Both Scofield and Ryrie led interesting lives. Personally I have benefited greatly from many of Ryrie's books. He was a great communicator and so beautifully represents the gift of pastor/teacher. .And his personal integrity is a great model.
I actually had both of these Bibles, I still have my Ryrie Study Bible. I loved my Scofield, it was my first given to me from my parents, I miss it. I must admit I go to my Ryrie constantly, still my favorite study Bible.
I just discovered you and your channel now today. How pleasant, interesting and educational it was to listen to you. Thank you so much for this presentation. I’m gonna search up more videos from you.
Thank you for this comparison of Scofield Study Bible 3 and Ryrie Study Bible.I understand that from your explanation of the Scofield Study Bible 3 that it still retains the "gap theory" while Ryrie Study Bible does not teach the "gap theory".,My first study Bible was a Scofield Reference Bible 1917 hardcover edition so I adapted the "gap theory" for a while but after doing more research and study I abandoned and became young earth creationist through help of Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research.I now use the Ryrie Study Bible because it is not only teach the premil pretrib rapture but also of its view of a young creationism.
Thanks for the review. The background on each is appreciated. I am not a dispensationalist . I fall heavy in to the Amill camp . I do think I should purchase one just to get a grip on what dispensationalism has to say . The Ryrie looks like it fill the need . Thanks. Your channel is a blessing for the student of scripture brother . Blessings
It should be noted that Scofield did not originate the gap theory. He simply adopted it. The Gap theory is a failed attempt to make the Bible more palatable to those who believe the earth is billions of years old. Much like Theistic Evolution the Gap theory is not based on the teachings of Scripture but on a desire to compromise with modern “science”. These theories are largely dismissed today by both Bible believing scholars and educated Christians as they neither fit Scriptural teachings or satisfy an “old earth” worldview. Both views present issues scientifically and theologically. Christians really just need to decide if we believe the Bible or not and stop trying to shoehorn Scripture into fitting what the world teaches.
I had the New Scofield 1967 KJV. It contained some great notes and book introductions. What I didn’t like was the way the text was “tampered with.” I like the Scofield III which leaves the KJV text as is.
The Scofield 2 put modern words into the text and put the original KJV words into the notes. It didn't go over very well. The original version is put out in two versions, the Old Scofield and the Classic. I believe that the Classic is a bit smaller. The 3 removes Usher's dates, puts the references in the side margins and puts the original words back into the KJV text. Also, the 3 comes in a variety of translations. I only use the KJV so I have never seen how any of the other versions compare. I like the extra maps and such that the 3 puts in, it was not a bad update, but it just isn't a Scofield anymore at that point in time. It's like the new comfort print Thompson Chain. It's a good reference Bible and a very nice job of updating, but it just isn't a Thompson Chain anymore, I think they should call it something else.
@rickking3805..... Yes I was thinking the same thing you stated regarding the Scofield III... see my comment above.. You verified my point... sorry for this late response...
