I wonder if female preachers will be encouraged to get the preachers bible.
Will female seminary professors be allowed to teach men using this bible?
I can just imagine how patriarchal the preachers bible is.
Cindy, the only way the Bible can be prejudiced is if the men responsible for editing it heavily pad it with footnotes. My guess is that’s probably happened.
Are there extra notes in this Bible for only pastors? Can women pastors use it? What about Charismatic pastors? Does it cost more than other Bibles – – or is there a pastors’ discount? I have some questions, obviously!
I bet that this bible is going to be stuffed with notes on how (male) preachers should be interpreting scriptures… the GTY approved version. We may even end up with more instructions than actual scripture.
Here is what I never understood about “study Bibles.” The Bible is so holy. Without it, we know nothing about God. We owe nothing but reverence to Scripture. But then, why would anybody take the Holy Bible, and put their name on it. For example,
The JOHN MACARTHUR study Bible!
Why would you fill and intersperse within Scripture, commentaries by humans? The whole practice seems so sacrilegious and maybe even blasphemous. This isn’t just any Bible, folks. It is the The JOHN MACARTHUR study Bible!!!!
I suppose the “Preacher’s” Bible is a step down from The JOHN MACARTHUR study Bible. It’s just bizarre.
I wonder what the earliest study Bible named after a theologian. I know of the Scoffield Study Bible. Is there any that predates the Scoffield Bible? Yeah, very sacrilegious especially coming from people who claim to a high view of Scripture and a low view of man.
There are folks out there that profess “The King James Bible” is the only accurate, authentic, and authoritative Bible on the market these days. I never understood what King James had to do with Jesus as our only Lord and King, but who am I to question the hierarchal system of visible Christianity.
Do theologians adore seeing their name in print? Even above Almighty God? It would be interesting to hear the outcry if a woman has her name or initial printed on every page of the Bible……then I fear the Gospel according to the book of man, would really become an accelerated gender mess-age.
This is what I imagine. When the Lord host a feast in heaven for saints, he will single out certain people for honor. I think people will be shocked to hear the names because nearly all of them will be unknowns. Those anticipate a list of big names with big followings will sorely be disappointed.
When Jesus said, the last shall be first and the first shall be last, we will find out that he meant every word of it. In fact, many of these big names may very well fall under, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”
Speaking of “depart from me, I never knew you.” John MacArthur says Jesus was talking about the charismatics because they claimed to have prophesied in his name. LOL. I am not making this up. (source).
Regarding a preacher’s name on the Bible, you do have the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, and King James translations, no? I would, however, agree that putting one’s own name on God’s Word ought to be considered at least dubious.
BB – Are those names front and center like John MacArthur’s? And posting the translation is different. I think it’s important to have the translation printed on the outside.
I believe the so-called #preachersbible is a beautifully bound New American Standard Version. It uses heavier paper in a single column format with paragraph headings, larger print and wide margins for your notes, not someone else’s. Were I to ascend to the pulpit, this would be what I would want
This Bible does not have MacArthurs notes in it FYI. Also the majority of you may not like John MacArthur but I believe he does love Christ whether you agree with his theology or not and with that being said you are not showing much love for a brother in Christ and frankly not coming across as loving or Christian at all. I’m surprised you have nothing more constructive to do than complain and bad mouth fellow believers.
I was saddened, reading these posts, Until I came across the last two. John MacArthur, as Daniel S mentioned, clearly loves the Lord and has spent his life and ministry defending the scriptures and teachings of the Reformers. Yet these posts are filled, not with critiquing a study Bible that had not even come out yet, but rather, at taking potshots at a pastor. His sermons are exegetical. He spent 40 years preaching through the entire New Testament verse by verse. And They are all available free of charge for any of you to download. And all you can do is mock a view you do not agree with!
John MacArthur, as Daniel S mentioned, clearly loves the Lord and has spent his life and ministry defending the scriptures and teachings of the Reformers
What of the members of his congregation? What of the women in his seminary?
What if his theology is the same as the theology of wolves? Specifically, wolves preach that we are weak and fallible and we can’t discern the voice of God, so God put these spiritually gifted, seminary trained leaders to tell us what to do. This is completely counter to what Jesus says – “my sheep hear my voice”. When these types of men get into power, and MacArthur is no exception, they set up authority structures that collect more and more power to themselves and their cronies, while silencing any concerns from lay members.
