within the SBC and so many of the younger people have grown up with it.... there is a reason that at the annual meeting of the SBC in 2011, the "messengers" approved a resolution opposing the 2011 edition of the NIV ... for obvious reasons, its "gender neutrality" .... (Resolution: “On The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version”) ..... Mohler maybe could have used the 1984 NIV (?), but because it is not the "current" NIV text, it would cause some problems.... besides, i'm not certain what is the "status" with the copyright of the 1984 edition.... -- but i think you are right in your suggestion re. the reason for McArthur allowing the use of the NIV for his study bible.... :)
Of course it's not heritical, he doesn't want to be attacked and persucuted, he rather teach what the world wants to hear , it's all about money , if he actually taught what bible teaches like the JWs do then there's no money in it , False religion is a business, out to make money , they do it for a living , majority of the pastors don't even bieleve the bible
Jehovah Witnesses are a false religion that teaches a false gospel that will send you to hell. They deny the deity of Jesus Christ as God, they deny the trinity, etc.. everything the church has believed and taught from the beginning. They even have their own fake translation. Stay away from JWs!
False religion can have many translations but it all comes down to teach what bible actually teaches and trinity is not found in the bible or jesus is almighty God
I think it's a bit of a misnomer to call it "gender neutral". Speaking generally when the specific word in question whether it is in Greek or Hebrew is known to masculine it is always rendered masculine. When the word in question is known to address a group of people where there is females included it generally says "brothers and sisters". In English we have something extremely similar. I will use my Texas vernacular to explain. "Y'all want to go get some pizza? That's how I would ask the question if there was a room full of people both male and female. The NIV 2011 does the same thing.
I own a MacArthur study bible in NIV and NASB. And thank you Tim for defending the NIV. But yeah, I'm quite puzzled that Johnny Mac and some others that are critical of NIV, have partnered with the publishers of NIV. More power to your YT channel. God bless!
I believe MacArthur made a statement where he said he would be able to "correct the NIV" in his study notes. I'm not sure how much of that is actually going on in the notes, but I at least READ that that's what he said.
@@sorenpx I believe I watched a video of him saying the exact thing. He only agreed if changes could be made in phrases that he didn't see as properly translated. I think Zondervan wanted JM study Bible more in the NIV than JM.
NT Wright hates the NIV as well. He stated that "if you have the NIV you will not understand Romans chapter 3" for example. I've compared Romans 3 in the NIV with NT Wright's own contemporary translation and I don't see any difference.
Wright's complaints were about the NIV 1984. Since then, the NIV 2011 has made some improvements in Romans 3. First, it offers the alternative interpretation of "faith of Christ" ("faithfulness of Christ" as opposed to "faith in Christ") in the margin for verse 22. Second, it more literally translates "works of the law" in verses 20 and 28 instead of the more interpretive "observing the law" from the 1984 edition.
I’ve found that the NIV1984 is the true New Age Bible that people are always slamming when they slam on the NIV. I noticed when I got a 2011 to proof check it that the most notable Gnostic verses from the 1984 were changed to fit the majority text reading. It’s as if they realized all the things people were saying online about their Bible were starting to get noticed by the body of Christ and so when they made the NIV2011 update they changed the most talked about Gnostic verses back to a true Bible reading and then changed some
Gender language throughout the Bible.
Actually the NIV2011 is not a terrible Bible IMHO, it’s just not complete like most Bibles because it’s missing verses that the Majority text and several church fathers verified as original to the New Testament
@@narrowistheway77 Any "missing verses" in the NIV are in the footnotes or noted in the footnotes why it's no longer in the text (e.i, earliest manuscripts don't contain the verse)
Thank you for calling this out. It is interesting to say the least, that Mohler would criticise a particular translation and then be general editor of a study Bible in that translation.
I was stationed in Germany with the Army for 3 years. I used to see the word 'Frisch' on billboards, supermarkets, and fresh produce stands. It is good to hear your opinion about Al Mohler and John MacArthur. I happen to love the NIV translation. Have used it for several years. I am not a perfect Christian and I have some quirks in my spiritual life. I guarantee it is not because I've been reading the wrong bible translation.
