Scofield Bible

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?

No idea because I don’t know who this guy is and what he says.
‘The profession or deeds don’t matter much if the truth is spoken from the heart with no agenda such as to control people or to profit from them.

A thief or a murderer can say beautiful things that change us and a priest can say or do things which push us away.

I don't know. What is your opinion?

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.

.
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.
_

What's so great about it? For someone who has never used it, what makes it a good version?

.

Have you tried an internet search, Wikipedia, and/or Amazon's product
descriptions?
_

No. You're the one who said it was the "cat's meow." I figured you'd have some thoughts on it. If not that's okay.

Just ignore Wikipedia and examine the Bible for yourself. There is nothing wrong with the original Scofield Reference Bible (KJV).

"Since it first appeared in 1917, this edition of the Scofield Study Bible has been regarded by evangelical Christians as a classic work in its field. Its page by page framework of notes, cross-references, subject chain references, definitions, and comprehensive outlines help the reader to explore in depth the passages of Scripture. Now for a new generation of users, Oxford has re-set the Bible using the Authorized King James Version alongside Scofield's complete study notes. This style uses a red-letter text for the New Testament, and in addition to all the normal features of Scofield Bibles, it also incorporates full colour Oxford Bible Maps."

Yeah I’m also curious to know in a few words what’s great about this version of the Bible.

Wikipedia says that it promotes dispensationalism, so this version of the Bible would be a hard NO for me.

The Scofield incorporates into the notes readings from the critical text. The image below is from the Introduction to the 1917 edition. Notice where it says: "have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies." This is clearly a move into indoctrinate people to the idea that the critical text is better.

See: https://archive.org/details/scofieldreferenc0000revc/page/n7/mode/1up

God has always used sinners to forward his plans of redemption Noah got drunk and passed out naked , Abraham lied about his wife , Moses killed a man , David committed adultery and plotted and carried out a man’s murder to cover his adultery , Paul was involved in and approved of Stephens murder , and had set forth to destroy the church before it could be rooted in the earth but God used all of them to his glory and purpose

I’m only saying that to judge based on one’s sins isn’t a good take as far as this particular Bible goes people should make tbier own judgements on versions of the Bible can’t endorse it or deny it myself it’s just another version of scripture with a lot of editorial things which isn’t for me particularly but who am I to say it’s not valid based on someone’s rumored and prior acts ?

this guy penned over half the new testament


“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:15-16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

if God doesnt use sinners no one would ever be used by God to further his plans for us that are to give us hope and a future

I have come to appreciate the Scofield KJV Study Bible: obtainable at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL --USA. I not only hold to the Scofield KJV, but more-so value that it has marginal notes to show the full meaning to some words not clear in modern English. It also has footnotes explaining references for study on related Scripture to see the fullness of the thought. It is important, I see, to avoid modern wordings with current day expressions for our Holy Bible; which works dillute the meaning our God intneded.

I hear voices speaking against Scofield herein, but I really doubt the claim; and know that ANY behavior any of us did in early life is past, forgiven, and not to be dragged up in our spiritual life in Christ.
--1ambassador.

If you like dispensationalism then the scofield reference bible is for you. It's what made dispensationalism quite popular in the US.

It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if that's what floats your boat.

Although I don't think many hold to that classic view of dispensationalism. On the popular level maybe but more and more are advancing the progressive dispensational view (progressive here does not mean Liberal!).

Progressive dispensational is moving closer to historic premillenial ism.

So your probably better not getting the scofield. Maybe check out Darrell bock or Craig blaising.. Its not new its been around for 30 or so years.

I use a Scofield Bible with NKJV, avoiding the Critical text. I don't always agree with the foot notes but all in all it is a good study Bible.

Of course not.
When I was at the toddler stage in Christ as a very young believer, I rejected it outright. All that I had to do was read some footnotes and wonder why any believer would decide to buy such unbiblical false teachings. I was even raised as a dispensationalists! The guy wasn't even a believer. His notes constantly undermined faith in God's Word and popularized strange teachings with Evangelicals, Baptists and whoever wanted one.

Here's an interesting documentary on C.I. Scofield for anyone wanting evidence about the man. It sure beats wasting money on a copy of his notes.

https://www.kjv1611only.com/video/06docs/Scofield_Legacy_Of_Works.mp4

This is a great video. Thanks for posting it.

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.

Scofield was indeed a dispensationalist and a Calvinist...which is why you really don't find his study notes in a more modern translation. Because they often directly oppose the scriptures they comment upon. The chain references don't work well either.

Where at one time it was considered "the cat's meow" today its obviously full of mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of the scriptures.

Calvinism and Dispensationalism were once political persuasions in American culture. And we know that politics does not mix at all with Christianity. Slavery, no women's rights, and discrimination have no place in society or those who claim Christ.

I'm not casting any blame on Scofield...he did the best he could at the time he made these notes...but things have progressed since then in understanding and translation technology.