Scofield Study Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Starfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Starfish

Guest
I have this Bible and I have found it to be wonderful in understanding the Bible. I read in another thread, that it is not good. What could possibly be wrong with this magnificent piece of Scripture?
 
Starfish said:
I have this Bible and I have found it to be wonderful in understanding the Bible. I read in another thread, that it is not good. What could possibly be wrong with this magnificent piece of Scripture?
Click to expand...
Maybe some missing books.🤷
 
I can’t think of ANY missing books. Maccabees is not there, but that was NOT God-Breathed. Scofield has helped me with understanding more than anything else!
 
Starfish said:
I can’t think of ANY missing books. Maccabees is not there, but that was NOT God-Breathed. Scofield has helped me with understanding more than anything else!
Click to expand...
You do realize this is a Catholic site and Catholics accept the Deutorocanonicals as inspired, don’t you?
 
if you search on topics such as millenialism or dispensationalism you will find rebuttals of the interpretation of this self-described “translator” of Sacred Scripture who basically re-wrote the bible to fit his agenda, and did so by the way without any grounding in the original bible languages. here is a link to a non-Catholic site with a book review that rebuts this bible
armageddonbooks.com/100scofield.html

you will find the Catholic view by searching related topics on the apologetics or scripture forums.
 
Starfish said:
I have this Bible and I have found it to be wonderful in understanding the Bible. I read in another thread, that it is not good. What could possibly be wrong with this magnificent piece of Scripture?
Click to expand...
The annotations are anti-Catholic. I like it too, but it is full of bad theology.
 
Starfish said:
I have this Bible and I have found it to be wonderful in understanding the Bible. I read in another thread, that it is not good. What could possibly be wrong with this magnificent piece of Scripture?
Click to expand...
How about that it unabashedly refers to the Catholic Church as “the whore of Babylon” and the Pope as “the anti-Christ”?

NOW do you see anything wrong with it?
 
I grew up pentacostal and was told to use Scofield’s Study Bible.

When I started comparing it to even the “King James Version”, the changes were astonishing!

I asked the Priest about it and he said to GET RID OF IT!
 
Starfish said:
I have this Bible and I have found it to be wonderful in understanding the Bible. I read in another thread, that it is not good. What could possibly be wrong with this magnificent piece of Scripture?
Click to expand...
If you are a Catholic, you have no reason to use a non-Catholic Bible translation with seven books missing and scores of theologically erroneous and anti-Catholic notes.

If you are Protestant – why are you asing us?:confused:
 
pyropam said:
I grew up pentacostal and was told to use Scofield’s Study Bible.

When I started comparing it to even the “King James Version”, the changes were astonishing!

I asked the Priest about it and he said to GET RID OF IT!
Click to expand...
pyropam, what changes did you see? Thank you.
 
Fidelis said:
If you are a Catholic, you have no reason to use a non-Catholic Bible translation with seven books missing and scores of theologically erroneous and anti-Catholic notes.

If you are Protestant – why are you asing us?:confused:
Click to expand...
I am asking because I am seeking information. Perhaps this isn’t the right place?
 
Starfish said:
I am asking because I am seeking information. Perhaps this isn’t the right place?
Click to expand...
Hi Starfish,
You are asking in the right place. I’m just probably not the person who can answer you correctly. I have gotten rid of the Scofield Bible. That sort of makes it difficult for me to go back and quote exact changes for you.

The wording in the Scofield Study Bibly has been “updated” for easier reading and understanding according to it’s publishers. However, the words have been changed which can give a whole new meaning to the scripture.

The foot notes and side notes throughout this bible give a single persons view of what each scripture means.

What I think is important to understand is the following. The Lord did not leave this earth and leave us with a bible. The Lord left us with his apostles. He gave them his word. He taught them what we now hold as true tradition.

Jesus called Peter the Rock! “On this Rock I’ll build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Thus, Peter became the First Pope of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church being guided by the Holy Spirit, then assembled the works and words of the Apostles to create the bible and the Sacred Traditions. This is not just my idea, this is actual HISTORY.

Scofield, like many other versions of the bible have omitted many books that the Church gave us. Why have they done this? To meet their needs and ideas. The different denominations all broke away from the Catholic Church in some form or fashion as they needed to change the way they believe. They chose not to follow the truth.

If you believe the words of Jesus Christ, the the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Catholic Church.

Why is it so hard for protestant people to believe in purgatory? They have removed some of the books of their bible. Why do so many protestants believe that Catholics are wrong and not christian? It is the only way they can justify there being wrong.

If there is a question about a scripture in the bible that you don’t understand, then ask the Catholic Church how that scripture should be interpreted since they are the church that gave you the scripture in the first place.

I hope I haven’t confused you. I will pray for God to give you understanding and peace on your quest for the truth. I pray that he sends his Holy Spirit to guide you to truth and light. I pray that he sends an army of angels to protect you from any evil influence.

God Bless

Pam
 
If you would like a good study Bible, I would recommend the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (which is not yet complete, but the New Testament is just a few months from being finished), the Navarre Study Bible, or the Haydock Douay-Rhiems Bible and Commentary. All three are very orthodox and come very highly recommended.
 
Starfish said:
I can’t think of ANY missing books. Maccabees is not there, but that was NOT God-Breathed. Scofield has helped me with understanding more than anything else!
Click to expand...
Starfish,

Certain books were removed from Protestant translations in the late 1800s. There are Protestants, such as this pastor, who will admit to this fact.

