Scofield Bible

[persistent]

.
My first ever personal Bible was a 1967 Scofield in the King James version
that I bought back in 1968. Prior to the internet and Bible study software,
Scofield's was the cat's meow.

Were we to disregard someone's work simply on the basis of their being a
jerk, then what are we to do with David's psalms? He was a premeditated
murder and adulterer. And Moses' writings? He was a murderer too. And
Paul? He delivered a number of Christians over to execution. And Peter? He
denied knowing Jesus; not once but no less than three times.

I say: look for the proof of the pudding in the pudding, not in the chef; as
Jesus once said:

• John 7:16-17 . . My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. If any man
will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or
whether I speak of myself.

* An attack on the character of a scholar is known as an ad hominem;
roughly defined as a chicken way of going about invalidating a scholar's
work, and/or calling into question a witness' testimony.
_

I have never read any of Scofield but read some of Darby and I think Scofield may have been influenced by Darby. I'm of the impression that starting around the late 19th century a "NEW" kind of influence developed. From some of what I have read about history it may be like Scholasticism, (the system of theology and philosophy taught in medieval European universities, based on Aristotelian logic and the writings of the early Church Fathers and having a strong emphasis on tradition and dogma) influence. Web search definition

 

[arthurfleminger]

There are definite errors in the Scofield Bible. These errors can easily be researched on line. But the biggest problem with the Scofield Bible is that Scofield wrote his own personal opinions, as footnotes, in this Bible. And many readers mistakenly read Scofields comments/footnotes as the inspired Word of God, and they aren't.

 

[persistent]

There are definite errors in the Scofield Bible. These errors can easily be researched on line. But the biggest problem with the Scofield Bible is that Scofield wrote his own personal opinions, as footnotes, in this Bible. And many readers mistakenly read Scofields comments/footnotes as the inspired Word of God, and they aren't.

Thanks. That is nice to know. When I lived in Pasadena, Ca. I went to the city college and in the library they had many versions of the Bible. I don't remember which version it was but it may have been the one that J.R.Tolkien was associated with and the introductory comments were something like 'If you want to know what it says read it for yourself'. Good advice. Of course I didn't listen to it.

 

[ResidentAlien]

There are definite errors in the Scofield Bible. These errors can easily be researched on line. But the biggest problem with the Scofield Bible is that Scofield wrote his own personal opinions, as footnotes, in this Bible. And many readers mistakenly read Scofields comments/footnotes as the inspired Word of God, and they aren't.

True. He passed himself off as "Dr." Scofield; but there's no record he ever had any formal training or education. On the title page of the SRB he's called Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. (Doctor or Divinity) The D. D. was an an earned degree back then so it wasn't an honorary degree.

 

[persistent]

True. He passed himself off as "Dr." Scofield; but there's no record he ever had any formal training or education. On the title page of the SRB he's called Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. (Doctor or Divinity) The D. D. was an an earned degree back then so it wasn't an honorary degree.

I don't recall which way it went in the 19th century but saw something about the cost of schooling. Where cost determined whether you sent your son to study civil law or God's law. Who knows maybe it's still that way.

 

[arthurfleminger]

True. He passed himself off as "Dr." Scofield; but there's no record he ever had any formal training or education. On the title page of the SRB he's called Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. (Doctor or Divinity) The D. D. was an an earned degree back then so it wasn't an honorary degree.

Scofield felt that he had to misrepresent himself as a 'Doctor of Divinity' in order to sell his religious beliefs. If you have to deceive and lie while presenting your case, then your case can't be that strong.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Let's forget about Scofield's character, sketchy as it may be, and look at his agenda for producing the SRB in the first place.

1. To promote the critical Greek text of Westcott and Hort. At the time, the overwhelming Bible of choice was the KJV and the textus receptus on which it is based. He couldn't just produce a new Bible based on the critical text; people would have roundly rejected it. So what is he to do? He introduces the critical text in his notes, saying things like, "the oldest and best manuscripts" say such and such, thus softening people to the idea that the textus receptus and the KJV are flawed.

