Is this one any good?
Thanks so kindly...

ISBN 9780195274769

[Beltfed_0331]

I have an old scofield. I found many times in church that there were times when the preacher would say one word and the scofield would have another simular word. Before I began bnoticing that I found scofields notes very good. Of course there were times when I did not agree totaly with him. Scofield, I would say, helped begin my searching for more commentary and in researching different topics. Although I enjoy reading and learning about Gods word I find the Word much more satisfying and enlightening in study. I cannot remember the exact text in which scofield altered the Word, but I will try and get that information for you. For the last two years I have been enjoying a Dakes Holy Bible. It has great commentary although I dont agree with him on probably more than Scofield. I feel better knowing the Word is correct.

I really appreciate your message and I look forward toward that information if you are able.
I had that on order (very, very good price), then it went on back order, then they got it in again, so I guess I'll be getting one. Grin. Can't beat the price though, I think, so I am overjoyed too. Just hope the KJV is true KJV.
Didn't know at the time of order about this issue as well.
Thanks so kindly.

[bibleprotector]

Issues with the old Scofield:

1. Oxford text.
2. Doctrinal concerns (no credence given to the historicist view of prophecy).

Having said that, I do own one, and on occassions have utilised it.

Problems with the new Scofield are much greater:

Dr. William Grady wrote: A random survey of the NSRB margins in Philippians alone revealed a total of 29 changes from the King James Bible. Of these, twenty-one (72%) were traced to either the RSV or the NASV. The skeptic can ckeck it out for himself: Philippians 1:7, 8, 23, 27; 2:1, 15, 25, 27, 28; 3:1, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21; 4:3, 6, 14, 15, 21, and 22." The "New Scofield Reference Bible" in the "King James Version" is NOT new, is NOT a Scofield Bible, and it is certainly NOT a King James Version.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Issues with the old Scofield: 1. Oxford text.

Apparently there was a 1911 Oxford edition for the USA, the 1911 Tercentenary, that was a bit of a quirky and unreliable Oxford. e.g. In Isaiah 9:3 it had 'increased the joy' without the 'not' and good 'ol Norris has a number of other quirks from that edition. And Norris conjectures that some of the 1911 quirks came into the (misnamed) New Scofield. Scofield is listed as on that board of that 1911, with four others. However the actual Scofield editions are listed as 1909 and 1917 and I would presume that the Bible text in his editions are far more true to the historic text than the special 1911 Oxford.

Norris used the Scofield participation on the 1911 board as an indication that Scofield had less fealty to the text than Grady (in his generally excellent book) asserts for Scofield in one quote. William Grady in a couple of places writes a bit enthusiastically, going beyond reflecting the details of the technical situation. It is all a minor matter, apparently Grady likes the Spurgeon dispensationalism and considers him therefore quite significant and he went a smidgen overboard . None of this effects the basic truth that the text of the original Scofield was generally an historically sound King James Bible (with some of the Oxford impurities, understandable at the time and place) and the socalled New Scofield, published a half-century after he lived, is very unsound. Matthew gives some of the fine Grady analysis of that above.

Oh, I tried to figure the metre of the sentence above to determine whether we have 'a' or 'an' historically. Hmmm.. subtle rhythms. Then I looked for an umlaut in metre. Does Manuel cover this in his Chicago work on Style ?

Shalom,
Steven

Thank you all so very kindly for all the information on this. I looked it up again in the store, and I guess I'll be getting one that might be alright. At least for its various qualities, but I will be on my guard with all that was mentioned here.
Thanks ever so kindly.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Steven

However the actual Scofield editions are listed as 1909 and 1917 and I would presume that the Bible text in his editions are far more true to the historic text than the special 1911 Oxford.

That "Tercentenary Edition" does not seem to be the one which might otherwise be called by that name, being the 1911 facsimile of the 1833 reprint of the 1611 edition (still reprinted today by Thomas Nelson), as http://openlibrary.org/b/OL7092789M

Whatever the case, such special prepared or the reprint-facsimile editions are not "normal Oxfords". Scofield's 1917 edition presents a text which is close to normal Oxfords (with some similarity to London Editions).

Originally Posted by Beltfed_0331

....Of course there were times when I did not agree totaly with him. Scofield, I would say, helped begin my searching for more commentary and in researching different topics. Although I enjoy reading and learning about Gods word I find the Word much more satisfying and enlightening in study. I cannot remember the exact text in which scofield altered the Word, but I will try and get that information for you. For the last two years I have been enjoying a Dakes Holy Bible. It has great commentary although I dont agree with him on probably more than Scofield. I feel better knowing the Word is correct.

---I inherited Dake's commentary from my Dad, and immediately found two things that were way wrong. One is the "gap theory", something he probably picked up from Scofield, who was responsible for this ridiculous prop for Darwinism.

The other one was to say that Jesus did not become the Son of God, or divine, or the Messiah, etc.etc., until he his baptism by John. It's a conjecture at best, adding to the word at worst. Jesus said "my father's business" and he was "the holy one of God" while still in the womb.

A third one is pre-Tribulation rapture, which is easily corrected by Jesus' plain words in Matthew 24, and Paul's warning against that very thing in II Thessalonians 2.

(Except for those who believe Jesus sent the apostles out 2x2 at different times to preach incompatible gospels, along with other many problems)

[Easy E]

A third one is pre-Tribulation rapture, which is easily corrected by Jesus' plain words in Matthew 24, and Paul's warning against that very thing in II Thessalonians 2.

(Except for those who believe Jesus sent the apostles out 2x2 at different times to preach incompatible gospels, along with other many problems)

Just a head's up, someone might want you to explain those statements.

But I know this isn't the 'Doctrine' Forum.

[Luke]

Ignoring the oxford cambridge thing, which I see as a non issue, the Old Scofield is pretty good as far as notes go.

Good notes on most dispensational stuff, although dispensationalism, being relatively newly revealed (or re-revealed, since it is a doctrine that had been hidden during the dark ages), men were still learning.

Personally, the major issue I take with Scofields notes is the same thing I take with Larkin's charts - Gap theory. But whatever. I can deal with that. I pretty much fully understand gap theory, but cannot embrace it because I find too many scriptures that are ambigious, and often, the less obvious meaning to the scripture is taken to support the gap. He also says Leviathan was a crocodile and Behemoth was a hippo, but the rest of his notes are pretty good