Jump to content

Photo

The Scofield Bible


This topic has been archived.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

#1 lumi

lumi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 24 April 2004 - 07:33 PM

Brandplunked,

Was Gen1:28 in used as a reference because the Scofield Bible had incorrect notes? My Bible only talks about the 1st Dispensation of Innocency. :?

#2 brandplucked

brandplucked

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
13
Good

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:46 PM

Hi Light, I think your pastor is right. There is no RE in replenish. It simply means to stock with people.

Will

#3 LAF

LAF

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 09 January 2004 - 08:54 AM

Does anyone here use the Scofield Bible ?
Does your church ?
I know his notes are not Bible but he is wrong on creation and repentance in his notes
any thoughts?

#4 Refreshed

Refreshed

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 09 January 2004 - 10:18 AM

I use the 1909 Scofield and my wife uses the 1917 Scofield. I really do like his notes, disagree with some of them, but usually take them as someone's opinion. I don't think my church thinks too highly of Scofield.

Jason

#5 LAF

LAF

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 09 January 2004 - 10:27 AM

ok those are the older copies of his

#6 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

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

Posted 09 January 2004 - 12:31 PM

Scofield has some good notes, he also has some bad ones: the gap theory, critical readings in the margins, salvation by works in different dispensations. But he does have some awesome notes on types. (That reminds me, I should go read some of them again...)

Also, stay away from the New Scofield Reference Bible, as that is not a Scofield Bible. It was one put together by some liberal scholars that used some of his notes but changed what he originally said.

#7 LAF

LAF

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 09 January 2004 - 12:41 PM

Ok thank you I didn't know that .

#8 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

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

Posted 09 January 2004 - 01:03 PM

I knew I forgot something important!!

The King James Bible edition of the New Scofield Study Bible is NOT a King James Bible - I repeat, it is NOT a King James Bible. They have taken the liberty to edit the text of the Bible as well, not just the notes! (To make the text conform more to the critical readings found in the margins of earlier editions.)

#9 LAF

LAF

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 09 January 2004 - 01:23 PM

Thank you I also ddin't know that boy there is a lot of stuff I don't know :lol:

#10 Chelle

Chelle

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,654 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 11 January 2004 - 01:00 PM

Thank you I also ddin't know that boy there is a lot of stuff I don't know



You and me both, sister! :lol: Here is where I come for the "low-down" (and high-up :wink: ) on Bibles, "famous" preachers, and just about anything or anyone else that claims to be IFB! :D This forum is like unto Epinions for IFB resources! :D

May the Lord bless, keep, encourage, strengthen, and guide each of you,

#11 LAF

LAF

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 11 January 2004 - 01:16 PM

Yes I agree this placce is awesome :)

#12 Caretaker

Caretaker

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 12 January 2004 - 10:43 AM

I used the Scofield as a textbook for some of my external classes at Liberty U., but my Leatherbound Liberty Annotated KJV is what I use for study/reference and I have the KJV online which I use copy/paste to quote.

2 Tim. 3:
14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.



May God bless.

#13 HomeBound

HomeBound

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 13 January 2004 - 12:59 AM

I use The First Scofield Study Bible based on the 1909 edition of The Scofield Reference Bible. I'm like Refreshed, I like some of his notes, but some I do not.

#14 LOL

LOL

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 17 January 2004 - 12:10 AM

forgive me brethren, but i have read on this board more than a few times that so and so is a "gappist" and something along the lines that I am glad that Spurgeon was not, to bad McGee was, etc.

yet I have not read why the gap teaching is in error, only that it flat out is so so there!. so far i haven't seen any scripture for or against it on this site at least.

I actually thought it a little humorous, jerry, when you were glad that spurgeon was not a gappist. a sigh of relief for sure.

i thought it funny because what about his cigar smoking, or his Calvinism, or his innumerable corrections of the KJB in his comments, or his etc.

do we defend a doctrine because it lines up with our camp, or do we defend a man because we like him, or we reject the doctrine because so and so said such and such?

So what does the word "replenish" mean in Gen 1? Does it mean the same thing it means in Gen 9? Or does it have a different meaning altogether? Or do we let the "Hebrew" lexicon correct the Bible we all say is without error?

Just wondering. Or is there a thread on the gap already? If there is, I go over and read it.

#15 PreachIt

PreachIt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 524 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 17 January 2004 - 12:44 AM

Gen 1:28 And God430 blessed1288 them, and God430 said559 unto them, Be fruitful,6509 and multiply,7235 and replenish4390 (853)


H4390
îìà îìà
ma^le^' ma^la^'
maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.


H853
àú
'e^th
ayth
Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.)


Gen 1:28 And God430 blessed1288 them, and God430 said559 unto them, Be fruitful,6509 and multiply,7235 and replenish4390 (853) the earth,776 and subdue3533 it: and have dominion7287 over the fish1710 of the sea,3220 and over the fowl5775 of the air,8064 and over every3605 living thing2416 that moveth7430 upon5921 the earth.776

Gen 9:1 And God430 blessed1288 (853) Noah5146 and his sons,1121 and said559 unto them, Be fruitful,6509 and multiply,7235 and replenish4390 (853) the earth.776

But what does replenish in 1:28 have to do with a 'gap' between 1:1, and 1:2?