Thanks for the overview. Yesterday, I got this answer from a question I asked online: “@RogerMetzger ‘classic dispensationalism’ is a term used by Craig Blasing and Darrell Bock in Progressive Dispensationalism. The dispensationalism taught by Darby and Scofield is nuanced from that taught by Ryrie, Pentecost, & Walvoord and progressive dispensationalist like Saucy, Bock and Blasing. The commonality is the distinction between Israel and the Church.” Is there (or do you know whether there is) a distinction between Darby/Scofield’s timeline of the future and that of Ryrie, Pentecost, & Walvoord? If so, is there someplace online where I can see a visual comparison of the two? Is there (or do you know whether there is) a distinction between Darby/Scofield’s timeline of the future and that of Saucy, Bock and Blasing? If so, is there someplace online where I can see a visual comparison of the two? We had to postpone getting our snowblower repaired in order to get tires for the pickup so I’m not in a position to buy any books on the subject but can you recommend some other way for me to try to understand these various strands of eschatology? For example, do you know in what ways (if any) the second or third groups object to the theology of Darby and Scofield? Or whether the second and/or third iterations of dispensationalist theology are merely more detailed versions of the theology of earlier dispensationalists? Please don’t lose any sleep over how to answer these questions. I’m not sure how soon I’ll have time to delve deeper into such questions but, for more than sixty years, I’ve been interested in trying to follow various theology streams back to their sources.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you are correct about the Scofield Bible III. The original Scofield was 1909/1917 as you say. Then in 1967 came the NEW Scofield REFERENCE Bible revised by the 8 editors you mention. The Bible text was a modified KJV, just updating select words for clarity. The Scofield STUDY Bible III was a further update sponsored later by Oxford Univerity Press (copyright holder) that added more modern versions (NKJV, NIV) and added significantly to the notes, charts, maps, and other study helps. One interesting bit of Scofield history is that the famous reformed preacher Donald Grey Barnhouse liked the Scofield Bible, was a dispensationalist, and accepted the Gap Theory (see his book The Invisible War). When I first visited Tenth Presbyterian Church many many years ago, the pew Bible was the 1967 Scofield Reference Bible. Of course now it is the ESV.
I'm not sure my wife would go for the, "Dr. Ryrie's collection was worth millions." argument for me buying more Bibles/books either. But, it DID earn you a like and a comment in 2024.
Thank you for explaining the theological position of Charles Ryrie. I just found out I am a pre-millennial dispensationalist! Seriously, I knew of the Ryrie study Bible as it was just coming in vogue as I started Bible College but I never owned one as it was the Harper Bible NASB (I think) required for my Bible lit class. I love the NASB and have a harder time finding study Bibles being offered in NASB so I have given serious consideration to picking up a Ryrie and am looking for one which does not heavily push certain theological positions. An issue is size and weight. Although I can get my loved Thompson Chain reference in NASB to replace my Kirkbride NASB Thompson, in a stunning new leather addition, it is huge and weighs 50 lbs. Handy size Thompson are not offered in NASB. It seems the Ryrie might give me a good balance of useful study notes, stunning leather, not huge size in a NASB package. I appreciated this dive into who Ryrie was. Thank you.
I have both of these. I will admit though that while I like them both, when compared to more modern study Bibles (ESV-SB, CSB-SB, NKJV-SB, NIV-SB, etc…) they feel somewhat dated in format. Good information in both though especially for a traditional Baptist. Scofield III really doesn’t teach the gap theory anymore between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 as it simply states there are two common interpretations then briefly notes the “standard” understanding most of us take and a “divine judgement” interpretation (gap theory). It offers no opinion on either view though.
The SRB III is NOT the 1967 edition, which was sold in 1967 as the New Scofield Reference Bible. Thus there are probably at least 4 SRBs: 1909, 1915, 1967, ~2002, which apparently put the old KJV words back into the text, reversing the KJV changes of 1967 by way of making the change in the note, instead of the KJV in the note -- 1967 took out obscure KJV words, replaced them with a modern word, and stuck the original in the note. I don't know how else III differs from 1967, if at all. I think that SRB III is misnamed & should be SRB IV.
I am not sure you are correct regarding the 1967 and a Scofield III. from around 2003 .. I believe the 1967... has many King James words put into the footnotes. while placing the updated word into the bible text and bracketed ... I do not recall the Scofield III doing this... I believe.. before checking ....that the study notes may be updated and borrowed from the R. Schuyler English committee... while retaining the original text of the old Scofield... it is called Scofield III. because it is a transformation of the Old and New 1967 release.. into a combination of the two..... but as I said.. I will check my copies out...
