Did Scofield forget some chapters?

This is the first time I have opened The Scofield Reference Bible , I guess that gives away what end time view I don't hold to Wink

Is it supposed to be missing chapters? For example there is no Daniel chapter 1 or 10. I'm not sure about the rest of the resource, but is this normal?

mm.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

John Brumett

I have the Scofield Study and there are bible notes in that section of Daniel

Here is the note for Daniel 2:4

(2:4) From Dan. 2:4 to 7:28 the Book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, the ancient language of Syria, and substantially identical with Chaldaic, the language of ancient Babylonia. Upon this fact, together with the occurrence of fifteen Persian, and three Greek words, has been based an argument against the historicity of Daniel, and in favour of a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander (B.C. 332). It has, however, seemed, with some modern exceptions, to the Hebrew and Christian scholarship of the ages an unanswerable proof rather of the Danielic authorship of the book that, living from boyhood in a land the language of which was Chaldaic, a great part of his writing should be in that tongue. It has often been pointed out that the Chaldaic of Daniel is of high antiquity, as is shown by comparison with that of the Targums. The few words of Persian and Greek in like manner confirm the writer’s residence at a court constantly visited by emissaries from those peoples. It is noteworthy that the Aramaic section is precisely that part of Daniel which most concerned the peoples amongst whom he lived, and to whom a prophecy written in Hebrew would have been unintelligible. The language returns to Hebrew in the predictive portions which have to do with the future of Israel. “The Hebrew of Daniel is closely related to that of Ezekiel.”—Delitzsch.

C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), Da 2:4.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801434#Comment_801434

Thanks John, I have that too, but do you have notes for chapters 1 and 10?

I have the Scofield Study and there are bible notes in that section of Daniel

Here is the note for Daniel 2:4

(2:4) From Dan. 2:4 to 7:28 the Book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, the ancient language of Syria, and substantially identical with Chaldaic, the language of ancient Babylonia. Upon this fact, together with the occurrence of fifteen Persian, and three Greek words, has been based an argument against the historicity of Daniel, and in favour of a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander (B.C. 332). It has, however, seemed, with some modern exceptions, to the Hebrew and Christian scholarship of the ages an unanswerable proof rather of the Danielic authorship of the book that, living from boyhood in a land the language of which was Chaldaic, a great part of his writing should be in that tongue. It has often been pointed out that the Chaldaic of Daniel is of high antiquity, as is shown by comparison with that of the Targums. The few words of Persian and Greek in like manner confirm the writer’s residence at a court constantly visited by emissaries from those peoples. It is noteworthy that the Aramaic section is precisely that part of Daniel which most concerned the peoples amongst whom he lived, and to whom a prophecy written in Hebrew would have been unintelligible. The language returns to Hebrew in the predictive portions which have to do with the future of Israel. “The Hebrew of Daniel is closely related to that of Ezekiel.”—Delitzsch.

C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), Da 2:4.

John Brumett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801436#Comment_801436

Sorry I misunderstood. No there are no notes on these Chapters. Apparently there are sparse notes throughout the Bible on various prophetic passages and other themes so some Chapters are skipped. This is not like our Modern Day Study Bibles with thousands of notes by multiple contributing authors.

MJ. Smith

Is it supposed to be missing chapters?

It's not missing anything ... it merely is choosing not to make any comments on that section. For example it jumps from Ezekiel 38:2 to 43:19. Remember that what we have is the notes extracted from what was printed as a Bible.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801437#Comment_801437

Thanks.

Sorry I misunderstood. No there are no notes on these Chapters. Apparently there are sparse notes throughout the Bible on various prophetic passages and other themes so some Chapters are skipped. This is not like our Modern Day Study Bibles with thousands of notes by multiple contributing authors.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801438#Comment_801438

Thanks.

Is it supposed to be missing chapters?

It's not missing anything ... it merely is choosing not to make any comments on that section. For example it jumps from Ezekiel 38:2 to 43:19. Remember that what we have is the notes extracted from what was printed as a Bible.

Robert M. Warren

Milkman:

I had the same experience. I bought the Scofield, kind of on a lark, kind of for historical reasons, thinking it might offer some insight on early dispensationalism. Like you, I didn't immediately have a need to take a look at it, and when I did a few months ago, I thought a great deal of it was missing. I checked against some online sources, and, as was reported here, the Logos edition seemed to be all there.

I don't think I paid much for it, but if I had known its lack of extent, I wouldn't have paid that. (No knock on Logos; them's the breaks.)

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801445#Comment_801445

Good stuff.

So I'm assuming that Scofield was referencing the KJV or something else.

Milkman:

I had the same experience. I bought the Scofield, kind of on a lark, kind of for historical reasons, thinking it might offer some insight on early dispensationalism. Like you, I didn't immediately have a need to take a look at it, and when I did a few months ago, I thought a great deal of it was missing. I checked against some online sources, and, as was reported here, the Logos edition seemed to be all there.

I don't think I paid much for it, but if I had known its lack of extent, I wouldn't have paid that. (No knock on Logos; them's the breaks.)

Kenute P. Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801456#Comment_801456

I have the Original Scofield Reference Bible, which was printed in 1909, and He does use the Authorized King James Version (AKJV).

I have had this Bible since 1989 and would not part with it. I love anything by C. I. Scofield, as he is solid in his exposition of the Word of God.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801507#Comment_801507

Thanks Kenute for the information [Y]. Sounds like you found a jewel!

I have the Original Scofield Reference Bible, which was printed in 1909, and He does use the Authorized King James Version (AKJV).

