I am not sure if this is in the right subject section but if not then perhaps a moderator can move it. Anyway, my question is this: does any member of this board have a Scofield Bible, if so what do they think of it?

I have a couple of them Brother Bob and have purchased a couple of others to give away. For the most part it is a very good Reference Bible. However as with all commentators there are some times when it appears Scofield does not agree with the Scriptures.

If you get a Scofield Bible I strongly suggest you get what is called the Old Scofield Study Bible.

In Christ,
George

The Trinitarian Bible Society has this:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/s...ofield.pdf

The Schofield is NOT the KJV.

Thank you for that link Brother David. It is a most interesting article. I knew that some of Scofield's marginal notes were in error but did not know why until now. Who is this Trinitarian Bible Society? It appears to be a most interesting group.

In Christ,
George

George:

For history of the TBS see their wesite:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

On the left hand side you should find some links to the society's history, this is quite a bit of reading matter, but briefly the founders were originally members of the British and Foreign Bible Society, who were concerned that overseas branches were using translations based on the Latin, translators who did not believe in the divinity of Christ and some who were not trinitarians. They use the AV (aka KJV) in English and promote and translate acurate versions abroad.

I hope this helps.

I meant to reply to this the other day but since being in the hospital means getting interrupted regularly I hope it is ok to say a bit now.

First and foremost, the Old Scofield Study Bible (1917) a.k.a. Scofield Reference Bible (1917), is and always has been KJV-AV 1769.

However, the Scofield Study Bible III (1967 and newer) a.k.a. the New Scofield Study Bible (1967) says it is KJV but it is not!
see reference,
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_39.asp

This will not be a "defense" of Scofield even though I carry an Old Scofield everyday and use it the same. My point to make is that there is NO study bible yet to be printed that jibes 100% with at least what I believe and I am confidant to say, what the majority of Fundamental (Baptists) believe. This includes the other well done Ryrie Study Bible as well as the Criswell Study Bible and the KJV Study Bible.

Each of these Study Bibles (which are ones I have in my library and use daily) are excellent resources. However each have doctrinal mistakes based on the bias of the editor and the editorial teams that helped put them together. In some cases the mistakes are minor - in others major!
But even the most beloved commentaries, dictionaries, concordances, lesson books, and devotionals contain just as many errors.

I guess what I am getting at is (at least for me) I don't care to toss the baby out with the bath water. If the doctrinal discrepancies do not effect the fundamentals we hold tight to then they should be reproved and corrected but to dismiss the rest that is right on track just doesnt seem right.

I do however believe that a person should not get his beliefs from the notes or commentaries. What you read or are taught from the Bible and what you understand is the result of your diligence and prayer and what the Holy Spirit shows you. However much can be learned from these other books since most of us dont know how to read Greek or Hebrew also you can learn from the insights of those who have went before - not all those before us nor all those other books mind you - as a Christian we have been given the power to discern the truth. When we use these other sources to compare notes or get ideas we must always be discerning.


I think a study bible will help a new student of the Bible to get moving on the path and I would not hesitate to put any of the study bibles i mentioned above in his hand. However I would be remiss to let it go at that. He needs to be in a solid and sound Bible study under his pastor or one of the church elders as well as his personal study time in the Word.

I think the best thing we all need to remember and be reminded of is that the only Perfect words printed in the Bible or about the Bible are the words of the Bible itself. Everything else is solely of man and will contain errors.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say in my meandering way, I am not always the best at putting thought to words.

Jerry

The greatest problem with ANY study Bible, including Thompson Chain Reference, is that even unconsciencely the reader attributes an increased value to the notes above what he or she would otherwise do if reading an external source.

No matter how trustworthy the notes or the author(s) of those notes may be, they interfere more with the pure reading of the Word than they do benefit the understanding. They become a crutch, rather than a tool.

Both excellent points that I wholly agree with. Also the reason behind the necessity of those young in Christ and the Bible to join a church or at minimum, a sound bible study. Even if you present them with a plain jane reference bible or even toss in a Strongs and Vines they still will need eventually to get instruction or at least some help to get from the milk to the meat.

I would hope that as one studies and does use notes or external notes/commentaries that they are able to avoid the "crutch" but no matter how much we help or how much they are instructed; if they are lazy enough they will go for the crutch and there isn't much we can do to change that. We are told to "Diligently study" (the Word). Unfortunately too many would rather have someone else do the work and they be spoon fed.

This is why I can't bring myself to outright condemn (good) "study" bibles. A lazy student will be a lazy student regardless of his sources be they man or book.

Jerry

Amen to that Jerry. The tool I use most often in my Bible study is the Young's Analytical concordance. It really helps to understand all the nuances of the ancient languages. I find that using Strong's it is generally simple to determine the use of the particular word being studied by comparing the meanings with the Scripture. However with the Young's it tells me exactly which way the word I am looking up is used.

In Christ,
George

Wow, interesting thread.

There has been some really good responses here.

If I use a reference (I like Brother Tim's response, but sometimes I do like to see a further explanation of scripture), and while I do not agree with everything C.I. Scofield says, The most accurate I have found thus far is in fact, the original old Scofield study bible, 1917 edition. I also like the Ryrie.

I have heard of C.I. Scofield befriending Westcott and Hortt, which if true, probably is not a good thing, but I have heard a couple of arguments over that fact. But one thing I have learned well in studying peoples' defense and/or offense of any position, and that is: "Don't believe everything you read."

All of man's works have bias and personal interpretation. Of course they always will. And short of all else, reading God's Word alone is the only true fact.

One of the ones I used to use, and I saw it mentioned here, but am quite frankly scared to death of it now, is the Thompson Chain Reference.

Just my .02

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:43 PM by Jim.

Well said!

I wasn't referring to any particular passage or error in my earlier post. I just think (it mostly comes from the training I received from my father) that the tendency is too strong for most to yield to the thinking the study notes author rather than think through and pray over the verses in question.

My father, who was a great OT professor (not just my opinion, but every student that ever expressed an opinion about him), would always use a plain text Bible to begin a study of his own or for a class or sermon. He used the Strong's Concordance (just the front) as his only reference, though he had an impressive library of much variety.

My training has given me a deeply rooted aversion to "study" Bibles in general, because the studying that is done is mostly of the notes.

By the way, Jim, what scares you about the Thompson? I don't recommend it because of its position on the history of the text, but I haven't put much time into examining the quality of its reference tools.

That is exactly why I do not like it. Even though mine came with a KJV, it heavily endorsed MV's and was in error in quite of a number of places to my recollection.

I also have a Thonpson (somewhere) which is NIV.

Generally true, but the 1917 Scofield does indeed differ to the 1769 Edition when carefully analysed. For example, the Scofield seems to add a lot of hyphens into words, such as "burnt-offering" and so on. When comparing the Scofeild Oxford to some other Oxford editions, there are some other differences, such as at Jeremiah 32:5, "prosper.", "prosper?"

These types of things might be very slight, but they are important when we regard that the jots and tittles must be correct in the Word of God, that is, that we have accurate and proper King James Bibles, not impostors, and to see that impurities (such as typographical errors) have been corrected.

I advocate the use of the King James Bible, and I specifically highlight the Cambridge Edition as the standard presentation for today. The proper Cambridge Edition (as there are a number of different Cambridge Editions) is the one that was printed from about 1900 to about the 1970s, and has been printed until recently by Collins.