@@BestBibleCommentaries upon checking through my Scofields..apparently I am Not in a position at this time to compare ..since I do Not have a bible that states "Scofield III".. perhaps at one time I was Going to get one and changed my mind... but. Looking through what I do have.. and several newer editions published after 2003... . the newer editions I have do Not read like the E. Schuyler English one does.. I have an original 1967 copy and one from 1969... that the New Scofield and they are identical regarding bible text.. the Old King James words... some of them are changed and bracketed for instance in Genesis 1:11 the NEW Scofield reads... "And God said , let the earth bring forth [vegetation],..." AND in the footnote for that verse it states "KJV grass" so... I would look at your Scofield III...and if you do Not see the bible text written like that.. we must conclude that possibly that change in the New Scofield caused such an uproar and drop in sales.. that those scholars on the E. Schuyler English committee... determined.. to increase their commentary notes and change the bible text back to what the original KJV read... looks like I will have to see what Scofield III's are up on E-bay... since the commentary looks as though it has increased a lot.. even from the New Scofield notes..
@@BestBibleCommentaries Oh! Thanks for telling me about him. I just did a quick search for him. He was born in 1930, and he's still alive. And he's Reformed! For some inexplicable reason, I wouldn't expect a reformed person to be a gap creationist. Many of the gap creationists I know are at least 60 years old. I think that doctrine was more popular from the 1800s through the mid 1900s than it is now. I've met only one other person who believes in it. I actually started believing in gap creationism before I even knew what it was. One of my friends who went to seminary was the first one to tell me about the label after he heard me exegete Genesis 1 when I was early in my spiritual development, and he discouraged me from believing in it. I went on to read several books on it. I love talking about it.
Cairn University? Scofield was a founder of one of the 2 Bible institutes which eventually merged and formed a Bible Institute which eventually became Philadelphia College of Bible (PCB), where Charles Ryrie was president for a short while around 1959. PCB changed name to Philadelphia Biblical University & then it changed from being a Bible College to (apparently) a Christian liberal arts university with a lower Bible requirement for all students. So I would not call Scofield the founder of Cairn University. My guess is that Scofield got his D.D. (Doctor of Divinity, honorary degree) from some church based "Bible school in the basement". BTW, I think that Louis Sperry Chafer probably also taught in one of those 2 Bible institutes which would merge (in its early days). When Ryrie was president of PCB, it was not "Cairn University."
The Gap Theory! Moses wrote in Hebrew tohu and bohu, meaning, waste, decayed and empty. this description is saying it all. the gap theory is no theory the bible says so. what about psalms 104:30 God renewed the earth to a former condition. study to show thyself approved unto God Rightly deciding the word of God. 2 Tim. 2:15
I hate to tell you this, but Jesus didn't speak old English. He spoke Aramaic and Hebrew.. the Bible was written in Hebrew Aramaic and Greek. I like kjv, its great. But it's not the only way to go.
Those who get their jollies from downgrading people just to make themselves feel superior have commented that Scofield was not only a crooked lawyer (and there are no lawyers who are honest and decent as I can testify from past experience) as well as a drunk who left his wife but also that he was a Calvinist !! What nonsense !! While there maybe some truth in some of those allegations it is for certain that Scofield was not a Calvinist !!
The “New Scofield” is NOT the same as the “Scofield III”. New Scofield was published in 1967. (It tampered with KJV text). *not good* Scofield 3 came in 2003. (Did NOT tamper with KJV text). Please edit/fix your video. You’re going to confuse many folks by giving this wrong info.
@@myselfpoker88 and what do you imagine your point might be - if you had one - in such a trite trivial pedantic anal-ysis ? So, in your conception of everyone as liar , on what basis do you differentiate between the significance and severity and frequency and direct and collateral effects of their respective lies ? Do you bring the same nuance-free simplistic reductionism to everything you "study" ?
