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. 🍿🍿🙏🙏
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
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.
👍 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.