SGO

Independent Baptist film, two hours. https://archive.org/details/newifb-documentaries-and-movies/'The+god+of+the+New+World+Order'+Full+Movie.mp4

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/video-shows-donald-trumps-reaction-to-being-shot-on-stage/ar-BB1pW4MM

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/ About the Cyclopedia The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature was edited by John McClintock and James Strong. It contains nearly 50,000 articles pertaining to Biblical and other religious literature, people, creeds, etc. It is a fantastic research tool for broad Christian study. Some places to start browsing: Aaron Moses Christology Irenaeus (Early Church Writer) Martin Luther (Reformer) William Tyndale (Bible Translator and Martyr) Alphabetical Index A — Azzur Ba — Bzovius (Bzowski), Abraham Caaba — Czechowitzky, Martin Da Costa Isaac — Dyzemas Eaba — Ezri Faber — Fyne Passchier De Gaab Johann Friedrich — Gyrovagi Haab, Philip Heinrich — Hyttavanes Iacchagogi — Izri Jaabez, Isaac — Juxon, William Kaab — Kyrle, John La Brune, Francois De — Lyttleton, George, Sir Maäcah — Mythology Naairan — Nymphoeum, Council Of O ‘beth — Ozora Paaneah — Pyx Quade, Michael Friedrich — Qwanti Raa — Rysdyck, Isaac Sa, Manoel De — Syzygus Ta gete — Tzschirner, Heinrich Gottlieb U‘zzi — Uzzielite Vadian — Vulturius Waajen (or Waasen, or Waeyen), Hans Van Der (1) — Wyttenbach, Thomas Xantes Pagninus — Xylophoria Yaalah — Yvonetus Zaanaim — Zyro, Ferdinand Friedrich Other Resources Bible Topics (Torrey's Topical Textbook) Nave's Topical Bible Concordance Online King James Bible KJV Dictionary ISBE Alphabetical Index Home and Information A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Don't trust your Bible study to a mere web search. Better Bible Study With SwordSearcher Bible Software Discover the power of SwordSearcher: A complete Bible study package, with thousands of topical and encyclopedic entries all linked to verses, designed for meaningful Bible study. Details 3 Reasons to use SwordSearcher (Video) Topical OutlinesNave's Bible TopicsInternational Standard Bible EncyclopediaOnline King James BibleKing James Dictionary

A condensation of Mr. Scofield's life: https://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm

https://duckduckgo.com/?va=b&t=hr&hps=1&q=c+i+scofield+exposed&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-GA2EaZktu8

Even after his conversion, Scofield gave not even a penny for child support to the family he abandoned. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8 https://willyealsogoaway.substack.com/p/the-shocking-truth-about-ci-scofield The Shocking Truth About C.I. Scofield, by Dr. Texe Marrs Republished from: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/scofield.htm MAX WANG DEC 20, 2021 10 6 Share I am constantly amazed at the gross spiritual apathy and blasphemy of men and women, supposedly "Christians," who possess a woeful ignorance of the true meaning of the Kingdom of God. As shocking as it may seem, millions of people who consider themselves perfectly knowledgeable of the prophetic scriptures are today working earnestly in a misguided effort to help Satan and the Beast of Revelation establish their latter days global kingdom. Disgustingly, these millions of "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" Christians actually believe that in helping Satan and the Beast set up their bloody kingdom on earth, they are, in reality, serving God. Their callous disregard for scriptural integrity brings graphically to mind our Lord's dire warning that as the end of time draws near, the religious of this world will kill true Christians and think they do God service (John 16:2). A SATANIC EMBLEM FOR ISRAEL'S KINGDOM Some years ago, while attending a prophecy conference in Florida, I encountered a sincere but deluded woman proudly wearing a necklace bearing the so-called Jewish Star of David, the six-pointed star. She had no idea that this star secretly represents the number 666, that occultists universally call it the hexagram, and that Satanists regularly use the six-pointed star in their satanic rituals and invocations. This same woman gushingly told me she was a "lover of the nation-state of Israel." She bragged of giving large sums of money to a militant Jewish group in Jerusalem that has as its goal the blowing up of the Islamic mosque and the setting up of a new temple for the Jews atop its ruins. "But," I inquired of the woman, "are you not aware of II Thessalonians 2, which prophesies that the Antichrist, the Son of Perdition, shall show himself in such a temple, and blasphemously declare that he is above God?" "Well, yes," she offered. "But isn't that a good thing? That would hasten the coming of the Kingdom of the Jews, wouldn't it?" "The Kingdom of the Jews?," I repeated, almost incredulous. "Oh sure," she excitedly exclaimed. "That is what the Scofield Bible, which my husband and I love, says. The Jews shall reign over all the earth. They are God's Chosen. In helping them to rebuild their great temple, I am helping to usher in the Kingdom of the Jews." "My dear Sister," I confided, "You cannot serve God and the Devil at one and the same time. You cannot, on the one hand, help Jews, who despise our Saviour, Jesus Christ, rebuild their blasphemous temple in which they intend to carry out animal sacrifices. This would be mocking the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Do you really believe that in doing that, you are serving God?" But, she objected, "in helping the Jews rise to power, I am serving God!" "You cannot give money to help build Satan's kingdom," I explained, "and in doing so, please our Lord God. If the Zionist Jews are doggedly determined to mock and disrespect the truth, why should you, a Christian, help make that come to fruition?" "Moreover," I concluded, "Are you not aware that it was Jesus Himself who prophesied that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed, stone by stone. And it was destroyed, by the Romans in 70 AD. You, therefore, are working to undo what God has done. Are you more wise than God?" "But," she again protested, "God needs a place to live. He needs an earthly temple. And he needs a Holy City, Jerusalem, a capital for the Jewish Kingdom!" EARTHLY JERUSALEM VS. NEW JERUSALEM I had no more time to spare. If I did, I would have informed this poor creature that God has no need of a temple built with human hands. I would have patiently explained to her that, in any event, God considers the earthly Jerusalem, the intended world capital of the Jews, so wicked He compares it to "Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11:8). I would also liked to have brought to her attention the prophetic fact that earthly Jerusalem is a doomed city in bondage to Satan (Galatians 4:25-26). But, thank God, our Lord Jesus has prepared for His bride, the Christian Church, a fabulous New Jerusalem: However, I suspected that this unfortunate woman was not interested in the heavenly New Jerusalem of Scripture. She was far too enamored of the earthly city of Jerusalem, site of what she was sure was going to be a global empire to be presided over by the worldly leaders and rabbis of the Jewish race she so devoutly idealized. How sad and tragic. Like so many Christians, this pitiful lady had bought into the monstrous heresies first brought into the Church by Cyrus Scofield, a corrupt, crooked lawyer funded by Zionist Jews from New York City in the late 19th century. Scofield's heresies promoting a Jewish kingdom and an earthly Zionist New World Order to be ruled over by a god-like Jewish race, without any Christian gentiles around to mess things up, soon became fashionable among some apostate denominations, especially among the Southern Baptists and their heavily Masonic Lodge membership. Of course, the confused, but sincere woman wearing the hideous six-pointed star that day down in Florida had little knowledge of this Zionist plot by Scofield and his Jewish cohorts. She was a victim of some modern-day charlatan, perhaps a Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Billy Graham, who had infused her with the Jewish fables against which the Apostle Paul long ago warned us to avoid (see Titus 1:14). MONEY FOR THE MASTER RACE For years, she and others have been taught that the Jews are the Master Race, that Christ-rejecting Jews, by virtue of their blood and fleshly race, are "God's Chosen" people. The deceived multitudes are, after all, constantly surrounded by the smooth words of Zionist fanatics like San Antonio's John Hagee and Left Behind's Tim LaHaye telling them that the Jews comprise a "holy nation," that if they give money to the Jews to go toward their worldly kingdom, God will prosper them and that someday, after Christian gentiles are raptured up, the ruling Jews can get on with building their long-sought earthly Kingdom. JESUS NOT OUR KING IN HEAVEN As one pro-Zionist "Christian" publication recently explained it, Jesus Christ is not our King in heaven, he's only the groom of the church. According to the Scofield-inspired crowd, Jesus has been demoted. He's up in Heaven today wandering around in a Jewish human body without a throne, waiting for a second opportunity to someday be King of the Jews. The Kingdom of God, say the Judaizers and Zionists, is not in heaven, nor is it in the hearts of men and women who have faith in Jesus their Lord. The Kingdom is the property exclusively of the Jews right here on earth! This, then, is the final landing point of the heretical, Satanic journey and amusement ride on which the Zionist schemers are enthusiastically jockeying the Christian masses. Jesus, who was killed by the Jews after he told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world," is once again humiliated and degraded. Rejected almost two thousand years ago as King of the Jews, He is today rejected by Zionists and Judaizers as a heavenly Monarch as well. His heavenly crown is ripped from His brow. He is barred from the heavenly throne. While Jesus is demoted and shunted aside, a mere human race, the Jews, are spiritually and materially enthroned and exalted. Soon, we are told, the Jews shall have the kingdom for which they have lusted throughout the centuries since before the days of John the Baptist. Of course, to guarantee this earthly kingdom, the Gentile Christians are first to be raptured and out of the way. Only then, say the Judaizers, can the racially blessed and God-favored Jews rise to the pinnacle of universal power. It is supposedly the destiny of the Jews to be god-men and rulers of planet earth. THE KINGDOM RESERVED FOR THE OVERCOMERS Well, I have news for these Zionist and Judaizer schemers and plotters. Under the authority of God's majestic and incomparable Word, we can with assurance confidently proclaim that Zion is the destination and home only of born again Christian believers, people saved through faith in Jesus and not as a result of their flesh and blood or by accident of their national origins. The prophecies of God clearly tell us that it is not just Jews who shall inherit the Kingdom and have power over the nations, but whoseoever believeth on the name of Jesus, for He has overcome the world, and we are of Him: The Kingdom of our Lord Jesus is not a future Kingdom, and He is not interested in sitting on an earthly throne in Jerusalem. Indeed, God scathingly identifies wicked, earthly Jerusalem as the "Great City, Babylon" (Revelation 18). He also brands this filthy city of earthly Jerusalem as "Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11:8). No, Jesus' Kingdom is not future. It is not limited to earthly habitation. It is alive. It is eternal. It exists now. Our Father in Heaven has declared His Majesty, and who is able to deny Jesus His deserved crown and Kingdom? The Apostle Paul told us that all who trust in Jesus as Lord are already entered into His Kingdom. We are even now "situated in heavenly places" (see Col. 1:13; I Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:22). Friends, would you then trade in your heavenly and joyous abode for a man-made residence here on this tumultuous, depraved planet earth? Well, count me out! My calling, destiny and hope is to reside in glory with Christ Jesus, not to remain here, on this doomed, miserable pile of dirt and rocks called planet earth. If the Jews and their Judaizer associates want it that bad, let them have this planet. NO ZION WITHOUT KING JESUS The true Kingdom of Zion is, in fact, the New Jerusalem, a heavenly city and habitat built by God without human hands. What's more, citizenship in Zion is based not on race and blood. A person must be chosen by the King of Zion and must be born again into this Kingdom (John 3:3). Citizenship in this marvelous Kingdom is the privilege of believers. The wonderful thing is that there can be no Zion without a King. And the Word of God trumpets the indisputable Truth: There is No King but King Jesus! ~ by Dr. Texe Marrs

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373101848_The_Legacy_of_the_Scofield_Reference_Bible_in_Christian_Zionism The Legacy of the Scofield Reference Bible in Christian Zionism August 2023 August 2023 DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.29799.01441 Authors: Douglas C Youvan Abstract The Scofield Reference Bible, published in the early 20th century, has left an indelible mark on the world of Christian thought, particularly concerning the role of Israel in biblical prophecy and modern geopolitics. Its influence, manifested in the rise of Christian Zionism, has had profound implications not just for the faithful but also for the political landscapes of the Middle East. Through an exploration of its annotations and their ripple effects, this essay seeks to shed light on Scofield's legacy, its intersection with global events, and the challenges of interpreting ancient prophecies in contemporary contexts. Keywords: Scofield Reference Bible, Christian Zionism, Israel, biblical prophecy, geopolitics, Middle East, dispensationalism, theological interpretation, Mike Pence, interfaith dynamics, ancient prophecies, modern contexts, evangelicalism, eschatology, religious influence, theological divergence. Note: The Epilogue specifically focuses on former Vice President Mike Pence as a Christian Zionist. GPT-4 refused to use the term “ZioNazi” indicative of post-corpus human training. - DCY images/icons/svgicons/researchgate-logo-white.svg Discover the world's research 25+ million members 160+ million publication pages 2.3+ billion citations Join for free Public Full-text 1 Content uploaded by Douglas C Youvan Author content Content may be subject to copyright. 1 The Legacy of the Scofield Reference Bible in Christian Zionism Douglas C. Youvan *****@*****.tld August 13, 2023 The Scofield Reference Bible, published in the early 20th century, has left an indelible mark on the world of Christian thought, particularly concerning the role of Israel in biblical prophecy and modern geopolitics. Its influence, manifested in the rise of Christian Zionism, has had profound implications not just for the faithful but also for the political landscapes of the Middle East. Through an exploration of its annotations and their ripple effects, this essay seeks to shed light on Scofield's legacy, its intersection with global events, and the challenges of interpreting ancient prophecies in contemporary contexts. Keywords: Scofield Reference Bible, Christian Zionism, Israel, biblical prophecy, geopolitics, Middle East, dispensationalism, theological interpretation, Mike Pence, interfaith dynamics, ancient prophecies, modern contexts, evangelicalism, eschatology, religious influence, theological divergence. Note: The Epilogue specifically focuses on former Vice President Mike Pence as a Christian Zionist. GPT-4 refused to use the term “ZioNazi” indicative of post-corpus human training. - DCY 2 1. Introduction Israel, with its ancient landmarks and profound religious significance, stands as a testament to millennia of faith, conflict, and prophecy. As the birthplace of monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, its land tells a story that transcends its physical boundaries. Within Christianity, Israel represents not only historical roots but also a stage upon which end-time prophecies, as some believe, are destined to unfold. Amid the complex tapestry of Christian beliefs about Israel's role in divine history, the 20th century heralded a particularly influential voice: Cyrus I. Scofield. Through his Scofield Reference Bible, first published in 1909, he offered an interpretative lens that framed Israel as central to end-time events, an interpretation deeply aligned with the emerging Christian Zionist movement. This perspective found resonance among several evangelical leaders over the years, from Dwight L. Moody and A. C. Gaebelein in the early days to Jerry Falwell and John Hagee in more recent times. In the 21st century, this theological perspective has not remained confined to the pulpit. It's made its way into the corridors of power, influencing policy decisions and international relations. Notable figures such as Mike Pence, former Vice President of the United States, have openly spoken about their support for Israel, drawing connections between their political stances and faith- based convictions regarding the land and its people. As we explore further, we aim to dissect the interplay between theology, politics, and the real-world implications of the Scofield- inspired interpretations of Israel's role in biblical prophecy. The nuances of these beliefs, and their effects on global politics, particularly in the context of Israel and Palestine, warrant a comprehensive and critical examination. 3 2. The Historical Context: Early 20th Century Evangelicalism The dawn of the 20th century was a time of profound social, political, and technological change. The Western world, particularly the United States, experienced significant shifts in its religious landscape. These shifts set the stage for the influence of Cyrus I. Scofield and the broader rise of fundamentalism within evangelical circles. The Religious Climate: 1. Modernism and Liberal Theology: The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the influence of modernist thinking permeate various sectors of society, including religious institutions. Higher criticism of the Bible, which questioned traditional beliefs about its authorship and historicity, gained ground. Theological seminaries and mainline Protestant denominations began to embrace more liberal theological views, often allegorizing scriptural narratives and downplaying the miraculous. 2. Social Gospel Movement: Parallel to the theological shifts was the rise of the Social Gospel movement, which emphasized the application of Christian ethics to social reform and justice, sometimes at the expense of personal salvation and evangelism. 3. Revivalism and Holiness Movements: In reaction to these changes, many Christians gravitated towards revivalism and holiness movements. These groups stressed personal piety, the literal interpretation of Scripture, and the imminent return of Christ. Rise of Fundamentalism: 1. Defending Orthodoxy: As modernist and liberal ideas grew in popularity, many conservatives felt a need to rigorously defend orthodox Christian beliefs. This defensive stance 4 crystallized into what came to be known as Christian fundamentalism, a term derived from a series of essays titled "The Fundamentals" (published between 1910 and 1915). These essays, written by various theologians, defended foundational Christian beliefs against modernist interpretations. 2. Key Tenets: Fundamentalists staunchly upheld the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and imminent return. They also firmly believed in a literal Hell and the need for personal salvation through Christ. 3. Battles and Separatism: The 1920s, in particular, were marked by intense "Bible Battles" where fundamentalists and modernists vied for control of denominations, seminaries, and mission boards. Over time, many fundamentalists chose to separate from mainline denominations, forming their own institutions and churches. 4. Scofield's Niche: Within this religious milieu, the Scofield Reference Bible found a receptive audience. Its dispensational framework and futurist interpretation of prophecy provided a systematic understanding of the Bible, reinforcing fundamentalist views about the centrality of Israel in God's plan and the imminent return of Christ. In conclusion, the early 20th century was a time of theological tumult, with various Christian movements seeking to define or defend their understanding of the faith. Against this backdrop, Scofield's annotations offered clarity and structure for many, making his Bible a cornerstone text for those within the burgeoning fundamentalist movement. 5 3. Scofield's Theological Foundations In the midst of the theological turbulence of the early 20th century, Cyrus I. Scofield carved out a distinct niche with his unique theological framework, rooted in dispensationalism. A system that, while not entirely novel, gained significant traction through his annotated Bible. Dispensationalism Defined: 1. Distinct Eras of Divine Revelation: At its core, dispensationalism posits that history is divided into distinct epochs, or "dispensations", during which God reveals specific expectations and standards to humanity. In each dispensation, humanity is tested on their obedience to God's revelation, invariably failing, leading to judgment and the inauguration of a new dispensation. 2. Seven Dispensations: While various dispensationalist thinkers might delineate history differently, Scofield outlined seven dispensations: Innocence (Adam in Eden), Conscience (from the Fall to the Flood), Human Government (post-Flood to Abraham), Promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (the Church Age), and the Kingdom (a future millennial reign of Christ). Divergence from Covenant Theology: 1. Covenant Framework: Covenant theology, another dominant Protestant system of interpreting the Bible's structure, sees history primarily through the lens of two or three covenants (depending on the specific branch): the Covenant of Works (with Adam), the Covenant of Grace (extending from post-Fall to the end of time), and sometimes the Covenant of Redemption (within the Trinity before the world's foundation). 6 2. Israel and the Church: One of the most significant divergences between dispensationalism and covenant theology concerns the relationship between Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists, Scofield included, insist on a sharp distinction between the two. They assert that God's promises to Israel are literal and remain to be fulfilled. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, tend to see the Church as the 'spiritual Israel' or the continuation and fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. Implications of Scofield's Dispensationalism: 1. Futurist Eschatology: Dispensationalism, as presented by Scofield, adopts a largely futurist perspective on end-times prophecies. This viewpoint asserts that many biblical prophecies, especially from books like Daniel and Revelation, remain unfulfilled and will come to pass literally in the future. 2. The Rapture and Tribulation: Central to Scofield's eschatology is the belief in a pre-tribulation rapture—where the Church is miraculously removed from the world before a seven-year tribulation period, culminating in Christ's return and a literal thousand-year reign (the Millennium). 