I have had this Bible since 1989 and would not part with it. I love anything by C. I. Scofield, as he is solid in his exposition of the Word of God.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801456#Comment_801456

So I'm assuming that Scofield was referencing the KJV or something else.

Kenute answered, and I'll add that my only previous connection with the Scofield reference is when I was a wee lad, I recall my dad had a copy and it was quite large. I don't recall ever reading it, and I don't know what became of it after his death. Now I realize it was the KJV, with a few footnotes, that accounted for the bulk.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801577#Comment_801577

Interesting - thanks.

So I'm assuming that Scofield was referencing the KJV or something else.

Kenute answered, and I'll add that my only previous connection with the Scofield reference is when I was a wee lad, I recall my dad had a copy and it was quite large. I don't recall ever reading it, and I don't know what became of it after his death. Now I realize it was the KJV, with a few footnotes, that accounted for the bulk.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801582#Comment_801582

The introduction shows that Scofield's intent goes far beyond the notes and that the loss of things like his pericope headings etc may skew our appreciation of his reference Bible.

I. It was felt that the old system of references, based solely upon the accident of the English words, was unscientific and often misleading. In the present edition, by a new system of connected topical references, all the greater truths of the divine revelation are so traced through the entire Bible, from the place of first mention to the last, that the reader may for himself follow the gradual unfolding of these, by many inspired writers through many ages, to their culmination in Jesus Christ and the New Testament Scriptures. This method imparts to Bible study an interest and vital reality which are wholly lacking in fragmentary and disconnected study.
II. The last fifty years have witnessed an intensity and breadth of interest in Bible study unprecedented in the history of the Christian Church. Never before have so many reverent, learned, and spiritual men brought to the study of the Scriptures minds so free from merely controversial motive. A new and vast exegetical and expository literature has been created, inaccessible for bulk, cost, and time to the average reader. The winnowed and attested results of this half-century of Bible study are embodied in the notes, summaries, and definitions of this edition. Expository novelties, and merely personal views and interpretations, have been rejected.
III. Helps have been provided, available for instant reference, on the very page where help is needed. For example, at every mention of a Hebrew month, weight, coin, or measure, the English equivalent is given in the margin. Obscure and difficult passages, alleged discrepancies or contradictions, and every important type or symbol are elucidated by new references, or made the subject of an explanatory footnote on the same page.
IV. All of the connected topical lines of reference end in analytic summaries of the whole teaching of Scripture on that subject, thus guarding the reader against hasty generalizations from a few passages or proof texts. The saying that “anything may be proved by the Bible” is both true and false—true if isolated passages are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view.
V. The great words of Scripture, as adoption, advocacy, assurance, atonement, church, conversion, death, election, eternal life, eternal punishment, faith, flesh, forgiveness, grace, hell (whether sheol, hades, or gehenna), imputation, justification, kingdom, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, repentance, righteousness, salvation, sanctification, sin, world (in its four meanings), etc., etc., are defined in simple, non-technical terms. These definitions have been submitted to, and approved by, a very large number of eminent students and teachers of all the evangelical bodies.
VI. Each of the sixty-six books of the Bible is provided with an introduction and analysis, the latter so carried out in the text by appropriate sub-heads as greatly to facilitate the study and comprehension of the book.
VII. The entire Bible has been divided into paragraphs by italicized sub-heads while preserving the chapter and verse division which gives the Authorized Version, among many other superiorities, its unrivalled pre-eminence.
VIII. The remarkable results of the modern study of the Prophets, in recovering to the church not only a clear and coherent harmony of the predictive portions, but also great treasures of ethical truth, are indicated in expository notes. This portion of the Bible, nearly one-fourth of the whole, has been closed to the average reader by fanciful and allegorical schemes of interpretation. The method followed gives ready access also to the amazing literary riches of the Prophetical Books.
IX. The greater covenants of God which absolutely condition human life and the divine redemption, and about which the whole Bible gathers, are analyzed, and their relation to each other and to Christ made clear.
X. The Dispensations are distinguished, exhibiting the majestic, progressive order of the divine dealings of God with humanity, “the increasing purpose” which runs through and links together the ages, from the beginning of the life of man to the end in eternity. Augustine said: “Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures harmonize.”
XI. After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people’s Bible of the English-speaking world. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship.

C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible: The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments (New York; London; Toronto; Melbourne; Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1917), iii–iv.

Paul C

This is the first time I have opened The Scofield Reference Bible , I guess that gives away what end time view I don't hold to

Schofield had an agenda. He proudly promoted his views/theology. I don't have an issue with folks expressing their opinions. I do find it troubling when those views are housed between the covers of a book that is called a Bible. It's too easy for some to be lulled into thinking that the author's footnotes reflect the original meaning. I just prefer commentary in a separate resource.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801608#Comment_801608

Schofield had an agenda. He proudly promoted his views/theology. I don't have an issue with folks expressing their opinions. I do find it troubling when those views are housed between the covers of a book that is called a Bible. It's too easy for some to be lulled into thinking that the author's footnotes reflect the original meaning. I just prefer commentary in a separate resource.

I feel the same way about most Study Bibles. However, in Logos they are, in reality, separated from the text because we only get the notes. I view the notes as a stand-alone commentary.

Paul C

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801631#Comment_801631

Great ! If someone is enlightened enough to separate them in that way, All is well. My allergy to "Study Bibles" started in the day of dead tree books, when it was much harder to distinguish commentary from the Word. ... Even worse if an individual could only afford one Bible, and it contained misleading commentary.

JAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/801632#Comment_801632

I just prefer commentary in a separate resource.

Even worse if an individual could only afford one Bible, and it contained misleading commentary.

Every translation is simultaneously commentary. Sigh.