Scofield Study Bible

[Ignatius]

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?

It is quite the opposite of magnificent. It has blatently and grosely anti-catholic commentary. That’s reason enough for a faithful Catholic to stop using it.

 

[Zooey]

Gottle of Geer:

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.

This part is the most troubling to me, personally…I speak as someone who has college credit for a Bible course based on the Scofield Bible; it was this point which made me begin to see the errors Scofield made.
I still have the Bible; but it is rarely in use any more, since I have realized the amount of its “study notes” that I was having to read past, in order to actually read the Bible.
It does a dandy job, IMO, of presenting the dispensational view of Scripture. The problem being: Dispensationalism is, put simply, just plain not true. (Because it tampers with the Scriptures itself…).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This part is the most troubling to me, personally…I speak as someone who has college credit for a Bible course based on the Scofield Bible; it was this point which made me begin to see the errors Scofield made.
I still have the Bible; but it is rarely in use any more, since I have realized the amount of its “study notes” that I was having to read past, in order to actually read the Bible.
It does a dandy job, IMO, of presenting the dispensational view of Scripture. The problem being: Dispensationalism is, put simply, just plain not true. (Because it tampers with the Scriptures itself…).

I got mine (which I too still have) years before becoming Catholic - it’s certainly interesting, but not a good guide to what the Bible means.​

It’s completely contrary to Protestantism (quite apart from what we Papes have to say) to suggest that there is any place now for the OT sacrifices - how is this not, at bottom, Judaising ? It really bothers me too: it degrades the kingdom of Christ into a wretched political regime - which is really dreadful.

I have the old 1917 edition, with the Ussher dates - which is yours ? I read in a criticism of Dispensationalism written since 1967 that the notes have been corrected a bit; so I wondered whether your edition has the changes.

 

[Zooey]

I have the 1917 and the 1967, actually. (Textbook, remember).The newer one’s notes are a good deal toned down in the anti-Catholic department.
Unfortunately, what it makes up for in that department, is offset by the fact that the actual words of the Scripture have been altered, to make it “fit better” with the dispensationalist theology.(The cross-references are as good as any Bible I have ever seen. It’s unfortunate that they aren’t available without all the side commentary).

Another thing that I have found deeply disturbing about the Scofield, is the way that the notes have achieved a kind of “faux-canonization” of their own. The number of times I have said to someone, “That’s not the Bible, that’s just the notes”, & gotten the reply, “Oh, no! It’s right in the Bible; see?”. And they show me :banghead: a footnote from Cyrus Scofield…printed in their Bible.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have the 1917 and the 1967, actually. (Textbook, remember).The newer one’s notes are a good deal toned down in the anti-Catholic department.
Unfortunately, what it makes up for in that department, is offset by the fact that the actual words of the Scripture have been altered, to make it “fit better” with the dispensationalist theology.(The cross-references are as good as any Bible I have ever seen. It’s unfortunate that they aren’t available without all the side commentary).

Another thing that I have found deeply disturbing about the Scofield, is the way that the notes have achieved a kind of “faux-canonization” of their own. The number of times I have said to someone, “That’s not the Bible, that’s just the notes”, & gotten the reply, “Oh, no! It’s right in the Bible; see?”. And they show me :banghead: a footnote from Cyrus Scofield…printed in their Bible.

Thanks. I’ve heard the reference notes are very well done - it may be significant that the Oxford University Press, which was his publisher, had already published editions of the Bible with excellent chain-references.​

In case it’s OTT to ask this - can you tell me more about the text of the 1967 edition: what sort of alterations are we talking about ?

OTOH, it’s not clear that the question is OTT. But there it is

For the OP - a Catholic site with several links discussing Dispensationalism: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/disp/dispindex.html

 

[Zooey]

In case it’s OTT to ask this - can you tell me more about the text of the 1967 edition: what sort of alterations are we talking about ?

I think its on topic, because it goes to the reliability of the Scofield in general…
Without dragging it out from under a pile of other books, & since you are familiar with the Scofield notes…As long as they were mere footnotes (as C I Scofield, to give him credit, intended), his opinions could be ignored. But in '67, where there was a note that suggested–or insisted upon–an alternate reading), in the original; the revisers imported those words into the text as a substitute for the actual words of Scripture, putting the removed words into the note.
In a word, they have raised the interpretation of Scofield over & above the actual text.
It was bad enough, as I said before, that people were thinking that the notes were somehow “inspired”; what made it worse, was to follow that through to its logical (& shocking) conclusion, & change the notations of “this means such & such” into having **Scofield’s **words preferred over the words of the Bible…
It is the Geneva Bible all over again; or Tyndale/Wycliffe, inserting their opinions (political as well as theological) into what the ordinary reader assumes is the Biblical texts. Another sad chapter in the English language’s long history of dishonest Biblical “scholarship”.
The 1917 can be read as a King James Bible; since 1967, the text stays just close enough to the KJV, for the casual reader to believe that is what is in his hands…but it is not. It is a revision of the Bible, using Cyrus Scofield’s notes as the only standard for comparison…
If Scofiled said in a note, “or better,” & added his own idea of the text, this note is now gone, & the “better” version now simply appears as the actual translation.
At first, it was honestly admitted, that a revision of the text had been done. As far as I am able to tell, from looking at newer copies of the '67, this has been toned down…perhaps for the KJV-Only crowd.