3. Central Role of Israel: Perhaps most pertinent to our discussion is dispensationalism's emphasis on Israel's central role in God's redemptive plan. Scofield's notes underscore the belief that God's covenants with Israel are unconditional and literal, ensuring Israel's future national restoration and prominence during Christ's millennial reign. In sum, Scofield's dispensationalism offered a structured, literal, and Israel-centric interpretation of the Bible, contrasting with other prevailing theological systems. This framework not only influenced individual believers but also played a role in shaping 7 the political and cultural attitudes of segments of Christianity towards the modern State of Israel and the broader Middle East. 4. The Promised Land: Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 15:18 The Book of Genesis provides foundational narratives for the three major Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Two passages in particular, Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 15:18, are seminal in discussions about Israel and its claim to the land. Scofield's dispensational framework, and his subsequent interpretation of these verses, placed them at the heart of Christian Zionist beliefs. To understand the depth and implications of Scofield's annotations, it's necessary to juxtapose them against broader theological understandings. Genesis 12:1-3: "Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'" Scofield's Interpretation: • Scofield emphasized the unconditional nature of God's promise to Abram (later renamed Abraham). The promise of land, national greatness, and universal blessing were seen as distinct and literal covenants. • He posited that the promise would find its ultimate fulfillment in the future, especially regarding Israel's national prominence. 8 Broader Theological Understandings: • Many theologians interpret the Abrahamic Covenant as a prelude to the broader unfolding of salvation history. While the land promise is acknowledged, the focus often shifts to the final phrase: "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed", seeing in Abraham's seed—Christ—a spiritual promise that transcends national or territorial boundaries. • Covenant theologians often understand the promises as having both a near and far fulfillment, with the spiritual dimension (blessing to all nations through Christ) taking precedence over the physical (land). Genesis 15:18: "On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, 'To your descendants, I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.'" Scofield's Interpretation: • Scofield posited this as a reaffirmation of the unconditional and literal land promise made to Abraham and his descendants. The boundaries specified were taken to mean a future expansion of Israel's territory, which has yet to be fully realized. • The emphasis on the literal territorial boundaries reinforced the dispensationalist view that modern-day Israel is a precursor to a divinely orchestrated restoration. Broader Theological Understandings: • Many theologians see this covenant as a precursor to the Mosaic Covenant, where the Israelites receive the law and formalize their relationship with God. The land promise is part of God's broader commitment to Abraham's 9 descendants, with conditions attached (as later expounded in Deuteronomy). • The territorial boundaries, while acknowledged, are often seen in light of the historical conquest under Joshua and the united monarchy under David and Solomon. The emphasis might shift from a future physical restoration to a spiritual inheritance for all believers in Christ. In conclusion, while the promises in Genesis to Abraham are universally recognized in Christian thought, interpretations vary based on theological frameworks. Scofield's emphasis on the literal and unconditional nature of the land promise has deeply influenced Christian Zionist thought, while other theological traditions offer nuanced or alternative readings that might prioritize spiritual over territorial promises. 5. The Everlasting Covenant: Genesis 17:7-8 Genesis 17 stands as one of the most crucial chapters in the Abrahamic narrative. The passage underscores the solemnity and gravity of God's promises to Abraham. The verses 7-8 read: "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." These verses, laden with the weight of "everlasting" promises, have been pivotal in discussions surrounding the land, God's faithfulness, and the nature of the covenant. Here's an exploration of the implications of reading this as a yet-to-be-fulfilled promise: 10 Scofield's Interpretation: • Literal and Everlasting Promise: Scofield, in line with his dispensationalist perspective, viewed the covenant promises, particularly the land promise, as literal and everlasting. The "land of Canaan" was not only a historical possession but an eternal right of Abraham's physical descendants. • Future Fulfillment: Scofield posited that the fullness of this covenant—especially in terms of land—has yet to be completely realized. This perspective aligns with his views on the end times, wherein Israel will occupy a central role, and the land promise will find its ultimate fulfillment. Implications of the Yet-to-be-fulfilled Reading: 1. Israel's Modern Day Significance: The belief in a future fulfillment of Genesis 17:7-8 often bolsters the theological case for modern-day Israel's existence and expansion. The nation's re-establishment in 1948, its victories and expansions in subsequent wars, are seen as divine orchestrations leading to the complete realization of the Abrahamic covenant. 2. God's Faithfulness: This interpretation underscores the immutable nature of God's promises. If God's covenant with Abraham regarding the land remains unfulfilled, then its eventual fulfillment serves as a testament to His unwavering faithfulness. 3. Eschatological Implications: Reading Genesis 17:7-8 as a pending promise reinforces pre-millennial eschatological views, where Israel plays a central role in end-time events. This includes the belief in a future national conversion of Jews, the rebuilding of the temple, and the physical reign of Christ from Jerusalem. 11 4. Tension with Current Realities: Accepting this promise as yet-to-be-fulfilled invariably introduces tension with the present political and demographic realities of the region. It can influence political stances, alliances, and policy decisions, especially for nations and groups that hold this theological perspective. Broader Theological Views: • Spiritual Fulfillment: While many theologians recognize the historical significance of the land promise, they often argue its ultimate fulfillment is spiritual. Through Christ, the true seed of Abraham, believers—whether Jew or Gentile—are partakers of the Abrahamic blessings, inheriting a spiritual Canaan, or "promised land". • Everlasting, but Realized: Some theologians argue that while the covenant is everlasting, its primary facets were realized during specific historical periods. For instance, Israel's monarchy under David and Solomon could be seen as a pinnacle of the land promise. In synthesizing, Genesis 17:7-8 carries profound theological, historical, and political implications. How one interprets the "everlasting" nature of the covenant and the specificity of the land promise influences not only personal beliefs but can also shape broader national and international narratives and policies. 6. Restoration Promises: Deuteronomy 30:3-5 and Jeremiah 16:14-15 The theme of Israel's restoration is recurrent in both the Pentateuch and the Prophets. The verses in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah serve as touchstones in this narrative, pointing to times 12 when God would restore His people after periods of exile and dispersion. Deuteronomy 30:3-5: "Then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers." Jeremiah 16:14-15: "Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it shall no longer be said, 'As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' but 'As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.' For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers." Scofield's Futurist Interpretation: • Unfulfilled Restoration: Scofield, consistent with his dispensationalist framework, posited these verses as references to a future, fuller restoration of Israel. While he acknowledged the historical returns from Babylonian exile, he believed these prophecies pointed to a grander, more complete gathering of Jews in the end times. • Tied to End Times Events: In Scofield's view, these verses also align with his pre-millennial eschatology, where the complete restoration of Israel is a precursor to the Tribulation, the rise of the Antichrist, and eventually Christ's millennial reign from Jerusalem. 13 Comparisons: 1. Historicist Views: • Historical Fulfillments: Historicists typically interpret these restoration promises as primarily fulfilled in the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon, as described in books like Ezra and Nehemiah. • Cyclical Understanding: While recognizing specific historical fulfillments, historicists may also see a cyclical pattern where Israel's dispersion and restoration occur multiple times throughout history. 2. Preterist Views: • Past Fulfillment: Preterists argue that many of the prophecies, including the restoration promises, found their fulfillment in past events, particularly the First Century AD, around the time of the Jewish-Roman War and the subsequent destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. • Spiritual Israel: Many preterists also lean towards a view that perceives the Church as the "new" or "spiritual" Israel, suggesting that many of the blessings and promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church. Conclusion: Interpretations of the restoration promises in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah are as varied as they are profound. While Scofield's futurist lens places these promises in a yet-to-be-realized eschatological context, historicists and preterists ground them more firmly in historical and spiritual realizations. The verses, regardless of interpretation, highlight God's enduring commitment to His people and offer hope and assurance in the face of dispersion and despair. The divergent views also underscore the multi-faceted nature of biblical interpretation and the intricate tapestry of beliefs within Christianity. 14 7. Prophetic Declarations: Psalm 102:16 and Isaiah 2:1-4 Prophetic texts within the scriptures frequently combine both immediate and distant horizons, with some messages speaking to the prophet's contemporaries and others echoing promises meant for future generations. The verses from Psalms and Isaiah referenced here are central to discussions about the future of Jerusalem and Israel's role in the world. Psalm 102:16: "For the Lord will rebuild Zion and appear in his glory." Isaiah 2:1-4: "The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." Scofield's Future, Literal Restoration Emphasis: • Zion's Literal Rebuilding: In the context of Psalm 102:16, Scofield saw this not merely as a rebuilding after the Babylonian exile but as a nod to a future era where Zion (Jerusalem) would be gloriously reestablished in conjunction with the return of Christ. 15 • Golden Age of Peace: Isaiah 2:1-4, with its vivid imagery of global peace and Jerusalem's primacy, fits well within Scofield's dispensational framework. He understood this to be referencing the Millennial Kingdom—a future, literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on Earth post the Tribulation period. During this time, Jerusalem would be the epicenter of world governance and spirituality. Analysis: 1. Contrast with Symbolic Interpretations: Many theologians, especially those with allegorical or spiritualizing tendencies, have seen passages like these as symbolic of spiritual truths rather than prognostications of literal events. For example, the elevation of "the mountain of the house of the Lord" might be seen as an exaltation of God's spiritual truth over worldly wisdom rather than a physical supremacy of Jerusalem over other cities. 2. Contextual Interpretation: Critics of Scofield's futurist interpretation might argue that these texts, especially Isaiah 2:1-4, speak more directly to the socio-religious contexts of their respective authors. Isaiah, writing in a turbulent geopolitical time, offers hope and reassurance that Israel's God would ultimately triumph over the chaos. 3. Universal Peace and Role of Jerusalem: While interpretations differ, the verses underscore a longing for universal peace and justice and emphasize the significant role Jerusalem plays in these aspirations. Scofield's perspective—grounded in a pre-millennial eschatology— amplifies the centrality and future glory of Jerusalem. 4. Influence on Christian Zionism: Scofield's emphasis on the future, literal restoration of Jerusalem has notably impacted Christian Zionism. Many Christian Zionists, influenced by such interpretations, ardently support Israel based on the conviction that its modern-day restoration 16 aligns with biblical prophecies heralding the imminent return of Christ. In sum, Psalm 102:16 and Isaiah 2:1-4 encapsulate the scriptural tension between immediate context and distant prophecy. Scofield's firm emphasis on a future, literal restoration reflects his broader theological stances and showcases how varied biblical interpretations can lead to distinct perspectives on contemporary issues, especially regarding Israel and Jerusalem. 8. New Testament Reinforcement: Romans 11:1-29 Romans 11 is a pivotal chapter in the New Testament, particularly concerning the apostle Paul's discussion about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in God's salvation plan. The chapter speaks to Israel's "hardening" and eventual salvation, while also emphasizing the inclusion of the Gentiles. Romans 11 (key verses): "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin... Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'..." Scofield's Interpretation: • Israel's Spiritual Restoration: Scofield, being a dispensationalist, interpreted Romans 11 to mean that God has not permanently set aside the Jewish people. While the Gentiles are currently in a period of grace (the "Church 17 Age"), there will come a time when God will turn His attention back to Israel, leading to their widespread conversion and spiritual restoration. • Distinction between Israel and the Church: A cornerstone of dispensationalism is the clear distinction between Israel and the Church. While the Church is predominantly composed of Gentiles and exists during this 'parenthesis' (the Church Age), Israel remains God's elect nation, destined for future glory and restoration. Analysis: 1. Mainstream Christian Theology: • Supersessionism or Replacement Theology: This is the belief held by many Christians that the Church has "replaced" or "superseded" Israel as God's chosen people. Proponents argue that the promises and covenants made to Israel in the Old Testament are now fulfilled in the Church. • Spiritual Israel: Some theologians propose that "all Israel" in Romans 11 refers to a combined body of believing Jews and Gentiles, collectively making up the true spiritual Israel. 2. Alignment and Divergence with Scofield: • Alignment: Both mainstream Christian theology and Scofield agree on the importance of Romans 11 and its discussion of Israel and the Gentiles. • Divergence: The primary divergence lies in the interpretation of Israel's future. While Scofield saw a literal, future restoration of Israel, many mainstream theologians view these promises as spiritually fulfilled in the Church. Furthermore, Scofield's sharp distinction between Israel and the Church is not universally accepted. 18 3. Paul's Perspective: The apostle Paul's primary concern in Romans 11 was to address the arrogance of some Gentile believers towards Jews. He emphasized the intertwined destinies of Jews and Gentiles, warning Gentiles against pride and reassuring Jewish believers of their irrevocable call and gifts from God. In conclusion, Romans 11 is a rich tapestry of theological insights concerning God's plans for both Jews and Gentiles. While Scofield's interpretation underscores a clear demarcation between the Church and Israel, anticipating a future restoration of Israel, mainstream Christian theology tends to embrace more spiritual or symbolic readings. Both perspectives, however, recognize the profound depth and complexity of Paul's teachings in this chapter. 9. The Eschatological Perspective: Zechariah 12:10 & Revelation 7:1-8 Eschatology is the study of end-time events, and both Zechariah and Revelation provide rich imagery and prophecies regarding the culmination of history. Zechariah's prophecies revolve around Israel's role in the end times, while Revelation offers a more expansive, cosmic perspective, detailing events leading up to the return of Christ. Zechariah 12:10: “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” 19 Revelation 7:1-8: Describes the sealing of 144,000 servants of God, enumerating 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Scofield's Interpretation: • Future Repentance and Recognition: For Zechariah 12:10, Scofield believed this to depict a future moment when the Jewish nation would recognize and mourn the piercing of their Messiah (interpreted as Jesus Christ). This recognition would mark a pivotal moment of national repentance and turn toward God. • 144,000 Jewish Evangelists: Regarding Revelation 7:1-8, Scofield understood the 144,000 to be literal Jewish individuals—12,000 from each tribe—who would play a unique role during the Tribulation period, evangelizing the world about Christ. Analysis: 1. Historical and Futuristic Interpretations: • Historical: Some theologians interpret Zechariah 12:10 as referring to Israel's past or current trials and their turning towards God. This interpretation doesn't necessarily see this as a prophecy about recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. • Futuristic: Scofield, in line with his dispensationalism, sees these prophecies as future events that haven't yet occurred. This aligns with his broader interpretation of a future, literal role for Israel in end-time scenarios. 2. Symbolic vs. Literal: • Symbolic Interpretation of 144,000: Many theologians believe the number 144,000 is symbolic, representing the entirety of God's people or a specific spiritual remnant. 20 • Scofield's Literalism: Scofield's perspective treats this number as literal, emphasizing a distinct role for ethnic Israel in the end times. 3. Confluence with Christian Zionism: Scofield's interpretations, emphasizing Israel's pivotal role in end-time events, align with and influence Christian Zionist beliefs. Such beliefs often lead to staunch political and moral support for the state of Israel, as they see it fulfilling biblical prophecy. In summation, Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 7:1-8 serve as touchstones for eschatological discussions, particularly concerning Israel's role. Scofield's literal and futuristic interpretations underscore his broader theological positions and have left an indelible mark on segments of evangelical Christianity. Whether seen as symbolic representations or future prophecies, these passages highlight the enduring significance of Israel in eschatological discourses. 10. Critical Examination of the Scofield Legacy C.I. Scofield's influence, particularly through the Scofield Reference Bible, cannot be underestimated when examining modern evangelical thought and the development of Christian Zionism. The annotations in the Scofield Bible provided readers with a systematic theological approach, deeply rooted in dispensational premillennialism. This section will delve into the widespread influence of the Scofield Reference Bible and the critical voices that have arisen in response. Influence and Spread: 1. Evangelical Popularity: Scofield's Bible, first published in 1909, became a staple in many evangelical circles, 21 especially within the United States. Its annotations, providing "user-friendly" guides to complex theological issues, made it a popular choice for many. 2. Dispensationalism's Rise: The Scofield Reference Bible played a significant role in popularizing dispensationalism. This approach emphasized the distinction between Israel and the Church and heralded a pre-tribulation rapture. 3. Christian Zionism: The notes in the Scofield Reference Bible, particularly those emphasizing a future role for national Israel and the necessity of the Jewish people's return to the Holy Land, significantly contributed to the development and spread of Christian Zionism. 4. Bible Institutes and Seminaries: Institutions such as the Dallas Theological Seminary, founded by Lewis Sperry Chafer, a disciple of Scofield, have perpetuated Scofield's teachings, training generations of pastors and theologians in dispensational thought. Criticisms and Concerns: 1. Biblical Literalism: Many critics argue that Scofield's approach excessively emphasizes a literal interpretation, especially of prophetic passages, potentially missing deeper spiritual or allegorical meanings. 2. Replacement Theology: Some theologians believe that the New Testament teachings indicate that the Church has taken over the role of Israel as God's chosen people—a stance entirely contrary to Scofield's annotations. 3. Political Implications: Critics have expressed concerns about the political ramifications of Christian Zionism, influenced by Scofield's teachings. The unwavering support for the state of Israel, based on theological grounds, has been criticized for potentially perpetuating the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. 22 4. Theological Rigidity: Some believe that the Scofield Reference Bible, by providing notes directly alongside Scripture, can lead readers to accept Scofield's interpretation as being as authoritative as the Bible text itself. 5. Historical-Critical Perspective: From a scholarly viewpoint, many believe that Scofield's annotations don't adequately consider the historical and cultural context of the scriptures. His notes are seen as interpreting ancient texts through a modern lens. In conclusion, while the Scofield Reference Bible has undoubtedly had a profound influence on evangelical Christianity, shaping beliefs and political attitudes, it has also been a source of contention. Scofield's legacy, thus, remains a complex tapestry of theological innovation, enduring influence, and critical debate. 11. Christian Zionism: Origins and Implications Christian Zionism is the belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with biblical prophecy. This belief has gained significant traction in the past century, especially among American evangelical Christians. The connection between Scofield's interpretations and the rise of Christian Zionism is undeniable. This section will explore the origins of this movement and the multiple implications it carries. Origins of Christian Zionism: 1. Historical Precursors: Even before Scofield, there were elements within Christianity that supported the restoration of Jews to Israel. These views were often influenced by various interpretations of biblical prophecy. 23 2. Scofield's Influence: The Scofield Reference Bible dramatically accelerated the spread of Christian Zionist beliefs. Scofield's annotations, with their clear pro-Israel stance, found resonance among a significant portion of American evangelicals. 