Christmas Present

When someone mentions their own notes in their bible, I thought about my Dad's bible. It was a KJV printed by the John A Dickinson publishing company. After his passing I read and reread his notes. How I miss talking with him and our aurguments about the bible were not in disagreements but more about how to say the same thing. LOL He was wise indeed.
Make your notes legable so they can be read by others. You could tell my Dad went to school where good penmenship was expected and graded.

 

You won't get any flack from me for being KJVP.

 

You've been plagarising me again, haven't you? :laugh: Those are my sentiments exactly. People look at me like I have a foot growing out of my forehead when I say this.

I won't have a Bible that's not in paragraph form. The "verse-ization" of Scripture is one of the worst things done to the Bible by humans IMHO. Breaks the context terribly. Leads to misinterpretations since when we see new paragraphs, we think a new thought has begun. Now, I strongly prefer it when the verse numbers are bolded to make them easier to see. When I've done classes/seminars on understanding the Bible, I always recommend people do their study in a paragraphed text as opposed to a seperate verse text. It also chops up the reading of the text when you're preaching.

As for Johnny Mac, his Calvinism isn't what bothers me...its his dispensationalism. He strains to bring out the dispy in texts it isn't there. That said, he's a pretty good expositor for the most part. I know a lot of liberals throw rocks at him, but with a lapse or two he's solid. I wouldn't call him the best conservative preacher out there, but I do listen to him/read his books when I can. Always stimulating and always has the aim of sanctification.

One place where Salamander is right is about the Open Bible. Good study Bible.

Two things shock people re:Scofield. One, that his notes are not divinely inspired and two, that he did update the KJV.

 

Even the division into paragraphs are somewhat artificial I believe, in most of Scripture, and especially in at least in the NT, which in its entirety. was written with no breaks between letters or punctuation, if my info is correct. The same is true with most of the OT, aside from a few Psalms, acrostics, etc., which can be said to effectively be a sort of 'chapter' and/or verse division, again, if my info is correct. The NT was definitely written in all 'upper-case' letters, in the style of "INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDANDTHEWORDWASWITHGODANDTHEWORDWASGOD' as John 1:1 might read in English.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/exhibits/reading/Paul/features.html (p46)

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA 01/GA01_048a.jpg (Codex Aleph)

http://www.dammarilys.com/ (Codex 'D')

The above are three links to 'scans' of three very early NT MSS.

And I believe the Hebrew and Aramaic do not have any distinctions between 'upper and lower case', or punctuation either, as well as not even have any vowels, thus would make Gen. 1:1 read something akin to "htr ht dn snvh ht dtrc dg gnnngb ht n" since Hebrew is read right to left, and I also do not believe that the Hebrew was written with the letters as 'physically close' as the Greek, again according to a couple of texts I have glance at, although since I do not read Hebrew, at all, this part could be an illusion, I admit.

(Not surprisingly, the 'computer' format on my computer will not let me entirely accurately reproduce the text, as found on Bible Gateway of the Leningrad Codex, because 'English' is read from left to right, so I've had to leave off a bit of this even after sending myself an e-mail, even with this verse copied over and then re-copied to the post. , hence I had to leave out the numbering, and a couple of 'sub-titles'.)


http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/full-images/psalm-b.gif

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/full-images/levit-b.gif

The above show a couple of images of the 'DSS'.

Whaddaya'mean Scofield's notes are not inspired? Heret...!

Seriously, Dr. Scofield (and/or the original 7, then 8 contributing Editors) did not update the KJV, at all. However, Oxford University did have a Committee assembled to 'revise' and 'update' the Notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, which they had long ago acquired the rights to, and issue "the New Scofield Reference Bible" (since renamed the Scofield Study Bible) with an 'updated' KJV text in 1967, and later issued a Scofield Study Bible in both the NIV and NKJV versions, and maybe even some others, and I believe some other versions are under consideration.

Incidentally, in the US, the 1909 and 1917 Scofields are now passed into the "Public Domain" and one can get an "original" Scofield or have a Bible printed, any time one chooses, with the 'Scofield' notes of either of those Editions, included, unlike the 'New Scofield' notes. I am not familiar with the many provisions and nuances of Copyright law, but would offer that Dr. C. I. Scofield died in 1921, and the last of the Consulting editors, of the 1917 Edition was Dr. William Pettingill, who passed in 1950.

