Scofield's KJV: Turning Christians Into Zionists

[Colonel_Reb]

To be fair, most KJVO churches are pre-trib as well. The two pastors I know who aren't pre-trib are not KJVO. They do preach out of the King James though. One KJVO pastor I know sent me a 10 page, convoluted, unintelligible, copy and paste mess of a Word document trying to Biblically back up his belief in the pre-trib rapture. That's what happens when you try to defend something that isn't there. I believe the pre-tribbers will be in for a rude awakening when the tribulation comes.

 

[FootballDad]

A church which devotes excessive time, and establishes as core doctrine unknowable aspects of eschatology (end times study) is not worthy of consideration by followers of Christ in any event. Arguing premellenialism or amillennialism, pre-trib rapture or post-trib rapture is all well and good, as long as it directs us ultimately to the truth ofJesus Christ. It doesn't really matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", because nobody but the Father ultimately knows.

Where this is dangerous is that if folksthink that they "know" when and how things will happen, there is little reason to try to affect thingsthat are currently happening in this world, such as with governments, leadership,social movements, etc. If we're just going to be checking out"any minute", or even within the next 30 years, why bother totry to affect societal decline when it's all for naught since the Anti-Christ ison the way?

Although I enjoy arguing eschatology andbiblical apologetics, I never let it get in the way of the true core doctrines, and that we (true Christians)are in the business of winning souls for Christ.

1. The Diety of Christ
2. Salvation by Grace
3. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
4. The Gospel
5. Monotheism
6. Jesus is the only way to Salvation
7. Jesus' Virgin Birth
8. Doctrine of the Trinity.

Nowhere in any of those items is a call for the Church to go to war for Israel or to have an "approved" view of eschatology. God will handle those items in a manner in which he chooses. We are to continue the work of the Lord, which would be hard to do if we allow the Marxists and Cultural Marxists to succeed.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

A church which devotes excessive time, and establishes as core doctrine unknowable aspects of eschatology (end times study) is not worthy of consideration by followers of Christ in any event. Arguing premellenialism or amillennialism, pre-trib rapture or post-trib rapture is all well and good, as long as it directs us ultimately to the truth ofJesus Christ. It doesn't really matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", because nobody but the Father ultimately knows.
<div></div>
<div>Where this is dangerous is that if folksthink that they "know" when and how things will happen, there is little reason to try to affect thingsthat are currently happening in this world, such as with governments, leadership,social movements, etc. If we're just going to be checking out"any minute", or even within the next 30 years, why bother totry to affect societal decline when it's all for naught since the Anti-Christ ison the way?</div>
<div></div>
<div>Although I enjoy arguing eschatology andbiblical apologetics, I never let it get in the way of the true core doctrines, and that we (true Christians)are in the business of winning souls for Christ.</div>
<div></div>
<div>1. The Diety of Christ</div>
<div>2. Salvation by Grace</div>
<div>3. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ</div>
<div>4. The Gospel</div>
<div>5. Monotheism</div>
<div>6. Jesus is the only way to Salvation</div>
<div>7. Jesus' Virgin Birth</div>
<div>8. Doctrine of the Trinity.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Nowhere in any of those items is a call for the Church to go to war for Israel or to have an "approved" view of eschatology. God will handle those items in a manner in which he chooses. We are to continue the work of the Lord, which would be hard to do if we allow the Marxists and Cultural Marxists to succeed.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>

FootballDad, I just noticed your post here and I agree with you. Another one of the problems I see with the pre-trib view and the "doctrine" of imminence is that (like you wrote) many of these Christians don't see any reason to fight the evil and lies in the world today. If you believe you have a one way ticket out of Dodge just before everything really falls apart, you are more likely to be apathetic about such things.

By the way, the video I linked in my original post has been removed from youtube because of a copyright claim. There are a couple other videos on youtube that discuss the issue, however.

 

[Tired old White]

How can you tell an unmodified KJV Bible form a modified one? Also what changes were made from edition to edition in the Scofield bible. I have access to several editions because my mother may very well have a complete collection of Scofield Bibles. Over a dozen but there may be some duplicated editions.

 

[snow]

Whats the difference between a Catholic bible and a KJV one? Do they have modified ones as well?
Edited by: snow

 

[Colonel_Reb]

How can you tell an unmodified KJV Bible form a modified one? Also what changes were made from edition to edition in the Scofield bible. I have access to several editions because my mother may very well have a complete collection of Scofield Bibles. Over a dozen but there may be some duplicated editions.

