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).

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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

However there seem to be two, different. I think the one that Scofield and four others worked on is a separate edition, not a facsimile reprint.

Norton's bibliography (p. 364) has:

The 1911 Tercentenary Bible ... The Text Carefully corrected and amended 1911
H2169 Oxford BS H2169 (English and American editions).

and has a special note about it:

This text stands outside the main line of the text in spite of its claim to be 'a scholarly and carefully Corrected Text of the historic English Bible,the time-honoured Authorized Version' (Preface); it sometimes changes the text substantially, eg 1 Tim. 2: 8-10: 'I will therefore that men pray every lifting up holy hands, without wrath or doubting. In like manner also, that the women clothe themselves in seemly apparel, with modesty and discretion; not with pleatings, and gold, or pearls, , or costly array; But, as becometh women professing godliness, with good works"

So Norris gets all involved in it precisely because it is an oddball edition, doubly so because Scofield is one of the men who was involved with the editing.

And it is mentioned here as a rare and unusual edition.

http://www.goshen.edu/mhl/oldbibleworth.html
What Is That Old Bible Worth? - Arnold Ehlert

One of the most elusive of the 20th century English Bibles is the 1911 bible, which was a slightly revised King James published by the American branch of the Oxford University Press. It was published to commemorate the tercentenary of the King James of 1611. It was revised by a committee headed by Dr. C. I. Scofield.

http://www.ebccnet.com/scofield.php
Cyrus Ingerson Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible

Oxford University Press tapped him to serve as editor-in-chief of its tercentenary edition of the King James Bible, published in 1911, three hundred years after the original King James Bible was presented to the public.

The one you mention is covered elsewhere.

http://www.katapi.org.uk/BibleMSS/Ch11.htm
Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts by Sir Frederic Kenyon (1939)

In 1833 the Oxford University Press produced a line-for-line reprint of the editio princeps, and at the tercentenary in 1911 a facsimile in a reduced size, with a bibliographical introduction by A. W. Pollard, subsequently expanded into his Records of the English Bible (1911), which remains the most authoritative treatment of the subject.]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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).

Understood. The one I referenced was specially prepared, albeit not a facsimile edition, nor does it have anything directly to do with Scofield's own 1917 edition.

Shalom,
Steven

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.