3. Evangelical Theology: Dispensationalism, which differentiates between God's plans for Israel and the Church, provided a theological foundation for Christian Zionism. The belief that Israel must exist and prosper for end-time prophecies to be fulfilled gained traction. 4. 20th Century Events: The Balfour Declaration in 1917, which supported the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, and the subsequent foundation of Israel in 1948, were seen by many Christian Zionists as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. Implications of Christian Zionism: 1. Political Impacts: • US-Israel Relations: Christian Zionists have significantly influenced American foreign policy towards Israel. This unwavering support has played a role in ensuring continued U.S. aid and political backing for Israel. • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The theological commitment of Christian Zionists to a Jewish state in the Holy Land can sometimes overshadow the rights and concerns of Palestinian people, thus complicating peace efforts. 2. Ethical Concerns: • Selective Biblical Interpretation: Critics argue that Christian Zionists often focus on specific biblical passages that support their views while neglecting other passages that emphasize justice, mercy, and reconciliation. 24 • Human Rights: The theological position of some Christian Zionists can lead them to overlook or downplay alleged human rights abuses in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. 3. Theological Implications: • Future of Israel: Christian Zionism holds specific beliefs about the future of Israel, including its role in end-time events, which may differ from other theological perspectives. • Judaism and Christianity: The relationship between Jews and Christians under Christian Zionism is complex. While there's support for the Jewish state, there's often an underlying eschatological belief in the eventual conversion of Jews to Christianity. In summary, Christian Zionism, with its origins rooted partly in the Scofield Reference Bible, has become a significant force in shaping religious, political, and ethical perspectives on Israel. The implications of this movement are far-reaching, affecting international relations, theological understandings, and ethical considerations surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 12. Broader Impacts on Christian-Jewish Relations The relationship between Christianity and Judaism has been marked by millennia of complex theological debates, social interactions, and, unfortunately, periods of outright hostility. In the 20th century, one of the factors reshaping this dynamic was the spread of Scofield-inspired teachings. The influence of the Scofield Reference Bible and its annotations, emphasizing the unique role of Israel and the Jewish people in biblical prophecy, has had both positive and negative repercussions on Christian- Jewish relations. 25 Positive Impacts: 1. Counteraction to Historical Anti-Semitism: For centuries, various Christian denominations held supersessionist or replacement theological views, believing that the Church had replaced Israel as God's chosen people. Scofield's teachings, which emphasized the ongoing covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish people, countered such beliefs. This served as a theological barrier to anti- Semitic attitudes and promoted positive sentiments towards Jews. 2. Support for Jewish Restoration: Christian Zionism, influenced heavily by Scofield, championed the cause of Jewish return to the Holy Land and later the establishment and defense of the State of Israel. This political support was perceived by many Jews as a sign of goodwill and a shift from historical Christian adversities towards Jews. 3. Interfaith Collaborations: The shared belief in the significance of Israel has led to collaborations between Jewish and Christian Zionist organizations. This partnership has sometimes extended beyond just political support for Israel to encompass interfaith dialogues and cultural exchanges. Challenges and Concerns: 1. Conditional Support: While many Christian Zionists support the Jewish state, the theological underpinnings of this support often hinge on eschatological beliefs that foresee a mass conversion of Jews to Christianity in the end times. This can be perceived by Jews as a form of proselytization or as conditional support based on apocalyptic outcomes. 2. Differing Interpretations: While Scofield's annotations underscored the literal promises made to Abraham and his descendants, Judaism and Christianity possess various 26 interpretations about the nature of these promises and their implications. The Scofield-influenced perspective may sometimes be at odds with Jewish theological views. 3. Political Pressures: The unwavering support of Israel by Christian Zionists can lead to situations where political actions, taken in the name of fulfilling biblical prophecy, put pressure on Israel or overshadow the diverse voices within the Jewish community. 4. Oversimplification of Complex Issues: Scofield's theological emphasis on Israel's restoration can lead some Christian Zionists to oversimplify or overlook the intricate social, political, and religious dynamics within Israel and between Israel and its neighbors. In conclusion, the Scofield Reference Bible's impact on Christian- Jewish relations is multifaceted. While there have been considerable positive developments in terms of support for the Jewish people and Israel, there also exist nuanced challenges that arise from differing theological interpretations and political beliefs. As with any religious doctrine or teaching, the true measure of its impact lies in the lived experiences of those it influences, calling for continuous dialogue and understanding between the two faith communities. 13. Contemporary Relevance Over a century after its publication, the Scofield Reference Bible continues to be relevant, influencing various Christian movements and having implications in global geopolitics. The modern world, with its intricate web of religious beliefs, political aspirations, and global interactions, still feels the ripple effects of Scofield's annotated teachings. 27 Lasting Influence in Christian Movements: 1. Evangelical Theology: Within American evangelicalism, dispensationalism remains a significant theological framework, with many believers upholding the distinct roles for the Church and Israel in God's redemptive plan. This theological stance is a direct legacy of Scofield's teachings. 2. Mega-Churches and Televangelism: Many influential pastors of large congregations and televangelists propagate views aligned with Scofield's interpretations. Their reach, enhanced by media platforms, amplifies the dissemination of these ideas to vast audiences globally. 3. Christian Education: Some Christian schools, especially those leaning towards fundamentalism, use curricula that resonate with Scofield’s eschatological perspectives, ensuring that new generations are introduced to these interpretations. 4. Christian Zionist Organizations: Entities like Christians United for Israel (CUFI) reflect the teachings espoused by Scofield, advocating for unwavering support for Israel based on theological convictions. These organizations often have significant political clout. Geopolitical Implications: 1. US-Israel Relations: The United States' robust support for Israel is not solely based on strategic interests; there's a significant religious dimension to it. Christian Zionists, influenced by Scofield’s annotations, play a pivotal role in shaping American foreign policy towards Israel. 2. Middle East Peace Process: The unwavering support of Israel by Christian Zionists, rooted in Scofield’s teachings, can sometimes complicate peace efforts. By viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a theological lens, some 28 Christian Zionists might prioritize biblical prophecy over diplomatic pragmatism. 3. Global Evangelical Movements: Beyond the U.S., Scofield's influence resonates in various parts of the world where evangelical movements are growing, like in parts of Africa, South America, and Asia. In these regions, political stances towards Israel might be shaped, in part, by theological convictions reminiscent of Scofield. 4. Interfaith Dynamics: As previously discussed, Scofield’s interpretations have significant implications for Christian- Jewish relations. However, they also affect Christian-Muslim dynamics, especially considering the contentious history and present of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In sum, the contemporary relevance of the Scofield Reference Bible is evident in both religious circles and global political arenas. While Scofield's annotations are but one voice among many in Christian theology, their impact, magnified by geopolitical realities and the reach of modern media, remains substantial in shaping beliefs and policies related to Israel and the broader Middle East. 14. Conclusion The Scofield Reference Bible stands as a monumental work in the annals of Christian literature, casting long shadows over the religious landscape of the 20th and 21st centuries. Its annotations, carefully penned in the margins of sacred scripture, have stirred the hearts and minds of countless believers, guiding them in their understanding of prophecy, Israel, and the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan. However, with the power of influence comes the responsibility of discernment. 29 The Dual-edged Sword of Interpretation: Scofield's approach was groundbreaking in many respects. By providing a structured framework through dispensationalism, he offered many Christians a way to make sense of the diverse and sometimes contradictory nature of biblical prophecies. Yet, the very strength of his work—the rigidity and clarity of his interpretations—became its potential weakness. Like any interpretation, it bore the stamp of its time, reflecting the cultural, political, and theological milieu of early 20th-century America. Ancient Prophecies in a Modern World: The challenge of interpreting ancient texts in contemporary contexts is a task fraught with difficulties. Prophecies, often wrapped in poetic language and symbolic imagery, defy simplistic readings. When these ancient words are used to inform modern geopolitics, the results can be both profound and problematic. The State of Israel, a modern political entity, gets intertwined with Israel, the theological concept, leading to complexities in both religious belief and international relations. Furthermore, while the Scofield Reference Bible emphasized a literal and futuristic interpretation of prophecies related to Israel, other theological perspectives—preterist, historicist, allegorical— offer alternative readings. Each approach, with its merits and shortcomings, reminds us of the vastness of the biblical landscape and the humility needed in claiming interpretative certainty. Legacy in Perspective: It's undeniable that Scofield's work has been instrumental in shaping Christian Zionism and, indirectly, the geopolitics of the Middle East. Yet, it is but one voice among a cacophony of theological discourses spanning centuries. While it offers clarity to 30 some, it presents challenges to others. The legacy of the Scofield Reference Bible underscores the enduring power of religious texts, not just in shaping personal beliefs but in molding the very course of history. In closing, the journey through the pages of Scofield's annotations serves as a reminder: interpretations, no matter how influential, remain human endeavors to grasp the divine. In a world that changes with each passing day, the challenge remains—to engage ancient scriptures with respect, discernment, and an acknowledgment of their multifaceted depth. Epilogue: The Echoes of Scofield in Contemporary Voices One of the most notable reflections of the enduring influence of Christian Zionism, informed in part by the Scofield Reference Bible, can be seen in the words and actions of several modern politicians and public figures. One such figure is Mike Pence, the 48th Vice President of the United States. Pence’s Christian faith has been a cornerstone of his public life, and his beliefs have often intersected with his political decisions, especially regarding Israel. Pence has consistently been an advocate for Israel during his political career. His speeches frequently make mention of Israel not just as a key ally of the United States but also as a significant entity in the biblical narrative. In his address to the Israeli Knesset in January 2018, Pence stated: “The Jewish people held fast to a promise through all the ages, written so long ago, that 'even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens,' from there He would gather and bring you back to the land which your fathers possessed.” 31 This acknowledgment of biblical prophecy in relation to the modern state of Israel underscores Pence's Christian Zionist beliefs. Moreover, in the same speech, he noted: “We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny...The bond between our peoples is woven together in the fabric of our hearts. And so it shall always be.” Mike Pence’s words serve as a testament to the ways in which the beliefs propagated by Scofield and other Christian Zionist thinkers continue to echo in the corridors of power in the 21st century. The interweaving of biblical prophecy, theological conviction, and geopolitical strategy remains as potent today as it was during the early days of the Scofield Reference Bible. The implications of these beliefs, as they play out on the global stage, continue to be a subject of discussion, debate, and discernment.

Sevenfold Errors of "Dispensationalism" These last days are to be marked by multiplied deceptions in regard to the manner of Christ's coming. By VARNER J. JOHNS, Professor of Bible, College of Medical Evangelists, Loma Linda It is significant that the very first words of Jesus in answer to the question, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming ?" were, "Take heed that no man deceive you." The last days were to be marked by multiplied deceptions in regard to the manner of Christ's coming. The one word that marks every deception is the word "secret." The second coming of our Lord is with open "power" and "great glory," as the "lightning" which streaks across the heavens. In recent years a most dangerous deception known as the "secret rapture" has captivated many foremost ministers and teachers of the popular churches. This heresy is grouped with other pernicious teachings, equally dangerous and deceptive, in what is known as "modern dispensationalism." Many of the so-called Fun­damentalist Bible schools sponsor the sevenfold errors of dispensationalism. The chief agency in its promulgation is the Scofield Reference Bible. Near the beginning of the present century, this new and "strange" doctrine was first brought to America by Malachi Taylor, one of the Plymouth Brethren. Among those cap­tivated by it was Dr. C. I. Scofield, who became its leading exponent. He prepared a new edi­tion of the Bible, and with notes, headings, sub­headings, and summaries, imposed upon the Bible a system of error as subtle and Satanic as any that has ever been invented by the master deceiver. The very fact that these errors are bound together in one volume with the Scrip­tures of truth, may account for the rapidity with which the fire of evil has spread. SEVEN SO-CALLED DISPENSATIONS The Scofield Bible divides the history of the world into periods of time, known as "dispensations :" (I) Innocence, (2) Conscience, (3) Human Government, (4) Promise, (5) Law, (6) Grace, (7) Kingdom. In each of these periods, the Lord "deals with man upon a plan different from the plan of the other dispensations." For example, the period from Sinai to Calvary was "the dispensation of Law;" from the cross to the second coming, "the dispensation of grace;" and from the sec­ond coming to the close of the millennium, "the dispensation of the kingdom." There is no "mingling" of methods of salvation during these periods, according to the Scofield scheme. There was "no grace" in the dispensation from Moses to the cross; "no law" in our present period of "grace." Moreover, our era is the era of the church, and has nothing to do with the kingdom. The age to come ushers in the kingdom. This "kingdom" belongs to the Jew­ish nation, which will be restored and its people converted during the millennium. These seven dispensations are fittingly labeled as "arbitrary, fanciful, and destitute of Scrip­tural support." There is no Scriptural men­tion of a dispensation of human conscience dur­ing the period before the flood. Neither is there mention of the reign of human government dur­ing the period from the flood to Abraham. And while promises were made to Abraham, precious promises are likewise made to the children of Abraham, who are the blood-bought of the ages. But the most serious evils are found in the so-called fifth, sixth, and seventh dispensations. Every lover and teacher of truth ought to know the magnitude of these errors and battle against them, using the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The seven principal errors of the Scofield Reference Bible may be listed as follows: 1. Dispensationalism. 2. Antinomianism. 3. False ideas of the antichrist. 4. The "secret rapture." 5. The return of the Jew to Jerusalem. 6. False teachings in regard to the kingdom. 7. False hope of a second chance. It is impossible to give an exhaus­tive study of these errors in The Ministry. More complete study was given them in a series of articles in the Review and Herald, starting Nov. 13, 1941. An exposure of the heresy in all its aspects is given by Philip Mauro, noted Fun­damentalist, member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court, in his book, "The Gos­pel of the Kingdom, With an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism." We are limited here to but a few comments and texts on each of the seven points, as an incentive to further study. 1. Meaning of Dispensationalism. — In the Bible the word "dispensation" never refers to a period of time. Invariably its meaning is "a stewardship," "the act of dispensing," "an administration." Read the four New Testament texts in which the word "dispensation" is found: 1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; and Colossians 1:25. Weymouth's trans­lation of 1 Corinthians 9:17 reads: "A steward­ship has nevertheless been entrusted to me." The plan of the ages is a gospel plan. God's dealings with man have been ever the same. Faithful Abel and Enoch, Abraham and Moses, were all "saved by grace." Their lives were marked by obedience to God's commandments. By "faith," they obeyed So, today God's rem­nant church is a church which keeps the com­mandments of God and the faith of Jesus. 2. The Antinomian Error.—Says the Sco­field Bible, "The law is a ministry of condemna­tion, death, and the divine curse." ( See note on Gal 3:24.) But your Bible and mine says that the "law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Three times Paul, exclaims "God forbid," as he guards against the error of antinomianism (Rom. 3:31; Gal. 3:21; Rom. 7:7). When the Holy Spirit declares that "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul," how dare anyone call it a "ministry of condemnation"? Says Mr. Mauro: 3. Misconception of Antichrist.—The dispensationalist has reversed the historic Protestant position in regard to the antichrist, and is teaching the error that was invented by the doctors of the Catholic Church in order to combat the Reformation. Protestantism pointed the finger of prophecy at the Papacy; but Rome declared that the antichrist was a man yet to come who would rule for three and one-half years at a future period of "tribulation." Dis­pensationalists are the proponents of this papal error. 4. "Secret Rapture" Fallacy.—The teach­ing regarding "secret rapture," or the silent taking away of the church before the time of trouble, is a most serious error. Note well the sequence of events in verses 30 and 31 of Matthew 24. The gathering of the elect (verse 31) follows the coming of Christ in glory and power (verse 30). Do not be misled by the false use of the words "parousia" and "apoka­lupsis." The very word translated "coming" in Matthew 24:27 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is the Greek word "parousia." "Lightning," "voice," "shout" are words which describe the "pa­rousia." 5. Return of Jews Illusion.—The illusory hope of the restoration of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem is destined to lure millions into the desert of destruction. The promises to the Jew­ish nation were all conditioned on obedience. God did all that He could ever do for the Jews in sending them His prophets and finally His Son. He did not cast away His people. The very first Christian churches in apostolic times were made up almost entirely of Jews. The Israel of God, to whom the promises are made, is spiritual Israel. To Abraham and his seed belong the promises. "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Read Romans 4:13; 9:6-8; Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:8-12, 17; Galatians 3:7-9. Then read Hosea 13:9, 10, 14, and other Old Testa­ment prophecies, to see that the hope of the ages for Israel was through the resurrection from the dead. 6. Postponement of the Kingdom.—More than one hundred times did the Lord Jesus refer to the kingdom; only twice to the church. His message was a kingdom message. "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2) was the message of John the Baptist. It was also the burden of Jesus, of the twelve, and of the seventy who were sent forth as the min­isters of Jesus (Matt. 4:17; 10:7; Luke 10:9). The door of entrance into the kingdom is not through racial inheritance, but through the new birth (John 3:3, 5). Citizenship in the king­dom of grace belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jews. (Eph. 2:19). Even now we are translated into the kingdom of grace (Col. 1:13). At the second coming, the saints enter the king­dom of glory (Dan. 7:27). The Scofield Bible, adding error to error, postpones the "kingdom" to an age to come and makes it a possession of natural Jews. 7. "Second Chance" Heresy.—If one error could be greater than another, then the doctrine of a more favorable opportunity for salvation during the millennium is the greatest of all. "Behold, now is the accepted time." The world is now having its "second chance." Beyond the grave there is no hope of salvation (Isa. 38:18). Before the second coming of Christ, probation's hour will have closed for eternity (Matt. 13: 38-43; 25:31-46; Rev. 22:11, 12). Truly, the heresy of a "second chance" is the capsheaf of error. Many are not aware of the mag­nitude of the error of modern dispensationalism. Nor do they realize how widespread is the influ­ence of the Scofield Reference Bible. Many teachers of truth are not alert to the trend of the times in the religious world. New issues must be faced. New errors must be exposed. Some of these errors are as old as sin, but clothed in new garb. This borrowed garment of "Funda­mentalism" must be torn from the dark form of dispensational error. The Scofield Bible must be unmasked for what it is—a tree of knowl­edge of good and evil, with the good as the words of Scripture; the evil, the heretical notes of C. I. Scofield. There are thousands of ear­nest Christians who, like Philip Mauro, may be saved from error if the truth is brought home to their hearts.