Great topic... I’ve heard McArthur slander NIV but saw he had a study Bible of it... didn’t understand at all... but I respect McArthur , but idc I love the NIV it’s a blessing to me not being a great reader, I compare with ESV , and NASB constantly and I don’t feel like it’s much different at all
Tim, great job as always. I have tried several other translations and really love the ESV, however, as I started my journey with Christ some 35 years ago, I started out with the NASB and gave up. I distinctly remember when I went and bought my first NIV, it was a massive relief. Although I was not not a super-scholar at the time. it was so much easier to read and really spoke to me. It seams that the anti-NIV crowd are just jealous, and all other translations since have been moving more and more towards the NIV than the other way around. Bottom line, I decided in the end that Christ called us to make disciples teaching them to obey His commands, and I would not ever suggest the NASB or ESV as a first bible for a new believer for fear that they lose interest because they got bogged down on one of the more word for word translations. The success of the NIV speaks for itself. With the exception of John MacArthur's study bible (which he did not update for the latest round of his study bibles), the study bibles available for the NIV are overwhelming. The text blocks with the inclusion of the bible harmonies above the sections are widely overlooked and to me are so much better than the old harmony of the gospels found in some study bibles.
For sure I have NASB, NKJV, and ESV versions by my side, but for all the griping folks do about the NIV, I have not found anything in the NIV that would change any foundational belief's or radically change my interpretation of scripture. People want to sell bibles, I get it. It really seems that it's also very much a pride thing as well as a little bit of tribalism in the end. Don't get me wrong, I love the other translations, but in the end, our role is first to evangelize, and the NIV is so much better than the other alternatives.
God bless you Tim for your ministry and as Michael R. Burgos noted, your always evenhanded presentation. I have found you to always be fair, informative, and a calming influence to us Bible geeks.
We have to make the distinction between the NIV '84 and the NIV '11. You were obviously reading the '84 35 years ago. It was a different text. It has been changed a lot since then.
@Kenneth, I totally agree. I really like the NASB and KJV as well, but I have found the NIV to be accurate and easy to read. The NIV has not changed my faith at all since switching over about 10 years ago. To each his own I guess.
I like the way you give your comments, its always balance. Thanks and God bless you more.
Very interesting that I ran across this today. Just last night I was reading John MacArthur's booklet "How to Study your Bible" and noted that he suggests getting a Narrated Bible which presents Scripture in chronological order to help in studying God's Word. The Narrated Bible is only available in NIV. I am with you Tim in that, even though the NIV is not the preferred translation of any of the preachers I listen to, it is not heretical. I used to read the NIV years ago and I don't remember The Holy Spirit sounding any alarms over what I read.
I hold to verbal plenary inspiration of scripture and think the NIV is a great translation. It’s as accurate to the original as any other. There is no real formal equivalent English translation. But it’s ok to take the NIV word for word.
It really is pretty interpretive. I have an NIV study Bible but I would never use it as a primary translation. It's a good secondary translation to work alongside an NASB or NKJV.
Thanks for the shoutout, Tim!
Thanks for the great topic!
You were so right this time. I'm a hard liner, myself. But I hadn't thought about it this way. Thank you.
Good analysis Tim! Thank you!
Thank you Tim, for your comments on the NIV. I grew up on the KJV translation but over time have opened up to more modern ones. These days I prefer the ESV for primary bible study. That said, I'm open to others like the NIV, NASB, CSB and the NET Bible.
When the NIV 2011 came out I was at first put off by the gender-neutral language but over time I've come to accept it.
I find it helpful to read from a variety of translations during study.
This is an evenhanded presentation. Nice job.
Getting sound teaching into the hands of as many Christians as possible is important. Even though I don’t agree with JMacs dispensational ideas, his study notes are really sound and helpful. If the NIV is the medium that can get sound teaching to more people, I’m all for it. The NIV is good enough so I don’t think it’s appropriate to send people to hell over using it.
What would you recommend? Sean Ryan
@@mjc32991 I have many translations in my digital and physical libraries. KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB, NIV, NET and probably some others too. It’s a little embarrassing but I’ve actually lost track… oops. But, my daily reader right now is a Thompson Chain with the 77 NASB text that I just bought a few days ago. I love it. For me, it’s just one of those Bibles I want to hold in my hands. But the 3 I would recommend to people are usually the NKJV, ESV, or NASB (either 77 or 95 is fine). Of course the KJV is great too if you’re okay with ye olde English!