But, these men are so self-deluded that there is seemingly no way to pin them down. My former pastor was really kind and personable, EXCEPT when he was preaching from the pulpit or leading a congregational meeting. Then he was the mouthpiece of God. In fact, he would speak out of both sides of his mouth – talking about how we ought to be discipling one another on one hand, and on the other hand saying that any form of “teaching” other than preaching from the pulpit or formal teaching from the elders was speculation at best.
I don’t doubt that my former pastor is a Christian. What I do doubt is whether he really understands the difference between Christianity as a relationship with Christ and Christianity as a patriarchal and authoritarian religious structure. I think when you are kind and personable, as I suspect John MacArthur is, the doting and affection of his congregants and audience gets to his head and at some point HE has important stuff to say and he can’t separate what are the words of Christ and what are the interpretations of MacArthur.
Have you ever noticed that the preaching of Jesus, Peter, Stephen and Paul is NOT exegetical?
I think exegetical sermons lead to a false sense of security where people think they are hearing the proper interpretation of scripture, but instead, the context is ignored and scripture is sliced and diced down to such a microscopic level that it is easy to twist and reinterpret into anything the pastor wants. But it sounds good because it’s “line by line straight from the Bible”.
Exegetical preaching is what allows pastors to take Jesus’s teaching on divorce in Matt 5 “literally” and yet, in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, hem and haw about Jesus’s teaching on vows. If you take 31-32 as the literal truth, then 33-37 must also be the literal truth, but for some reason vows and oaths are still a core practice in the church (e.g. marriage), so then if you take 33-37 as hyperbole, you are forced to take 31-32 likewise. That is, unless you preach a sermon one week on 31-32, treating the text exegetically so as to take it literally, and then weeks, months or years later, cover 33-37 exegetically and talk about how Jesus really didn’t mean that LITERALLY!
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
It’s a LARGE print version for those who are of riper years, and whose multifocals are no longer up to the job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if female preachers will be encouraged to get the preachers bible.
Will female seminary professors be allowed to teach men using this bible?
I can just imagine how patriarchal the preachers bible is.
LikeLike
Cindy, the only way the Bible can be prejudiced is if the men responsible for editing it heavily pad it with footnotes. My guess is that’s probably happened.
LikeLike
Are there extra notes in this Bible for only pastors? Can women pastors use it? What about Charismatic pastors? Does it cost more than other Bibles – – or is there a pastors’ discount? I have some questions, obviously!
LikeLike
I bet that this bible is going to be stuffed with notes on how (male) preachers should be interpreting scriptures… the GTY approved version. We may even end up with more instructions than actual scripture.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, now! Y’all must know that just any ole regular Bible ain’t good nuff fer a preacher man. It’s high time somebody did somethin’ bout it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha Nancy. I can’t wait to see what’s special about it!
LikeLike
Here is what I never understood about “study Bibles.” The Bible is so holy. Without it, we know nothing about God. We owe nothing but reverence to Scripture. But then, why would anybody take the Holy Bible, and put their name on it. For example,
The JOHN MACARTHUR study Bible!
Why would you fill and intersperse within Scripture, commentaries by humans? The whole practice seems so sacrilegious and maybe even blasphemous. This isn’t just any Bible, folks. It is the The JOHN MACARTHUR study Bible!!!!
I suppose the “Preacher’s” Bible is a step down from The JOHN MACARTHUR study Bible. It’s just bizarre.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have never understood putting MacArthur’s name on Bibles. It seems sacrilegious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder what the earliest study Bible named after a theologian. I know of the Scoffield Study Bible. Is there any that predates the Scoffield Bible? Yeah, very sacrilegious especially coming from people who claim to a high view of Scripture and a low view of man.
LikeLike
There are folks out there that profess “The King James Bible” is the only accurate, authentic, and authoritative Bible on the market these days. I never understood what King James had to do with Jesus as our only Lord and King, but who am I to question the hierarchal system of visible Christianity.
Do theologians adore seeing their name in print? Even above Almighty God? It would be interesting to hear the outcry if a woman has her name or initial printed on every page of the Bible……then I fear the Gospel according to the book of man, would really become an accelerated gender mess-age.
LikeLike
Given how much they’re charging for these things, it’s all about the $$:
https://www.gty.org/store/products/bibles/none/1/40
LikeLike
@Katy
This is what I imagine. When the Lord host a feast in heaven for saints, he will single out certain people for honor. I think people will be shocked to hear the names because nearly all of them will be unknowns. Those anticipate a list of big names with big followings will sorely be disappointed.