Scofield: Legacy of Works [C.I. Scofield Documentary]

https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2013/scofield-lies/ A Few Lies of Scofield Plain evidence condemning C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) as a liar in spreading one of the most damnable systems of prophetic misinterpretation ever foisted on the saints. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6 “Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” Titus 1:14 Scofield’s Other Sins Against God He put his own name on God’s inspired scriptures and sold it as his Bible and necessary for learning. He added his words to the words of God with little or no distinction between them (Rev 22:18). He added center-column statements that certain verses of the Bible should be deleted and notes casting doubt on other verses – see Acts 8:37 and Mark 16:9, respectively (Rev 22:19; Gen 3:1). He took a Bible without a copyright, added his words, and sold it as a copyrighted book (Titus 1:11). His New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) included absurd and unwarranted alterations to the KJV text like the insertion of an ellipsis in I Samuel 13:1 and question marks in Romans 8:33-34. Explanation Scofield Scripture An essential pillar of premillennialism is the Jewish fable that physical Jews must yet possess physical land in the Middle East to fulfill the promises of God. First, and let it be known to all men, Israel already did possess all the land according to the conditional covenant by which God gave it to them, for He is righteous! Second, from Abraham onward, the spiritual seed knew that heaven was the real fulfillment of any land promises, for none of them were seduced by the desert in Palestine (Acts 7:5; Heb 11:8-16). No true Jew would worry about the strip of sand beside the Mediterranean called Israel, when he has already come into union with mount Sion, the city of the living God, and the heavenly Jerusalem above (Heb 12:22-24; Gal 4:21-31). Scofield, page 250 “The Palestinian Covenant gives the conditions under which Israel entered the land of promise. It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land.” Joshua 21:43-45 “And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.” Nehemiah 9:7-8 “Thou are the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram … and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites ... and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous.” See also: Josh 11:23; 23:14-15; I Kgs 8:34,56; Neh 9:22-25; Ex 23:2 7-31; Num 34:1-15; Deut 11:22-25; Ps 44:1-3; 105:43-45; 135:10-12; Acts 7:4 5; Josh 2:24; 3:9-11; 22:4; 24:13; II Chron 6:25; Jer 32:21-23. Compare also: Deut 7:22; II Sam 8:1-6; I Kgs 4:20-21; I Sam 27:8-9. The New Testament uses “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” as clear synonyms, but Scofield divided them to preserve the Jewish fable of a future kingdom on earth under the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit’s expressions are wise synonyms, for it was the God of heaven that set up the kingdom, justifying both names (Dan 2:44). John and Jesus used both names to announce the time was fulfilled and Messiah’s kingdom was at hand at the same time. There is only one kingdom, set up by the God of heaven, and it is here to stay (Heb 12:28-29)! Scofield’s fable of a future visible kingdom on earth for Jews is entirely a lie. Scofield, page 1003 “The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven in five respects.” Matthew 19:23-24 “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Compare also: Mat 4:17 cp Mark 1:15; Matt 10:7 cp Luke 9:2; Matt 5:3 cp Luke 6:20; Matt 8:11-12 cp Luke 13:28-29; Matt 11:11 cp Luk e 7 :28; Matt 11:12 cp Luke 16:16; Matt 13:11 cp Mark 4:11; Matt 13:31 cp Mark 4:30 cp Luke 13:18; Matt 19:14 cp Mark 10:14 cp Luke 18:16. Scofield presumed the kingdom of heaven to be a future reign of Jesus Christ on earth; but John and Jesus announced the time had been fulfilled, the kingdom was then at hand, men were entering it, and it required conditions of obedience by those entering it. This glorious event of His first advent is now 2000 years past. Glory! The kingdom is here, and you should be part of it! Scofield is not just confused; he blasphemes by denying the King of the kingdom His rightful place at the right time! Scofield, page 1010 “John Baptist was as great, morally, as any man ‘born of woman,’ but as to the kingdom, he but announced it at hand. The kingdom did not then come, but was rejected, and John was martyred, and the King presently crucified.” Scofield, page 999 “Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth ….” Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom o f God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Matthew 11:12 “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Compare also: Matt 16:19; 18:1-4; 19:12; 23:13; 25:1,14; Heb 12:28-29. God foretold Elijah would come with a preparatory ministry for the Messiah in the final words of the Old Testament, and Jesus confirmed him as John the Baptist (Mal 4:5-6). Scofield denied Jesus Christ’s plain doctrine and promoted the well-known Jewish fable that Elijah would literally return (Matt 16:14; 17:10; John 1:21). Babes with hearing ears easily see the fulfillment, as Jesus plainly declared, but Scofield revealed his depraved thinking and rebellion against scripture. He further corrupted this prophecy to make Elijah one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3-6, though Elijah fits it no better than Jonathan and his armor bearer, Jacob and Esau, or Haggai and Zechariah! https://www.letgodbetrue.com/questions/elijah.php Scofield, page 984 “Elijah to come again before the day of the LORD. (Cf. Rev. 11.3-6.) Scofield, page 1023 “Christ confirms the specific and still unfulfilled prophecy of Mal. 4.5,6: ‘Elias shall truly first come and restore all things.’” Matthew 11:14-15 “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 17:12-13 “But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” Luke 1:17 “And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children , and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Jesus promised to take the kingdom from the Jews and give it to the Gentiles, and Paul declared that both Jews and Gentiles make up the body of Christ (Eph 2:11-22; 3:1-13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). Nowhere is an earthly kingdom offered, especially to Jews! When Paul wrote to Israel, he told them the gospel kingdom was all they could expect (Heb 12:22-29). And Abraham declared total disdain for any such Scofield fable of an earthly kingdom (Heb 11:8-16). Scofield, page 1206 “According to the prophets, Israel, regathered from all nations, restored to her own land and converted, is yet to have her greatest earthly exaltation and glory.” Scofield, page 1204 “Israel as a nation always has its own place, and is yet to have its greatest exaltation as the earthly people of God. Matthew 21:43 “Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Hebrews 12:28-29 “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.” The prophecies of David’s son sitting on David’s throne forever were fulfilled in Jesus Christ at His ascension into heaven, where He was highly exalted and sat down on the throne of David as the blessed and only Potentate (Heb 1:1-9; 2:5-13). Peter declared unequivocally that David’s prophecy was fulfilled at the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, which all the hearing Jews understood. There is not a reason in the world to think there is any difference between Jesus Christ’s throne and God’s throne in Revelation 3:21, since Jesus and His Father are one, as He declared repeatedly. What was the glorified Christ doing with the key of David, if He had no right to his throne (Rev 3:7)? What were the apostles building up the tabernacle of David for through the gospel, if the throne over the kingdom was empty (Acts 15:14-16)? The sure mercies of David, a king on his throne forever, were realized at Christ’s resurrection (Acts 13:33)! Scofield, page 1334 “This passage [Rev 3:21], in harmony with Lk. 1.32,33; Mt. 19.28; Acts 2.30,34,35; 15.14-16, is conclusive that Christ is not now seated upon His own throne. The Davidic Covenant, and the promises of God through the prophets and the Angel Gabriel concerning the Messianic kingdom await fulfillment.” Acts 2:30-36 “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn wit h an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake o f the resurrection of Christ, that h is soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou o n my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” James, inspired by the Holy Ghost, declared that the conversion of the Gentiles fulfilled the prophets, and he applied Amos 9:11-12 to prove that David’s kingdom was being rebuilt by Gentile converts. It is profane heresy for Scofield to take this inspired fulfillment of the first century and throw it into the distant future, and to take a spiritual fulfillment in Christ and pervert it for a carnal kingdom on earth. His perversion of this passage totally destroys James’ argument and the true fulfillment of Amos. As promised earlier, Jesus Christ transferred the kingdom from the Jews to the Gentiles (Mat 21:43). Scofield, page 1169 “Dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the N.T…. ‘After this [viz. the outcalling] I will return .’ James quotes from Amos 9.11,12. The verses which follow in Amos describe the final regathering of Israel, which the other prophets invariably connect with the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (e.g. Isa.11.1,10-12; Jer. 23.5-8). ‘And will build again the tabernacle of David,’ i.e. re-establish the Davidic rule over Israel (2 Sam. 7.8-17; Lk. 1.31-33).” Acts 15:14-18 “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all t h e Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Abraham understand God’s covenant with him far better than Scofield ever dreamed. He rejoiced to see Jesus Christ (John 8:56), and he sought heaven, not the sandy wasteland by the Mediterranean (Heb 11:8-16). Paul told the Gentiles of Galatia that they were the true seed of promise of Abraham and that physical Jews were to be connected to the rejected Hagar and Ishmael (Gal 4:21-31). Jesus told the Jews trusting in Abraham that they were the children of the devil (John 8:44; Rev 2:9; 3:9). Scofield, page 1204 “That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture.” Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians 3:27-28 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if y e be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Scofield assigned Israel’s salvation to a future work of Jesus coming out of Zion; but Paul quoted Isaiah 59:20, where the future tense is Isaiah’s, not Paul’s! Jesus Christ finished the work of salvation in 30 A.D., and He immediately took the news to the Jews. Only part of the nation will be saved anyway, the elect remnant within the nation (Rom 9:6-8,24). Scofield, page 1204 “The promised Deliverer will come out of Zion and the nation will be saved (vs. 25-29).” Matthew 1:21 “And she shall bring forth a so n , an d thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Acts 3:26 “Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” Scofield’s “great tribulation” is a perversion of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan 9:24-27). There is not a word in the Bible about Jewish missionaries coming out of it. Consider! The “great tribulation” was fulfilled in 70 A.D. according to our Lord! And the robed multitude that came out of great tribulation were Gentiles – out of the nations (Rev 7:9-14)! Scofield, page 1205 “During the great tribulation a remnant out of all Israel will turn to Jesus as Messiah, and will become His witnesses after the removal of the church (Rev. 7.3-8).” Matthew 24:21 “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Here is another example of Scofield’s blasphemy against Jesus Christ. The great mystery of godliness is God’s manifestation in human nature in the person of Jesus Christ (Is 9:6; Col 2:9; etc.). But Scofield presumes to identify the great mystery as the processes by which men are restored to godlikeness?! When were men ever like God? And when shall they ever be like God again? What in the world is this heretic talking about from this text? Scofield, page 1014 “A ‘mystery’ in Scripture is a previously hidden truth, now divinely revealed, but in which a supernatural element still remains despite the revelation. The greater mysteries … the mystery of the processes by which godlikeness is restored to man (1 Tim. 3. 16).” I Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” The blessed God of heaven shook the religious world in the time of reformation (Heb 9:10), the days beginning with John and ending with the apostles (Luke 16:16), when He replaced Old Testament worship with New Testament worship (John 4:20-24). Paul declared plainly that God had shaken away the Old Testament and the New was now in place to never be shaken or removed. The future tense was Haggai’s, not Paul’s (Heb 12:26- 27). The event was past to Paul and the Hebrews, leaving a kingdom which would never be altered! Scofield, page 963 “[Haggai] Verse 7: ‘I will shake all nations,’ refers to the great tribulation and is followed by the coming of Christ in glory, as in Mt. 24. 29, 30.” Hebrews 12:26-29 “Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only , but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain . Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.” There are only two Jerusalem temples – Solomon’s and Zerubbabel’s. They are called the former and the latter by Haggai. They are called the first house and this house by Ezra. Scofield is wrong for an evil purpose, because he must have a temple in some imagined future tribulation period. But God has already sent the Desire of all Nations to Zerubbabel’s temple in the person of Jesus Christ, Who made peace with God in that place and tore the temple veil in two from top to bottom! Glory! Scofield, page 963 “In a sense all the temples (i.e. Solomon’s; Ezra’s; Herod’s; that which will be used by the unbelieving Jews under covenant with the Beast [Dan. 9. 27; Mt. 24. 15; 2 Thes. 2. 3,4]; and Ezekiel’s future kingdom temple [Ezk. 40.-47.]), are treated as one ‘house’ – the ‘house of the Lord,’ since they all profess to be that.” Haggai 2:9 “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.” Ezra 3:12 “But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy:” Any child, especially a God-fearing one, knows the 70th week began right after the end of the 69th! Scofield fusses that the length of a “week” must be seven years based on the other weeks, but he inserts a 2000-year gap, though there were no other gaps! Since 69 weeks only brought us to Messiah, all His works were in the 70th! Jesus Christ confirmed the covenant with many for one week, and He died in the midst of that 70th week for others – even the elect, ending the sacrificial system and bringing in everlasting righteousness (Dan 9:24-27)! Glory! Scofield, page 914 “When the Church-age will end, and the seventieth week begin, is nowhere revealed. Its duration can be but seven years. To make it more violates the principle of interpretation already confirmed by fulfillment.” Mark 1:15 “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” Luke 2:25 “And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” Luke 2:38 “And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” The prophecy says nothing about ending national chastisement or re-establishing the nation in everlasting righteousness, but it does describe in six phrases the salvation work of the Lord Jesus Christ, Whose death on the cross made an end of sins, made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness, among other glorious results (Dan 9:24). And when was Messiah cut off for others to accomplish these things? In the 70th week, of course! Shame on Scofield and his dupes! Scofield, page 914 “Within these ‘weeks’ the national chastisement must be ended and the nation re-established in everlasting righteousness (v. 24).” Hebrews 10:12 “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” Colossians 1:20 “And, having made peace through t he blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself.” II Cor 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Scofield’s confusion here is beyond comprehension. There is nothing in Matthew 12:1-7 about a rejected Saviour or a rejected King. There is an object lesson of the true Lord of the Sabbath (12:8), and there is the defense of His disciples’ eating on the Sabbath by David’s example of eating the shewbread on the basis of God’s greater love of mercy than sacrifice! Scofield, page 1012 “Jesus’ action (Mt. 12. 1-7) is highly significant. ‘What David did’ refers to the time of his rejection and persecution by Saul (1 Sam. 21. 6). Jesus here is not so much the rejected Saviour as the rejected King; hence the reference to David. Matthew 12:3-4 “But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?” There is no point of change in the ministry of our Lord at this time, let alone a pivotal point! John and Jesus announced the kingdom, and men pressed into it throughout their ministries (Luke 16:16). The kingdom message of the gospel was not interrupted at any point in time, for our Lord continued to preach the kingdom, and His apostles took it to the whole world after He ascended into heaven (Matt 22:1-7; 25:14; Luke 22:16,29-30; John 18:36; Acts 1:3; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31; Rom 14:17; I Cor 15:24; Heb 12:28; Jas 2:5; Rev 1:9; etc. etc.)! Scofield, page 1011 “The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting nation and offers, not the kingdom, but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivotal point in the ministry of Jesus.” Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” C.I. Scofield held to the “gap theory.” God created the heavens and the earth in the distant and undated past, and then there was an indeterminate gap of time until He created the things expressly stated as created in Genesis chapter 1. This is heresy for all young-earth Bible believers based on what the Holy Spirit declared in other places. Whatever is intended by the heaven and earth of Genesis 1:1 was created or made in the six days of creation and no more. Scofield, page 1 “Scripture gives no data for determining how long ago the universe was created. “The first creative act refers to the dateless past.” Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day : wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 31:17 “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Once a person concocts a manmade scheme of prophecy, he must alter the word of God to agree with it, as Scofield does here by adding an unknown concept to the Bible of a third coming of Jesus after His second coming! The Bible order of events is very plain – first, there must be a great falling away, or apostacy (I Tim 4:1-3); second, the man of sin would be revealed; third, Jesus would come the second time for His own and to pour out vengeance on the wicked (II Thess 1:7-10). https://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/prophecy/which-comes-first.php Scofield, page 1294 “The theme of Second Thessalonians has, unfortunately, been obscured by a mistranslation in the KJV of 2:2, where ‘day of Christ is at hand’ should be ‘day of the Lord is present.’ “The present letter, then, was written to instruct the Thessalonian Christians that ‘our gathering together unto him [Christ]’ will precede the Day of the Lord.” II Thessalonians 2:1-3 “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