@@mjc32991 also, the most important thing is to get a Bible that you’ll read everyday. Translations, study notes, build quality, etc are all important things to consider but it does you no good if it just sits on the shelf collecting dust.
@@SDRBass so I’ve been wanting to really read the Bible and track different things I guess because I’m torn, lol be been looking into Catholicism
@@mjc32991 well Catholicism is a works based false gospel. We’re justified by faith. Go to Ligonier or search here on UA-cam “justification by faith alone.” R.c. Sproul has a good lecture on it. He also edited the Reformation Study Bible and I highly recommend it.
MacArthur has for his NIV Study Bible the Previous Edition of the NIV. Thanks for your Review.
Where can I buy the MacArthur Study Bible in NIV ?
Johnny Mac: "I really could not recommend the NIV. It's not literal enough"
Also Johnny Mac: "The Johnny Mac NIV in essence coveys the correct meaning of the best translations available today".
BTW, I'm just being sarcastic everyone...lol.
Another Good Video Tim Thank you.
I like your observation you made, just to add...I think it also Teachers us that Mohler and MacArthur they are still humans meaning not every Judgment they make will always be correct, yet they are still Best Teachers of the Bible
Calvinists will never be the "best teachers of the Bible."
There is a video on Sharla Yates channel of MacArthur speaking a little more detailed as to why he published the NIV study Bible. Name of the video is “John MacArthur on the NIV and other controversies”
Sharl Yates**
I used to be KJV only and bought into all the hysteria about modern translations being heretical but I gradually changed my mind on this and since then have almost exclusively used the NIV. I have no problem with any other translation although I would say that the KJV is outdated, though beautiful, and can be hard to understand for 21st century readers. The NIV is not heretical, it just follows a translation philosophy where the translators assess, 'How would we say that in modern English?' whilst being true to the meaning of the text. That's the only difference. That can make the NIV and other translations easier to read compared to more literal translations but I have no problem with either. If you have a problem with the gender neutral language of more recent NIV versions then try to get your hands on an older version, the 1984 translation for example, where this isn't the case.
How is any thought for thought Bible translation (NOT) heretical? I honestly don't understand how people justify thought for thought.
@@Lee-xn8by Get a life , Lee... Ppffffft !
Another solid video. Frisch's expressions are gold....ie when talking about Johnny Mac's money. I love Johnny Mac even though the guy annoys me sometimes. Sorry JMac...I'm not buying your NIV. I can get a regular NIV for $10 at the thrift store.
I don’t see how the study notes would change based on the translation. Whatever is happening in the text is happening in the text no matter how it is presented. If a translator changes the pronoun the actual meaning of the text does not change because the author of the study notes should be working with the original language.
MacArthur probably produced an NIV study bible because it is so popular.
I can see how Paige Patterson wants to silence the "and sisters" part of Scripture. He's good at that.
I appreciate your insight on this. Thank you.
Just listen to what John Macarthur says, actually listen. Correct interpretation is more important than correct translation, 'a fish is not a dog with gills, a fish is a fish'. Take it to the original languages and build from that.
Popularity, Popularity, Popularity... Popularity will then = $$$. I don’t have a problem with this as long as they own up to it. I think you are exactly correct, once someone gets their hands on a product, they will most likely get more products, watch your sermons, and maybe some will give to their ministry.
I think it was great to do so they can put the truth in the notes
Thank you☺️🙏🏼
I love the NIV and it also amuses me that so many people lose so much sleep over what I use to feed my soul.
It's like I tell my children, you have enough to worry about, worrying about yourself.
my view on this video is I’m proud to have the first comment
As I understand the MacArthur Study Bible has his notes based on the ESV, so he gets his points across via that version.
They were both desperate to get the HarperCollins imprints (Zondervan and Thomas Nelson) to publish and promote their Bibles. With this publisher, their other options are the NKJV (with its outdated scholarship), KJV (with its outdated language), NASB (with its relatively small market share compared to the NIV and NKJV), and NRSV (with its stigma among Evangelicals for being associated with Mainline Protestantism and academia).
To be fair I think it's possible to be critical of the NIV but still appreciate it in other aspects. Like you can criticize the NIV for its gender language but still appreciate it for its scholarship or its readability or what have you. That could be a thing right?
Which translation would be your first choice for the “Frisch Perspective Study Bible?”
He'll probably say....just keep watching my videos....lol! That's what I would say.