2. To promote Darby's dispensationalism in the US. Dispensationalism says that salvation is by different means in different ages. So under the Old Covenant salvation was by the law of Moses. But it doesn't take a whole lot to prove this idea ridiculous. Salvation is by faith and has always been by faith. If the law of Moses could save, it wouldn't have been replaced by something that truly could save.

"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone." Romans 9:30-32

When I think of all the people who have bought into such an obvious deception it truly is bewildering.

1. This point is truly insightful.
These were made available to seminaries and Bible colleges for a reason. It shaped the views of thousands of pastors, evangelists and foreign missionaries. In turn, millions had their faith in the Word undermined.
A long time ago I was studying the word under a pastor in Western PA, who went through the transition of the KJV & TR to various other Westcott and Hort based versions. He followed the same teachings that came out of a Colonel R.B. Thieme. I could tell that they were influenced by Scofield notes..That progression worked with him. I finally got out of there, because I saw first hand what you are talking about.


2. That's for sure. It's hard to believe how many have bought into Darby's heresy after all of these years. I never fellowshipped in those circles, but have seen it here and there, so it still seems popular. I used to be a dispensationalist because that's what my pastor was when I was saved. However, he didn't teach in various salvations in different ages.

Your reference and many more prove the law to be an impossible means of salvation. Sometimes I wonder if commentators have ever read Romans or Galatians. It's refreshing to know a believer who knows Who he believes and what He did for him.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I don't like integrated commentaries. Never had one. Extra-biblical material is just that.

 

[kohelet]

I am about four years in to studying the bible and am pushing the big 70 come 28 this month and have never yet read anything from a Scofield Bible. However, I did talk with a student with a masters degree at the Spurgeon Center of Kansas City and he said he does reference the Scofield. Whatever that means. So I don't know if Scofield is worthwhile or worthless or what.

The problem was (or is) that people read Schofield’s notes thinking they had the same weight as the Bible. Schofield didn’t write a translation of the Bible; the Schofield Bible is the KJV with notes.
(I’ve pushed past 70 by a few years and have known about this Bible for most of my life.) Schofield took the dispensational view of the end times. If this is the one you take you’d be inclined to read it, I suppose.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

The problem was (or is) that people read Schofield’s notes thinking they had the same weight as the Bible. Schofield didn’t write a translation of the Bible; the Schofield Bible is the KJV with notes.
(I’ve pushed past 70 by a few years and have known about this Bible for most of my life.) Schofield took the dispensational view of the end times. If this is the one you take you’d be inclined to read it, I suppose.

I think you are right.
The unfortunate thing is that many have taken a number of false views due to the popularity of Scofield's notes.

 

[kohelet]

I think you are right.
The unfortunate thing is that many have taken a number of false views due to the popularity of Scofield's notes.

Yes. He may be right. Dispensationalism has been all the rage among many evangelicals for years. But that seems to be changing; he may not be, too.

 

[JohnDB]

who went through the transition of the KJV & TR to various other Westcott and Hort based versions

Woah woah woah!

Neither Wescott or Hort ever translated scriptures and were completely uninterested in doing so. It was suggested that they should, however the brain of the outfit (Westcott) hated the politics involved and refused to involve himself. They were instantly branded as heretics and hunted by just about everyone in Europe because they showed how the Catholic Church and just about every established denomination at that time was in incredible error in their doctrines. He pretty much slammed everyone equally...he showed no favorites.

Westcott (Hort was the financier) was a translator of Zifre, Midrash, and Talmud who seen the OBVIOUS references made in scriptures to these works and the points made in these extra-Biblical writings.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Let's forget about Scofield's character, sketchy as it may be, and look at his agenda for producing the SRB in the first place.

