MacArthur Study Bible goes for it...

(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.

Comments

Really disappointing and almost surprising.....

Nancy

I'm very happy to be associated in any way with Phil and Frank, and am grateful every day that they slum enough to call me friend and to partner with me. However, you seem to assume that we all work for John MacArthur, when only Phil works at Grace.

However I hasten to say that my main motivation in pointing that out, besides accuracy, is that John MacArthur should never be blamed or held accountable for any of my shortcomings, failures or screwups — never the reverse.

So with that straight, whether I think I'd make this same publishing decision or not, I think your insinuating that John MacArthur is financially motivated — or whatever you're insinuating — is unwarranted and out of line. Isn't it possible to register your disagreement with a single decision without impugning the motives of a man with no blots or blemishes to his character in XX years of ministry?

Love you both, appreciate you, loved your dad, read you regularly. But this is simply out of line, and I wish you'd retract it.

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for the correction on the various levels of connection to John and his various ventures.

>>I think your insinuating that John MacArthur is financially motivated

I'm not insinuating, dear brother. I'm stating. There is never a decision involving money that has no financial motivation and I can say from lifelong inside observation of Christian publishing on both sides of my family that there is no Christian publishing decision that does not have at its heart a money decision and financial motivations. Does this mean John's decision was simply financial? No, I'm sure not, but that's a far cry from claiming money or success or sales are no part of our motivations.

Only God is good and Jesus warns us against the deceitfulness of wealth. This is His kindness to you and me and John and John and RC and Doug and my dear friends Iain and Vern and...

The man who declares that he's above adultery is a fool as is the man who declares he's above loving influence and sales growth and money.\

This is more of a mistake for John than John Piper's video venues, and both are serious matters. I hope you will see your way clear to understanding that my pointing these things out is a mark of my respect and affection for both brothers. Still, I've slightly changed the post and noted as much at the end.

With sincere respect and love,

PS: You know, it also occurs to me to point out that more than once I've suggested every pastor and missionary and mission executive and parachurch worker and CCM singer and strummer and Bible publisher and author fully disclose his salary, royalties, profits, and tax forms on the web for all to see. But no one's taken me up on the suggestion. Each year when our congregation votes on the pastors' pay, they know how much goes to each pastor. And I've told people here on Baylyblog that I make somewhere between $70-75K per year.

If men like John and John fully disclosed the money that comes to organizations under their control (Desiring God) and to them through conference fees, royalties, salaries, speaking fees, etc., their souls would be safer and decisions would be more godly. Clearly.

I'm disappointed that MacArthur played along to a degree with the NIV2010, but to be honest, I'm more disappointed that so many otherwise Bible-believing people put their names--or the names of their movement--in front of the Bible.

Once you concede the idea that there ought to be a "MacArthur Study Bible," "Perry Study Bible," or "Nutty Bicyclists' Study Bible," you've more or less conceded the point that the words of man are going to come before the Word of God, whether or not the namesake wants to do it. It's just a natural conclusion of the matter.

Baylys:

So you're saying the shortcomings of the NIV2011 translation (which are legion) will nullify the word of God? Or just that it's a shame that anyone makes money from the Bible translated into English?

Your friend and fan,

Frank

Unless you have a Hebrew and Greek translation at your house (and I know I don't) I welcome the notes of a scholar who has read the original text and can help shed light on it's meaning.

>>it's a shame that anyone makes money from the Bible translated into English?

Dear Frank,

I've never argued that we stop using money to produce and distribute Bibles. What I've asked for repeatedly is that MacArthur and his organizations and Tyndale House Publishers and Zondervan and the Bible societies and their hired scholars and pastors disclose our profits on the Bible. Let's air things out in here and see what we all get paid for peddling the Word of God.

>>So you're saying the shortcomings of the NIV2011 translation (which are legion) will nullify the word of God?

Well yes, in the same way that refusing to translate "virgin" nullifies the Word of God. But this is worse. Removing the Fatherhood of God writ large across the text of Scripture is removing the Fatherhood of God. So are you saying this does not nullify the Word of God? For the sake of the traditions of man?

You know this, but let me repeat it for our readers. All through the Old Testament God names the race 'adam.' This is the same name as the first man. The man was named 'Adam' and the woman "Eve." God didn't name the race "Eve" or "Eveadam" or even "Adameve." He named us "adam" and this carries truth as every word of God's Word does.