Intresting...
Why don't they just sell their study notes separate from the Bible(s) as single volume commentaries? I MUCH prefer my Bibles to just contain the inspired words from the Prophets and Apostles.
Matthew 17-21. The NIV removes fasting.
NIV removes 64,000 words..not kidding do research..when I was a baby Christian I have a NIV but some have the missing verses as footnotes...nkjv evidence study Bible is one I plan to get. Go UA-cam - are you a good person by living waters
Hi broder, i have a question jeje Is it true that john macarthur did NOT do the study notes of own bible?
My understanding is that he is the general editor and had control over the direction of the Bible. I went to the masters college (which Dr MacArthur was president of many years) for a year and many of my professors had contributed to the study notes. John MacArthur would have had final say over the content though. This is very common because of the amount of work needed to create a scholarly work of this scope. The ESV study Bible has a massive list of contributors, but even study bibles more closely related to a specific individual have several contributors including the MacArthur study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible (RC Sproul), Zondervan Study Bible (DA Carson), and most likely even Mohlers new study Bible. The biggest problem I have is that at least from what I can find there is no list of contributors available for the Jmac study Bible
It boils down to this. Money, Money, Money. What naked hypocrisy. Very very sad.
OK, maybe not money, but they definitely are showing double-talk. I agree, Tim.
@Romans Nine OK, you made me look back on this video ua-cam.com/video/vQyMyRIIBdA/v-deo.html . Needless to say, I did not enjoy it.
Frisch....can you do a video on what Johnny Mac "corrected" in the original NIV? I want to know all three things that Johnny Mac disagrees with. Lol. (I'm willing to bet there are only a couple very minor points that Johnny Mac disagrees with). Johnny Mac is funny.
NIV was helpful for me as a baby Christian but now realise it has 64,000 words missing..do research on it..they even do confusing things like replace angel with eagle in book of revelation among many other things..removes when Jesus said this kind of spirit comes out by prayer and FASTING..nkjv has the simple or language of today but stays true to Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.. anyways go UA-cam - are you a good person by living waters
I think we need to be more critical of the critical text and ask ourselves why 45 manuscripts with questionable dating and questionable authenticity in some cases and only 70% textual agreement are somehow superior to the over 5,000 manuscripts with over 99% textual agreement that the Church fathers actually quoted from and used? The majority text should be the current standard Greek New Testament text. The fact that it isn’t is the real argument we should be addressing as a body of Christ. For some reason the rules of textual criticism work in reverse with approximately one book on Earth in scholarly circles, and that book is the Bible.
I appreciate and agree with your observations. But the "gender neutral" term you were looking for in the beginning is S-A-L-E-S-P-E-O-P-L-E. Just spreading the Word.
Money ? Explains lot. I think we should read the bible and let it speak to us.I no longer use NIV. But now NASB. CSB. NKJV. KJV.
I love J-Mac , however in this case I feel as though he sold out.
i think i know why Al Mohler is using the NIV text for this study bible: because there are so many within the SBC who are familiar with the NIV,... the NIV has been very popular within the SBC and so many of the younger people have grown up with it.... there is a reason that at the annual meeting of the SBC in 2011, the "messengers" approved a resolution opposing the 2011 edition of the NIV ... for obvious reasons, its "gender neutrality" .... (Resolution: “On The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version”) ..... Mohler maybe could have used the 1984 NIV (?), but because it is not the "current" NIV text, it would cause some problems.... besides, i'm not certain what is the "status" with the copyright of the 1984 edition.... -- but i think you are right in your suggestion re. the reason for McArthur allowing the use of the NIV for his study bible.... :)
They both did NIV projects because the NIV sells and they are probably getting paid handsomely.
Of course it's not heritical, he doesn't want to be attacked and persucuted, he rather teach what the world wants to hear , it's all about money , if he actually taught what bible teaches like the JWs do then there's no money in it ,
False religion is a business, out to make money , they do it for a living , majority of the pastors don't even bieleve the bible
Jehovah Witnesses are a false religion that teaches a false gospel that will send you to hell. They deny the deity of Jesus Christ as God, they deny the trinity, etc.. everything the church has believed and taught from the beginning. They even have their own fake translation. Stay away from JWs!
False religion can have many translations but it all comes down to teach what bible actually teaches and trinity is not found in the bible or jesus is almighty God