User:ConstanceWarner498 reinle
The publisher's justification for a new "edition" is that [www.MyParallelBible.com Chant D'Esperance] was 1st revealed in 1909 added material and revealed another edition in 1917. however it is an author's preogative to alter his own works, but that certainly does not provide others, more than 45 years after his death, a blank check to create alterations and then sign his name to it!
If we tend to altered the ending of "Macbeth" we might be less than honest to say that the change met Shakespeare's approval.
Secondly, the editors exercised nice liberty in changing attributes of Dr. Scofield's reference work that Dr. Scofield himself felt necessary enough to include in his work. in the introduction to their doubly dishonest 1967 publication they admit such changes.
New Scofield: "Among the changes and improvements during this edition are: necessary word changes within the text to help the reader; a modified system of self-pronunciation; revision of the many of the introductions to the books of the Bible, together with designation of the author, theme, and date; a lot of subheadings; clarification of some footnotes, deletion of others, and therefore the addition of many new notes;: additional marginal references; a wholly new chronology; a new index; a concordance particularly prepared for this edition; new maps; and additional legible type. a number of these features are explained below."
By their own words, they admit to altering Dr. Scofield's text (the King James Bible), introduction of books of the Bible, notes, marginal references, chronology and many different options.
[www.MyParallelBible.com Spanish English bilingual bible] offer his approval to these changes? Not unless one of the nine committee members had the witch of Endor conjure him up as she had Samuel!
In fact, the publisher even admits that the changes made were arbitrary decisions of the revision committee.
"Each position taken represents the thinking or conviction of the committee as a bunch."
What are the results of such shenanigans? One example will suffice. allow us to examine the footnote found in Acts 8:12 of the [www.MyParallelBible.com Haitian Creole Bible] concerning baptism.
"Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is recognized as one of 2 sacraments - the opposite being the Lord's Supper. Since early within the Church's history three completely different modes of baptism have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping)."
Here we have a tendency to see that the nine revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) believe that there is a distinction between the true Christian church and Protestant "communion". may I ask? When one cluster is defined as "Protestant" what's the opposite cluster called?
Secondly, the 9 apostate revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) claim, while not scriptural proof that Christians baptize by pouring and sprinkling likewise as immersion.
Remember, the footnote is found in an exceedingly S-C-O-F-I-E-L-D of 1967. A book that claims on its title page that a dead man (Dr. Scofield) is one in all its editors.
What does the footnote for Acts 8:12 in the REAL [www.MyParallelBible.com Scofield bible] of 1917 that had a living Dr. Scofield as its editor say?
Nothing. there's no such footnote!
That's right! The New Haitian Creole Bible never approved of and never had in a text anytime in his life time!
I ask you, is this honest?
Proof that the large print [www.MyParallelBible.com french english Parallel bible] is found on nearly each page where the margin notes the dual Bible reading as "KJV". The text of the New Scofield Bible is not a King James Bible and it is NOT a Scofield Bible.
It might be noted that in recent years the dimensions and shape of the New Scofield Bible has been modified to more resemble the Scofield Reference Bible. many Christians who desire a true Scofield Reference Bible have purchased a new Scofield Bible by mistake.
