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.
Christmas Present
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Baptist4life, Jan 5, 2009.
Page 3 of 3
-
-
-
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. -
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.
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'.
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 -
[aside]
Scofield returned to the original AV format - offering a large number of alternative English words for more obtuse 1611 words. They were/are in the center column and quite helpful. Sadly, KJV editions and revisions slowly dropped the translators alternative words; glad CI brought some back!
When these were actually placed IN the text you then have a revised KJV and that was unacceptable to the purists. And the notes did change in the 60's as well. These should be unacceptable to everyone!!
I still use the original Scofield. -
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?
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.
Ed -
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. -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I DO own and read those versions, and I DON'T like the NIV. OK? Doesn't mean I can't use it and other versions to compare things.
I can't change your "feelings" but I wish you'd change your attitude. You're just one of the reasons I don't post much on here. -
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. :rolleyes:
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 -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And, Ed, you can add your name as to another one of the reasons I won't post on here any more. I may have been wrong on a lot of things I posted, I may have changed my mind on some of the things I posted, but I, like everyone on here, had my opinion which I tried to express, and I hope I didn't have the attitude and arrogance that some on here have. I see that this is not a place where Christian love and understanding is prevalent, so I will say....................:wavey:
-
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 -
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
-
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.
Page 3 of 3