Scofield and the Bible version issue

Facts are facts, aren't they? (Although personally, I'm a Traditional Text kinda man )

[editted to remove duplicate quotation]

[ August 20, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

I strongly imagine that you are right.

BTW, which KJV did he use? Anybody know?

 

Actually i know some
Independent Fundamental Baptist
groups that long before they were
KJBO were Scofield Only. We know that one
version makes it easier for the readers
to follow the pastor. All with the
same exact edition of one
version and the pastor can say things like:
"our sermon today is from page 947"

 

But you forgot some:

"XI.After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version.
None of the MANY REVISIONS have commended themselves to the people at large.The Revised Version{W&H-Vaticanus/Sinaiticus},which has been before the public for twenty-seven years,gives no indication in any general sense the peoples Bible of the English speaking world."


You see,our position is nothing new.Ol' Doc Scofield REJECTED the Alexandrian/Laodecian washouts,and so do I.

 

Can you give us the exact location
of this that we might check it out?
Thank you.

 

Yes,in the portion labeled XI;on page iii,then it continues on the next page.1917 edition.

 

Thank you AA, I found a fuller quote elsewhere at:

http://www.geocities.com/xenu_rules/ambiguity-accent.html

//Here is another example, this time from the Internet, on the Bible Versions Discussion Board. Fallacy-meister Brent Riggs, a/k/a "Mitex," posted the following citation from C. I. Scofield (the reference Bible editor):

After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions [RV, ASV, Darby, Webster, Young's, etc.] have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, give [sic] no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English speaking [sic] world. (emphases as in original)

//As it happens, at the time of writing I had a copy of the Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 edition, available to me.[2] Turning to the preface, I find:

After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English-speaking world. 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 the 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.[3] (emphasis added)

//Again, notice what a difference a little context makes!//

 

I can't believe Ed beat me to my own Web page.

For the purpose of the discussion, though, you stopped a little short. I summarized Scofield's postion on the text just a few sentences later:

 

I guess it really isn't
deja vu if you REALLY have seen it before?

It really isn't PARANOIA if they REALLY
are you to get you

 

Oh, I've seen it way too much; it goes beyond déja vu to je ne veux jamais revoir cette page!