It got me thinking about his family Bible after he put it on display. So I looked it up. NOT a Scofield Bible! OMG, has he been signaling all along that he understands? I thought this was a neat and fun little fact. 🍿🍿🙏🙏
Comments (24)
sorted by:
Since OP has not added any context to his post, this is what is believed by many about the Scofield Bible
The Scofield Bible is unequivocally a form of heresy. It is fundamentally the King James Bible, but with intrusive commentary from Cyrus Scofield and certain Jewish rabbis that distort the original message. This added commentary asserts that a Christian's primary duty is to serve God's "Chosen" people, serving as little more than Zionist propaganda that falls far short of representing God's true word.
To make this clear, envision a scenario where the Israeli state media takes the Bible and injects commentary like, "Support Israel or be labeled an antisemite," "Israel is America's greatest ally," "Without Israel, America wouldn't exist," "Iran possesses nuclear weapons," and "Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites, mandated by God—through Israeli state media—to be eliminated in the fight against antisemitism." This is precisely what the Scofield Bible embodies.
Thank you
What made you think it was a Scofield Bible because the thought never crossed my mind.
Anti-dispensationalists are obsessed with the Scofield Bible, they have turned Cyrus Scofield into the boogeyman, it is conspiracy BS. They believe, with zero evidence, that Scofield was secretly backed by da j00s to trick Americans into supporting Zionism.
From Leo AI -
Q: could you address the claim from anti-dispensationalists that Schofield was backed by zionists to brainwash americans into accepting zionism?
The claim that C.I. Scofield was backed by Zionists to create the Scofield Reference Bible as a tool to brainwash Americans into supporting Zionism is a conspiracy theory without credible historical evidence.
While some sources allege that figures like Samuel Untermeyer or the Rothschilds funded Scofield, no verifiable financial or documentary proof supports these assertions. The Scofield Reference Bible was published by Oxford University Press, a respected academic publisher, and its development was rooted in 19th-century dispensational theology, particularly the teachings of John Nelson Darby, not a Zionist plot.
Scofield’s notes emphasize a literal interpretation of biblical prophecy, including the future restoration of Israel, which naturally aligns with some Zionist ideals. However, this theological alignment does not imply collusion or funding by Zionist organizations.
Many scholars and theologians, including critics of dispensationalism, reject the conspiracy theory as baseless and often antisemitic in tone, noting it relies on speculation, circumstantial connections, and outdated polemics rather than historical fact.
Q: would you say that this argument is a straw man?
Yes, using conspiracy theories about Scofield—such as claims he was funded by Zionists or the Rothschilds—to discredit dispensationalism constitutes a straw man argument.
This approach attacks a distorted or fabricated version of the theology by focusing on unproven allegations about Scofield’s motives or funding, rather than engaging with the actual biblical and theological arguments for dispensationalism.
While Scofield’s personal life and theological views can be critically examined, conspiracy-laden claims (e.g., secret Zionist backing, occult symbolism, or deliberate brainwashing) are not supported by historical evidence and often serve to demonize rather than debate.
Therefore, weaponizing these theories against dispensationalism diverts from substantive discussion and fits the definition of a straw man.
I will now accept my downvotes.
I highly recommend the book "Which Bible Would Jesus Use" by Jack McElroy
I personally like to use http://biblehub.com. I can read any verse in dozens of versions and compare them side by side, read it in the Greek and Hebrew, as well as check the lexicon, look up the root words and etymologies, read commentaries, and study concordances all in one.
I looked up the book, it argues for KJV-onlyism, which I personally do not agree with. I would like to note that Scofield's study bible is a KJV, however. I do like KJV but I can not agree with it being the "only perfect translation" as many advocate. Even the authors of the KJV themselves did not see it that way. They explicitly stated that their translation was not perfect. In the preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators acknowledged that their work contained "imperfections and blemishes" and asserted that the translated word should not be denied or forbidden from being current despite these flaws. They disclaimed the privilege of infallibility, arguing that a perfect translation could only be achieved if God provided special divine guidance to the translators, which they did not claim to have received. The translators emphasized that their goal was to produce a better translation, not a perfect one, and they included marginal notes to reflect alternative readings, literal meanings, and variant texts, further demonstrating their recognition of the translation's limitations. This self-awareness of imperfection stands in contrast to the claims of modern KJV-Only advocates who assert the KJV is inerrant and perfect.
I agree that it may not be perfect and even that depends on which version of the KJ you use. However, I strongly believe that so many of the "new" translations have ulterior motives by leaving out verses or changing words into words that might seem more palatable so I'll stick with my KJV.
KJV is a very good translation, it will serve you well 99.9% of the time. There are a lot of very bad translations out there that should be avoided.
I will say that KJV can be a hard read for many people because of the archaic language and I do not fault people for seeking to read different versions, and there are other good translations that use more modern language.
Yes, that's what my daughter and grandchildren say, but I always try to caution them because I have compared at length these "new" translations and I strongly believe that they know people have a hard time reading the KJV and use it against them by changing words and as I said before, leaving out words and entire scriptures. It really bothers me. You might be stunned at how much of this "corruption" there is.
I've never heard anyone say it's inerrant or perfect. (I'm sure you can find someone who does, but still it's a strange point of view.) I'd argue that the humility and self-awareness of its translation team you discuss above support the idea that it's generally better than most other English translations. But to each his own.
I see it a lot, but then again I watch a lot of theological debate channels and stuff. It is a very good translation 99.9% of the time, it is the one I quote most often.
đź‘Ť I agree with you then. Inerrant smells of popery. Even going back to Greek and Aramaic there are slight differences in different versions before they were consolidated. The only way to settle it is through divine revelation, wordless knowings in the heart.
Yes, we receive that divine revelation through the Holy Spirit that dwells within us, through much prayer and diligent study, seeking out the truth, that He may reveal it to us. We must be Bereans, and never stop seeking the truth. And, ultimately, one day Jesus will return, and he will set us all strait on whatever parts we are hung up on, so we have that to look forward to.
I hoped it wasn't. Zionist indoctrination.
What is the significance of it not being a Scofield bible?
Have you seen this? https://youtu.be/kvJDrivQKC8
Yes
Mary Anne MacLeod Trump gave her son Donald a Revised Standard Version Bible in 1955, when he graduated from primary Sunday school at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. This Bible was used by President Trump during his inaugurations and is now on display at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.
Goog AI
When I look back at all the times he referenced it, it dawned on me that there was a reason. Not Zionist dispensation trash! He's always known, me thinks....
What type is it?
1953 revised standard
Revised Standard and New Revised Standard considered one of the closest translations from the original Hebrew and Greek.