Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bobc@hrcca.att.com (Robert V Kemp) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Scofield Message-ID: Date: 25 Dec 90 06:11:36 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 31 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu 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]