Scofield Bible

I have never read any of Scofield but read some of Darby and I think Scofield may have been influenced by Darby. I'm of the impression that starting around the late 19th century a "NEW" kind of influence developed. From some of what I have read about history it may be like Scholasticism, (the system of theology and philosophy taught in medieval European universities, based on Aristotelian logic and the writings of the early Church Fathers and having a strong emphasis on tradition and dogma) influence. Web search definition

There are definite errors in the Scofield Bible. These errors can easily be researched on line. But the biggest problem with the Scofield Bible is that Scofield wrote his own personal opinions, as footnotes, in this Bible. And many readers mistakenly read Scofields comments/footnotes as the inspired Word of God, and they aren't.

Thanks. That is nice to know. When I lived in Pasadena, Ca. I went to the city college and in the library they had many versions of the Bible. I don't remember which version it was but it may have been the one that J.R.Tolkien was associated with and the introductory comments were something like 'If you want to know what it says read it for yourself'. Good advice. Of course I didn't listen to it.

True. He passed himself off as "Dr." Scofield; but there's no record he ever had any formal training or education. On the title page of the SRB he's called Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. (Doctor or Divinity) The D. D. was an an earned degree back then so it wasn't an honorary degree.

I don't recall which way it went in the 19th century but saw something about the cost of schooling. Where cost determined whether you sent your son to study civil law or God's law. Who knows maybe it's still that way.

Scofield felt that he had to misrepresent himself as a 'Doctor of Divinity' in order to sell his religious beliefs. If you have to deceive and lie while presenting your case, then your case can't be that strong.

1. This point is truly insightful.
These were made available to seminaries and Bible colleges for a reason. It shaped the views of thousands of pastors, evangelists and foreign missionaries. In turn, millions had their faith in the Word undermined.
A long time ago I was studying the word under a pastor in Western PA, who went through the transition of the KJV & TR to various other Westcott and Hort based versions. He followed the same teachings that came out of a Colonel R.B. Thieme. I could tell that they were influenced by Scofield notes..That progression worked with him. I finally got out of there, because I saw first hand what you are talking about.


2. That's for sure. It's hard to believe how many have bought into Darby's heresy after all of these years. I never fellowshipped in those circles, but have seen it here and there, so it still seems popular. I used to be a dispensationalist because that's what my pastor was when I was saved. However, he didn't teach in various salvations in different ages.

Your reference and many more prove the law to be an impossible means of salvation. Sometimes I wonder if commentators have ever read Romans or Galatians. It's refreshing to know a believer who knows Who he believes and what He did for him.

The problem was (or is) that people read Schofield’s notes thinking they had the same weight as the Bible. Schofield didn’t write a translation of the Bible; the Schofield Bible is the KJV with notes.
(I’ve pushed past 70 by a few years and have known about this Bible for most of my life.) Schofield took the dispensational view of the end times. If this is the one you take you’d be inclined to read it, I suppose.

I think you are right.
The unfortunate thing is that many have taken a number of false views due to the popularity of Scofield's notes.

Yes. He may be right. Dispensationalism has been all the rage among many evangelicals for years. But that seems to be changing; he may not be, too.

Woah woah woah!

Neither Wescott or Hort ever translated scriptures and were completely uninterested in doing so. It was suggested that they should, however the brain of the outfit (Westcott) hated the politics involved and refused to involve himself. They were instantly branded as heretics and hunted by just about everyone in Europe because they showed how the Catholic Church and just about every established denomination at that time was in incredible error in their doctrines. He pretty much slammed everyone equally...he showed no favorites.

Westcott (Hort was the financier) was a translator of Zifre, Midrash, and Talmud who seen the OBVIOUS references made in scriptures to these works and the points made in these extra-Biblical writings.

Just so you know. Scofield did not believe in this idea that they were saved by law in the OT.

Maybe you should actually study what he says, and not what people say about him as many have failed to do.


As for the OP.

As for scofield. I have had three.. the Bible scripture itself is the same as any KJV or NKJV r whatever version. The Bible is not different.

It is scofield notes and reference's that make it a study bible

The same is true of any reference or study bible.. be it scofield, Jeremiah, or any study bible..

If people think any of the notes of any study bible is scripture. They need more help than we can give them

of course but who actually believes that. And why?

.
• Neh 8:7-8 . . Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai,
Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites,
caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their
place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the
sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Well; speaking for myself-- myself alone --I would be a Bible-challenged
dunce were it not for commentators like the guys above. Lucky for me I
realized very early-on that the most unreliable Christians are self-taught
armchair experts; especially those infesting internet forums.

• Eph 4:11-14 . . He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the
apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and the teachers.
_

That's good IMHO.
After I was saved, I was taught dispensationalism, but not that there were different means of salvation. After a few open minded studies since then, I have changed my mind about The dispensation age theory. It's good to hear of your observations. I don't get to Bible conferences or big meetings like I used to.

My problem with the Scofield Bible is that He plastered all his personal notes all through it.

He starts right off by suggesting that creation took much longer than the week the verses say it did.

Perhaps I should have stated that they compiled their Revision from the Alexandrian text. They certainly favored the Vaticanus and Aleph over the TR as well.
I'm opposed to W&H personal beliefs as well as their choice of the Alexandrian.

Regardless, the context was about my personal example affirming what Resident Alien said. My own pastor got caught up in the deception that led him down a dark road to false doctrines.