If you have one group of Christians who say that certain books DO belong in the Bible and another group who says that those certain books do NOT belong in the Bible how do you decide who is right and who is not? They can not both be right.

The fact is Catholics, Orthodox, and certain segments of Protestanism are unified on this stance that the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical books ARE in fact Scripture and you have another group of Protestants who say they are not Scripture. Who is right and how do you know that?

As far as the Scofield Study Bible goes I have not personally read it but I have heard many say that it is seriously biased toward certain end times beliefs. If you would like to do a comparsion here is the 1611 KJV Bible. Here is the Catholic New American Bible and the Douay Rheims Bible for comparsion from the Catholic stand point. For the record the Douay online is a work in progress but it should give you a good idea.

You profile does not state whether or not you are Catholic? It would be nice if we had an idea of who we are talking to. May God bless you. 🙂
 
Starfish said:
I can’t think of ANY missing books. Maccabees is not there, but that was NOT God-Breathed. Scofield has helped me with understanding more than anything else!
Click to expand...
This belief is precisely why a Catholic should not be reading a Protestant study Bible. It will teach you things that are incompatible with our faith.
 
Starfish said:
I have this Bible and I have found it to be wonderful in understanding the Bible. I read in another thread, that it is not good. What could possibly be wrong with this magnificent piece of Scripture?
Click to expand...

Because, with good material on basics like grace, it mixes seriously erroneous stuff.​

For example:
  • It regards the prophecies about Israel’s restoration, not as fulfilled in Christ (which was the universal belief of Christians for 1800 years) but as still to be fulfilled; so that Israel is to be a political kingdom, ruled over by Christ in person.
  • It foresees the OT sacrifices as being restored, though it tries to maintain they will be commemorative only; which is not what they were meant to be: they are fulfilled in Christ, so their restoration would take from His Sacrifice, which they foreshowed, in the very way the Mass is alleged to do; but Ezekiel 40-48 (to which appeal is made) is, again, fulfilled in Christ - the fourth gospel applies to Him the ideas in those chapters: He is the true Temple, the river in those chapters is the living water flowing from His side in John 7.38 & in chapter 19.
  • Its explanation of Rev. 20.1-4 applies this vision to this kingdom of Christ on earth which is to last for a thousand years. That passage is the source of the thousand years; & is not talking about an earthly kingdom
  • The notes also say there will be as many as four resurrections.
  • The notes see the Church as falling into total apostasy - Dispensationalism has a profoundly hopeless view of the Church.
    As for that famous verse Matthew 16.18 🙂 - this is what is said:
    ========
    16:18     And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter There is the Greek a play upon the words, “thou art Peter petros-- literally ‘a little rock’, and upon this rock Petra I will build my church.” He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter is careful to tell us ([1 Peter 2:4-9 (1 Peter 2:4-9 - NIV Bible - As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by...)) church 2 (Greek - [ajpovllumi (New Testament Greek Lexicon) (ek==“out of,” kaleo ==“to call”), an assembly of called out ones). The word is used of any assembly; the word itself implies no more, as, e.g., the town-meeting at Ephesus [Acts 19:39 (Acts 19:39 - If there is anything further you want to bring ...) and Israel, called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness [Acts 7:38 (Acts 7:38 - He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with ...). Israel was a true “church,” but not in any sense the N.T. church–the only point of similarity being that both were “called out” and by the same God. All else is contrast. (See Scofield “[Acts 7:38 (Acts - Introduction - Tony Evans Bible Commentary)”) See Scofield “[Hebrews 12:23 (Hebrews 12:23 - to the church of the firstborn, whose names are...)” hell See note, (See Scofield “[Luke 16:23 (Luke - Introduction - Tony Evans Bible Commentary)”) [more…]
 
[ended]

16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.keys of the kingdom Not the keys of the church, but of the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Mat 13., i.e. the sphere of Christian profession. A key is a badge of power or authority (cf) Isaiah 22:22; Revelation 3:7. The apostolic history explains and limits this trust, for it was Peter who opened the door of Christian opportunity to Israel on the day of Pentecost Acts 2:38-42 and to Gentiles in the house of Cornelius. Acts 10:34-46. There was no assumption by Peter of any other authority Acts 15:7-11. In the council James, not Peter, seems to have presided ; Acts 15:19; Galatians 2:11-15. Peter claimed no more for himself than to be an apostle by gift 1 Peter 1:1 and an elder by office 1 Peter 5:1. The power of binding and loosing was shared Matthew 18:18; John 20:23 by the other disciples. That it did not involve the determination of the eternal destiny of souls is clear from Revelation 1:18. The keys of death and the place of departed spirits are held by Christ alone. kingdom (See Scofield "Matthew 3:2")

**========**There is truth here, mixed with error 😦 - for since St. Peter was granted the keys by the free Will of Christ, they are not assumed by him, but freely delegated by the Lord Jesus Who is the Eternal Pastor of the Church; if He did not always hold them, they would be of no value or efficacy.

If Israel were not the Church, then St. James should not have applied to it, in Acts 15, words used by the Prophet Amos. But James saw those words as fulfilled in the Church.

There are two editions of the Scofield Bible AFAIK - of 1909 (republished 1917 - and of 1967.

Here are the notes of the 1917 edition: bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/

Scofield’s ideas about the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6.9-13 are responsible, in whole or in part, for the reluctance of some people to regard this prayer as fit for Christian use:
bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=mt&chapter=06
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top