When Jesus said, the last shall be first and the first shall be last, we will find out that he meant every word of it. In fact, many of these big names may very well fall under, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”
Speaking of “depart from me, I never knew you.” John MacArthur says Jesus was talking about the charismatics because they claimed to have prophesied in his name. LOL. I am not making this up. (source).
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of those JMac bibles!!
LikeLike
Regarding a preacher’s name on the Bible, you do have the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, and King James translations, no? I would, however, agree that putting one’s own name on God’s Word ought to be considered at least dubious.
LikeLike
BB – Are those names front and center like John MacArthur’s? And posting the translation is different. I think it’s important to have the translation printed on the outside.
LikeLike
Julie Anne is correct. There are translations and there are study Bibles with interwoven commentaries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe the so-called #preachersbible is a beautifully bound New American Standard Version. It uses heavier paper in a single column format with paragraph headings, larger print and wide margins for your notes, not someone else’s. Were I to ascend to the pulpit, this would be what I would want
LikeLike
This Bible does not have MacArthurs notes in it FYI. Also the majority of you may not like John MacArthur but I believe he does love Christ whether you agree with his theology or not and with that being said you are not showing much love for a brother in Christ and frankly not coming across as loving or Christian at all. I’m surprised you have nothing more constructive to do than complain and bad mouth fellow believers.
LikeLike
I was saddened, reading these posts, Until I came across the last two. John MacArthur, as Daniel S mentioned, clearly loves the Lord and has spent his life and ministry defending the scriptures and teachings of the Reformers. Yet these posts are filled, not with critiquing a study Bible that had not even come out yet, but rather, at taking potshots at a pastor. His sermons are exegetical. He spent 40 years preaching through the entire New Testament verse by verse. And They are all available free of charge for any of you to download. And all you can do is mock a view you do not agree with!
LikeLike
What of the members of his congregation? What of the women in his seminary?
Let me see him defend them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“whether you agree with his theology or not”
What if his theology is the same as the theology of wolves? Specifically, wolves preach that we are weak and fallible and we can’t discern the voice of God, so God put these spiritually gifted, seminary trained leaders to tell us what to do. This is completely counter to what Jesus says – “my sheep hear my voice”. When these types of men get into power, and MacArthur is no exception, they set up authority structures that collect more and more power to themselves and their cronies, while silencing any concerns from lay members.
But, these men are so self-deluded that there is seemingly no way to pin them down. My former pastor was really kind and personable, EXCEPT when he was preaching from the pulpit or leading a congregational meeting. Then he was the mouthpiece of God. In fact, he would speak out of both sides of his mouth – talking about how we ought to be discipling one another on one hand, and on the other hand saying that any form of “teaching” other than preaching from the pulpit or formal teaching from the elders was speculation at best.
I don’t doubt that my former pastor is a Christian. What I do doubt is whether he really understands the difference between Christianity as a relationship with Christ and Christianity as a patriarchal and authoritarian religious structure. I think when you are kind and personable, as I suspect John MacArthur is, the doting and affection of his congregants and audience gets to his head and at some point HE has important stuff to say and he can’t separate what are the words of Christ and what are the interpretations of MacArthur.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“His sermons are exegetical.”
Have you ever noticed that the preaching of Jesus, Peter, Stephen and Paul is NOT exegetical?
I think exegetical sermons lead to a false sense of security where people think they are hearing the proper interpretation of scripture, but instead, the context is ignored and scripture is sliced and diced down to such a microscopic level that it is easy to twist and reinterpret into anything the pastor wants. But it sounds good because it’s “line by line straight from the Bible”.
Exegetical preaching is what allows pastors to take Jesus’s teaching on divorce in Matt 5 “literally” and yet, in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, hem and haw about Jesus’s teaching on vows. If you take 31-32 as the literal truth, then 33-37 must also be the literal truth, but for some reason vows and oaths are still a core practice in the church (e.g. marriage), so then if you take 33-37 as hyperbole, you are forced to take 31-32 likewise. That is, unless you preach a sermon one week on 31-32, treating the text exegetically so as to take it literally, and then weeks, months or years later, cover 33-37 exegetically and talk about how Jesus really didn’t mean that LITERALLY!
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
LikeLiked by 1 person