1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Some interesting notes from the Scofield KJV

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by BrianT, Jun 28, 2003.

Top Posters
  1. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    For some reason I don't fully understand, the Old Scofield KJV is a favorite amoung "fundamentalists", especially those who hold to KJV-onlyism (I suspect it's popularity is due largely to it's notes on dispensationalism). A comment in another thread reminded me of some info I collected recently about some of Scofield's comments inside the Scofield KJV. Take these for what they're worth:

    "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship." (Introduction, Page iii, emphasis added)

    "The two best MSS omit vs. 21." (note on Matthew 17:21)

    "The best MSS omit vs. 14." (note on Matthew 23:14)

    "Verse 26 is omitted from the best MSS." (note on Mark 11:26)

    "Omit God. Lit. And were stoning Stephen as he was invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, give welcome to my spirit." (note on Acts 7:59)

    "This statement ends with “Christ Jesus”; the last ten words are interpolated." (note on Romans 8:1)

    "The best authorities omit "and of the Father and of Christ."" (note on Colossians 2:2)

    "It is generally agreed that vs. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted." (note on 1 John 5:7)

    "Omit "in earth."" (note on 1 John 5:8)
     
    #1 BrianT, Jun 28, 2003
  2. MissAbbyIFBaptist

    MissAbbyIFBaptist <img src=/3374.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have an Old Scofeild KJB. I don't really know what a "dispensationalisum" is, so I can't say anything there. I don't exactly agree with all the notes, but afterall, he's a man, and men {mankind! I'm not picking on JUST men here!} aren't perfect. So I don't expect his notes to be perfect, however, I beleive with all my heart that the Bible he uses is. {KJB}
    ~Miss Abby
     
    #2 MissAbbyIFBaptist, Jun 28, 2003
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Sister Miss_Abby_The_IFBaptist -- Preach it!

    I have a new Schofield notes in a
    New King James Version (nKJV). And i
    don't agree with all the Schofield notes
    but i do believe with all my heart that
    the Bible Schofield "uses", namely
    the nKJB is Holy Writ [​IMG]
     
    #3 Ed Edwards, Jun 28, 2003
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You forgot to put the begining of that paticular paragraph of Scofield's introduction.


    Pg iii of the introduction,paragraph XI." After mature reflection it was determend to use the Authorized Version . None of the many revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version( from W&H's manuscript) ,which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years,gives no indication of becoming the peoples Bible of the English-speaking world ." (emphasis mine)


    Kinda makes one wonder about the so called "New Scofield bibles." I dont think he would approve if he were around.
     
    #4 Anti-Alexandrian, Jun 28, 2003
  5. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    In 1909, that was true. English translations that utilized the W/H text were not yet as popular as the KJV. So Scofield went with the KJV, but included notes where he felt it should be corrected (based on the work of W/H and others).

    Quite the contrary - due to his comments, it appears he would definitely approve.
     
    #5 BrianT, Jun 29, 2003
  6. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 2 best MSS are Vaticanus and Sinaiticusx MSS. They disagreed each other in the Gospel alone 3,000 times!

    The omission of Matthew 17:21 is found in 13 MSS.

    Matthew 17:21 is found in 47 MSS.

    Matthew 23:14 was omitted by 23 MSS.

    Matthew 23:14 was found in 42 MSS.

    Mark 11:26 was omitted by 14 MSS.

    Mark 11:26 was found in 44 MSS.

    Romans 8:1 was twisted by 12 MSS.

    Romans 8:1 was found in 15 MSS.

    The doctrine of Trnity was found in 19 MSS.

    The doctrine of Trinity was rejected by 19 MSS.
     
    #6 Askjo, Jun 29, 2003
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,401
    Likes Received:
    555
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have an "old" Scofield and have used it as my main bible since Easter Sunday 1958 (on my 5th one now).

    Scofield was not God, nor infallible. BTW, neither were a bunch of baby-baptizing Anglicans in 1611.

    Scofield recognized problems in the underlying Greek of the AV. I don't find that problematic. I find that a mark of good scholarship and integrity, missing in many today.
     
    #7 Dr. Bob, Jun 29, 2003
  8. neal4christ

    neal4christ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    So since the NIV seems to give indication of becoming the peoples Bible of the English-speaking world and has commended itself to the people at large, I guess Scofield wouldn't have a problem using it if he were here now. [​IMG] Scofield was not preaching KJVOism. He simply stated that no version had surpassed the KJV in popularity at the time. Times have changed. [​IMG]

    God Bless You,
    Neal
     
    #8 neal4christ, Jun 29, 2003
  9. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was Scofield a W/H man?
     
    #9 Askjo, Jun 29, 2003
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,401
    Likes Received:
    555
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Know that he was NOT a KJVO because that sect had not yet begun to spin their yarns! :rolleyes:

    He used the KJV1769 revision, but offered many places where he (like most) judged the text to be problematic.
     
    #10 Dr. Bob, Jun 29, 2003
  11. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Know that he was NOT a KJVO </font>[/QUOTE]I do not talk about KJVO, but my question is: A TR man or a W/H man. Another word is: a naturalistic man or a Consistently Christian man. Which is Scofield?
     
    #11 Askjo, Jun 30, 2003
  12. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    o come. KJBOism is the most naturalistic sect i know--it places more faith in human nature, namely that of one TR-editing Romist priest n a bunch of Anglicans, rather than in God's preservation.

    i'm not sure who started this pious baloney--was it Hills?--but there's nothing "Consistently Christian" about the purveyance of falsehoods.
     
    #12 Forever settled in heaven, Jun 30, 2003
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think you're reading too much propaganda.

    However, you are attempting to establish a false dichotomy. Using the TR, developed by a humanistic Catholic scholar, does not make one more nor less "Consistently Christian". Using a text that attempts to use lower critical methods to collate the wealth of factual, textual evidence regarding the Bible's words neither makes someone naturalistic/modernistic nor prevents them from being "Consistently Christian."

    Are you attempting to say that a person cannot be simultaneously "Consistently Christian" and honest/reasonable with the textual evidence God has preserved to us?
     
    #13 Scott J, Jun 30, 2003
  14. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    MV-neverist said:

    You forgot to put the begining of that paticular paragraph of Scofield's introduction.

    So in other words, Scofield would have liked to use a modern version (per Brian's quote) but chose not to because it wouldn't have clicked with his audience (per yours).

    Doesn't sound so much like a KJV-onlyist to me, which makes it interesting that so many KJV-onlyists want him on their side.
     
    #14 Ransom, Jun 30, 2003
  15. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why was Eramus, a RC monk, in the hands of the Reformation after he died?
     
    #15 Askjo, Jun 30, 2003
  16. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Why was Eramus, a RC monk, in the hands of the Reformation after he died?"

    Who cares? What matters is what side he was on when he was alife.
    And to be honest he was on neither side.
     
    #16 mioque, Jul 1, 2003
  17. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why was Eramus, a RC monk, in the hands of the Reformation after he died? </font>[/QUOTE]Probably because they appreciated his work and criticism of RCC abuses.

    But, he remained a RCC. He did not renounce the papacy nor Catholic doctrines and, most importantly, he left no testimony of accepting salvation by grace through faith.

    I hope he was saved. That wouldn't make his work perfect but would none the less be joyous. However, he left us no indication that he was anything but a Catholic with a bent for ridding the church of some of its problems.
     
    #17 Scott J, Jul 1, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...