Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Scofield Message-ID: Date: 9 Jan 91 08:45:59 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University Lines: 50 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu 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