@@myselfpoker88 pffffft there is a vast difference between members of the unwashed hordes engaging in pedestrian untruths which typically have few consequences beyond their immediate little circles AND someone using their prominence and reach to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent broadly recognized literature purporting to enhance people's understanding of the material Your glib whattaboutist quasi-apologism isinappropriate
dispensationalism is heresy and so is its pretrib rapture see pastor sam adams independence baptist.. chaplain bob walker for a biblical understanding.. dispensation means to dispense like a candy dispenser for example not a period of time
Dispensationalism = Heresy? The easiest way I can prove to you that there are dispensations in the Bible is simply this from the 30,000 foot view there is an old testament think of the OT as the first dispensation. Christ had not been born and salvation was not available through Jesus and his shedding of his blood. Blood sacrifices at the Temple blended you. Then we have a new testament, which is the second disposition in this example, obvious starting with the life of Jesus and continues on with the church age. So if you believe there is an old testament and a new testament, essentially you believe in two dispensations, you just never realized it. And if you disagree with the person and that lead you to call them a heretic maybe you should look at the plank in your own eye? Every man alive Can read the Bible and have a little bit of a different interpretation, that does not make them a heretic. By your own logic, you are defaulted into a position where you too, are heretic.
Both Scofield and Ryrie led interesting lives. Personally I have benefited greatly from many of Ryrie's books. He was a great communicator and so beautifully represents the gift of pastor/teacher. .And his personal integrity is a great model.
I actually had both of these Bibles, I still have my Ryrie Study Bible. I loved my Scofield, it was my first given to me from my parents, I miss it. I must admit I go to my Ryrie constantly, still my favorite study Bible.
I have the Ryre fron 1970s . My first study bible after I became a Christian. I still use it everyday.
I just discovered you and your channel now today. How pleasant, interesting and educational it was to listen to you. Thank you so much for this presentation. I’m gonna search up more videos from you.
Original Scofield was 1909, revised in 1917. Then in 1967 there came out the New Scofield and the third Scofield III came out in 2003.
Thank you for this comparison of Scofield Study Bible 3 and Ryrie Study Bible.I understand that from your explanation of the Scofield Study Bible 3 that it still retains the "gap theory" while Ryrie Study Bible does not teach the "gap theory".,My first study Bible was a Scofield Reference Bible 1917 hardcover edition so I adapted the "gap theory" for a while but after doing more research and study I abandoned and became young earth creationist through help of Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research.I now use the Ryrie Study Bible because it is not only teach the premil pretrib rapture but also of its view of a young creationism.
A young earth creationist...golly,,, do we have a heresy heresy. whatever happend to being a christian...
Great review & comparison insights 👏👏
Thanks for the review. The background on each is appreciated. I am not a dispensationalist . I fall heavy in to the Amill camp . I do think I should purchase one just to get a grip on what dispensationalism has to say . The Ryrie looks like it fill the need . Thanks. Your channel is a blessing for the student of scripture brother .
Blessings
I was thinking of doing the same 🤔 also for the same reasons. Interesting.
Thanks Bill!
I think his view on dispensationalism is very convincing. But then, I was a dispensationalist before I knew it was a thing.😊
One of the best books for this is "dispensationalism" by Ryrie. It's only a couple of hundred pages and fairly inexpensive.
Good information on both Bibles. I was hoping to see a comparison of the interiors of each Bible. Have a blessed week ahead; 🌺
I was just given the Scofield study Bible 3 interesting video ty I am not familiar with ryrie but I think I will learn more ty
Scofield's "gap theory" comes from Jeremiah 4:23-26. Great video.
It should be noted that Scofield did not originate the gap theory. He simply adopted it. The Gap theory is a failed attempt to make the Bible more palatable to those who believe the earth is billions of years old. Much like Theistic Evolution the Gap theory is not based on the teachings of Scripture but on a desire to compromise with modern “science”.
These theories are largely dismissed today by both Bible believing scholars and educated Christians as they neither fit Scriptural teachings or satisfy an “old earth” worldview. Both views present issues scientifically and theologically. Christians really just need to decide if we believe the Bible or not and stop trying to shoehorn Scripture into fitting what the world teaches.
I had the New Scofield 1967 KJV. It contained some great notes and book introductions. What I didn’t like was the way the text was “tampered with.”
I like the Scofield III which leaves the KJV text as is.
