The words of man and the words of God...
At the beginning of our initial post two weeks ago were these words: "The Words of God are gone--deleted, that is--but the words of man are intact." So, to repeat ourselves, the MacArthur NIV 2011 Study Bible is two things: the Word of God and the words of man explaining the Word of God. Which one is more important? Which one should be guarded most carefully?
Before John MacArthur made the decision to yoke his study notes with the NIV 2011, he submitted his notes to the publisher for approval and was pleased they kept his words intact. Thus this...
We submitted to Zondervan's editors a generous sampling of notes adapted to the (NIV 2011) wording. We purposely chose notes that deal with some of the key problem passages. Zondervan and Nelson both have assured us they want to retain the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text, and the sample notes were all accepted as submitted.
It seems apparent that John's final decision hinged on his notes being kept intact. Not until they assured him they wouldn't alter his words did he agree to the new line of Bible products.
But men, think about what has just been said: "Zondervan and Nelson both have assured us they want to retain the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text."
How have we gotten to the point that the deal-breaker would have been not "retain(ing) the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text" rather than the full integrity of the text of the Holy Spirit Himself?
It seems clear John MacArthur believes that, in the final analysis, his own words matter more than the words of God. The words of God can be altered as long as the words of John MacArthur are kept intact to clean things up.
Or are we missing something, here?
(TB & DB)