[Traditional Anglican]

Good? Bad? Ugly? I have heard both sides. To be honest, I have not made up my mind, I have a nice edition of the Old Scofield, I don't know if it is sound I have heard that only some of the Epistles apply to Christians. Some call him heretic some call him a saint. A number of you seem to know a good deal more than me on his work, so with this preface, I am going to just take in input from you guys (I will probably only "chime in" to as a question, or to ask that a point be clarified. ) Help out a confused Anglican on this matter. Grace and Peace.

[Brother Tim]

I disagree with Schofield. I also disagree with any "study" Bible with an individual's notes added side-by-side with the Scriptures. They make for very poor students of the Word. That is the primary reason why Schofield is so popularly followed. In seminary class one day, a student actually quoted the notes as a Scriptural passage. If Schofield's writings were found only in a separate volume, I doubt that he or his doctrine would be that well-known today.

[Traditional Anglican]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

I disagree with Schofield. I also disagree with any "study" Bible with an individual's notes added side-by-side with the Scriptures. They make for very poor students of the Word. That is the primary reason why Schofield is so popularly followed. In seminary class one day, a student actually quoted the notes as a Scriptural passage. If Schofield's writings were found only in a separate volume, I doubt that he or his doctrine would be that well-known today.

I am not "overly fond" of study Bibles myself, I read the text in Prayer, I will use a commentary (this is not "sinful" so long as you remember a commentary is a human opinion of Scripture. I use them with a grain of salt.)

[Brother Tim]

Commentaries are fine as long as they are kept in their place. The problem with "study" Bibles is that they are not. The average (and even the above-average) Christian is far too willing to let someone else "chew their meat" for them. When the notes are on the same page, laziness takes over and no prayer and meditation happens. Once the notes have been read, then the influence already has the upper hand to the Spirit's leading.

[kittn1]

I prefer my KJV straight text Bible, with no pronounciation marks, no nothing but the Word of God to let the Holy Spirit speak to me as I read, study and meditate. I want to know what He says, first and foremost.

Then I'll see what man has to say because I may or may not agree with him.

I have a couple of study Bibles, but I use them as commentaries, so the Scripture is right there for ready reference when I read the notes. I look at a study Bible more as a commentary than a Bible, regardless of the name on it: Scofield, Ryrie, Thompson, etc.

It's the same with teaching: I'll read the Scripture passage first and then what the curriculum is suggesting for any given lesson. Many times I'll edit the lesson because it doesn't line up with what the Holy Spirit is telling me in Scripture.

[atlas]

Traditional Anglican,

I like the Old Scofield Bible for a few reasons.

1. Most of the notes are good and he is right most of the time.

2. It's the same Bible every time you get a new Bible. Everything is always located in the same place. This helps when you have a new Bible. It makes it like your old Bible. You can find things very easy just like in your old Bible.

3. The Old Scofield makes it easy to transfer all of your Bible study notes. I was taught always use the same bible and you can always transfer all of your notes.

I have a Bible now where I am transferring all of my notes and it's a big help. if you'll always do this you'll never lose anything this way.

If you just get a regular Bible every time they may stop making the model of Bible you have and then everything is not on the same page. This makes it hard to move your notes and your own study helps. When everything is all moved around it is also hard to adjust to your new Bible.


Atlas

[MC1171611]

Schofield had quite a few things right; I believe later on he got messed up with some of the revisionist committees (or maybe his notes were just put into them), but for the most part he was largely correct. Notice that he said Leviathan was a crocodile, and Behemoth was a hippo, but no one's perfect.

Now, I don't have a Schofield, so I'm going off of what I've heard other men say. I do know that I'm going to wait for Doc's study Bible instead of getting a Schofield.

Vince, Bro Hoffman's study Bible is the best one I've ever seen. He's also a Bible believer and the notes are awesome.

[Traditional Anglican]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Schofield had quite a few things right; I believe later on he got messed up with some of the revisionist committees (or maybe his notes were just put into them), but for the most part he was largely correct. Notice that he said Leviathan was a crocodile, and Behemoth was a hippo, but no one's perfect.

Now, I don't have a Schofield, so I'm going off of what I've heard other men say. I do know that I'm going to wait for Doc's study Bible instead of getting a Schofield.

? What is Doc's Study Bible?

[Josh]

I don't care for the Scofiled bibles to much. I know that back in the good ole days, if you didn't have a Schofield you would be lost in a message as the preacher would often tell you to turn to "such & such" a page in your Schofield bible. I just don't like the layout, to much notes and not enough text. The notes are very confusing to me as well