The Scofield 2 put modern words into the text and put the original KJV words into the notes. It didn't go over very well. The original version is put out in two versions, the Old Scofield and the Classic. I believe that the Classic is a bit smaller. The 3 removes Usher's dates, puts the references in the side margins and puts the original words back into the KJV text. Also, the 3 comes in a variety of translations. I only use the KJV so I have never seen how any of the other versions compare. I like the extra maps and such that the 3 puts in, it was not a bad update, but it just isn't a Scofield anymore at that point in time. It's like the new comfort print Thompson Chain. It's a good reference Bible and a very nice job of updating, but it just isn't a Thompson Chain anymore, I think they should call it something else.
@rickking3805.....
Yes I was thinking the same thing you stated regarding the Scofield III... see my comment above.. You verified my point... sorry for this late response...
Have a couple of scofield bibles.
I am dispensational but lean on the idea of partial rapture etc.
Great review
Me too.
Partial rapture would mean that Jesus marries a bride with parts missing.
I remember hearing about these two study bibles when I was very young. Probably during 1975-1985.
That was probably the peak for Ryrie, though people still read him.
Thanks for the overview.
Yesterday, I got this answer from a question I asked online: “@RogerMetzger ‘classic dispensationalism’ is a term used by Craig Blasing and Darrell Bock in Progressive Dispensationalism. The dispensationalism taught by Darby and Scofield is nuanced from that taught by Ryrie, Pentecost, & Walvoord and progressive dispensationalist like Saucy, Bock and Blasing. The commonality is the distinction between Israel and the Church.”
Is there (or do you know whether there is) a distinction between Darby/Scofield’s timeline of the future and that of Ryrie, Pentecost, & Walvoord? If so, is there someplace online where I can see a visual comparison of the two?
Is there (or do you know whether there is) a distinction between Darby/Scofield’s timeline of the future and that of Saucy, Bock and Blasing? If so, is there someplace online where I can see a visual comparison of the two?
We had to postpone getting our snowblower repaired in order to get tires for the pickup so I’m not in a position to buy any books on the subject but can you recommend some other way for me to try to understand these various strands of eschatology? For example, do you know in what ways (if any) the second or third groups object to the theology of Darby and Scofield? Or whether the second and/or third iterations of dispensationalist theology are merely more detailed versions of the theology of earlier dispensationalists?
Please don’t lose any sleep over how to answer these questions. I’m not sure how soon I’ll have time to delve deeper into such questions but, for more than sixty years, I’ve been interested in trying to follow various theology streams back to their sources.
I have the 1917 Scofield original and the ryrie is on back order
Could you do a comparison between the MacArthur Study Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible?
I'll put it on my radar.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you are correct about the Scofield Bible III. The original Scofield was 1909/1917 as you say. Then in 1967 came the NEW Scofield REFERENCE Bible revised by the 8 editors you mention. The Bible text was a modified KJV, just updating select words for clarity. The Scofield STUDY Bible III was a further update sponsored later by Oxford Univerity Press (copyright holder) that added more modern versions (NKJV, NIV) and added significantly to the notes, charts, maps, and other study helps. One interesting bit of Scofield history is that the famous reformed preacher Donald Grey Barnhouse liked the Scofield Bible, was a dispensationalist, and accepted the Gap Theory (see his book The Invisible War). When I first visited Tenth Presbyterian Church many many years ago, the pew Bible was the 1967 Scofield Reference Bible. Of course now it is the ESV.
I'm not sure my wife would go for the, "Dr. Ryrie's collection was worth millions." argument for me buying more Bibles/books either. But, it DID earn you a like and a comment in 2024.
Ha! I'll take it!
