Scofield Reference Bible

I would be interested in hearing about this also. I have to buy one for an upcoming class of mine.

Jamie

 

Scofield is a good basic study bible. I like that he teaches dispensationalism. I've yet to see any study bible that I 100% agree with all notes.

 

Don't have a Scofield but would very much like the first-hand scoop on the original Scofield.

 

I have a Scofield NASB and pretty much find the commentaries very helpful (I lean towards being dispensationlist), except for his comment on "formless and void" in Gen. 1.2. He states there are 2 views:
1. The Original Chaos interpretation that sees this as an the first stage of the earth's existence
2. The Divine Judgment interpretation that sees the earth in verse 2 in a condition "subsequent to its creation, not as it was originally" and he references here Is. 14. 12 and Ez. 28.12

I had heard that Scofield held to the gap theory of creation and I suppose explanation 2 is it? I reject that view and don't even think it deserves mention, nor that the references he gives support that view.

Other than this, I am happy so far with this Bible (but I also use others like John MacArthur's NASB study bible and the NET Bible).

 

Pros and Cons

Like any other Study Bible, it does have it's pro's and con's...

I have an Old Scofield as well, in fact, I had posted in here a long time ago... that I was praying for one, and a wonderful member, (of whom shall remain anonymous) bought it for me, and shipped it right to my house.

Pro's: Not overdone with Notes -- just important stuff, Great thumb-indexing system, and the Large Print Version, (like I own) is great on tired eyes...(like mine!) Lay out is very nice! Subject Index and Concordance is awesome...great for preparing sermons...

Cons: Gap Theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it is written from a Dispansational Viewpoint, so it's not doctrinally neutral, It doesn't take a clear enough stand on the signs and wonders ceasing, he could have said more about this.

Truthfully, Scofield was NOT Baptist, he was a Presbyterian and Pastored a Congregational Church, before devoting his time fully to completing his Bible.

Yes, it is true, he was married and divorced and remarried. This happened Before his Salvation. He was a lawyer, and quite smart too.

All in All, I like mine. and I'll more than likely use it, till it quits or I do. one or the other! :laugh: :tongue3:

If you get it, get the Genuine Leather, easier to keep clean and it looks pretty sharp too!

-WTD

 

I also have an Old Scofield Study Bible--KJV. Except for the fact that C.I. Scofield taught the Gap Theory, this is a very good study bible. It is the bible I take with me to church.

 

If you want to see the gap theory in action get a Dake's. If I remember right, he's the one that says there was a world that existed before this one which was made void in vs 2. I apologize to Dake if he's not the one who said that.

 

I've used three "Scofield" Bibles over the years. A 1917 edition, a "New Scofield", my favorite for many years, until someone 'borrowed' it from my cab, and now a NJKV version.

I would happily pay the price for a "wide margin" "New Scofield" again, and would pay about what anyone asked, should they return the "borrowed" copy, as it had almost twenty-five years of notes in it. The primary reason I liked my New Scofield was that I located many things by location on the page, even when not conciously aware I was doing so, finding it more difficult to do so in another edition. Generally, I believe the notes are good, (and would guess that I now reference them about one time every two to three months or so) but they are just that- notes- and are not to be mistaken for any definitive interpretation of Scripture. Anyone disagree with this. overall?

Ed

 

Well, not really now... Dake was into the Pre-Adamite World stuff, I think as well, he did believe in the GAP theory, I'd have to dig out my dake's and check...(I used to be pentecostal for 21 years... so, I know these things...) (thankfully, I was delivered from that cult of blatant stupidity. raise

 

Another positive vote here. I picked up my Scofield several years ago with no prior knowledge or prompting of others. I just preferred it to every other reference Bible I saw for the same reasons noted above.

Having said that, I also agree 100% with some of the other comments, specifically regarding the gap theory. He doesn't go into detail at all on it and it is only referenced once, I believe.

Funny you should make the comment about page location, Ed. I do that all the time. I may not have the verse reference, but I can "see" in my mind exactly where on the page it is located and usually the book (or close), so that it usually only takes a few seconds of flipping (and looking at, say, the upper right corner) to find whatever I'm looking for. Don't know if I could go to another Bible now!

And, yes, as with any reference Bible, notes are just notes and to be studied in light of the Scriptures - not the other way around. But that's one thing I like, his notes are usually short and straightforward and usually dead-on right in my opinion.

I never knew Scofield was a Presbyterian, though! Or any of the other history. Thanks, WinDork!

Wes

 

Same here!

 

Well let the love fest begin! I couldn't think of a worse study bible then Scofield! The notes are partial at best and he avoids tough subjects like divorce, can't imagine why? If you are of the dispensational bent, you could do so much better. Ryrie comes to mind. There is also the Baptist study bible, you could also go with the MacArthur Study Bible all of which make Scofield look like a poorly prepared Sunday School teacher. Don't waste your time or money on Scofield. I can't imagine a professor requiring it for serious study, that was a stunner.

 

My first real Bible after being saved in 1969 was a "New Schofield Reference Bible." This is one of my all time favorite Bibles. It served me very well until my Church got involved in the heresy of KJVOism. Then, I had to get an "Old Schofield Reference Bible" or suffer ostracism from my pastor. I always thought it was funny that he had no problem with the New Schofield for over a year, and then it was unacceptable. Of course I was a teenager then and listened to the pastor. If I had known what I know now, I would have left the church.

 

I have an Old Scofield, I can't say I love it but it is nice that it the references aren't constantly leading me to dead ends like my old Bible. I do not agree with it on the Gap Theory, because I take the Bible literally. But other than that I have few problems with it. I actually didn't even notice that it supported the Gap Theory until just last Sunday when Bro. Donovan (from Ruckman's ministry) came to my church and at a question answer session that subject was brought up.

I have heard that the New Scofield is supposed to be hypocritical, but I don't know how or anything, that is just what I have heard.

My grandma, says that the best Bible (for accuracy of references and ect) that you can get is a Cambridge, then she says Old Scofield. And shortly after she told me that she found a new one she really likes called the Laymans Bible. I forget who it is put out by, but I know she really likes it too. And Grandma is the strongest Christian I have EVER known.

 

I have the old Scofied Bible, but I was shocked that it used the CT. How sad!

 

CT? What is CT?

 

I'm looking in to getting one. http://www.god4me.com/focus.asp?item=1G02L303SP-1

 

Critical Text.

 

The text of the Old Scofield is the standard Oxford edition of the KJV that has been printed since at least the mid 1900's. Where does the KJV text in the Old Scofield Reference Bible supposedly use or follow the Critical Text?