What About The New Scofield Study Bible?
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:04 PM
Were C.I.Scofield's notes changed?
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:39 PM
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:41 PM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 12:30 AM
The KJV New Scofield is neither King James, nor Scofield. If you read the Preface or Introduction to it, you will see that they edited the Bible text to incorporate some of the marginal readings (ie. Scofield's notes) in the Scofield Bible. Also, the notes are different. If I can remember correctly, check out Acts 8:37 - there should be some changed notes on Baptism.
I checked out the notes in both the KJV Old Scofield and KJV New Scofield and it says the best authorities omit v.37 in the KJV Old Scofield and some mss. omit v.37--same thing happens in 1 John 5:7: It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. This was in the KJV Old Scofield. I can't find a similar note in the KJV New Scofield on 1 John 5:7.
I think I'll just stick with my Defined King James Bible from Bible for Today, even though it isn't red letter and has no concordance.
Posted 27 February 2006 - 12:41 AM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:06 AM
I meant the notes on the bottom of the page, not in the margin (though the actual text of the NS has been tampered with according to Scofield's marginal notes). Maybe I can look later if you are interested, but I do remember them having quite different notes on baptism - though it might be in a different passage. It has been a long time since I have looked at that study Bible.
This was the 1998 edition and the notes were definitely in the margin--nothing on baptism on the bottom of the page. There is a note on the preceding page from Acts 8:12 on Baptism (which was a reference from Acts 8:38). It's on the bottom of page 1376 of the New Scofield, 1998 edition. Acts 8:37 is on page 1377.
Thank you for helping check this out--I really appreciate it. I sure wish these "editors" would quit trying to "fix" God's Word! :roll:
Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:10 AM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:28 AM
That might be it - are the notes different between the NS and the original Scofield on Acts 8:12?
There are NO notes for Acts 8:12 in the Old Scofield--just a cross reference to Acts 13:38,39--on page 1159 of the Old Scofield.
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:22 AM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:34 AM
Sorry for my bad memory - are the notes in the NS on Acts 8:12 liberal? I know there is something wrong with some of the notes - they are different from the Old Scofield, and there are some liberal ones, but I am having a hard time remembering what the exact problem was with the ones on Baptism - they just stick out in my mind. I do have a NS in one of my boxes somewhere.
Yes--I would say that they are very liberal. First they call baptism and the Lord's Supper sacraments, then they mention the three different modes of baptism: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping).
Posted 27 February 2006 - 03:55 AM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 04:06 AM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 10:28 AM
A reference Bible is just that, a REFERENCE. You find the Word of God inside the Word of God, and you aren't going to find His Word outside the KJV.
Read the references (I prefer Thompson's because of the archeological notes--they're fun), but don't take them as inspired, they're NOT.
Love you all, brothers and sisters, Amen??
Posted 07 April 2006 - 05:06 PM
Have you heard of the King James Study Bible?
Good conservative commentary by Ed Hindson and Woodrow Kroll [general editors], sometimes they use the original Hebrew or Greek to define a word better. This may irritate you but I think that on the odd occasion it does help. For example see their comments on the grammar used in Genesis 1:2 to disprove the Gap theory. Both authors make excellent use of the original languages to help the reader understand the passage better. While some feel this is correcting the English, I cannot help but see how it can only add to oneā??s understanding of the text.
Since you already have a copy, check it out for yourself. You might find the commentary too heavy and invasive, but I believe they have struck a good balance of text to commentary, not too much but not too little either.
Posted 07 April 2006 - 05:37 PM
The newest Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible is good. It boasts commentary by Conservative Baptist theologians, the cross refs are for the most part good.
The New Schofield Study Bible is no longer in print,
the errors were so great that it had to be upgraded.
They now have a Schofield III, supposed to be better.
The Old Schofield is still respected and in print.
The Thompson Chain is bogus, true it has a lot of great stuff but so many errors in the new Chain Ref.
terrible corrupted statements on pages 1585-1588.
Very sad that all the problems out weigh the great Archaeological Supplement,(My favorite page 1742 lower right hand paragraph Isaiah Scroll).
I am very saddened to see so much good work polluted with so many errors.
Posted 09 April 2006 - 11:39 AM
And the Messianic Stars? c'mon, we might as well let the astrology nuts take over! I know there are a lot of people that feel a great need to explain the star of Bethlehem. I have a real simple explanation.God wanted it, so God did it. End of story.
I firmly believe that any time God or Jesus or The Holy Spirit wanted to have themselves/himself a miracle, they just plain did it. If they could make a universe, you gonna tell me they can't make a few fish, wake up the occasional dead man, stick a few flickering flames over some apostles heads, part the occasional waters, stop an occasional planet from turning without throwing all the inhabitants off it, crumble the odd walls or burn the occasional bush?
A bit long winded? Sorry, don't want to lose your attention. I just don't hold with all this necessity to explain away God's miracles. They (scientists, apologists, etc.) kinda tick me off.