Ed

 

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. True, the Scofield Reference Bible does give center column readings, in the KJV, but are they anywhere near the alternative words and renderings of the 1611 translators, or are they the words of Dr. Scofield and his consulting Editors? Secondly, did the 1611 have any verse cross-references as side or footnotes, or is this also the construction of Scofield and Co.? I honestly do not know the full answer to either of the questions, but would offer that the translator notes to the 1611 KJV, as found on biblos.com do not appear to resemble what I have seen in any Scofield Bible, however.

If not, then why is the Scofield Bible qualitatively any different in that it is a reference Bible, than is any other such as "Newberry's", "Thompson's", or "Dake's" Reference Bibles, or any other, of any version, published over the last 500 or so years, especially considering the "Study Notes" in the Geneva Bible, were a major objection to it, and had a good deal of bearing on even the translation of the KJV?

Why should any of this be objectionable? This is the same effective argument of the KJVO (despite the fact that the KJVO is usually entirely inconsistent in his or her own handling of Scripture), IMO. Do you use a 1909 Scofield or the "revised" 1917? They are not identical. Or does this one get a pass because Dr. Scofield was directly involved with the first two?

And I find the idea that one set of "uninspired" notes should be unacceptable, while another one is acceptable, to be ridiculous, to say the least.

BTW, what is the difference in any editorial changes made to a KJV (or any other version, for that matter), be they by Drs. Paris, Blaney, Scrivener, Scofield & Co., English, & Co., or any others including some less well known who made 'changes'? Incidentally, Dr. Scofield is the only one of the five named who did not actually change any text.

Oh - really? See above.

Ed

 

So,have you changed your view?Back on 6/1/07 you said that the NIV was "a terrible translation".You went on to say that you "wouldn't even use it to prop up an uneven table leg".

Somehow all your vaunted self-righteous anger about being mistreated for your pro-KJV stance sounds very hollow when put beside those kinds of remarks about the NIV.

I have the feeling that if someone would have said the same things as you did about the KJVs you would have exploded.

 

Frankly, I find this a bit duplicitous from one who has brought up at least 8 times that he considers Rippon to be attacking the KJV for describing it an "the Anglican version" (which is entirely accurate, FTR), and giving his opinion that it is "woefully out-of-date". I fail to see any qualitative difference, here, between you not liking the NIV and Rippon not 'liking' the KJV, which BTW, I do not believe he has ever said, although I have been away from the BB for almost two weeks due to an ice storm and subsequent power outage, so may have missed it.

BTW, I also specifically asked if there were any versions you would consider to be out-of-date, as well, wiht this post -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1358424&postcount=59

but I do not recall you bothering to answer me on this one. Of course, that could be because that thread was closed after only 8 more days and only 133 additional posts, including some by you, I would add.

Incidentally, I still suggest you likely could not tell me which is which as to an "MV", in that post, without a great deal of searching. (Or for that matter, which one is the King James, either.) But I would enjoy seeing your response to which is which, in that post.

If you should consider my linked post above, an 'attack', so be it, I guess. I consider it to be more of an exercise in honesty, personally. I guess we shall see which it is, by your response, or lack of the same, won't we??

Ed

 

I don't believe I ever asked you to change one thing you believed or said, but I did request that you back up statements, and I corrected historical errors in posts.

FTR, the actual KJV is listed as 'A', and the two 'B' and 'C' that 'look' like they are the KJV are actually from the Douay Rheims, and Third Millenium Bible, I believe, if my memory serves, after two weeks away from the BB due to ice. How am I arrogant to ask a legitimate question or ask for one to back up what one is saying??

Ed

 

I see you removed some comments indicating that you have had regrets for past comments regarding the NIV.Are you now regretting your regrets?

You do recognize the inconsistency of your conduct -- don't you?My so-called "attacks against the KJV" were never attacks in the first place while your remarks against the NIV went waaaay overboard.You can't have it both ways bro.

 

Old Threads Should not Be Wasted Or Forgotten

A Golden Oldie from EdSutton. I agree with him on this issue.

 

believe that he is reformed baptist, one of the very best expositors/teachers of the Bible today, He and I would disagree of all of the Gifts ceasing for today, but for overall doctrines viewpoints, good stuff!

Would see him as being as another Charles Ryrie type for study bibles, have used both of them, highly recommended!

 

I always loved the 1967 NSRB, because it does exactly what has already been commented upon: putting the archaic words in the centre column, and placing an up-to-date word in the text. I was never overly crazy about Uncle Sco's notes.
As to Black Letter text, love it!!! I was looking at a Thompson, and the words of Christ are in....PINK !!! How glaring and unreadable. I recently purchased Holman's 400th Anniversary KJV, and it's the same: words of Christ in Pink. Will probably retrn the Bible, because that pink print is too hard to handle.