Jump to content

Photo

What About The New Scofield Study Bible?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
16 replies to this topic

#1 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:04 PM

Does anybody know about the New Scofield Study Bible (1967)? I have one, but I also have the 1917 Old Scofield Study Bible. Been trying to figure out what is "new" in the 1967 edition. I see it has a larger concordance and more maps and study helps, but is it different in the notes of the 1917 edition? Of course, I have the KJV--but the New Scofield comes in the NIV and NASB too.

Were C.I.Scofield's notes changed?

#2 hannah

hannah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:39 PM

I've got both editions. My parents gave me the 1917 when I was first saved. My girlfriend gave me the 1967 edition as a gift not realizing that it wasn't the same as the original. The differences are too numerous to mention, but if you read the introduction to the 1967 edition it lists all of the areas that they decided to edit and add and correct.

#3 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:41 PM

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.

#4 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

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.

#5 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 27 February 2006 - 12:41 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.

#6 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

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:

#7 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:10 AM

That might be it - are the notes different between the NS and the original Scofield on Acts 8:12?

#8 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

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.

#9 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:22 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.

#10 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

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).

#11 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 27 February 2006 - 03:06 AM

Yep, that was the one I was thinking of!

#12 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

Posted 27 February 2006 - 03:55 AM

I'm going to stop using those Bibles and use my Defined King James Bible. Have you heard of the King James Study Bible? It's published by Thomas Nelson. I have a copy that I purchased at Wally World--the price was right. It seems to be ok so far. With all study Bibles, one needs to use discernment. The notes are written by man, they are interesting to read, but they are not God's Word--so one should not rely on them.

#13 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 27 February 2006 - 04:06 AM

There are conservative and there are liberal study Bibles - some of the stuff Nelson puts out is quite liberal. I have an NKJV Study Bible that questions miracles, others question Genesis 1-11 or add the Gap Theory, etc. - I have no desire to read from these ones. But if it is a conservative one (like the original Scofield, Thompson Chain Reference - a non-NIV one - and some others), then I can read their notes like I would a commentary - consider what is being said, see how it lines up, and never accept anything new UNLESS I am convinced of it from the Scriptures itself. To me, a good commentary is a springboard to my own study - reinforcing what I have already learned, pointing out some things for consideration, and sometimes challenging me to dig deeper - but I never take even the good ones as more than opinion. I get sick of getting emails or reading posts from someone who read something in a Commentary or Bible Customs book and quotes it as fact - even though it actually contradicts the Bible (sometimes outright contradicts the specific passage it claims to be explaining). Besides, those commentators and scholars weren't there 2000-4000 years ago, so once they go beyond what the Bible itself says, their opinion is no more than a guess. I would rather just stick with the Bible text, even if I can't understand it fully (until further down the road).

#14 preacher_gary

preacher_gary

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 07 April 2006 - 10:28 AM

AMEN, Jerry.

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??

#15 Mountainview

Mountainview

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
0
Neutral

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.

#16 bibletotingunslinger

bibletotingunslinger

    The Bible Totin Gun Slinger

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 07 April 2006 - 05:37 PM

Just some notes I thought I should write as I see the some things have changed.

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.

#17 preacher_gary

preacher_gary

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 09 April 2006 - 11:39 AM

Gunslinger---I see what you mean. Fortunately, these are not parts I regularly use. Those parts of the Book are entirely too unusable for me. The various outline studies are too slanted to beliefs of the writer. If I ever find myself trying to make up stuff like that I hope (and I know ya'll will) somebody straightens me out real quick.

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.




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500