We--both men and women--are members of a race named by God "adam" because it's in Adam that we all died. The Fall was Adam's sin, not Eve's. And thus we are brought to the truth of God that God placed His Fatherhood on the man and held the man responsible for the woman and all their descendants. This teaches us a huge amount that's desperately needed in our effeminate and conniving and rebellious age.

It teaches us about manhood. It teaches us about kings and presidents and governors. It teaches us about generals and judges. It teaches us about husbandry in marriage. It teaches us about fatherhood over the household. It teaches us about fatherhood of elders and pastors over the church. It teaches us about God the Father Almighty. Every last place the race is called 'adam' and the church is called "adelphoi," "brothers," we have God leading the blind to the truth that His Creation order is the product of His Eternal Fatherhood and will never die despite the attack of the New Living Translation and the New International Version 2010 or 2011 or 2015 on it.

In thousands of places the John MacArthur Study Bible will lie about the Fatherhood of God and man. The male inclusive and naming the race 'adam' mean something. That's why we hold to the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. And when a group of feminist ideologues like my professor Gordon Fee hack their way through God's inspired Word amending and deleting thousands of words to make God stop calling the race "adam" and the church "brothers," and gagging God the Father Almighty's use of the male inclusive in the original Hebrew and Greek...

Yes, we have the Word of God nullified for the sake of the traditions of man. What else could you call it? This is why John MacArthur's organization debated whether or not to do it for a year, as you guys said on Pyromaniacs. And it's why you are arguing here that this bowdlerization of the Word of God is not such a big deal (it's not the nullification of the Word of God).

You men should stand up to John MacArthur on this one, telling him that he's failed and should reverse his decision. And don't worry, people would respect him for admitting he made a mistake.

Much affection,

>>I welcome the notes of a scholar who has read the original text and can help shed light on it's meaning.

Dear Bridgette,

Many of us here have been trained in Greek and Hebrew, but you don't need to know Greek or Hebrew to understand what's wrong with sex-neutered Bibles like the new MacArthur Study Bible using the text of the New International Version 2010. In the original Hebrew and Greek, God names the race "adam" and the Church "adelphoi" (which is the Greek word 'brothers').

Everyone's up in arms with this today because feminists have browbeaten Western society to give up the male inclusive. So it's now politically incorrect to do what the New Testament does over and over again, which is to speak to the church as a whole, including women, addressing them all as "adelphoi,' "brothers." And all through the Old Testament, the race is called "adam." "Man."

These are the inspired words God Himself used, but we are rebellious today and refuse the names He gave us. We say He didn't give those names to us--Moses and that wicked man Paul gave them to us. We say the words of Scripture aren't inspired--only the concepts behind the words--and then we are busy as beavers trying to deny that doctrinal truths such as father-rule and the Fatherhood of God are the concepts God used words like 'adam' and 'adelphoi' to carry.

You see, it's very simple. Will we embrace God's naming of us, or deny it for the sake of our traditions?

The Bible tells us we all died in Adam--not Eve. The Bible tells us we're all made alive in the Son of God--not the child of God. And every last place the race and the Church are named by the man, the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God writ large over man shouts at us.

The new Bible translations gag our Father.

Love,

To demonstrate that Dr. MacArthur has no real financial interest in the MSB, why not publish the NIV 2011 (or better) translation with his study notes online? He's done likewise with all 3,000 of his sermons. This would be another great leadership step to take.

This quote from MacArthur was instructive: "All English versions of Scripture have translation problems and ambiguities. That's one of the major benefits of a good study Bible. The notes and other tools built into the volume can highlight and clarify the proper meaning—or at least give a more precise understanding of what the original text actually says. My prayer is that these insights and explanations, together with the acclaimed readability of the translation, will help illuminate the true meaning and unleash the divine power of Scripture for NIV readers."

Two things: First, he is correct that there are always translation difficulties to contend with. However, the Greek and Hebrew themselves are often ambiguous, and this ambiguity is inspired by God. It is not an accident. Anytime a translator "cleans up" an ambiguous passage, meanings are deleted.

Second, saying that he hopes his "insights" will help "unleash the divine power of the Scripture," creeps me out just a bit. Elijah didn't unleash the fire from heaven. Daniel didn't unleash God to close the mouths of the lions. The Apostles didn't unleash the Holy Spirit at Pentecost...

Tim, you say, "The Words of God are gone--deleted, that is--but the words of man are intact. Chalk one up for man..."

I'm sympathetic to what I believe you're trying to communicate here. But I see a problem and I think Bridgette started in a direction which I would like to go down further, viz. that in some way or other we are all entrapped in our understanding of God's word by the teaching/writing of other men, or women, as the case may be.