https://stephensizer.com/2021/06/cyrus-ingerson-scofield-charlatan-and-heretic/ Cyrus Ingerson Scofield: Charlatan and Heretic 1. Scofield: The Christian Leader with Feet of Clay 2. The Link between Darby and Scofield in the Rise of Dispensationalism 3. Scofield’s Dispensational Hermeneutic: ‘Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth’ 4. Scofield, the Brethren and the Bible Prophecy Conference Movement 5. The Significance of the Scofield Reference Bible 6. Scofield’s Seven Dispensations 7. The Denigration of the Church within the Purposes of God 8. The Elevation of National Israel to a Superior Role over the Church 9. Prophetic Promises of a New Covenant with a Restored National Israel 10. Speculations on Armageddon and the Day of the Lord 11. Conclusions: The Legacy of Scofieldism on Christian Zionism 1. Scofield: The Christian Leader with Feet of Clay While Cyrus Ingerson Scofield may justifiably be regarded as the father of American dispensationalism and its most popular exponent through the various editions and variants of the Scofield Reference Bible1, his personal life is shrouded in mystery, one of American Fundamentalism’s best kept and perhaps most embarrassing secrets. Ernest Sandeen insists, “…in the calendar of Fundamentalist saints no name is better known or more revered.”2 Yet while writings abound on the early Brethren such as J. N. Darby and other contemporary American dispensationalists such as D. L. Moody, C. I. Scofield remains an illusive and enigmatic figure. Only two biographies have been published, one by a fellow dispensationalist, eulogises Scofield3, the other, from a Reformed perspective, exposes him as morally unfit for Christian ministry.4 Reconciliation of these two perspectives is difficult if not impossible. George Trumbull, Scofield’s biographer, writing in 1920, claims, Dr. Scofield loves all nature-not only men and women and children, but the whole created world, still so beautiful in spite of what Satan and sinners have done to mar God’s work.5 Similarly, George W. Truett, speaking at a memorial service for Scofield, held in Dallas, Texas on 27 November 1921, included this tribute, Every one felt that he was a prince of true men. And what a friend he was. A man who would have friends must show himself friendly. Along with these qualities he was kindly, full of good will and cheer which radiated from him as the light from the sun. When with him you knew you were in the presence of one who knew what he believed. Christ was real to him… a wonderful preacher and a world preacher. He would have been at ease in any congregation where he could have preached. There was about him a positiveness, a definitiveness, a certainty…6 Canfield’s detailed investigation of Scofield’s past portrays a very different person. Discrepancies exist between Scofield’s own reminiscences, Trumbull’s biography, family correspondence and actual public records regarding many aspects of Scofield’s life and ministry both before and after his alleged conversion, ordination and association with D. L. Moody. These range from the trivial to the reprehensible. 1. His claim to have fought with General Lee is disputed as is his alleged decoration for service in the Confederate army in 1861.7 2. His ‘rank perjury’ in swearing the oath of office to become District Attorney for Kansas in June 1873, denying he had served in the Confederate Army8, a post he then had to resign just six months later following well publicised charges of extortion and blackmail.9 3. The desertion of his first wife Leontine, and daughters Abigail and Marie-Helene from 1877 and failure to provide for them.10 4. The unsubstantiated claim that he was admitted to the Bar of St. Louis and practised law.11 5. The discrepancies surrounding his alleged conversion in 1879 in jail and also while practising law.12 6. The criminal charges of fraud and embezzlement brought against him between 1877-1879, some following his alleged conversion13 resulting in at least one jail sentence.14 7. His persistent refusal, even as a Christian minister, to make restitution to those he had defrauded.15 8. The embarrassment of having divorce proceedings initiated against him by his wife Leontine in 1881 while he was pastor of Hyde Park Congregational Church, St. Louis . Her divorce papers charged Scofield with, ‘…gross neglect of duty…’ having, ‘failed to support this plaintiff or her said children, or to contribute thereto, and has made no provision for them for food, clothing or a home…’ 16 The court decided in favour of Leontine after some delay in 1883 and issued a decree of divorce in December of that year, describing Scofield as, ‘…not a fit person to have custody of the children.’17 9. His nomination as pastor to the First Congregational Church of Dallas in 1882, by James H. Brookes was apparently without reference to or acknowledgement of any Christian obligation to provide for his family.18 10. Discrepancies exist in the accounts of his alleged theological training prior to ordination.19 11. Discrepancies exist in the conflicting length of his courtship and the date of his second marriage to Hettie Van Wark in March 1884, only three months after her arrival in Dallas and his divorce becoming final.20 12. Doubts have been raised as to claims made that Scofield made several visits to London prior to 1903,21and claims that he studied and lectured in Rome, Paris, Geneva and Berlin between 1906-1907.22 13. Scofield apparently conferred a doctorate on himself in 1892.23 The 1897 Northfield Bible Conference, for example, lists Scofield’s name with a D.D. yet there is no evidence of this award being conferred by a university or college. ‘We are not aware of any degree-awarding institution which in the 1890’s would recognize dispensational accomplishments.’24 14. In 1904, addressing a gathering of Confederate veterans in Dallas, Scofield made pejorative and racist remarks concerning blacks and whites.25 15. Major discrepancies exist in his Who’s Who in America 1912 entry both in terms of misstatements, factual inaccuracies and omissions, including the dates of his marriages, the names of his three children, and subsequent divorce.26 16. In 1909 and 1921, despite significant royalties from the Scofield Reference Bible, he wrote to his daughters Helene and Abbie, explaining his inability to help them financially as he was suffering from chronic ‘Scofielditis’, his euphemism for ‘a purse which has grown dismally empty.’27 Given Scofield’s notoriety in Kansas, following his well publicised conversion and association with D.L. Moody, several newspaper articles attempted to piece together something of his already then chequered career. An article originally in the Atchison Patriot was picked up by the Topeka paper, The Daily Capital on 27 August 1881. It included the following, Cyrus I. Scofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past… Within the past year… Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months. Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious… A representative of the Patriot met Mrs Schofield (sic) today… As to supporting herself and the children, he has done nothing, said the little woman… I will gladly give him the matrimonial liberty he desires. I care not who he marries, or when, but I do want him to aid me in giving our little daughters the support and education they should have.28 Following the death of D. L. Moody in 1899, when it became known that Scofield had officiated at the funeral, the interest of the secular press was once again aroused and more stories about Scofield were brought to the surface. The following is taken from the Kansas City Journal of 28 December 1899. The pastor who delivered the sermon and presided at the funeral of Dwight L. Moody, the famous evangelist, was rev. C. I. Scofield… Scofield landed in Nemaha County in 1872, just in time to be nominated on the Republican ticket for member of the legislature. He was elected, and, though ostensibly a supporter of Senator Pomeroy, he became largely instrumental in causing the election of Ingalls… in reward for his services he was made United States district attorney for the state. But he did not hold this office long. He was ousted in disgrace on account of some shady financial transactions which left him indebted in a number of thousands to a score of prominent Republicans… then followed an explosion which compelled Scofield to resign his federal office and leave the state… While in jail he had been visited by a band of Christian women who prayed with him and worked his conversion, and upon his release he entered the Congregational ministry. His first pastorate was at Dallas, Tex., where he built up one of the wealthiest and most aristocratic church organisations in the state… When approached by his Kansas creditors Parson Scofield declares that he is poor and unable to pay, but has never failed to do the right and easy thing by renewing his notes. So far as those who know him best are able to judge, his conversion is of an enduring nature, and, as once remarked by his old friend and supporter, the sarcastic Mr. Ingalls, ‘No man can doubt the efficacy of the scheme of Christian salvation with the record of Scofield in view’.29 Cranfield makes this assessment of these still uncontested contemporary secular reports, If Scofield had defrauded the leading Republican politicians of Kansas, obviously ‘he had to go.’ But these same Republican leaders could not afford to have it known publicly that they had been involved. This being so, the only course was to have Scofield ‘disappear,’ allowing the scandal to blow over… The story of Scofield’s rather casual extension of notes, which had ostensibly been made to repay funds embezzled, does not surprise. It is entirely congruent with the antinomian nature of Dispensationalism which Scofield inherited from J. N. Darby. Instead of allowing the legal obligation to expire with the statute of limitations, Scofield tolled the statute with the notes even though he could not have any intention of repayment.30 These unsavoury facts regarding Scofield’s life and character have never been adequately answered or explained by his followers. The reason for his sudden acceptance and subsequent integration within a group of wealthy and influential Christian fundamentalists seems inexplicable given their supposed rigid adherence to biblical standards of morality and exacting criteria for Christian leadership. As Canfield rightly insists, …genuineness in conversion and the accompanying change of heart include restitution. Such was an absolute condition in the Old Dispensation.31 Scofield’s behaviour both before and after his alleged conversion are nevertheless consistent with, and illustrative of, the antinomianism inherent in Darby’s rigid dispensationalism which Scofield popularised.32 In a message published in 1893 entitled, “The Purpose of God in This Age”, Scofield seems to come close to describing his own pessimistic, predetermined experience as much as that of dispensationalism generally. Speaking of his seven dispensations, Scofield concludes of each, As you are aware, they are marked, as to their beginning, by some new probation for man, as to their ending by some act of judgment-for man always fails at last.33 2. The Link between Darby and Scofield in the Rise of Dispensationalism As a young and largely ‘illiterate’ Christian, Scofield was profoundly influenced and indeed schooled by the Rev. James H. Brookes, the minister of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, and known as ‘The Father of American Dispensationalism’34. Brookes introduced Scofield, and probably also Darby to D. L. Moody. Brookes sympathised with J. N. Darby’s dispensational views of a failing Church, corrupt and beyond hope, but it is known they met during five visits Darby made to St Louis between 1864-186535 and again between 1872-1877.36 Canfield observes, When convert Scofield in 1879 moved from forgery to Christian work, he found a niche in Christendom off the mainstream of recognized denominations… in the one city in North America which had been singled out by John Nelson Darby for concentrated ‘planting’ of Darby’s special brand of Bible teaching.37 Scofield, serving as Brookes’ disciple, probably did more than anyone else to popularise Darby’s distinctive theological perspective, basing his reference notes on Darby’s own idiosyncratic translation of the Bible. Clarence Bass notes, The parallel between Scofield’s notes and Darby’s works only too clearly reveals that Scofield was not only a student of Darby’s works, but that he copiously borrowed ideas, words and phrases.38 According to even one of Darby’s own biographers, ‘His perceptions of Scriptural truths are the source from which Scofield Reference Bibles get their characteristic notes.’39 Gerstner says the resemblance between Scofield and Darby ‘is deep and systematic.’40 It is significant, however, that neither in the Introduction to his Reference Bible, nor in the accompanying notes does Scofield acknowledge his indebtedness to Darby. In this regard Scofield was merely following the example of his mentor, Brookes. Scofield claimed his ideas to be the fruit of fifty years of Bible study, something which, even by 1917, the date of the second edition of the Scofield Reference Bible published, is hard to explain if he was only converted in 1879 as alleged. One must assume Scofield meant other people’s study.41 Privately at least, Scofield did acknowledge the influence of Arno C. Gaebelein who is probably responsible for the prophetic writings contained in the Scofield Reference Bible. Like Scofield, Gaebelein was discipled by James Brookes who, he admitted, ‘took me literally under his wings.’42 Scofield wrote the foreword to Gaebelein’s, ‘The Harmony of the Prophetic Word’ which he devoured. In a letter to Gaebelein, written on the 2nd September 1905, Scofield acknowledged, My beloved brother: By all means follow your own views of prophetic analysis. I sit at your feet when it comes to prophecy, and congratulate in advance the future readers of my Bible on having in their hands a safe, clear, sane guide through what to most is a labyrinth. Yours lovingly in Christ, Scofield43 There is also the likely possibility that another unattributed writer influenced Scofield, one much nearer to home, although somewhat more controversial. J. R. Graves, a Southern Baptist minister from Arcadia near Memphis published a work entitled, ‘The Work of Christ Consummated in Seven Dispensations’ in 1883.44 It features a dispensational scheme quite similar to one which was later used in the Scofield Reference Bible. For some strange reason, Graves is almost never mentioned by Dispensational writers who are not committed Baptists… Since Graves’ work had its primary circulation in the area Scofield was using as a base, the possibility of an unacknowledged debt to Graves must be considered. With Scofield’s lack of formal training and a need to learn fast, no reasonable source of help would have been overlooked.45 It is probable that Graves was not acceptable to dispensationalists since he emphasised the importance of the visible church in the purposes of God, something strongly denied by Brethren with their ‘failing church’ doctrine. 3. Scofield’s Dispensational Hermeneutic: ‘Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth’. In 1888 Scofield published his first work called Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. In it Scofield presented the hermeneutic principles of dispensationalism he had allegedly been teaching his Bible classes and which would become the theological presuppositions behind which the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible. Not surprisingly, it was the Plymouth Brethren ‘house’ publishers, Loizeaux Brothers of New York, who printed the first edition,46 and continue to do so, a century later.47 Scofield began his work quoting from Paul’s second letter to Timothy, part of which was used as the book’s title, Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)48 The Word of Truth, then, has right divisions, and it must be evident that, as one cannot be ‘a workman that needeth not to be ashamed’ without observing them, so any study of that Word which ignores these divisions must be in large measure profitless and confusing. The purpose of this pamphlet is to indicate the more important divisions of the Word of Truth…49 The Table of Contents lists the lessons as: The Jew, the Gentile, and the Church of God The Seven Dispensations The Two Advents The Two Resurrections The Five Judgments Law and Grace The Believer’s Two Natures The Believer’s Standing and State Salvation and Rewards50 The first lesson sets the tone for all future Dispensational teaching offering a novel interpretation of the verse ‘Give no offence, neither to the Jews, nor the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.’ (1 Corinthians 10:32). Scofield attempts to justify the division of the world into three classes of people, Jews, Gentiles and the church, an idea that is the ‘warp and woof of Dispensational teaching,’51 yet one that lacks any biblical basis. There are only two classes of people consistently mentioned in the New Testament, those who believe in Jesus Christ and those who do not, irrespective of whether they be Jews or Gentiles.52 Paul is simply urging the Corinthians to respect the differing traditions of Jews and Gentiles in their witness for Christ. There is no basis in the New Testament for the idea that the Jews remain special to God outside, or apart from, their membership of the Body of Christ.53 In the second lesson Scofield unfolds the emerging dispensational belief that biblical history should be divided into seven ‘dispensations.’ These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind, in respect of two questions, of sin, and of man’s responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment – marking his utter failure in every dispensation.54 His third lesson, another typical Brethren and Dispensational touchstone, makes a person’s view of the return of Christ and the ‘secret rapture’, the test of orthodoxy. No alternative eschatological schemes are acknowledged. The implication is clear. If a person does not accept a dispensational eschatology they do not believe in the Lord’s return and are not submitting to the authority of scripture.55 By the ‘authority of scripture’ Scofield meant his own rigid literalist hermeneutical approach to scripture. So, for example, he insists that, Not one instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfilment of prophecy… Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion… Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal.56 Scofield’s ‘literalism’ extended even to exact verbal phraseology. This led him to claim there to be seven dispensations, eight covenants, and eleven great mysteries.57 James Barr, in his critique of fundamentalism, reserves some of his strongest language for Scofield’s literalist hermeneutic which he describes rather sarcastically as, ‘Mythopoeic fantasy’ comparable with the ‘apocalyptic poems of Blake’.58 With the favour and respectability bestowed by the Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary, Scofield’s little book has subsequently gone through numerous editions and been reprinted by several publishers. The Bible Publishers of Dallas, for instance, printed 35,000 copies during the nine year period 1945-1954.59 4. Scofield, the Brethren and the Bible Prophecy Conference Movement In many ways Scofield was merely representative of, but at the same time became a focus for, a growing prophetic and millennial movement in North America influenced by the Plymouth Brethren. The views later popularised by Scofield, were ‘hammered into presentable form ‘60 by a series of Bible and Prophetic Conferences held across North America beginning in 1868 which followed the pattern established by Darby and Irving at Albury and Powerscourt from the 1830’s. Both the method of ‘Bible readings’ and the topics of the conferences strongly suggest that the gatherings were a result of J. N. Darby’s travels in the United States and the influence of the Plymouth Brethren.61 For example, one of the resolutions adopted by the 1878 Niagara Conference gives clear evidence of the Darbyite dispensationalism, and Christian Zionism into which Scofield was becoming an eager proselyte. We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking: Luke 12:35-40; 17:26-30; 18:8; Acts 15:14-17; 2 Thess. 