Scofield and the Bible version issue

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by natters, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    AA said "Look @ any OLD Scofield Bible for instance,Ol' Doc Scofield rejected the Alexandrian/Laodecian washouts back before 1930."

    I may have missed a few, but all the following is from the "old" Scofield Bible:

    From the preface:
    "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."

    Footnote on Matt 17:21 says:
    The two best MSS. omit verse 21.

    Footnote on Matt 23:14 says:
    The best MSS. omit verse 14.

    Footnote on Matt 25:14 says:
    Omit the italicised words, "the kingdom of heaven is".

    Footnote on Mark 9:29 says in part:
    The two best MSS. omit "and fasting."

    Footnote on Mark 11:26:
    Verse 26 is omitted from the best MSS.

    Footnote on John 5:3 says:
    The Sinai MS. omits "waiting for the moving of the water." and all of John 5:4.

    Footnote on Acts 7:59 says:
    Omit God. Lit. And were stoning Stephen as he was invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, give welcome unto my spirit.

    Footnote on Acts 8:37 says:
    The best authorities omit v. 37.

    Footnote on Acts 16:7 says:
    R.V. adds "of Jesus", as in the best authorities.

    Footnote on Acts 17:26 says:
    "blood" is not in the best manuscripts. R.V. omits.

    Footnote on Acts 19:2 says in part:
    Not as in A.V., "since ye believed," but as in R.V. and marg.: "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?"

    Footnote on 1 Corinthians 1:8 says in part:
    A.V. has "day of Christ," 2 Thessalonians 2:2 incorrectly, for "day of the Lord"

    Footnote on 1 Corinthians 15:45 says:
    Omit italicized words "was made."

    Footnote on 2 Cor 3:14 says:
    Omit the word italicized "vail".

    Footnote on Gal 3:24 says in part:
    Omit "to bring us."

    Footnote on Philippians 4:11 says:
    Omit "therewith."

    Footnote on Col 2:2 says in part:
    The best authorities omit "and of the Father, and of Christ."

    Footnote on Col 2:11 says:
    Omit "the sins of."

    In the Introduction to 2 Thess:
    The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the A.V. of 2 Thessalonians 2:2 where "day of Christ is at hand" should be, "day of the Lord is now present"

    Footnote on Hebrews 11:26 says:
    Omit "of the reward".

    Footnote on Hebrews 12:1 says:
    Omit "the."

    Footnote on 1 Pet 3:20 says:
    Omit "once."

    Footnote on 1 John 2:2 says in part:
    Omit words "the sins.".

    Footnote on 1 John 5:7 says:
    It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.

    Footnote on 1 John 5:8 says:
    Omit "in earth."

    Footnotes on Rev 6:1,3,5 and 7 says:
    Omit "and see."
     
  2. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Facts are facts, aren't they? ;) (Although personally, I'm a Traditional Text kinda man [​IMG] )

    [editted to remove duplicate quotation]

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

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have and love my "old" Scofield. While I don't agree with his "gaps" or his "church-age" hypotheses, his work has done much good.

    Glad to see he was not in the "only" camp. But funny, I'd wager MANY of the ruckman sect will USE a Scofield!
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I strongly imagine that you are right.

    BTW, which KJV did he use? Anybody know?
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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" [​IMG]
     
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you give us the exact location
    of this that we might check it out?
    Thank you.
     
  8. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes,in the portion labeled XI;on page iii,then it continues on the next page.1917 edition.
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!//

    [​IMG]
     
  10. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    AA said "You see,our position is nothing new.Ol' Doc Scofield REJECTED the Alexandrian/Laodecian washouts,and so do I."

    Your position is not the same as Scofield's position. He chose to publish a KJV simply because none of the other versions were widely popular yet. He still believed that the "best manuscripts" were of the Alexandrian type, and he believed the work of textual critics like Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort and others corrected the inaccuracies of the textus receptus - is that your position? No. So stop trying to appeal to Scofield as support for KJV-onlyism before 1930, it only make you look silly.
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't believe Ed beat me to my own Web page. :rolleyes:

    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:

     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The AnglicanVersion only sect pulled a quotation out of context to make it "appear" as if Scofield believed what they believe?

    I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 [​IMG]
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I've seen it way too much; it goes beyond déja vu to je ne veux jamais revoir cette page!
     

Share This Page

Loading...