You and most other pastors have gone to seminary to gain your understanding of the scriptures, an understanding which you (this is the plural you, used to include yourself and other pastors or teachers) then pass on more or less, as you see fit, to your congregation.

How is that any different from a set of study notes?

I'm not a pastor, but I've tried to gain a deeper understanding of God's word, not only by my own medidations of His word, but also by reading the medidations (aka (?) commentaries) and submitting myself to the preaching of other men. Isn't a set of notes in a Study Bible somewhat similar to the commentaries you read when preparing a sermon?

If you're a seminary prof, aren't you doing something similar when you prepare your lessons for your students?

In other words, it seems to me that it's difficult to escape the fact that we can somehow come to the text and let the fulness of the text speak without some sort of mediator - a commentator, teacher, pastor, or Study Notes. Even the Biblical text seems to bear this out in Neh. 8: 7-8 and 2 Tim 1:13, 2:2.

The desire to escape the teaching of men - to have some sort of immediate exprience of the meaning of God's words - seems to me to be akin to the desire of the Colossians and the mystics of old (and today unfortunately).

I'm not trying to identify you as a mystic of any sort!

What I think is needed however - and maybe you can help us here - is more understanding about how all of us are to deal with the fact that time, history, culture and language have made an important book more difficult to understand: where do we go to hear the fulness of what God has written if it's not to other men who have meditated on His word?

Ugh! I can't believe I called the Bible "an important book".

Forgive me!

It's God's word and therefore the most NECESSARY book!

>>You and most other pastors have gone to seminary to gain your understanding of the scriptures, an understanding which you ...then pass on more or less, as you see fit, to your congregation.

Actually, I learned very little of the Scriptures at seminary. Some church history (Nigel Kerr), some Hebrew (Meredith Kline Jr.), some of the problems with dispensationalism (Meredith Kline Sr.), some Edwards (Richard Lovelace), some theology (Roger Nicole), and lots of errors good scholars should avoid (Gordon Fee, Doug Stewart, Royce Gruenler, David Wells, Steve Mott, Dean Kemper, etc.).

>>How is that any different from a set of study notes?

I'm not against John's study notes. Nor am I against learning the Bible from others who preach to me or teach me. What I'm opposed to is intentionally encouraging God's sheep to feed on a translation of Scripture that's intentionally gagged God in many hundreds of places.

I should add that, while I think study notes are great, I think it best to keep them from being bound into our Bibles let alone appearing on the same page as our text of Scripture. It's too easy to confuse the words of man with the Words of God when that is done.

Hope that clarifies my thinking, dear brother.

Love,

Andrew Henry, you started down this trail but didn't take it far enough.

As I read what Pastor MacArthur has said, he tells us that his study notes (at the bottom of the page) are going to correct the bad translation (at the top of the same page). That really is terrible, isn't it?

How confusing will it be for people to have a godly and trusted pastor correct the word of God? It should "creep us out."

This is a good reason not to have fine study notes paired with bad translations, regardless of their popularity.

And Tim's most recent comment about the danger of having the word of man and the word of God on the same page must also be heeded. I first heard it from R.C. Sproul in his fine book, "Knowing Scripture."

The last 4 verses of the Bible (Rev 22:18-21):

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."

I am appalled to hear about the new MacArthur Study Bible, since I've admired his books. Could someone (perhaps commenter Mr. Phillips) clarify one thing: Did pastor MacArthur authorize this book? I ask because possibly he had agreed in his original contract with Zondervan to allow his name to be used for new editions forever. Textbook contracts are sometimes like that; the author can drop out and not do any work on new editions, but the publisher is authorized to keep using his name and to deduct the payment for the work on the new edition to be deducted from his royalties.

I'm finding it difficult to read this post and comments without hearing the "Grace to You" radio program theme:)

I weighed in over at my little place. Same thoughts, more words. No pictures yet.

Brothers --

1. It's not very clever to say the NIVx nullifies God's word -- and I mean that theologically. It may be a lousy translation, but so was the LXX and the Vulgate -- and we don't see those as nullifying God's word, do we? We can complain about something being a lousy translation without making the comparison (as you have here) that somehow we have elevated one set of study notes above God's word. Rather, why is it hard to see that a decent set of study notes fills up what is missing in the lousy translation, and intrudes on the real deficiencies of the translation with what the translators lacked?

