bobc@hrcca.att.com (Robert V Kemp) (12/25/90)
Does anyone have any experience with or comments on the Scofield Reference Bible? I have been using one (NIV) for my Bible studies recently and find it's annotations very interesting. I consider myself a Fundamentalist (non-denominational, still searching) and wonder if the Scofield doctrine is accepted by most Fundamentalists. Thanks, Bob Kemp ..!att!hrcca!bobc Robert.V.Kemp@ATT.COM [The Scofield Reference Bible was one of the main ways in which dispensational premillenialism was spread in the U.S. This is certainly a common view among "fundamentalists", so I think you'd find that most fundamentalists would consider Scofield acceptable even if they didn't agree with it. But its view is by no means unanimous. I believe most fundamentalists accept that there are multiple theories of eschatology, and that holding to one specific theory is not essential to orthodoxy. An annotated Bible such as Scofield can be useful if you accept its viewpoint, or are interested in looking at how those holding its viewpoint deal with specific passages. But you need to understand that it's written from a particular perspective. The same is obviously true of other annotated Bibles, e.g. the Oxford annotated RSV (which by the way will be out for the NRSV in Feb, 1991), which presents a concensus of "critical" scholarship, and the New Jerusalem Bible, which presents a critical Catholic view. (I'm basing this discussion on comments on Scofield in the Dictionary of Christianity in America, not on personal expereicne with Scofield. My own views are very far from Scofield's.) --clh]
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (01/07/91)
In article <Dec.25.01.11.33.1990.4712@athos.rutgers.edu> bobc@hrcca.att.com (Robert V Kemp) writes: >Does anyone have any experience with or comments on the >Scofield Reference Bible? I have been using one (NIV) for my >Bible studies recently and find it's annotations very >interesting. I consider myself a Fundamentalist >(non-denominational, still searching) and wonder if the >Scofield doctrine is accepted by most Fundamentalists. Scofield is still accepted in Fundamental circles, especially Fundamental Baptist. Personally, I like the Ryrie Study Bible even though I don't agree with all it's annotations either. The thing about the comments is that sooner or later they make you lazy and you stop searching the scriptures for yourself. Read the notes as a commentary. Gary
mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire) (01/09/91)
I have both the Old Scofield (1917 edition) and the New Scofield (1967 edition) Reference Bibles. I use them frequently. The Old Scofield was the only Bible my dad used for years. He wore out at least 5 of them. The New Scofield made changes to the AV 1611 text, and so he never bought one. >>...I have been using one (NIV) for my >>Bible studies recently and find it's annotations very >>interesting. I consider myself a Fundamentalist >>(non-denominational, still searching) and wonder if the >>Scofield doctrine is accepted by most Fundamentalists. Your NIV edition has essentially the same notes as the New Scofield. The editorial committee is almost a "Who's Who" among Fundamentalist scholars -- E. Schuyler English, F. E. Gaebelein, William Culbertson, Alva J. McClain, Wilbur M. Smith, and John Walvoord. These men were very much respected among the dispensation wing of Fundamentalism -- usually characteristic of the moderate Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary, but also including more "militant" (to use George Dollar's characterization) institutions such as Bob Jones University, or Baptist Bible College. The Fundamentalists (I'm using the traditional sense of the word, not the mass media definition) are mostly dispensational. The original Scofield Bible's influence is probably one reason that they are. >Scofield is still accepted in Fundamental circles, especially >Fundamental Baptist. Personally, I like the Ryrie Study Bible even >though I don't agree with all it's annotations either. Ryrie is (or was) a member of the faculty of Dallas Seminary, so he has the same dispensational perspective as Scofield. >The thing about the comments is that sooner or later they make you lazy >and you stop searching the scriptures for yourself. Read the notes as a >commentary. I can say a hearty "Amen!" to this. If you want a reference Bible that will complement your Scofield, I would recommend the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. It has no footnotes, but has extensive crossreferences and many unique helps in the back. Also, make sure you have a good concordance. (Strong's, Young's, and Cruden's UNABRIDGED are all satisfactory. [Strong's for the Strong, Young's for the young, ... Cruden's for the crude ;-) ]) The important thing about a concordance is it lets you find the passages you need to compare scripture with scripture. Well, I've been behind my "bully pulpit" enough for one morning. Hope these brief comments help. Tim McGuire mcguire@cs.tamu.edu
bobc@hrcca.att.com (Robert V Kemp) (01/15/91)
>>The thing about the comments is that sooner or later they make you lazy >>and you stop searching the scriptures for yourself. Read the notes as a >>commentary. > I can say a hearty "Amen!" to this. If you want a reference Bible that > will complement your Scofield, I would recommend the Thompson Chain Reference > Bible. It has no footnotes, but has extensive crossreferences and many > unique helps in the back. Also, make sure you have a good concordance. I am the original poster of this thread and yes, these comments have helped. Before purchasing my Scofield NIV I used a Thompson NIV for about five years. I started to feel that I needed more information than I was getting, but didn't want to burden myself with a single or multi-volume commentary. The amount of notes in Scofield are just about right and I agree with _most_ of them. I was mostly concerned with the acceptance of the notes by fundamental or conservative Christianity. Thanks for all the responses so far. Bob Kemp AT&T ..!att!hrcca!bobc Robert.V.Kemp@ATT.COM