Thank you for explaining the theological position of Charles Ryrie. I just found out I am a pre-millennial dispensationalist! Seriously, I knew of the Ryrie study Bible as it was just coming in vogue as I started Bible College but I never owned one as it was the Harper Bible NASB (I think) required for my Bible lit class. I love the NASB and have a harder time finding study Bibles being offered in NASB so I have given serious consideration to picking up a Ryrie and am looking for one which does not heavily push certain theological positions. An issue is size and weight. Although I can get my loved Thompson Chain reference in NASB to replace my Kirkbride NASB Thompson, in a stunning new leather addition, it is huge and weighs 50 lbs. Handy size Thompson are not offered in NASB. It seems the Ryrie might give me a good balance of useful study notes, stunning leather, not huge size in a NASB package. I appreciated this dive into who Ryrie was. Thank you.
Can you please tell me if it has Red Letter in Revelation?
I have both of these. I will admit though that while I like them both, when compared to more modern study Bibles (ESV-SB, CSB-SB, NKJV-SB, NIV-SB, etc…) they feel somewhat dated in format. Good information in both though especially for a traditional Baptist.
Scofield III really doesn’t teach the gap theory anymore between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 as it simply states there are two common interpretations then briefly notes the “standard” understanding most of us take and a “divine judgement” interpretation (gap theory). It offers no opinion on either view though.
There’s no perfect study Bible because fallible man likes to inject his personal biases.
The SRB III is NOT the 1967 edition, which was sold in 1967 as the New Scofield Reference Bible. Thus there are probably at least 4 SRBs: 1909, 1915, 1967, ~2002, which apparently put the old KJV words back into the text, reversing the KJV changes of 1967 by way of making the change in the note, instead of the KJV in the note -- 1967 took out obscure KJV words, replaced them with a modern word, and stuck the original in the note. I don't know how else III differs from 1967, if at all. I think that SRB III is misnamed & should be SRB IV.
I have the ryrie study bible niv
I am not sure you are correct regarding the 1967 and a Scofield III. from around 2003 .. I believe the 1967... has many King James words put into the footnotes. while placing the updated word into the bible text and bracketed ... I do not recall the Scofield III doing this...
I believe.. before checking ....that the study notes may be updated and borrowed from the R. Schuyler English committee... while retaining the original text of the old Scofield... it is called Scofield III. because it is a transformation of the Old and New 1967 release.. into a combination of the two..... but as I said.. I will check my copies out...
Ok, I'd be interested in what you discover. Thanks, Jeff
@@BestBibleCommentaries
upon checking through my Scofields..apparently I am Not in a position at this time to compare ..since I do Not have a bible that states "Scofield III".. perhaps at one time I was Going to get one and changed my mind... but. Looking through what I do have.. and several newer editions published after 2003... . the newer editions I have do Not read like the E. Schuyler English one does.. I have an original 1967 copy and one from 1969... that the New Scofield and they are identical regarding bible text.. the Old King James words... some of them are changed and bracketed for instance in Genesis 1:11 the NEW Scofield reads...
"And God said , let the earth bring forth [vegetation],..."
AND in the footnote for that verse it states "KJV grass"
so... I would look at your Scofield III...and if you do Not see the bible text written like that.. we must conclude that possibly that change in the New Scofield caused such an uproar and drop in sales.. that those scholars on the E. Schuyler English committee... determined.. to increase their commentary notes and change the bible text back to what the original KJV read...
looks like I will have to see what Scofield III's are up on E-bay... since the commentary looks as though it has increased a lot.. even from the New Scofield notes..
Grace and Peace to you. I subscribe to Gap Creationism aka the Genesis Gap Doctrine.
Hi Adonis, I was just reading about another scholar that does, too: Bruce Waltke.
@@BestBibleCommentaries Oh! Thanks for telling me about him. I just did a quick search for him. He was born in 1930, and he's still alive. And he's Reformed! For some inexplicable reason, I wouldn't expect a reformed person to be a gap creationist. Many of the gap creationists I know are at least 60 years old. I think that doctrine was more popular from the 1800s through the mid 1900s than it is now. I've met only one other person who believes in it.
I actually started believing in gap creationism before I even knew what it was. One of my friends who went to seminary was the first one to tell me about the label after he heard me exegete Genesis 1 when I was early in my spiritual development, and he discouraged me from believing in it. I went on to read several books on it. I love talking about it.