2. I am not and never have been a member of the egalitarian party, and I have never beaten my wife. I have, however, blogged out of the Message and from the NIVx -- without the specter of lying to people looming over my head (except from a few extremists whom, I think, you wouldn't agree with). Instead, my meager notes have improved those lousy translations in the contexts provided. Why would it be different with the JMSB notes, which are far more specific and touch far more contexts than my blogging?

3. I am also not averse to reversing one's decisions or making public repentance. I'm actually a practitioner of both, as I am sure you are aware. But this decision simply doesn't warrant it. See above.

4. Regarding full disclosure for book deals, I think that's an interesting idea. But you of course agree that the workman is worth his wages -- and sometimes the same work yields different harvests. In that context, demanding to know what Dr. MacArthur made on any specific book deal makes it look like one might thing it's untoward to make money in proportion to the influence or popular success one achieves. That is in fact your point: because this is real money we're talking about, Dr. MacArthur must be in it for the money. I think that accusation seems more than a little uncharitable to say the least.

I appreciate your charge and your zeal, but you're mistaken about your concerns and about my scope of influence toward Dr. MacArthur. Please reconsider your complaints as I think you aren't turning up on the right side of an interesting set of events.

>>It may be a lousy translation, but so was the LXX and the Vulgate -- and we don't see those as nullifying God's word, do we?

Were the shortcomings of the Vulgate the result of conscious decisions to neuter what God was saying?

Looking around a little, I have answered my question above, of whether MacArthur authorized this. He did, and it's worse than that. It seems there was no previous MacArthur NIV study bible-- the worst NIV is the first for him. So this is not just an endorsement by him, but an endorsement of the feminist changes. This also makes me wonder as to whether Zondervan cut a special deal with him. Zondervan is hopeful about getting sell-out Christians to adopt the NIV, but worried about discerning Christians abandoning the NIV. Discerning Christians admire MacArthur. Thus, a good business strategy would be to offer an unusually generous contract for a MacArthur NIV Study Bible, a contract which in itself would be unprofitable but would help sell the NIV to churches. In effect, this would be a bribe for an endorsement. It might have to be a big bribe, and presented politely so the pastor could fool himself into thinking it wasn't a bribe, of course, and my negotiator would make lots of non-money arguments to help the medicine go down. I'm a business school professor, and that's the kind of strategy I'd suggest to Zondervan if I wanted to help them make profits.

I of course have no evidence whatsoever that that is what happened. I am just saying what I would do if I were Zondervan. That is where the Baylyblog transparency suggestion is helpful. If Pastor MacArthur just received the usual contract, on the same terms as he has had with the NASB, KJV, ESV, then we can breate easier. If he is paid a million dollars, but that's what he's always gotten, fine. But if he's being paid double the usual royalties, or if he refuses to tell anyone about the contract, then...

>>if you think it matters that John MacArthur himself doesn't collect all the royalties, you don't understand how the system works.

Please would you explain how the system works? I always thought it was a very good thing that John Piper did not accept any royalties.

That said, I wanted to express my great appreciation for you being willing to call out even some of your closest brothers on issues, and to do so in love. It is a mark of genuine concern for the truth and of deep love. 'Wounds from a friend can be trusted'. That is why I think TGC bloggers are in a straight-jacket on some things. They can't offend Don or Keller. Likewise with Team Pyro and John MacArthur. Judging from their combox it seems some good has been done in reducing the near hero worship of J.Mac as it has become clearer to all that he is an imperfect man just like the rest.

I would also like to express my appreciation for you being man enough to publicly repent and admit when you have erred. If you never did so I would find it hard to believe that you were not just proud men who were hell-bent on being right all the time. It does matter and increases your trustworthiness. Thankyou.

Guys-

By what measure have you discerned that MacArthur is definitely doing this for the money? After all, you specifically say that you aren't "accusing" - you are "stating" (Feb. 20, 7:20 PM).

Did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that Zondervan threw a bundle of money and MacArthur leapt at the opportunity to make more money for himself? Or are you just upset that the man who compiled the MSB decided to OK putting his work into a translation that you don't approve of?

It seems to me that I Tim. 5:1-2 and I Tim. 5:19-20. Not to mention other passages about gossip and slander.

edit -
It seems to me that I Tim. 5:1-2 and I Tim. 5:19-20 apply here. Not to mention other passages about gossip and slander.