1. To promote the critical Greek text of Westcott and Hort. At the time, the overwhelming Bible of choice was the KJV and the textus receptus on which it is based. He couldn't just produce a new Bible based on the critical text; people would have roundly rejected it. So what is he to do? He introduces the critical text in his notes, saying things like, "the oldest and best manuscripts" say such and such, thus softening people to the idea that the textus receptus and the KJV are flawed.

2. To promote Darby's dispensationalism in the US. Dispensationalism says that salvation is by different means in different ages. So under the Old Covenant salvation was by the law of Moses. But it doesn't take a whole lot to prove this idea ridiculous. Salvation is by faith and has always been by faith. If the law of Moses could save, it wouldn't have been replaced by something that truly could save.

"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone." Romans 9:30-32

When I think of all the people who have bought into such an obvious deception it truly is bewildering.

Just so you know. Scofield did not believe in this idea that they were saved by law in the OT.

Maybe you should actually study what he says, and not what people say about him as many have failed to do.


As for the OP.

As for scofield. I have had three.. the Bible scripture itself is the same as any KJV or NKJV r whatever version. The Bible is not different.

It is scofield notes and reference's that make it a study bible

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

There are definite errors in the Scofield Bible. These errors can easily be researched on line. But the biggest problem with the Scofield Bible is that Scofield wrote his own personal opinions, as footnotes, in this Bible. And many readers mistakenly read Scofields comments/footnotes as the inspired Word of God, and they aren't.

The same is true of any reference or study bible.. be it scofield, Jeremiah, or any study bible..

If people think any of the notes of any study bible is scripture. They need more help than we can give them

 

[kohelet]

If people think any of the notes of any study bible is scripture. They need more help than we can give them

Couldn't we help them by explaining to them how notes are not Scripture?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Couldn't we help them by explaining to them how notes are not Scripture?

of course but who actually believes that. And why?

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Neh 8:7-8 . . Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai,
Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites,
caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their
place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the
sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Well; speaking for myself-- myself alone --I would be a Bible-challenged
dunce were it not for commentators like the guys above. Lucky for me I
realized very early-on that the most unreliable Christians are self-taught
armchair experts; especially those infesting internet forums.

• Eph 4:11-14 . . He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the
apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and the teachers.
_

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Yes. He may be right. Dispensationalism has been all the rage among many evangelicals for years. But that seems to be changing; he may not be, too.

That's good IMHO.
After I was saved, I was taught dispensationalism, but not that there were different means of salvation. After a few open minded studies since then, I have changed my mind about The dispensation age theory. It's good to hear of your observations. I don't get to Bible conferences or big meetings like I used to.

 

[oyster67]

I may be right in saying that a great many of the people of the Bible acted in some very disreputable ways. According to Wikipedia, the person known as Scofield was also a disreputable individual. i.e. forger and abandoned family and ?. So should we accept a version of the Bible which bears his name?

My problem with the Scofield Bible is that He plastered all his personal notes all through it.

He starts right off by suggesting that creation took much longer than the week the verses say it did.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Woah woah woah!

Neither Wescott or Hort ever translated scriptures and were completely uninterested in doing so. It was suggested that they should, however the brain of the outfit (Westcott) hated the politics involved and refused to involve himself. They were instantly branded as heretics and hunted by just about everyone in Europe because they showed how the Catholic Church and just about every established denomination at that time was in incredible error in their doctrines. He pretty much slammed everyone equally...he showed no favorites.

Westcott (Hort was the financier) was a translator of Zifre, Midrash, and Talmud who seen the OBVIOUS references made in scriptures to these works and the points made in these extra-Biblical writings.

Perhaps I should have stated that they compiled their Revision from the Alexandrian text. They certainly favored the Vaticanus and Aleph over the TR as well.
I'm opposed to W&H personal beliefs as well as their choice of the Alexandrian.

Regardless, the context was about my personal example affirming what Resident Alien said. My own pastor got caught up in the deception that led him down a dark road to false doctrines.