Well, the King James Bible or Authorized Version was first printed in 1611. There have been many changes in spelling of certain words since then and different editions were printed to correct printing errors and standardize spelling of the changing English language. The last major reprint to standardize the language was in 1769. During that 150 year span, some changes were made that affected the meaning of some words. You'll see these if you closely compare a 1611 text reprint and a 1769 text (which was the most common until around 1980).

Over the centuries, the main royally authorized printers of the KJV in England have been the Cambridge University Press and the Oxford University Press. You will find some differences in spelling between KJVs produced by these two presses. One example being Joshua 19:2. Cambridge 1769 text says "or Sheba" meaning another name for Beer-sheba, while the Oxford text says "and Sheba" meaning a different city from Beer-sheba. You'll notice that verse 6 adds up the number of cities, which is 13. With the Oxford text, you get 14 cities, not 13 as verse 6 says. Some King James Only advocates see the Cambridge version from 1769 as being a "pure" edition. Most of those same people don't actually own a 1769 version however. They aren't being produced as they once were and have become increasingly hard to find new. I guess someone could put the standard for "unmodified" at 1611, making all subsequent editions "modified" but that really doesn't make a lot of sense.

As far as the Scofield Reference Bible goes, I can only write about the first two editions from 1909 and 1917. I haven't closely examined the "New Scofield" from 1967 or the "Scofield III" which came out in 2003. All of these editions are KJV and are in fairly wide use among evangelicals and fundamentalists who use the KJV. The first two editions were by Scofield himself and they featured the Oxford University Press text. The notable feature of them to me is that they included Scofield's notes, which introduced many Americans to dispensationalism and the pre-tribulation rapture for the first time. This also includes the belief that Israel and the Christian Church are on "different programs" in the Bible, which is a hallmark of Zionism/Christian Zionism. Strangely, in the 1909 and 1917 editions, Scofield doesn't believe the KJV is perfect because he writes in his notes for I John 5:7 "It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted." As far as I know, the 1967 and 2003 editions have altered some of the archaic (out of use) English words and have also removed/altered some of Scofield's original notes. So, the short answer to the number of Scofield KJVs is 4, 1909, 1917, 1967 and 2003.

I hope I've been of some help, Tired old White.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Whats the difference between a Catholic bible and a KJV one? Do they have modified ones as well?

snow, I'm no expert, but here is my understanding. The main Catholic Bible in English (after the Latin Vulgate) was the Duoay-Rheims, which was published in complete form just before the King James (Protestant Bible) was published. The original D-R is still in fairly common usage, although a couple of newer versions are also being used. These are the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition and the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, and they are both sourced a bit differently than the original D-R. There are other versions as well, based on different prior translations and texts.

No matter which Catholic version/King James version you compare, you get the same main differences. These are the number of books included in the Biblical canon (73 for the Catholic Bible and 66 for the Protestant Bible, the differences are from the Old Testament) and the Apocrypha being part of the Catholic Bible, but not a part of the modern KJV (it was in the original 1611 version). They were also translated from different sources, although there was some overlap between the two.

I hope this helps in some way.

 

[moose]

the apocrypha is not part of the catholic bible, the deuter-canonicals are because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[FootballDad]

Here is a piece that I like that addresses the "extra" books found in the Catholic Bible. The books included are part of the larger group of books that are commonly referred to as apocrypha.


<DIV id=-er>
<H1 ="title">The Apocrypha: Is it scripture? </H1>
<DIV id=-area>
<DIV id=node-833 ="node node--article">
<DIV ="node-inner">
<DIV ="">


by Matt Slick


The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word "apocrypha" (αÀÌκÃÂÂÂÃÂ...Æα) means "Hidden." These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.


The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.


Is the Apocrypha Scripture? Protestants deny its inspiration but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it. In order to ascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages.
<H2>Not quoted in the New Testament</H2>


First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted fromthe Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspired either? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 30px">"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2).</BLOCKQUOTE>


Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were and they never accepted the Apocrypha.
<H2>Jesus' references the Old Testament:from Abel to Zechariah</H2>


Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,'" (Luke 11:51).
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 30px">"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."1</BLOCKQUOTE>


This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesus was referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.
<H2>Jesus references the Old Testament:The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms</H2>


Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the Apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 30px">"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled," (Luke 24:44).</BLOCKQUOTE>


So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalidas their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings" it would not include the Apocrypha for the above-mentioned reasons.
<H2>Church Fathers</H2>


Did the Church fathers recognized the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2<SUP> </SUP>So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.