Or you could always look at what MacArthur said and go from there:

From: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/02/macarthur-study-bible-niv.html

"[Was MacArthur Excited About This?] Yes, he was. In his words, "No matter what version of the Bible people are reading, I want to be able to help them understand the meaning fully and accurately. The NIV is the most widely used translation in the world, with millions of users. Some prefer it because they find it easier to read than other translations. All English versions of Scripture have translation problems and ambiguities. That's one of the major benefits of a good study Bible. The notes and other tools built into the volume can highlight and clarify the proper meaning—or at least give a more precise understanding of what the original text actually says. My prayer is that these insights and explanations, together with the acclaimed readability of the translation, will help illuminate the true meaning and unleash the divine power of Scripture for NIV readers.

Those who are using the most inadequate translations obviously need the most help to understand the Scriptures properly. Personally, I would be delighted to see the MSB notes in every commonly-used translation—and in as many languages as possible.1

***
We submitted to Zondervan's editors a generous sampling of notes adapted to the NIV 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.
***

We're excited about the potential of this product for people who are already using the NIV, and we are hopeful that when the finished product is complete, even critics of the NIV will be satisfied with the result.

Dear Frank,

A couple responses, dear brother.

>>It may be a lousy translation, but so was the LXX and the Vulgate

Brother Gray has answered this perfectly. Every translation has myriad errors, but we've now arrived at an evil day when those errors are systematic and in the thousands in only one direction--ideological feminism. There's simply no comparison to the LXX and Jerome's Vulgate.

>>somehow we have elevated one set of study notes above God's word.

Don't think that and didn't think I wrote it. Some commenters have said or implied it, but not I. John MacArthur would never believe that his study notes are more important than the text of Scripture, no matter how close he may walk to sounding that way.

>>a decent set of study notes fills up what is missing in the lousy translation

If John alters his study notes to denounce the NIV2010 every single time a word is amended or deleted--and does so in the margin right next to each of those words all the way from Genesis to Revelation--then I might actually favor his going into print with the NIV2010. But of course, John won't alter his notes to correct the text, nor would Zondervan allow him to do it. And it's waaay beyond a "lousy translation." It's a wicked translation.

>>Why would it be different with the JMSB notes

Because John's name and trademark and copyrighted notes are being used as an imprimatur to sell a wicked translation. Back to sales, brother. John's notes will sell NIV2010s. That's the difference.

>>this decision simply doesn't warrant (being reversed by John MacArthur)...

Yes it does, and time will show it. Trust me, this has been a blow to John's reputation and it will only become more clear as the years go by. Even now, though, it's not too late for the decision to be reversed, and those who have John's ear should do everything in their power to reason with him. He will only grow in stature if he admits he (or his organization) were wrong.

>>you of course agree that the workman is worth his wages

Absolutely.

>>demanding to know what Dr. MacArthur made on any specific book deal makes it look like one might thing it's untoward to make money in proportion to the influence or popular success one achieves

I haven't demanded to know what John makes. I've called for everyone who makes money off the Word of God to put their tax forms up on the web. And this is a longstanding call not specific to John.

Further, I have no objection to publishers and Bible study note writers and editors and pastors and authors making money off their work. I'm simply saying that how much money they make needs to be a matter of public record. It will protect their souls and the souls of those who read and listen to them. If they ever did this, you eyes would pop at the sums involved.

>>That is in fact your point: because this is real money we're talking about, Dr. MacArthur must be in it for the money. I think that accusation seems more than a little uncharitable to say the least.

I do not believe John is in it for the money. Rather, I am convinced that money has influenced the decision to give the MacArthur Study Bible notes to Zondervan to help them sell NIV2010s. Who gets the money and how much and when is open for debate, but as I've said again and again, the fact of money motivating the decision is something that only fully-sanctified Wesleyans could deny.

>>Please reconsider your complaints as I think you aren't turning up on the right side of an interesting set of events.

I'll be posting on this again, trying to clarify my respect for John and his lifelong ministry of integrity. And in that post I'll say that I do not believe John's private finances are involved in this decision. I've never thought that and regret writing in such a way as to lead people to believe that is my concern.

My main concern has always been that John (or his assistant or organization or church...) made a very bad decision. As times goes on, it will become only more clear that we're on the right side of that matter--unless, of course, someone pulls the ripcord and bails.

We'll pray that happens.

Love to you, dear brother,

>>Rather, why is it hard to see that a decent set of study notes fills up what is missing in the lousy translation, and intrudes on the real deficiencies of the translation with what the translators lacked?

If a translation is bad enough that we have to rely on study notes to understand the clear truths the Holy Spirit originally inspired, we should probably get rid of that translation.

>>Dr. MacArthur must be in it for the money. I think that accusation seems more than a little uncharitable to say the least.