2:3-8; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Tit. 2:11-15.62 Scofield first attended the Niagara Conference in 1887, completing his book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, during the 1888 conference. Apparently, the manuscript was delivered direct to the Plymouth Brethren ‘house’ publishers, Loizeaux Brothers in New York from the conference. Trumbull, referring to the book commented, The work of making the little book was a time-consuming and laborious task for him then and “spoiled” his vacation entirely one summer at Niagara. But what a blessing it has been to multitudes of others.63 5. The Significance of the Scofield Reference Bible According to Oswald Allis, by 1945 more than 2 million copies of the Scofield Reference Bible had been published in the United States alone.64 Between 1967 and 1979 a further 1 million copies of the New Scofield Reference Bible had been published.65 In a move to make Scofield’s work more accessible, in 1984 a new edition based on the New International Version was published.66 Arno C. Gaebelein tells the story of how the Scofield Reference Bible came about from a discussion held with Scofield in 1901. One night, about the middle of that week, Dr. Scofield suggested, after the evening service, that we take a stroll along the shore. It was a beautiful night. Our walk along the shore of the sound lasted until midnight. For the first time he mentioned the plan of producing a reference Bible, and outlined the method he had in mind. He said he had thought of it for many years and had spoken to others about it, but had not received much encouragement. The scheme came to him in the early days of his ministry in Dallas, and later, during the balmy days of the Niagara Conferences he had submitted his desire to a number of brethren, who all approved of it, but nothing came of it. He expressed the hope that the new beginning and this new testimony in Sea Cliff might open the way to bring about the publication of such a Bible with references and copious footnotes.67 Those discussions led eventually to the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. The combination of an attractive format, illustrative notes, and cross references has led both critics and advocates to acknowledge the Scofield’s Reference Bible to have been the most influential book among evangelicals during the first half of the twentieth century. The various millennial currents were most effectively solidified in The Scofield Reference Bible. The significance of the Scofield Reference Bible cannot be overestimated.68 James Barr claims that in the 1950’s half of all conservative evangelical student groups were using the Scofield Reference Bible, and that it was, The most important single document of all fundamentalism… which has been the normal religious diet of many millions of readers. Its name itself makes clear what it is, A private interpretation… Both serious biblical scholarship and the established traditions of the major churches were alike ignored.69 Craig Blaising, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, and a dispensationalist, similarly acknowledges, The Scofield Reference Bible became the Bible of fundamentalism, and the theology of the notes approached confessional status in many Bible schools, institutes and seminaries established in the early decades of this century.70 Ernest Sandeen explains some of the reasons for its popularity, The Scofield Reference Bible combined an attractive format of typography, paraphrasing, notes, and cross references with the theology of Darbyite dispensationalism. The book has thus been subtly but powerfully influential in spreading those views among hundreds of thousands who have regularly read that Bible and who often have been unaware of the distinction between the ancient text and the Scofield interpretation.71 In his Introduction, Scofield claimed that, over the previous fifty years there had been an ‘unprecedented’ degree of interest in Bible study, ‘…free from merely controversial motive’ and that from this ‘…new and vast exegetical and expository…’ body of literature which was ‘…inaccessible for bulk, cost, and time to the average reader’, Scofield had taken, the ‘…winnowed and attested results…’ of this fifty years of study and that they were now ‘…embodied in the notes, summaries, and definitions of this edition.’ He insisted that ‘Expository novelties, and merely personal views and interpretations, have been rejected.’72 In distinguishing his own from previous bible reference systems, which he regarded as ‘…unscientific and often misleading…’ Scofield insisted that in his new system, …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 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 and interest and vital reality which are wholly lacking in fragmented and disconnected study.73 The footnotes which appear in the Scofield Reference Bible are actually very selective, appearing on less than half of the pages of Scripture. 781 pages lack any comment out of a total of 1,353 so it hardly rates as a comprehensive commentary such as provided by Albert Barnes or Matthew Henry.74 Trumball observes that Scofield was convinced people wanted to study the Bible but didn’t know how and, …saw that if his Bible studies were to be of the widest usefulness they would need to be attached to the Word itself-and in a form not too bulky.75 Scofield goes much further than either Barnes or Henry in providing comprehensive headings embedded in the Scriptural text. These not only include chapter and paragraph titles but in many cases, verse by verse headings in chapters deemed significant to dispensationalists that would otherwise prove obscure were it not for such ‘helps’. For example, in Isaiah 11, entitled ‘The Davidic kingdom set up’ additional headings guide readers carefully through the chapter ensuring a dispensational gloss, (1) The King’s ancestry (11,1); (2) The source of the King’s power, the sevenfold Spirit (11,2); (3) The character of his reign (11,3-5); (4) The quality of the kingdom (11,6-8); (5) The extent of the Kingdom (11,9); (6) How the kingdom will be set up (11,10-16) 76 Had Scofield’s notes been published as a commentary separately they would have, in time, probably been forgotten or superceded. The difference is, ‘neither Henry not Barnes had the temerity, guile or gall to get their notes accepted as Scripture itself.’77 Scofield’s Reference Bible has undergone significant revision since it was first published in 1909. Scofield completed the first revision in 1917, apparently with the help of seven consulting editors – Henry G. Weston (President, Crozier Theological Seminary); James M. Gray (Dean, Moody Bible Institute); W. G. Moorehead (Professor, Xenia Theological Seminary); Elmore Harris (President, Toronto Bible Institute) William J. Erdman; Arno C. Gaebelein & Arthur T. Pierson, several of whom were D.L. Moody’s colleagues.78 Canfield argues that the addition of these names together with their academic qualifications was merely cosmetic, to give an air of respectability79 Sandeen goes further arguing, Just what role these consulting editors played in the project has been the subject of some confusion. Apparently Scofield only meant to gain support for his publication from both sides of the millenarian movement with this device.80 In 1945 when a minor revision was published, an eighth consulting editor, William L. Pettingill, was added. However, so wedded to the 1917 edition were some ultra-dispensationalists that strong representations were made to the revision committee to ‘hold the line.’ Cornelius Stam asked, Would revision neutralize the dispensational distinctions which Dr. Scofield had brought to light? Would it represent a retreat rather than an advance for dispensational truth? Would it impair the Reference Bible which had brougyht so much blessing to so many thousands of people?81 Despite such reservations, revisions continued to adapt, modify and elaborate Scofield’s dispensational package. The New Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1967 edited by Dr E. Schuyler English. In 1984 a further revision based on the New International Version of the Bible was undertaken by three of the faculty from Philadelphia College of Bible, Clarence Mason, Sherrill Babb and Paul Karleen, and published by the Oxford University Press as The New Scofield Study Bible.82 Charles Ryrie, perhaps seeking to emulate Scofield’s success, also published in his own name a more refined dispensational guide, the Ryrie Study Bible.83 6. Scofield’s Seven Dispensations Scofield defines his dispensations as periods of time, ‘…during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God…’84 In the Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible, he explains, following mention of the ‘remarkable results of the modern study of the Prophets, in recovering to the church… a clear and coherent harmony of the predictive portions…’ how, 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.’85 Whether Augustine understood ‘ages’ in terms of Scofield’s dispensations is extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, Scofield claimes that seven such dispensations were ‘distinguished’ in Scripture. He believed that his scheme was natural and self evident in Scripture, there is a beautiful system in this gradualness of unfolding. The past is seen to fall into periods, marked off by distinct limits, and distinguishable period from period by something peculiar to each. Thus it comes to be understood that there is a doctrine of Ages or Dispensations in the Bible.86 It is interesting to compare how these ‘distinct limits’ were moved as well as renamed in subsequent editions of the Scofield Reference Bible, as others, especially Schuyler English, sought to refine his scheme. Scofield Reference Bible (1917)87 The New Scofield Study Bible (1984)88 1. Innocency (Gen. 1:28) 1. Innocence (Gen. 1.28) 2. Conscience (Gen. 3.23) 2. Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3.7) 3. Human Government (Gen. 8.20) 3. Human Government (Gen.8.15) 4. Promise (Gen. 12.1) 4. Promise (Gen. 12.1) 5. Law (Ex. 19.8) 5. Law (Ex. 19.1) 6. Grace (John 1.17) 6. Church (Acts 2.1) 7. Kingdom or Fulness of Times (Eph. 1.10)89 7. Kingdom (Rev. 20.4) Scofield’s rigid adherence to these dispensations required him to make some novel assertions to ensure consistency. So for example, in describing the transition between his fourth dispensation of promise to his fifth dispensation of law, Scofield argues, The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing… The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19. 8). Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage (Ex. 19. 4); but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.90 Similarly, in his introduction to the Gospels, Scofield artificially imposes stark divisions before and after Calvary which lead him to the amazing assertions that, The mission of Jesus was, primarily, to the Jews… The Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace… the doctrines of Grace are to be sought in the Epistles not in the Gospels.91 Strangely, Scofield ignores the one division that is self evident between the Old and New Covenants. Mark 1:1 categorically states, ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’, And Matthew 11:13 further informs us, ‘For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Yet Scofield places the life and ministry of Jesus within the dispensation of Law along with John the Baptist and the Old Testament Prophets, arguing that the sixth dispensation of grace only ‘begins with the death and resurrection of Christ’.92 So, for example, the Lord’s Prayer, and in particular the petition, ‘Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.’ (Matthew 6:12) is not applicable to the church, since it is ‘legal ground’.93 He even suggests the possibility of salvation by works, As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ… The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church…94 Scofield believed the Gospels were essentially for the Jews and therefore not relevant for the Church. In the note attached to Ephesians 3, he boldly states, ‘In his (Paul’s) writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the Church.’95 Unfortunately, Scofield seems to impose divisions that do not exist in Scripture and ignores those that do. This research, however, is not primarily concerned with an evaluation of Scofield’s theological framework, nor even with how he has influenced the rise of dispensationalism. Others have already done sp as on the relationship between law and grace.96 It is with Scofield’s more specific prophetic speculations concerning the relationship between Israel and the Church which this research will concentrate on since they have had such a profound effect on much contemporary Christian Zionism. As has been noted, in ‘Rightly Dividing the Word of God’, Scofield laid out the dispensational presuppositions which determined his theological framework, These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind, in respect of two questions, of sin, and of man’s responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment – marking his utter failure in every dispensation.97 Such a pessimistic view of human history is no where more evident than in what Scofield teaches about his sixth dispensation, the church-age. 7. The Denigration of the Church within the Purposes of God Historic Christianity has traditionally seen some form of continuity between the Old and New Covenants, and in the relationship between Israel and the Church, national Israel being in an anti-type and precursor for the Church. Scofield concedes as much, although through his notes, he systematically attempts to prove such a view erroneous in favour of a ‘failing’ church syndrome. Indeed he insists that the Church has not replaced or succeeded Israel as the people of God. In his introduction to the Four Gospels, he argues, …in approaching the study of the Gospels, the mind should be freed, so far as possible, from mere theological concepts and presuppositions. Especially is it necessary to exclude the notion-a legacy in Protestant thought from post-apostolic and Roman Catholic theology-that the Church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the Church.98 Apparently blind to the ‘theological concepts and presuppositions’ of his own dispensational framework, for all his claims to ‘literalism’, Scofield applied an obscure, arbitrary and indeed excessive form of typology to reinforce the belief, no doubt influenced by Darby, that the Church age will ultimately end in failure and apostasy to be replaced by a revived national Israel who will enjoy the blessings of the final kingdom dispensation.99 Given that four of his seven dispensations are based around events recorded in the first twelve chapters of Genesis, (and a fifth in Exodus), it is perhaps not surprising that Scofield finds in these texts the basis for his entire scheme. So for example, in a footnote to Genesis 2:23, Scofield asserts that Eve is a ‘type of the Church as bride of Christ.’100 As with some of his other ‘types’ this one appears arbitrary and speculative. Scofield offers a list of New Testament cross references, presumably in the belief that they validate his teaching. These are John 3:28-29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25-32 and Rev. 19:7-8. In none of these, however, is there any justification for such an assertion. Eve is not even mentioned. There are only two references to Eve in the New Testament, and only once by way of comparison. In 2 Cor. 11:3 Paul warns the Corinthians that they are in danger of being deceived like Eve. Even this verse therefore does not teach that they, the Corinthians were deceived, still less that Eve could or should be regarded as a type for the universal Church. From Genesis 3:14, Scofield further claims that the, ‘Adamic Covenant conditions the life of fallen man-conditions which must remain till, in the kingdom age, ‘the creation also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God’ (Rom. 8.21).101 The verse quoted actually refers to creation not people. By such typology, in which Eve and the so-called Adamic Covenant represent the state of the Church, Scofield prepares the ground for his teaching that the dispensation of the Church is destined to end in apostasy and failure. Then from Genesis 11:1, Scofield sees the Tower of Babel as yet another striking type for the professing Church. The history of Babel (confusion) strikingly parallels that of the professing Church… ending in a man-made unity-the papacy… [and] …the confusion of tongues-Protestantism with its innumerable sects. 102 Linking Isaiah 13 with Revelation 17, Scofield insists the latter reference predicts the destruction of ‘apostate Christianity’, which he also described as ‘ecclesio-Babylon’103 In a speculative but rather confusing footnote to Revelation 17 and the identity of Babylon, Scofield insists that there are actually ‘two’ Babylons. Two ‘Babylons’ are to be distinguished in the Revelation, ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political Babylon, which is the Beast’s confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is ‘the great whore’ (Rev. 17. 1), and is destroyed by political Babylon (Rev. 17. 15-18)…104 But the language of Rev. 18. (e.g. vs. 10, 16, 18) seem beyond question to identify ‘Babylon,’ the ‘city’ of luxury and traffic, with ‘Babylon’ the ecclesiastical centre, viz. Rome.105 By such typology, Scofield intends his readers to concur that even the dispensation of the Church will end in ‘judgment-marking… utter failure’106 This is at variance with New Testament teaching which assures of the permanence and ultimate victory of the Church over evil.107 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18) In other places Scofield’s scheme flatly contradicts the New Testament. So in Matthew 13, for example, in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, the Lord explains that the wicked will be removed first. Scofield however, insists the believers will be taken out first at the rapture.108 Likewise his footnote to Acts 1:11 ignores the fact that the Angel promises that all will see Jesus when He returns and not the few in some ‘secret rapture.’ Clearly therefore, those who have subsequently accepted Scofield’s scheme, especially since 1948, such as Hal Lindsey, have been preconditioned to expect the return of Jews to Palestine. They are also generally pessimistic about the role of the Church, and see in the founding of the State of Israel, evidence not only of the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, but of an impending Jewish revival and the imminent return of Christ. 8. The Elevation of National Israel to a Superior Role over the Church This process begins for Scofield with his footnote to Genesis 12:1 and the supposed Fourth Dispensation of Promise. For Abraham and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15.18, note) made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing.109 Schuyler English, anxious to expurgate Scofield’s unorthodox views that, ‘The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19.8)’ 110, makes considerable changes to this footnote and goes much further in the dispensational claims made for Israel. God’s promises to Abram and his seed certainly did not terminate at Sinai with the giving of the law (Gal 3:17). Both O.T. and N.T. are full of post-Sinaitic promises concerning Israel and the land which is to be Israel’s everlasting possession (e.g. Exo 32:13; 33:1 – 3; Lev 23:10; 25:2; 26:6; Deu 6:1 – 23; 8:1 – 18; Josh 1:2,11; 24:13; Acts 7:17; Rom 9:4). But as a specific test of Israel’s stewardship of divine truth, the dispensation of Promise was superseded, though not annulled, by the law that was given at Sinai (Exo 19:3ff.).111 Scofield also applied his distinctive typology to the relationship between Israel and the Church. Starting with a cross-reference from Genesis 11:1 and the story of Babel, he guides his readers to Isaiah 13:1 and the ‘burden of Babylon’ where Scofield claims, Isa. 3.14 gives the divine view of the welter of warring Gentile powers. The divine order is given in Isa. 11. Israel in her own land, the centre of divine government of the world and channel of divine blessing; and the Gentiles blessed in association with Israel. Anything else is, politically, mere ‘Babel’112 This notion that Gentiles are ‘blessed in association with Israel’, is the principle motivation for the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) who believe Christians are called to ‘comfort Zion’ rather than bear witness to Jesus as Messiah.113 Scofield provided Christian Zionists such as the ICEJ with justification when he took the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 and applied it to Abraham’s descendants, (5) ‘I will bless them that bless thee.’ In fulfilment closely related to the next clause. (6) ‘And curse him that curseth thee.’ Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew-well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle. (Deut. 30. 7; Isa. 14. 1, 2; Joel 3. 1-8; Mic. 5. 7-9; Hag. 2. 22; Zech. 14. 1-3; Mt. 25. 40, 45).114 To Scofield’s notes on Genesis 12:1 & 3 Schuyler English adds, There was a promise of blessing upon those individuals and nations who bless Abram’s descendants, and a curse laid upon those who persecute the Jews (Gen 12:3; Mat 25:31 – 46)… For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgment. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.115 The promise given to Abraham actually states, I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3) There is no indication in the text that this warning of cursing was ever intended to extend beyond Abraham. The promise, when referring to Abraham’s descendants speaks of God’s blessing them, not other nations blessing the Jews. Ironically, Scofield makes no comment on the passage in Galatians 3:16 and 3:28-29, where the Apostle Paul understands Christ to be the “seed” of Abraham, and that the promise of blessing to the Gentiles comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not on the basis of how well they treat the Jews. He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. (Galatians 3:14-16) There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28-29) Nevertheless Schuyler English boldly insists, Both O.T. and N.T. are full of post-Sinaitic promises concerning Israel and the land which is to be Israel’s everlasting possession (e.g. Exo 32:13; 33:1 – 3; Lev 23:10; 25:2; 26:6; Deu 6:1 – 23; 8:1 – 18; Josh 1:2,11; 24:13; Acts 7:17; Rom 9:4) Just two New Testament cross references are offered. Neither corroborates what he claims. As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt greatly increased. (Acts 7:17) For Luke, the “fulfilment” of the promise made to Abraham was seen to have already been fulfilled through Moses, “as the time drew near…” Over against Scofield’s distinction between Israel and the Church, the New Testament consistently speaks of there being one true vine or one olive tree, symbols portraying the unity within the one elect people of God made up of both Jews and Gentiles, who by faith are thereby all declared to be children of Abraham. However, in his introduction to the Gospels, Scofield insists, Do not, therefore, assume interpretations to be true because familiar. Do not assume that ‘the throne of David’ (Lk. 1.32) is synonymous with ‘My Father’s throne’ (Rev. 3. 