 

[Manfred]

I think its on topic, because it goes to the reliability of the Scofield in general…
Without dragging it out from under a pile of other books, & since you are familiar with the Scofield notes…As long as they were mere footnotes (as C I Scofield, to give him credit, intended), his opinions could be ignored. But in '67, where there was a note that suggested–or insisted upon–an alternate reading), in the original; the revisers imported those words into the text as a substitute for the actual words of Scripture, putting the removed words into the note.
In a word, they have raised the interpretation of Scofield over & above the actual text.
It was bad enough, as I said before, that people were thinking that the notes were somehow “inspired”; what made it worse, was to follow that through to its logical (& shocking) conclusion, & change the notations of “this means such & such” into having **Scofield’s **words preferred over the words of the Bible…
It is the Geneva Bible all over again; or Tyndale/Wycliffe, inserting their opinions (political as well as theological) into what the ordinary reader assumes is the Biblical texts. Another sad chapter in the English language’s long history of dishonest Biblical “scholarship”.
The 1917 can be read as a King James Bible; since 1967, the text stays just close enough to the KJV, for the casual reader to believe that is what is in his hands…but it is not. It is a revision of the Bible, using Cyrus Scofield’s notes as the only standard for comparison…
If Scofiled said in a note, “or better,” & added his own idea of the text, this note is now gone, & the “better” version now simply appears as the actual translation.
At first, it was honestly admitted, that a revision of the text had been done. As far as I am able to tell, from looking at newer copies of the '67, this has been toned down…perhaps for the KJV-Only crowd.

I once possessed a Scoffield VERY briefly; to wit, I purchased one on sale at a Christian Book Distributors (CBD) warehouse sale (it was recommended to me by a co-worker who was a fundamentalist, albeit unbeknownst to me). unfortunately, this was almost 20 years ago, and I don’t remember if it was the 1917 or 1967 edition, though I do recall that some parts of the KJV text were slightly altered in the interests of clarity.

When I brought it home and started to flip through its pages, I was more than a little shocked to see that the chapter headings of the OT Prophetical books were referrring to the Catholic Church as “the whore of Babylon” and to the Pope as “the anti-Christ”. Needless to say, I promptly returned the book for less than full credit, even though I’d only had it for less than one week, and CBD was highly annoyed because (1) I didn’t like the book, and (2) I’d asked for a refund!

All in all, not a good edition of the Bible for Catholics to read.

 

[Starfish]

I can read this Bible with ease. It is the New American Standard Bible and it gives me great comfort. I cannot see anywhere in it where the Catholic church is attacked.

 

[Manfred]

I can read this Bible with ease. It is the New American Standard Bible and it gives me great comfort. I cannot see anywhere in it where the Catholic church is attacked.

I cannot say the same for the KJV Scoffield I held briefly; that’s why I sent it back.

Perhaps a more current edition with the NAS instead of the KJV contains a subdued message, since it’s not as likely to be used by fundamentalists with a KJV-only mindset.

 

[bpbasilphx]

One wag once said of the SRB that the Biblical text shed great light on the notes.

And Maccabees is TOO God-breathed (to use that horrible calch).

 

[Manfred]

One wag once said of the SRB that the Biblical text shed great light on the notes.

And Maccabees is TOO God-breathed (to use that horrible calch).

Come again?

Just which Scoffield edition has Maccabees in it?

 

[Starfish]

“one wag”???

OK, I give.

 

[inthecloud]

I have a Spanish language version of the Scofield Bible, based on the Reina-Valera calvinist XVI century translation of the Bible. Is still very anticatholic but in a more subdued way. The Whore of Babylon is the “apostate religion”. It does not names names but we all know what the fundies mean for that. Catholics, Orthodoxs and liberal protestants. And very dispensationalist. Rapture minded.
When I’m serius I stick to my spanish language Catholic Bibles.

 

[Zooey]

I can read this Bible with ease. It is the New American Standard Bible and it gives me great comfort. I cannot see anywhere in it where the Catholic church is attacked.

I cannot say the same for the KJV Scoffield I held briefly; that’s why I sent it back.

Perhaps a more current edition with the NAS instead of the KJV contains a subdued message, since it’s not as likely to be used by fundamentalists with a KJV-only mindset.

Yes, I think that’s probably right. There are any number of modern translations now available with Scofield study apparatus.
I have no doubt that they may have toned things down, to reach a wider audience.

 

[Starfish]

Well, this is definitely my Bible of choice and it is also my best friend.