Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Reba
The "Scofield" Bible is a KJV Bible. C.I. Scofield added his study notes to the Bible. It is still all KJV. It is clear in the Bible which parts are his notes, and which parts are Scripture. It is fine to use Scofield, as long as you remember that those are just study notes added. His notes are not equal to Scripture. He never claimed that his notes are Scripture. They are just notes to understanding.
I have a Scofield Bible, in addition to my regular KJV. I prefer my regular KJV but sometimes I use the Scofield for reference study. My Pastor uses Scofield.
Here is a link that gives some information about Scofield:
http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm
If you can, go to a book store and look thru a Scofield, to get an idea of how it is arranged. |
I have a Scofield Study Bible (KJV), but I learn that C.I. Scofield supported the Critical Text (CT) instead of the Textus Receptus (TR). I fully reject the CT because the CT is behind the conspiracy of the Roman Catholic system.
Look at this Scofield Bible with the CT. Let me give you an explanation of how Scofield used the CT for the references or footnotes.
The footnote on Mark 16:9-20 said,
Quote:
|
The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vactican, and others have it with partial omission and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.
|
Scofield is right about the footnote, but he is
wrong because he did
NOT give you the manuscript evidence concerning the last verses of Mark 16. Why did he not answer the fact?
Where is the evidence?
Marginal notes tell you some phrases of the passage from the CT and replaced for other meanings or phrases. Also the introduction negates the AV (KJV). I disagree with that.
I do not recommend the CT reflecting to marginal notes and footnotes in the Scofield Study Bible. Other explanations
THAN the CT are good.