I can't think of any other reason other than money that explains why a man as knowledgeable on the Bible as MacArthur would endorse a heretical translation of Scripture. It grieves me to say that.

With love,

Ben

A faithful pastor, who knows what the Bible says in the original languages, will, if he uses a lousy (or an evil) translation, have to correct it time and again. This will decrease people in the pew's trust in the word of God. And that's terrible.

Transfer that process to a study Bible. The study notes will have to correct the translation, if the study notes are good and the translation is the NIV2010. What will the result be, regardless of the intentions of the study note author?

Ironic, these words from the description of MacArthur's new book on the Greek word "doulos":

A COVER-UP OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS…

Centuries ago, English translators perpetrated a fraud in the New Testament, and it's been purposely hidden and covered up ever since. Your own Bible is probably included in the cover-up!

In this book, John MacArthur unveils the essential and clarifying revelation that may be keeping you from a fulfilling-and correct-relationship with God.

Tim/David,

Are you saying that you know for a fact that MacArthur is not going to leave his standard notes that would conflict with some of the poor translation in the NIV? Or are you just assuming from your own experience that this will happen? Maybe you'd be better served to write an open letter with your concerns and let him address them publicly instead of just raising these issues indirectly. That way at least you can know the details for sure before commenting based upon your personal experience...which does not shed light on the exact details of how the NIVMSB is going to be put together.

>>MacArthur is not going to leave his standard notes that would conflict with some of the poor translation in the NIV?

This is far beyond a "poor translation." It's a wicked translation.

But about the notes: sure those old notes will remain. John won't have to pull them.

That's not what I was talking about. What I proposed is that John correct the NIV2010 "every single time a word is amended or deleted--and (that he do) so in the margin right next to each of those words all the way from Genesis to Revelation." If John does this and gets Zondervan to publish it, I'll buy a copy myself.

>>Maybe you'd be better served to write an open letter with your concerns and let him address them publicly instead of just raising these issues indirectly.

The Bible was announced over at Pyromaniacs. Like it or not, blogs are our public forums today. If men don't want to respond on these forums, that's their prerogative. There's nothing indirect about a blog post warning people against a Bible product.

Love,

Gentlemen,

Because I am a woman I am sometimes unsure of where the line exists here - but since the comment threads seem more like a discussion in someone's living room than teaching in the assembly, I rarely hesitate to speak my mind. Some may wish I did hesitate more. To which I can only say, I'm working on it.

And though I am not a theologian or a scholar in the biblical languages, I do know one thing from the inside out - religious feminism. I was acquainted with Stan Gundry and Cathie Kroeger as well as others of CBEs inner circle. At one point Mimi Haddad recruited me for a position in CBEs national offices. As far as I know, I am the only one who was involved in CBE in that way who has been, by God's mercy, brought to repentance and I now utterly repudiate the feminist heresy.

Please, please, trust me on this.I've seen the agenda unfold over the years and it is long past the time when faithful shepherds need to toss the wolf out of the fold. To participate in furthering the feminist agenda in the matter of biblical translations is one of the worst mistakes Dr. MacArthur could have made.

This is not simply a bad translation. It is a wicked, wicked translation driven by an apostate agenda.

I was convicted and converted reading a "Spiritual Formation" NRSV Bible, just as neutered as the NIV2011 . Only took me a couple months to dump it for an NASB. God's word will not return void.

I love talking to you guys because, in spite of baptizing babies, you are good eggs. :-)

Phil has chimed in on your latest post on this subject, and I think his response does better than I could have to set the record straight. Hope to see you at T4G or something so we can accept each others' apologies for any harm done.

>>> Because I am a woman I am sometimes unsure of where the line exists here

This is a question of "place", isn't it? Nowadays every use of the term is assumed to be insulting (such as if you say "A woman's place is in the home") -- insulting and shackling.

But place is not only a concern of women, and it's not a matter of shackles. More and more lately I encounter situations where I believe that what is proper or appropriate for me to say, or whether I should be silent or defer, should have reference my place. I think that it matters that I am a 37-year-old husband, father, and layman and not a pastor or an older or younger man, but I'm not sure quite *how* it matters or what the applications are, or even the principles.

Far from being a freeing thing, this lack of understanding of my "place" or station brings confusion. When I write something firm, I don't know if it was appropriate for me to do that, and when I don't, I wonder if I shirked my responsibility. A clear understanding of my place would be firm ground beneath my feet.

May the good Lord send us instruction and help
That we may understand each man his place
That we may walk by faith
And stand, and fight
With firm footing