C. I. Scofield KJV Bible

Just remember that the commentary in your Bible is just that...commentary. It's not the Scripture itself. You should never simply take anyone's word for something, including commentary writers. Search the Scriptures out yourself.

Scofield commentary has several items with which I disagree. One of the main ones is the Gap Theory. I still use my Scofield despite disagreeing with some of the commentary.

 

There are a few editions of the Scofield bible, a 1909 version (updated in 1917) and considered the 'old' Scofield bible

And a newer 1967 'New' Scofield version with updated notes.

Both editions use a basic KJV text but make "certain word changes", altering "obsolete or archaic" words.

Scofield was a strong proponent of dispensationalism and his notes promote a basic (and somewhat dated) form of it.

Rob

 

Can you give an example of this?

 

He is talking about the 1967 New Scofield. Matthew 14:29 has boat where as the KJV has ship.
Luke 1:54 has helped where the KJV has holpen.

There are many such changes of this type.

 

Portions snipped from the

NOTES from a couple of my "go to" verses used when I check a version:

EXAMPLE #1
Concerning 1 Samuel 13:21 rendered in Scofield's version as;

Yet they had a *file for the **[sickles], and for the *** [mattocks] and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

*This word in the KJV takes the place of two Hebrew words, neither of which was otherwise known. One of these words, pim, has now been found marked on a weight (two-thirds of a shekel) which has been turned up in excavations from this period. Consequently we know that the verse should be translated: "And the charge was a pim for the mattocks…" For Measures and Weights (O>T>). See 2 Chr. 2:10, note.

**KJV mattock(s)

***KJV coulters

MY GRADE: D+; they failed to properly translate the text although the note leads one in the right direction.


EXAMPLE #2
Concerning Mark 16:9 footnote: "Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient mss., the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; others have them with parital omissions and variations. But the passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century."

MY GRADE: passing

EXAMPLE #3
I John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum) included in main text with this note: "It is generally agreed that this verse has no ms. Authority and has been inserted."

MY GRADE: D+; IMO the verse should have been excluded from the text with an expalnatory note.

GENERAL CONCLUSION: The Scofield editiors are quite tentative about accepting the critical text and reluctantly depart from the KJV text.

General note: The 1967 edition was my first "real" bible and the one I memorized most of the verses I know today.

Rob

 

Yes. Any KJV study bible minus their study notes/commentaries is just a plain old KJV....well can be said for any studybible version....