 

[FootballDad]

Back to Scofield, what primarily differentiates a "Scofield KJV" from what you would call a normal authorized KJV bible are the "Scofield notes", which are simply his commentary on the scriptures included therein. Unfortunately, unlearned folks essentially accept his "take" on things to be virtually part of the Scripture, which leads to all sorts of heresy. Now, he's not wrong on everything, but it only takes an significant error or two (which are easy to find) to soil the entire effort.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

the apocrypha is not part of the catholic bible, the deuter-canonicals are because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

moose, thanks for making me look into this a little further. This is mostly a matter of who is talking about it, although not entirely. What Protestants call the apocrypha in the KJV, Catholics call the deuterocanon, with just 3 historical exceptions. The deuterocanon of the Catholic Bible historically does not include the prayer of manasses, or first and second Esdras. The apocrypha of the King James Bible does. The two share 11 out of 14 texts.

 

[FootballDad]

the apocrypha is not part of the catholic bible, the deuter-canonicals are because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

moose, thanks for making me look into this a little further. This is mostly a matter of who is talking about it, although not entirely. What Protestants call the apocrypha in the KJV, Catholics call the deuterocanon, with just 3 historical exceptions. The deuterocanon of the Catholic Bible historically does not include the prayer of manasses, or first and second Esdras. The apocrypha of the King James Bible does. The two share 11 out of 14 texts.

The original Latin Vulgate and the RC authorized English translation of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims (1582) included all of the apocrypha, or deuterocanon.

 

[moose]

Jesus did not quote all of the old testament, and saint jerome did not reject the deutero-canonicals. Jesus and the 12 disciples used the septuagint version of the old testament.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

There is evidence showing St. Jerome did not want to include the deutero-canonicals, although in the end he obeyed the Church leaders and included them. He really didn't have a lot of choice in the matter, but he made his objections known.

 

[FootballDad]

Although this really has nothing to do with Scofield's KJV, which is the topic at hand, Jerome, who lived in Palestine at the time of his translating the Vulgate, did not want to include the deuterocanon books. Here is a good summary of what happened, this from a Catholic website:

<A name="Jerome Versus Augustine">Jerome Versus Augustine </A>
Until the 4th century most Christians used the LXX as the basis for the OT. Of course there was a considerable amount of literature floating around that was also considered scripture and the early Church councils dealt to a large degree with this issue. What exactly constituted scripture?
Surprisingly Saint Jerome, whose Latin vulgate translation became the official translation of the Catholic Church, did not want to include the Deuterocanonical books in the translation. Jerome lived in Palestine and was aware of the Hebrew canon that had developed. His contemporary Saint Augustine arguing from tradition, wanted them included in new vulgate translation. After conferring with Pope Damasus and realizing most people sided with Augustine, Jerome included the Deuterocanonical books in his translation. (It is important to note that many in Rome were opposed to anything Jerome did -- he was not well liked in the ancient capital.)
I personally like the fact that my really, really old KJV includes these books. I don't necessarily regard them as inspired scripture, due to more than a few glaring inconsistencies with both the Old and New Testaments, but the historical aspects and other things are very interesting.

 

[moose]

Jerome is most frequently cited ass one who held these books in question.But he was in the minority as Augustine and most of the other Fathers looked on these books as scripture.Even Jerome relented once Mother Church made her decision. Jerome was persuaded,against his original inclination, to include the Deutercanonicals in the Vulgate edition of the Bible-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

 

[Observer]

Although this really has nothing to do with Scofield's KJV...

...and yet, maybe it does. You see, that Matt Slick article posted above -- shallow, where it is not misleading -- makes an underlying but fundamental premise regarding authority, and perhaps this is where Scofield went wrong in turning Christians into Zionists. And that underlying premise is that specific "pure" Jews -- in fact, Palestinian Jews around the year 100 A.D. who had consciously rejected the new group called "Christians" -- indeed had the final authoritative say on what properly constitutes the Old Testament writings.

The body of Christians as well as the Hellenized Jewish world at large considered the Greek Septuagint as "the scriptures". This being the case, why would Christian groups 1.5 millenia later opt for the authority of a specific Hebrew version instead? I will propose that it is this harping back to a "pure" (but artificial) Hebraic-specific Judaism that created an environment in which it becomes possible for something like Scofield's Zionism to be accepted.