Why do so many not like them?
Mostly because there is a disagreement with their views on the end times.
@@BestBibleCommentariesyes
Cairn University? Scofield was a founder of one of the 2 Bible institutes which eventually merged and formed a Bible Institute which eventually became Philadelphia College of Bible (PCB), where Charles Ryrie was president for a short while around 1959. PCB changed name to Philadelphia Biblical University & then it changed from being a Bible College to (apparently) a Christian liberal arts university with a lower Bible requirement for all students. So I would not call Scofield the founder of Cairn University. My guess is that Scofield got his D.D. (Doctor of Divinity, honorary degree) from some church based "Bible school in the basement". BTW, I think that Louis Sperry Chafer probably also taught in one of those 2 Bible institutes which would merge (in its early days). When Ryrie was president of PCB, it was not "Cairn University."
The Gap Theory!
Moses wrote in Hebrew tohu and bohu, meaning, waste, decayed and empty. this description is saying it all. the gap theory is no theory the bible says so. what about psalms 104:30 God renewed the earth to a former condition. study to show thyself approved unto God Rightly deciding the word of God. 2 Tim. 2:15
King James Bible is the only way to go! It is the true word of God....
I hate to tell you this, but Jesus didn't speak old English. He spoke Aramaic and Hebrew.. the Bible was written in Hebrew Aramaic and Greek. I like kjv, its great. But it's not the only way to go.
Those who get their jollies from downgrading people just to make themselves feel superior have commented that Scofield was not only a crooked lawyer (and there are no lawyers who are honest and decent as I can testify from past experience) as well as a drunk who left his wife but also that he was a Calvinist !! What nonsense !!
While there maybe some truth in some of those allegations it is for certain that Scofield was not a Calvinist !!
read stephen sizers book online.. scofield : charlitan and heretic and you may think different scofield is a private interpretation
Very little comparison offered.
The “New Scofield” is NOT the same as the “Scofield III”.
New Scofield was published in 1967. (It tampered with KJV text). *not good*
Scofield 3 came in 2003. (Did NOT tamper with KJV text).
Please edit/fix your video.
You’re going to confuse many folks by giving this wrong info.
Was Scofield a liar?
If anyone has ever told a lie they are a liar. So based on that everyone is a liar.
@@myselfpoker88
and what do you imagine your point might be - if you had one - in such a trite trivial pedantic anal-ysis ?
So, in your conception of everyone as liar , on what basis do you differentiate between the significance and severity and frequency and direct and collateral effects of their respective lies ?
Do you bring the same nuance-free simplistic reductionism to everything you "study" ?
We are ALL liars so what’s your point?
Yes…
@@myselfpoker88 pffffft
there is a vast difference between members of the unwashed hordes engaging in pedestrian
untruths which typically have few consequences beyond their immediate little circles
AND
someone using their prominence and reach to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent
broadly recognized literature purporting to enhance people's understanding of the material
Your glib whattaboutist quasi-apologism isinappropriate
dispensationalism is heresy and so is its pretrib rapture see pastor sam adams independence baptist.. chaplain bob walker for a biblical understanding.. dispensation means to dispense like a candy dispenser for example not a period of time
Dispensationalism = Heresy? The easiest way I can prove to you that there are dispensations in the Bible is simply this from the 30,000 foot view there is an old testament think of the OT as the first dispensation. Christ had not been born and salvation was not available through Jesus and his shedding of his blood. Blood sacrifices at the Temple blended you. Then we have a new testament, which is the second disposition in this example, obvious starting with the life of Jesus and continues on with the church age. So if you believe there is an old testament and a new testament, essentially you believe in two dispensations, you just never realized it.
And if you disagree with the person and that lead you to call them a heretic maybe you should look at the plank in your own eye? Every man alive Can read the Bible and have a little bit of a different interpretation, that does not make them a heretic. By your own logic, you are defaulted into a position where you too, are heretic.
Good grief 🤪