#16 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

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

Posted 17 January 2004 - 12:50 AM

Are you asking someone to show why we believe the Gap Theory contradicts Scripture, or are you just throwing out comments?

I never said I endorsed the bad points of Spurgeon, but was glad that he did not believe a certain doctrinal error - which I feel you have to be seriously blind to adhere to! Yes, he was a Calvinist, but he was not a five-point Calvinist. I have read enough of his works to realize that I can still glean much from his writings - just like I can glean from Matthew Henry (who was not a Baptist), and some other writers. I can deal with where he stands on the KJV. His approach to alternate renditions is way different than the modern Bible correctors today. I am not so ignorant that I will throw out everything by someone because they do not dot their "i"s exactly the same way as I do! There are enough heretics to stand against without throwing out material by those who only differ a little - and not on the Fundamentals of the faith. It's not like I am endorsing Billy Graham, Max Lucado, or James Dobson.

As far as his cigar smoking goes - I don't endorse smoking at all, but I will not judge him by our modern standards. The Bible does not say thou shalt not smoke. There are principles involved, but I daresay there are many of us who do not live by all of them either. He also did repent of it later in life. Why he didn't do it sooner is between him and the Lord.

#17 PreachIt

PreachIt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 524 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 17 January 2004 - 01:36 AM

I'd ask one who believes the 'gap' theory, what difference it makes in anything.

I think it's made up because of 'theories' of science in the 19th century.

As if the Word of God has to jump through hoops to coincide with God hating theories by God hating science, so called.

Did God say to study to shew thy theories approved unto God?

Get on with REAL business with God.

#18 BrotherJon

BrotherJon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 17 January 2004 - 02:15 AM

When you start talking "gap theory", I would ask you to check out 2 sites. 1. Answers In Genesis and 2. Kent Hovind.
In essence, the idea off gap theory comes from evolutionary thinking trying to fit back in the Bible. At a point in our history, science andcreation were handed over to our public schools, and the churches began teaching stories. Along came the likes of Darwin and freinds who came up with their theories, which were taken by too many as fact. Society, and some preachers began to agree with the "facts" and tried to fit them into the Bible. Remember , the Bible came first, there is no gap. If you go to the links above, you will see a lot of proof that the earth is only about 6000 years old.

#19 Caretaker

Caretaker

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 17 January 2004 - 08:04 AM

I was supporting a Baptist preacher, who was beginning a work in our area,(we are 15-20 miles to the nearest Baptist church). He began teaching the "gap theory", and I immediately separated myself and my family from this perversion of scripture. It is a desperate attempt to reconcile God's Word with pseudo-science and theory of origins.

The preacher had a questionare/handout, which point by point substantiated the "gap theory". Here is a bit of response:

Genesis 1:28 the word replenish
Young??s Analytical Concordance translates the Hebrew word Male as to fill
Baptist professors at Liberty translate the Hebrew word male as to fill
Liberty University Doctrinal Statement:

??We affirm that all things were created by God. Angels were created as ministering agents, though some, under the leadership of Satan, fell from their sinless state to become agents of evil.
The universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God; thus it both reflects His glory and reveals His truth??
(Liberal, I think not. The liberal is the one who compromises with pseudo-science.)
According to the Genesis account the most logical interpretation is to fill, unless one is desperately trying to prove a theory which undermines Genesis.

:Conclusion:

For a teacher to arrogantly foist scriptural fallacy, myths, and fables upon trusting new Christians, in order to compromise the Word of God in support of science is tantamount to heresy. The specific belief in origins is irrelevant until error begins to be taught to new Christians, at which time the arguments in defense of scripture become very relevant. At the point of error with the evidences of massive spelling and grammatical errors, and poor scriptural interpretation, the credibility of the teacher is called into question. Can the teacher be trusted to lead a flock, or has he usurped a position of authority for which he is neither adequately educated nor exegetically sound? It will be very difficult for a teacher of error to redeem himself if the congregation feels that they must be on constant guard against heresy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I had truly supported Brother Doug and his ministry, until he began teaching heresy. I cannot support a pulpit which undermines God's Word.

It teaches that the heavens and the earth were created eons ago, and that when Satan rebelled and was cast down the earth was destroyed, thus all the dinosaurs were killed. God had to replenish the earth, which they interpret "re-create/re-fill". They would have Adam walking over the fossils of dinosaurs. It is a compromise that I will not receive nor support.


May God bless.

#20 LAF

LAF

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 17 January 2004 - 08:13 AM

To me its like evolution people have no problem believeing that junk.
Yet they say they have trouble believeing God made the world in 6 days ,He is God if He would have wanted to He could have done it in just one day or even one moment He can do whatever He wishes because He is God .
It takes more faith on someone who says evolution or the big bang or gap theory to say how the worlds came to be .
What about Noah and the flood ? What about God destroying Sodom and Gommorah ?
Nope God made the world just like He said in the Bible or He wouldn't have put in the Bible




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500