Talk:MacArthur Study Bible

King James Version of MacArthur Study Bible

Has anyone seen a King James Version (KJV) of the MacArthur Study Bible? I have found:

• A New King James Version (NKJV) (e.g. ISBN-10: 0718018990, ISBN-13: 978-0718018993); and
• A New American Standard Bible (NASB) (e.g. ISBN-10: 0529122502, ISBN-13: 978-0529122506);

but not a KJV. I guess it makes sense that it would be in NKJV since it's published by Thomas Nelson, which holds the copyright on the NKJV. However, I would really like to find a KJV of it. Captain Zyrain 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Word Publishing vs. Thomas Nelson Inc.

Is Word Publishing a division of Thomas Nelson Inc.? I notice that both are listed on the copyright page. Captain Zyrain 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Study Bible of the Year Award

Does anyone have any more information about the Study Bible of the Year Award? Who awards it? Captain Zyrain 16:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

A friend came over to my house today who used to be a follower of MacArthur, and now says that MacArthur's doctrine is different enough from the truth that if you follow it, you won't reach salvation. I found some links on the web criticizing the MacArthur Study Bible, but as I haven't studied these issues sufficiently yet, I have deleted them from the article. Captain Zyrain 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If what your friend says is true, then the ranks of false teachers would include not only MacArthur and other respected modern-day teachers like R.C. Sproul and John Piper, but Spurgeon, Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Luther, and Augustine; and, many would argue, Paul the Apostle and Jesus. It's true, the latter two depend upon an interpretation of their words that your friend may not accept; but all the others indisputably would have agreed with what MacArthur teaches regarding salvation. Of course, there are some other theologians and teachers (generally not as eminent or learned) that agree with your friend - Arminius, Wesley, Erasmus, Chuck Smith. But neither side should condemn the other's teachings as your friend does. (User: fool4jesus) 68.27.187.168 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The criticism "It has also been criticized for its views on dispensationalist premillennialism in eschatology, and limited atonement" should be removed from the introduction. First off, it uses the word "also", when nothing previous was on the topic of criticism. More importantly, the article should be about what the MacArthur Study Bible is and information relevant to that topic, especially in the intro. If encyclopedic articles make room for all disagreements of what a book teaches, then every article on Wikipedia would be subject to such editing. If there are valid criticisms of a work so as to compel a legitimate concern, not merely just a different point of view, it should be given it's own category. The source given merely has a different point of view. What book or work ever written does not have those who disagree with it, especially on the topic of religion? The source given is a book titled "The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement". This is just one author's opinion, and the only doctrine argued is limited atonement, not the other doctrines mentioned in the criticism. This in no way defines what the MacArthur Study Bible is about, nor is it even worthy of its own category for inclusion in this article. If the person requesting the inclusion feels it is valid, let that person produce sufficient sources and arguments to warrant a separate category of criticism. Of course that could easily lend itself to a sizable debate becoming a part of the article, and eclipsing the point of the entry. Ima Groinitch (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MacArthur Study Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210055332/http://www.ecpa.org/gold_past.php to http://www.ecpa.org/gold_past.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)