[Samuel]

In Genesis 30:31 it follows the L, O, OE examples rather than the 1611. Where it does not follow 1611 examples it mostly follows the Cambridge. With exception of the Gen. 30:31 grammatical example, being a [.] instead of [:]. so I must conclude it is KJV 1769.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Samuel

In Genesis 30:31 it follows the L, O, OE examples rather than the 1611. Where it does not follow 1611 examples it mostly follows the Cambridge. With exception of the Gen. 30:31 grammatical example, being a [.] instead of [:]. so I must conclude it is KJV 1769.

In my now-lost collection, I had a Gideons KJV and I think a Holman Dime Store Special that had changed out "colour, labour", etc., for "color, labor".

The "New" Schofield KJV of 1967 is neither a Schofield or a KJV due to internal textual changes, and notes Schofield did not add, plus "footnotes" impeaching the various contested verses between the KJV and W&H. Dr. Ruckman publishes a small booklet outlining the differences between the NSRB and the KJV.

Grace and peace

Tony

[Samuel]

The Scofield lll, retains both Labour, and Colour, no change here. I also have a 1967 Scofield, and know it contains many word changes, plus some variant readings.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

The "New" Schofield KJV of 1967 is neither a Schofield or a KJV due to internal textual changes, and notes Schofield did not add, plus "footnotes" impeaching the various contested verses between the KJV and W&H..

Grace and peace

Tony

The Introduction to the 1967 scofield talks about a group of 9 men changing what Dr. Scofield had written. Its bad enough that these men changed scofields notes,but these are the same kinds of men aka scholars who perverted our KJB. People think that the New Scofield (1967) is the correct scofield just because its old. Thel Old Scofield is the one with the 1917 notes.
I hear people say,well,i have an old scofield,yeah, buutttt its the 1967 revision,which is not even a Scofield.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Samuel

The Scofield lll, retains both Labour, and Colour, no change here. I also have a 1967 Scofield, and know it contains many word changes, plus some variant readings.

A friend of mine got a "deal" on a NSRB" the other say and it was my sad duty to inform him he did not have a KJV.

Besides spelling and punctuation standardization, the original 1611 KJV was also printed in the old German Gothic script rather than our modern Roman type.

Grace and peace to you Samuel

Tony

[Samuel]

Dr. Ruckman would likely, have a problem with the Scofield lll. While it is the text of the 1907-1917 Oxford KJV, and has Scofields original study system and notes, it also retains the extra notes of the NSRB 1967. But as far as Bibles with notes, they have never been a distraction for me.

Also it has some other period, and archeological information plus a few in text maps. It much resembles an Open Bible in layout if you have ever seen one of those, only in KJV rather - than NKJV.

Which is just what I was looking for, I have always liked the Open Bible for the additional information, just not the NKJV part.

Like Hunter says "works for me", and that is what counts.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

The Introduction to the 1967 scofield talks about a group of 9 men changing what Dr. Scofield had written. Its bad enough that these men changed scofields notes,but these are the same kinds of men aka scholars who perverted our KJB. People think that the New Scofield (1967) is the correct scofield just because its old. Thel Old Scofield is the one with the 1917 notes.
I hear people say,well,i have an old scofield,yeah, buutttt its the 1967 revision,which is not even a Scofield.

I had a 1917 schofield I used in school but hardly consulted the notes. I read them and were familiar with them, I hardly used them.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Samuel

Dr. Ruckman would likely, have a problem with the Scofield lll. While it is the text of the 1907-1917 Oxford KJV, and has Scofields original study system and notes, it also retains the extra notes of the NSRB 1967. But as far as Bibles with notes, they have never been a distraction for me.

Also it has some other period, and archeological information plus a few in text maps. It much resembles an Open Bible in layout if you have ever seen one of those, only in KJV rather - than NKJV.

Which is just what I was looking for, I have always liked the Open Bible for the additional information, just not the NKJV part.

Like Hunter says "works for me", and that is what counts.

I don't trust the Jerry Falwell Version(NKJV). It's not a King James. The NSRB was what I guess is referred to as "leaven".

Grace and peace

Tony

[Samuel]

I used the NSRB for years, and never realized the alternate readings; until I got the Scofield lll. Of course I was aware of the word changes, which are pretty conservative in nature. But never noticed the occasional sneaky alternate readings.

I was checking last night, and Scofield lll does not retain ALL of the 1967 NSRB notes, just a few. And these few, may have been Dr. Scofield's to begin with?. Anyway when you compare the two, its an all together different Bible.

I know for sure the "This verse was not contained in the best manuscripts" part in not Dr. Scofield's. But like I said they come in handy, when I am telling someone this is not in your Bible, or it is not a King James.

Your average persons jaw drops when you tell them, unlike the self made scholarly types you meet on some of these internet forums.
They are not aware the Bible they carry, is not the Bible after all. I have decided this is part of my mission in life, to convert the re-converted.

[Jeremy]

If Dr. Ruckman didn't think Scofield was worth anything,why would they offer the Old Scofield reference bible in there bookstore ,and why would Dr. Ruckman write a book called About the New Scofield reference bible. Here is another,a article in the Bible Believers Bulletin July 2004 by David Cagle "Indisputable facts of CI Scofield.

Don't like Scofield? get a plain text bible and forget any type of Study Bible.

Sam,i am with you,those Scofield notes are handy.

Better get a PCE before they run out.
What to do when they are all gone?