Errors in study notes

That's OK . . . brother Schofield made an error or two . . .

"I thought that I had made one until I realized that I was right . . . "
Anon . . .

 

Scofield also believed in the contrived gap theory.

 

I don't have the Scofield III, but in the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) the notes on Genesis 1 indicate that a day as recorded in Genesis is not necessarily the 24-hour time period we think of. On the other hand, notes on Genesis 2 indicate that man was created and that we did not evolve as some believe. In other words Scofield apparently believed creation of the universe could have covered an unspecifed period of time while creation of man was not accomplished over an unspecified period of time.

Whew, great relief for me! I'm glad to know one of my grandfathers from way back when didn't come swinging down from the trees and start walking without using his hands!

:thumbsup: :tongue3: :applause:

 

Notes are opinions. Pardon me if this is a bit off-topic, but I have been thinking about this very subject lately. I believe in the literal 24-hour "day" (as we would ordinarilly understand it) in Genesis and here are just two reasons why--

1) Why not a 24-hour day? I mean, that is the way its recorded: as a "day". The all-powerful God that can bring the universe into exsistance can certainly create it in any amount of 'time' He chooses to use. He could have used more, but He also could have used less. He chose a 24-hour "day". Straightforward.

2) I've heard it argued that "day" could not mean a literal 24-hour day for the first three 'creative periods' because the Sun wasn't created until the Fourth Day. I disagree because--

2a) the scripture clearly states that God divided the light from the darkness, and He called the light "Day"(and the darkness He called "Night"); so He essentially created the concept of "day" simultaneously while He literally created light on Day One. The all-powerful God that brought light into exsistance without any external source (such as the Sun), also brought "day" into exsistance without an external source.

2b) God had the foreknowledge of how much 'time' passing (what we describe as 24 hours) will constitute a "day".

2c) our definition of "day" is: the 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis (which does not require a Sun at all). If God had already created the Earth (1:1) spinning upon its axis, there would be a "day" period. Regardless of the Sun's light reaching Earth, as long as the orb spins, there are still "day" periods by definition. The length of a "day" could become longer or shorter (in hours, minutes, etc) if the Earth's rotation were to slow or speed up.

BYW, the 24 is purely a human invention; humanity could have chosen to subdivide one rotation into 36, or 12, or any number (and technically it takes fractionally less than 24 hours to rotate completely once). Its a description... its not real.

God is not limited by 'space' or 'time'; 'time' being the nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present (and into a future).

 

I agree, Franklin. The Bible was not written to confuse. When Genesis 1 talks about a day, I believe in the 24-hour period we normally understand. Another factor that leads to this conclusion is the fact that the Bible says "and the evening and the morning were the second day" or the third day, etc. If the Bible was not talking about the 24-hour time period why would it speak of evening and morning in the same context?

You are absolutely right - study notes are merely the opinion of the person who wrote the notes. Just because something is found in the study notes of the Scofield Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible or the King James Study Bible doesn't mean it is absolute truth.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still like notes and I think they can be appropriate. For example, I appreciate all the 'translator notes' in my NET Bible... I can understand why they translated the text as they did (and choose to agree or disagree).

 

Let me state for the record that the following question is a legitimate question on my part, and that the answer(s) will fill a void in my knowledge base. It is not intended to offend, nor to incite an argument...

Do most KJV-Only advocates believe that the notes in the AV1611 are also 'inspired', 'perfect', 'inerrant', etc.?

 

I know some who accuse that the Translator notes bring doubt
on God. I believe that the Translator notes bring the truth:
God has preserved His Holy Written Word in many forms.

 

I was hoping to hear from some KJV-Only advocates directly (no offense intended, Ed; thanks).