21), or that ‘the house of Jacob’ (Lk. 1.33) is the Church composed both of Jew and Gentile. 116 Following Darby, Scofield taught that God has two separate plans, one for Israel, another for the Church, each having a separate identity and eternal destiny, Israel’s on earth while the Church’s in heaven. So in commenting on Matthew 16,18, and Jesus’ promise to ‘build my church,’ Scofield claims, Israel was the true ‘church’ but not in any sense the N.T. church-the only point of similarity being that both were ‘called out’ and by the same God. All else is contrast.117 In a footnote to Acts 7:38, Scofield explains away the term used by Stephen of Israel as ‘the church in the wilderness’. Israel in the land is never called a church. In the wilderness Israel was a true church (Gr. ecclesia = called-out assembly), but in striking contrast with the N. T. ecclesia (Mt. 16. 18, note).118 In commenting on Romans 11:1, Scofield insists on maintaining this distinction between the Church and Israel. To do so however, he has to distinguish between the ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly’ fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture. The Christian is of the heavenly seed of Abraham (Gen. 15. 5, 6; Gal. 3. 29), and partakes of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15. 8, note); but Israel as a nation always has its own place, and is yet to have its greatest exaltation as the earthly people of God.119 So, with reference to Romans 11:5, in which Paul insists a remnant of believing Jews existed in his day, Scofield extrapolates that, During the church-age the remnant is composed of believing Jews… During the great tribulation a remnant out of all Israel will turn to Jesus as Messiah and will become His witnesses after the removal of the church (Rev. 7.3-8). The purpose of God during this so called, ‘church age’ then is, not the conversion of the world, but to, ‘gather out of the Gentiles a people for his name’ After this he ‘will return’ and then, and not before, will the world be converted.120 What should the attitude of the Church be to Israel? Scofield uses the description of the final judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 to teach implicitly that Gentiles should bless Israel. Schuyler English in his revision makes this point much more explicitly. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (Matthew 25:32) In their footnotes to this verse in the 1917 and 1984 editions, it is significant to observe how more overtly Dispensational the latter has become. Scofield Reference Bible (1917) The New Scofield Study Bible (1984) This judgment is to be distinguished from the judgment of the great white throne. Here there is no resurrection; the persons judged are living nations; no books are opened; three classes are present, sheep, goats, brethren; the time is at the return of Christ (v. 31); and the scene is on earth. All these particulars are in contrast with rev. 20. 11-15. The test in this judgment is the treatment accorded by the nations to those whom Christ here calls “my brethren.” These “brethren” are the Jewish Remnant who will have preached the Gospel of the kingdom to all nations during the tribulation.121 This judgment of individual Gentiles is to be distinguished from other judgments in Scripture, such as the judgment of the Church (2 Cor 5:10 – 11), the judgment of Israel (Ezek 20:33 – 38), and the judgment of the wicked after the millennium (Rev 20:11 – 15). The time of this judgment is “when the Son of man comes in his glory,” i.e. at the second coming of Christ after the tribulation. The subjects of this judgment are “all nations,” i.e. all Gentiles… then living on earth. Three classes of individuals are mentioned: (1) sheep, saved Gentiles; (2) goats, unsaved Gentiles; and (3) brothers, the people of Israel. The scene is on earth; no books are opened; it deals with the living rather than with those translated or raised from the dead. The test of this judgment is the treatment by individual Gentiles of those whom Christ calls “brothers of mine” living in the preceding tribulation period when Israel is fearfully persecuted (cp. Gen. 12:3). The sheep are Gentiles saved on earth during the period between the rapture and Christ’s second coming to the earth.122 To justify this perpetual distinction between Israel and the Church, even under the New Covenant, Scofield insists that Israel is the earthly wife of God and the Church is actually the heavenly bride of Christ. Commenting on Hosea 2:2, Scofield writes, That Israel is the wife of Jehovah (see vs. 16-23), now disowned but yet to be restored, is the clear teaching of the passages. This relationship is not to be confounded with that of the Church to Christ (John 3.29, refs.). In the mystery of the Divine tri-unity both are true. The N.T. speaks of the Church as a virgin espoused to one husband (2 Cor. 11.1,2); which could never be said of an adulterous wife, restored in grace. Israel is, then, to be the restored and forgiven wife of Jehovah, the Church the virgin wife of the Lamb (John 3.29; Rev. 19. 6-8); Israel Jehovah’s earthly wife (Hos. 2, 23); the Church the Lamb’s heavenly bride (Rev. 19.7)123 In a footnote to the last reference, Revelation 19:7, Scofield insists, The ‘Lamb’s wife’ here is the ‘bride’ (Rev. 21. 9), the Church, identified with the ‘heavenly Jerusalem’ (Heb. 12. 22, 23), and to be distinguished from Israel, the adulterous and repudiated ‘wife’ of Jehovah, yet to be restored (Isa. 54. 1-10; Hos. 2. 1-17), who is identified with the earth (Hos. 2. 23). 124 Scofield reaches this conclusion guided by his literalistic hermeneutic and presupposition that Israel and the Church are separate bodies, therefore, ‘A forgiven and restored wife could not be called either a virgin (2 Cor. 11: 2,3), or a bride.’125 Such novel teaching of an ‘earthly wife’ and ‘heavenly bride’ is in plain contradiction to passages such as John 10:16 and Romans 11:24, neither of which, interestingly, warrant any comment by Scofield. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10,16) After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! (Romans 11,24) Paul is here emphasising how Gentiles share the same privileges as the faithful remnant of Jewish believers. This is neither equated with national Israel, nor with a separate olive tree. At some future time Paul predicts believing Jews will also be grafted in once again. Paul is therefore teaching quite explicitly that there is one olive tree into which both Jews and Gentiles have and will be grafted on the same basis – belief in Jesus Christ. In reply to those who, in Paul’s own day, regarded Gentile believers as inferior and who wished to keep Jewish and Gentile believers separate, he insisted, There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3,28-29) Paul uses similar analogies of ‘one new man’ (Ephesians 2:13-16), and, ‘fellow heirs, and of the same body’ (Ephesians 3:4-6), to emphasise that God has taken two peoples and made them one in Christ. By insisting, however, on arbitrary divisions in biblical history marked off, ‘…by some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind…’ each ending ‘…in judgment’ and ‘…utter failure in every dispensation,’126 Scofield sets in tension Old Testament Scripture with New Testament Scripture, divorces Israel from the Church, and thereby confuses the future with the past. This is made more apparent still by the way in which Scofield insists that unfulfilled prophecies concerning national Israel will be fulfilled in the future. 9. Prophetic Promises of a New Covenant with a Restored National Israel Like Darby, Scofield taught that it was God’s intention to restore the nation of Israel to Palestine, rebuild the Temple, and re-institute the priesthood and sacrificial system. ‘According to the prophets, Israel, regathered from all nations, restored to her own land, and converted, is yet to have her greatest earthly exaltation and glory.’127 In a note attached to Hebrews 7:22, Scofield insists the New Covenant contains separate promises for both Israel and the church, The New Covenant secures the personal revelation of the Lord to every believer (v.11)… And secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel (Jer. 31.31-40).128 Similarly, in the context of the return of Christ, Scofield asserts, To Israel, the return of the Lord is predicted to accomplish the yet unfulfilled prophecies of her national regathering, conversion and establishment in peace and power under the Davidic Covenant (Acts 15. 14-17 with Zech. 14. 1-9)129 So, in his note on Haggai 2:9, Scofield claims, therefore, that there will actually be a fourth and fifth temple built in Jerusalem. In a sense all the temples (i.e. Solomon’s; Ezra’s; Herod’s; that which will be used by the unbelieving Jews under the covenant with the Beast [Dan. 9.27; Mt. 24. 15; 2 Thes. 2. 3,4]; and Ezekiel’s future kingdom temple [Ezk. 40-47.]), are treated as one ‘house’-the ‘house of the Lord,’ 130 Scofield finds evidence for this view in Leviticus 23:23-25 and an unusual typology related to the feast of Tabernacles. This feast is a prophetical type and refers to the future re-gathering of long-dispersed Israel. A long interval elapses between Pentecost and Trumpets, answering the long period occupied in the Pentecostal work of the Holy Spirit in the present dispensation. Study carefully Isa. 18. 3; 27. 13 (with contexts); 58. (entire chapter), and Joel 2. 1 to 3. 21 in connection with the ‘trumpets,’ and it will be seen that these trumpets, always symbols of testimony, are connected with the re-gathering and repentance of Israel after the church, or Pentecostal, period is ended. 131 This highly speculative scheme is simply imposed on a series of texts that teach nothing of the sort. For example, Leviticus 23:23-25 reads, The LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites, ‘On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts. Do no regular work, but present an offering made to the LORD by fire.’ It is surprising that Scofield should begin to base his belief in the return of the Jews to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple on the basis of passages such as this. In one of the cross references given, Joel 2, Scofield is forced to reinterpret later verses to avoid reversing the chronological order of the chapter. The earlier portion of the chapter, he claims, refers to the future restoration of Israel. However Peter, on the great Day of Pentecost, quotes from the latter part, Joel 2:28-32 to explain how the events predicted were occurring that day. To get round this, Scofield insists, Acts 2.17, which gives a specific interpretation of ‘afterward’ (Heb. acherith = ‘latter,’ ‘last’). ‘Afterward’ in Joel 2. 28 means ‘in the last days’ (Gr. eschatos), and has a partial and continuous fulfilment during the ‘last days’ which began with the first advent of Christ (Heb. 1. 2); but the greater fulfilment awaits the ‘last days’ as applied to Israel.132 So Scofield teaches that a ‘greater fulfilment’ of this passage refers to a future blessing awaiting Israel rather than that which occurred on the Day of Pentecost at the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Church. Once again national Israel is placed in a superior position to that of the Body of Christ, the Church. To perpetuate this artificial division, in the cross-reference to Acts 2:17, Scofield has to distinguish between the ‘last days’ of the Church and the ‘last days’ of Israel. A distinction must be observed between ‘the last days’ when the prediction relates to Israel , and the ‘last days’ when the prediction relates to the church (1 Tim. 4. 1-3; 2 Tim. 3. 1-8; Heb. 1.1,2; 1 Pet. 1. 4,5; 2 Pet. 3. 1-9; 1 John 2. 18, 19; Jude 17-19). Also distinguish the expression the ‘last days’ (plural) from the ‘last day’ (singular); the latter expression referring to the resurrections and the judgment (John 6. 39, 40, 44, 54; 11. 24; 12. 48). The ‘last days’ as related to the church began with the advent of Christ (Heb. 1. 2), but have especial reference to the time of declension and apostasy at the end of this age (2 Tim. 3. 1; 4. 4). The ‘last days’ as related to Israel are the days of Israel’s exaltation and blessing, and are synonymous with the kingdom-age (Isa. 2. 2-4; Mic. 4. 1-7). They are ‘last’ not with reference to this dispensation, but with reference to the whole of Israel’s history.133 To justify his dispensational scheme and a glorious future for Israel in the Kingdom age, Scofield concedes that the Scriptures speak of two occasions when national Israel returned to Palestine, but insists a third return is also predicted. The gift of the land is modified by prophecies of three dispossessions and restorations (Gen. 15. 13, 14, 16; Jer. 25. 11, 12; Deut. 28. 62-65; 30. 1-3). Two dispossessions and restorations have been accomplished. Israel is now in the third dispersion, from which she will be restored at the return of the Lord as King under the Davidic Covenant (Deut. 30. 3; Jer. 23. 5-8; Ezk. 37. 21-25; Lk. 1. 30-33; Acts 15. 14-17).134 Scofield’s argument for a third return is based on two important deductions that follows from his literalist hermeneutic. First, that Israel had never taken all the land promised to Abraham, and second, that Messianic promises had not been fulfilled during the first advent. In linking these two together, Scofield speculated that the return to the land would follow the return of the Lord,135 a chronology that is contradicted in the conflicting notes on Deuteronomy 30:3-5, written with hindsight in the New Scofield Reference Bible published in 1967,136 yet reiterated again, without comment in the New Scofield Study Bible of 1984.137 In a note on Deuteronomy 30:3, Scofield argues, The Palestinian Covenant gives the conditions under which Israel entered the land of promise. It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land (cf. Gen. 15. 18 with Num. 34. 1-12). The Palestinian Covenant is in seven parts, (1) Dispersion for disobedience, v. 1 (Deut. 28. 63-68. See Gen. 15. 18. note). (2) The future repentance of Israel while in the dispersion, v.2. (3) The return of the Lord, v. 3 (Amos 9. 9-14; Acts 15. 14-17). (4) Restoration to the land, v. 5 (Isa. 11. 11, 12; Jer. 23. 3-8; Ezk. 37. 21-25). (5) National conversion, v. 6 (Rom. 11. 26, 27; Hos. 2. 14-16). (6) The judgment of Israel’s oppressors, v. 7 (Isa. 14. 1, 2; Joel 3. 1-8; Mt. 25. 31-46). (7) National prosperity, v. 9 (Amos 9. 11-14)138 Far from the Abrahamic covenant being ‘unconditional’, Scofield and his later dispensational revisionists, ignore or minimise the seriousness of the injunctions contained in this very passage of Deuteronomy which plainly teaches that occupation of the land would always be conditional on adherence to her covenantal obligations, a principle Moses was concerned to impress upon Israel before she entered the land, a principle subsequently demonstrated throughout Israel’s history, and in particular under the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Schuyler English, in his 1967 revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, consistently adds to Scofield’s original notes to give a more explicit dispensational reading of key texts. In many cases references to contemporary Israel are appended to verses on which Scofield originally made no comment at all. So, to Genesis 12:7, Schuyler English adds, (12:7) The verb ‘give’ appears over 1000 times in the Bible, with greatest frequency in relation to God giving the land of Palestine to his people Israel, a truth here announced for the first time but repeated in nearly 150 passages in the O.T…139 One may legitimately ask for evidence of the same promise being made in the New Testament. Again, on Deuteronomy 30:5, Schuyler English adds the following innovation, No passage of Scripture has found fuller confirmation in the events of history than Dt. 28 – 30. In A.D. 70 the Jewish nation was scattered throughout the world because of disobedience and rejection of Christ. In world-wide dispersion they experienced exactly the punishments foretold by Moses. On the other hand, when the nation walked in conformity with the will of God, it enjoyed the blessing and protection of God. In the twentieth century the exiled people were restored to their homeland.140 No attempt is made to explain the apparent contradiction in Israel’s continued ‘disobedience and rejection of Christ’ and their restoration, ‘to their homeland,’ other than to insist the promises made to Israel have been ‘postponed’ during this church age. Ironically, the attempt by Scofield’s revisers to make Deuteronomy 30:1-6 speak of a final restoration to the land is actually undermined just a few verses further on in Deuteronomy 30:11-20 where Moses reiterates the same warning. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. (Deuteronomy 30,17-19) Not surprisingly, no notes are included in any version of Scofield for this passage. Scofield’s dispensational hermeneutic nevertheless requires a futuristic interpretation of this passage on the grounds that Israel has never yet received all the land allegedly ‘unconditionally’ and literally promised under the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, Scofield insists, logically, she must do so one day. So, in paragraph headings to Isaiah 11, he adds the bold assertion that these verses speak of, ‘The vision of the Jewish remnant in the great tribulation’ for vv. 20-27 and, ‘The approach of the Gentile hosts to the battle of Armageddon.’ for vv. 28-34. Then in a footnote to Isaiah 11 Scofield writes, The order of events in Isa. 10., 11., is noteworthy. Isa. 10. gives the distress of the Remnant in Palestine in the great tribulation (Psa. 2. 5; Rev. 7. 14), and the approach and destruction of the Gentile hosts under the Beast (Dan. 7. 8; Rev. 19. 20). Isa. 11. immediately follows with its glorious picture of the kingdom-age. Precisely the same order is found in Rev. 19., 20… That nothing of this occurred at the first coming of Christ is evident from the comparison of the history of the times of Christ with this and all the other parallel prophecies. So far from re-gathering dispersed Israel and establishing peace in the earth, His crucifixion was soon followed (A.D. 70) by the destruction of Jerusalem, and the utter scattering of the Palestinian Jews amongst the nations141 Significantly, this dogmatic footnote denying any link with the incarnation of Jesus Christ, is omitted in the New Scofield Study Bible. The argument concerning God’s possible future purposes for a revived national Israel therefore in part stands or falls on whether the promise made under the Abrahamic Covenant has or has not yet been fulfilled. In Genesis 15:18 we are told, On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates… Then, in Deuteronomy 6, Moses says, See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land that the LORD swore he would give to your fathers–to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob–and to their descendants after them. (Deuteronomy 1,8) But he brought us out from there to bring us in and give us the land that he promised on oath to our forefathers. (Deuteronomy 6,23) In these passages Moses reminds the Israelites that God had rescued them from Egypt in order to fulfil the promise made to Abraham that his seed would inherit the Promised Land. God reaffirms that same promise to Moses’ successor, Joshua. Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. (Joshua 1,6) The question then arises, did Israel do so? While it is true that the Jews have never exercised political sovereignty over all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, looking back, the writer of the book of Joshua regarded the covenant promise as having already been fulfilled in that generation. So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (Joshua 11,23) So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled. (Joshua 21,43-45)142 It is significant that we are told Joshua took ‘the entire land’ because the Lord had given ‘Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers’. To the claim that certain promises have yet to be fulfilled, Joshua is emphatic, ‘Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.’ Likewise, Nehemiah, writing after the second exile, looked back to the first exile and could testify in praise to God for the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham, You gave them kingdoms and nations, allotting to them even the remotest frontiers… You made their sons as numerous as the stars in the sky, and you brought them into the land that you told their fathers to enter and possess. (Nehemiah 9,22-23) These passages record the first re-gathering of the Israelites to the Promised Land and Nehemiah even refers to the metaphorical promise to make Abraham’s descendants ‘as numerous as the stars in the sky’ (cf. Genesis 22:17). It is significant, however, that Scofield gives no footnotes to these passages, nor offers any cross-references to them. Instead he relies on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 15:18 that leads him to contradict these other passages of Scripture. This selective approach is not the only occasion on which Scofield mishandles Scripture in order to maintain his dispensational scheme. He does the same with the second exile. The Prophets, while warning of judgement and chastisement also offer, in varying degrees of explicitness, the promise of a second return. After 70 years this was fulfilled under Zerubbabel, and recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. However, Scofield insists they refer to a third return on the premise that certain Messianic promises have not yet been completely fulfilled literally. An example he gives is Jeremiah 23:5-8, The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety… ‘So then, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when people will no longer say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,’ but they will say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.’ Then they will live in their own land. In a footnote to this passage, Scofield asserts, This final restoration is shown to be accomplished after a period of unexampled tribulation (Jer 30. 3-10), and in connection with the manifestation of David’s righteous Branch (v. 5), who is also Jehovah-tsidkenu (v. 6). The restoration here foretold is not to be confounded with the return of a feeble remnant of Judah under Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel at the end of the 70 years (Jer. 29. 10). At His first advent Christ, David’s righteous Branch (Lk. 1. 31-33), did not ‘execute justice and judgment in the earth’ but was crowned with thorns and crucified. Neither was Israel the nation restored, nor did the Jewish people say, ‘The Lord our righteousness.’ Cf. Rom. 10. 3. The prophecy is yet to be fulfilled (Acts 15. 14-17).143 Another passage which Scofield insists supports his belief in a ‘third’ return is Ezekiel 37 and the vision of the valley of dry bones. Having announced (Ezk. 36. 24-38) the restoration of the nation, Jehovah now gives in vision and symbol the method of its accomplishment. Verse 11 gives the clue. The ‘bones’ are the whole house of Israel who shall then be living. The ‘graves’ are the nations where they dwell. The order of the procedure is, (1) the bringing of the people out (v. 12); (2) the bringing of them in (v. 12); (3) their conversion (v. 13); (4) the filling with the Spirit (v.14). The symbol follows. The two sticks are Judah and the ten tribes; united, they are one nation (vs. 19-21). Then follows (vs. 21-27) the plain declaration as to Jehovah’s purpose, and verse 28 implies that then Jehovah will become known to the Gentiles in a marked way. This is also the order of Acts 15. 16, 17, and the two passages strongly indicate the time of full Gentile conversion.144 It is difficult to conceive how such an entirely futuristic interpretation would have brought comfort to the Jewish exiles in Babylon to whom Ezekiel was sent to minister. In the footnote to Genesis 15, Scofield offers just two New Testament references to vindicate his claim that there would be a third return to the Land. Luke 1:30-33 and Acts 15:13-17. Significantly there is in fact no reference to “land” in either of these passages. Luke 1:33 states, “and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” Without further comment or footnote to the actual text, Scofield takes Luke 1:30-33 to be an implicit prediction of the return of Israel, a third time, to the Land in which Jesus will therefore “reign” as king for ever. He clearly sees this as specific to Israel rather than as a universal reference to earthly or heavenly rule as other commentators have done. The second New Testament passage which Scofield claims speaks of a third return is Acts 15:13-17. This contains the quote by James taken from Amos 9:11-12. After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages. (Acts 15:16-18) For Scofield, ‘Dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the N.T. It gives the divine purpose for this age, and for the beginning of the next.’145 since it contains James’ summary of the decision reached by the Apostles and elders that Gentile believers were not required to undergo circumcision or be commanded to keep the law of Moses as some of the Pharisees had insisted (Acts 15:5-6). James appeals to Amos 9:11 as proof that what they had been witnessing since Pentecost, in seeing Gentiles come to faith, had been predicted long ago and was therefore consistent with God’s will. Scofield reads considerably more into this passage however. So much so that he obscures its most obvious and direct meaning. The reason Scofield believes ‘dispensationally’, this to be ‘…the most important passage in the N.T.’ is because, It gives the divine purpose for this age, and for the beginning of the next. (1) The taking out from among the Gentiles of a people for His name, the distinctive work of the present, or church-age… Precisely this has been in progress since Pentecost. The Gospel has never anywhere converted all, but everywhere has called out some. (‘After this [viz. the out-calling] I will return.’ James quotes from Amos 9. 11, 12. The verses which follow in Amos describe the final re-gathering of Israel… (3) ‘And will build again the tabernacle of David,’ i.e. re-establish the Davidic rule over Israel (2 Sam. 7. 8-17; Lk. 1. 31-33). (4) ‘That the residue of man [Israelites] may seek after the Lord’ (cf. Zech. 12. 7, 8; 13. 1,2). (5) ‘And all the Gentiles,’ etc. (cf. Mic. 4. 2; Zech. 8. 21, 22). This is also the order of Rom. 11. 24-27.146 Scofield has interpreted the ‘After this…’ as meaning that ‘after James’ or ‘after Pentecost’, in fact at least 1,900 years ‘after’, God would some day ‘rebuild the tabernacle of David’. In doing so Scofield ignores the fact that James is actually quoting Amos and a chronology seen from Amos’ perspective, to explain what had happened since the time of Amos and the amazing conversion of Cornelius and other Gentiles which had caused such a stir (Acts 15:2-4) and necessitated this potentially divisive meeting between Paul and Barnabas, the Apostles and Elders. Schuyler English in his revision of Scofield attempts to reinforce this dispensational reading. With the exception of the first five words, vv. 16 – 18 are quoted from Amos 9:11 – 12. James quoted from the LXX, which here preserved the original text (see Amos 9:12, note). Amos 9:11 begins with the words “in that day.” James introduced his quotation in such a way as to show what day Amos was talking about, namely, the time after the present world-wide witness (Acts 1:8), when Christ will return. James showed that there will be Gentile believers at that time as well as Jewish believers; hence he concluded that Gentiles are not required to become Jewish proselytes by circumcision.”147 Here Schuyler English presumably believes the promise to “restore David’s fallen tent” refers to the physical return of Israel to the Land rather than the spiritual return of Israel to their Lord. The quotation is taken from Amos 9:11. In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name, ” declares the LORD, who will do these things. “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the LORD your God. (Amos 9:11-15) “Amos’ single prophecy of future blessing (9:11 – 15) details (1) the restoration of the Davidic dynasty (v. 11); (2) the conversion of the nations (v. 12); (3) the fruitfulness of the land (v. 13); (4) Israel’s return from captivity (v. 14); (5) the rebuilding of the waste cities (v. 14); and (6) Israel’s permanent settlement in the holy land (v. 15).”148 Whereas Scofield and Schuyler English take James’ quote of Amos as promising a future literal and permanent return to the Land, James, does not actually quote Amos 9:13-15, stopping at, and paraphrasing, verse 12. Instead James dwells on the purpose – the bringing of people to faith in the Messiah, and specifically the explanation of why Gentiles were turning to the Lord. James is simply appealing to the prophets to vindicate the universality of the Gospel and the Gentile mission in particular. If dispensationalists see this as ‘spiritualising’ the Old Testament text, then they should acknowledge that it is James under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who does so.149 By using the passage to teach some predetermined chronological and superior futuristic plan for national Israel, however, Scofield and Schuyler English take away the heart of the passage which implicitly focuses on the wonder of Christ’s work at Calvary as the reason Gentiles were turning to God (Acts 15:26). Furthermore, on the basis of Scofield’s logic, and as others have insisted subsequently, the ‘return’ of Israel to the Land could precede her return to the Lord, since this Jewish revival will occur on His ‘return’ thus negating the need for evangelism among the Jews. It is a simple fact that nowhere is a third re-gathering ‘to the land’ mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Each passage quoted by Scofield refers either to the first or second re-gathering to the land, or as in the case of Amos 9, to the first advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is significant that following the rebuilding of Solomon’s temple in 516 B.C. there are no biblical references in either the Old or the New Testament to any return to the Land. From the perspective of the New Testament, the Land, as much as the nation of Israel, has ceased to have any significance in the future purposes of God. So for example, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus reinterprets and universalises the promises made to Israel in Psalm 37. Psalm 37: 11, 22, 29But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace… those the Lord blesses will inherit the land, but those he curses will be cut off… the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever. Matthew 5:5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Similarly, when Paul is listing the present benefits that still pertain to Israel in Romans 9, significantly, apart from the indirect reference by way of to ‘the covenants’ he does not explicitly mention the land or kingdom as one of them.150 …the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9,4-5) Probably most conclusive of all, Jesus himself rules out any notion that Israel will enjoy any discrete national identity, as a ‘kingdom’ in the future. Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. (Matthew 21:43) Gerstner interprets this as signalling, …the end of the nation of Israel as the chosen people of God. They have been tried and found wanting. God’s patience has been exausted. If there were any doubts about that being the obvious meaning of the words, the parable on which they are based would utterly eliminate any lingering procrastination.151 Gerstner points out that the Greek word used in verse 43 for nation (ethnos) is invariably used to describe the Gentile peoples, and in context, the parable of the tenants clearly relates to and contrasts with the disobedience of the Jewish nation.152 Instead of attempting to explain how Jesus might be describing a ‘temporary’ rejection of the Jews, Ryrie reverses the plain intention of the text to fit a dispensational framework, asserting, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you (leaders of Israel), and given to a nation (Israel) bringing forth the fruits thereof.153 Gerstner also notes that Chafer, Walvoord and Gaebelein remain ‘curiously silent’ on this verse.154 Allis summarises the traditional interpretation that Jesus is here signalling the end of any national identity for Israel within the purposes of God. Jesus declared to the Jews that the kingdom should ‘be taken from’ them (Matt. xxi. 41f.). The children of the kingdom (the natural and lawful heirs) are to be ‘cast out’ (viii. 11f.). None of those ‘bidden’ are to taste of the marriage supper (Lk. xiv. 24). The vineyard is to be given to ‘other husbandmen’; to ‘a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’; men are to come from the ‘highways,’ from ‘the east and west and north and south,’ to partake with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of the marriage supper.155 Unperturbed by such discrepancies, inconsistencies and omissions Scofield constructs a detailed ‘end-times’ scenario which forms the basis of much contemporary apocalyptic dispensationalism. 10. Speculations on Armageddon and the Day of the Lord In 1897 when Scofield spoke at the Niagara Prophetic Conference, his commitment to Darby’s doctrine of a ‘failing church’ and imminent rapture were well formulated. His message was entitled, ‘The Return of the Lord.’ The signs and portents of the end-time are now so many and so ominous than men of vision everywhere, and in every walk of life, are taking note of them; and this quite apart from the interpretation of them which prophecy gives. Men like Gladstone and Bismark have said that the catastrophe of present day civilisation is near and cannot be averted; that the destructive agencies are more and mightier than the forces of conservatism, and that no man may predict what form the reconstructed social order will assume after the inevitable cataclysm… We have risen from our study of the Word of God to come up here year by year to utter this warning-that the age ends in disaster, in ruin, in the great, final, world-catastrophe and for this we have been branded pessimists.156 Scofield followed Darby in describing in detail the events preceding the Great Tribulation and battle of Armageddon. It is interesting to compare the categorical footnotes to Ezekiel 38 found in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible with the more circumspect notes of the 1984 New Scofield Study Bible. Scofield Reference Bible (1917) The New Scofield Study Bible (1984) That the primary reference is to the northern (European) powers, headed up by Russia, all agree. The whole passage should be read in connection with Zech. 12. 1-4; 14. 1-9; Mat. 24. 14-30; rev. 14. 14-20; 19. 17-21. ‘Gog’ is the prince, ‘Magog.’ his land. The reference to Meshech and Tubal (Moscow and Tobolsk) is a clear mark of identification. Russia and the northern powers have been the latest persecutors of dispersed Israel, and it is congruous both with divine justice and with the covenants (e.g. Gen. 15. 18, note; Deut. 30. 3, note) that destruction should fall at the climax of the last mad attempt to exterminate the remnant of Israel in Jerusalem. The whole prophecy belongs to the yet future ‘day of Jehovah’ (Isa. 2. 10-22; rev. 19. 11-21), and to the battle of Armageddon (rev. 16. 14; 19. 19, note), but includes also the final revolt of the nations at the close of the kingdom-age (rev. 20. 7-9).157 The reference is to the powers in the north of Europe, headed by Russia. The whole passage should be read in connection with Zech. 12. 1-4; 14. 1-9; Mat. 24. 14-30; rev. 14. 14-20; 19. 17-21. Gog is probably the prince; Magog, his land. Russia and the northern powers have long been the persecutors of dispersed Israel, and it is congruous both with divine justice and the covenants of God that destruction shall fall in connection with the attempt to exterminate the remnant of Israel in Jerusalem. The entire prophecy belongs to the yet future day of the Lord (see notes at Joel 1:15; Revelation 19:19).158 A similar comparison of the footnotes to Revelation 19:19 in both editions shows how dispensationalist speculations concerning Armageddon have been modified to take account of recent history. So for example where Scofield, writing at the height of the colonial era, could speculate about “…the coming of the Lord in glory (Rev. 19. 1, 21), until which time Jerusalem is politically subject to Gentile rule (Luke 21. 24).”159 E. Schuyler English, writing in 1967 takes account of the events of 1948 and revises the note to read somewhat more enigmatically, “Until then Jerusalem will be, as Christ said, “trampled on by the Gentiles.” (Luke 21:24)”160 Similarly, Scofield sees the purpose of the Lord’s visible return to earth, subsequent to the secret rapture and removal of the saints to heaven, specifically in order to ‘deliver the Jewish remnant besieged by the Gentile world-powers under the Beast and False Prophet’.161 This scheme is not apparently shared by E. Schuyler English who, with the benefit of 20th Century hindsight, sees more significance in the invading chinese army than in the deliverance of Israel. Scofield Reference Bible (1917) The New Scofield Study Bible (1984) Armageddon (the ancient hill and valley of Megiddo, west of Jordan in the plain of Jezreel) is the appointed place for the beginning of the great battle in which the Lord, at his coming in glory, will deliver the Jewish remnant besieged by the Gentile world-powers under the Beast and False Prophet (rev. 16.13-16; Zech. 12.1-9). Apparently the besieging hosts, whose approach to Jerusalem is described in Isa. 10.28-32, alarmed by the signs which precede the Lord’s coming (Mt. 24.29,30), have fallen back to Megiddo, after the events of Zech. 14.2, where their destruction begins; a destruction consummated in Moab and the plains of Idumea (Isa. 63.1-6). This battle is the first event in “the day of Jehovah” (Isa. 2.12, refs.), and the fulfilment of the smiting-stone prophecy of Dan. 2.35.162 Armageddon (the name itself is to be found only in 16:16) is the ancient hill and valley of Megiddo, west of the Jordan in the plain of Jezreel between Samaria and Galilee. It is the appointed place where the armies of the beast and false prophet will be destroyed by Christ’s descending to earth in glory (vv. 11,15,19,21), as well as any other forces which will come against the beast in their attack on Palestine (e.g. the remainder of the Far Eastern army of 200 million men), and others (9:13 – 18; 16:12 -14,16; cp. Joel 3:9 – 16; Zech 12:1 – 9; 14:1 – 4; Mat 24:27 – 30). The battle is a fulfillment of the striking-stone prophecy of Dan 2:35… See also Isa 2:12, refs.163 As has been shown Scofield divided the world into three classes of people, Jews, Gentiles and the visible church.164 Consequently he sees the return of Jesus Christ as having a ‘threefold relation: to the church, to Israel, to the nations.’165 In a most unorthodox manner, Scofield even claims that after the judgment there will be forgiveness and blessing for both Jews and Gentiles long after the church has been raised to heaven. (a) To the church the descent of the Lord into the air to raise the sleeping and change the living saints is set forth as a constant expectation and hope… (b) To Israel, the return of the Lord is predicted to accomplish the yet unfulfilled prophecies of her national regathering, conversion and establishment in peace and power under the Davidic Covenant (Acts 15. 14-17 with Zech. 14. 1-9) (c) To the Gentile nations the return of Christ is predicted to bring the destruction of the present political world-system (Dan. 2.34, 35; Rev. 19. 11, note); the judgment of Mt. 25. 31-46, followed by world-wide Gentile conversion and participation in the blessings of the kingdom (Isa. 2. 2-4; 11. 10; 60. 3; Zech. 8. 3, 20, 23; 14. 16-21).166 It is interesting to observe how Scofield used passages such as Matthew 24 to make prophetic interpretations fit contemporary events, a pattern developed by subsequent dispensationalists. So, in referring to Allenby’s capture of Jerusalem in December 1917, Scofield wrote to Charles Trumball, his biographer, ‘Now for the first time, we have a real prophetic Sign.’ 167 A year later, in 1918 Scofield published, What Do The Prophets Say?, a series of studies that had previously appeared in the Sunday School Times in 1916. This included a chapter entitled, ‘Does the Bible Throw Light on This War?’ Scofield speculated, So far as the prophetic Word has spoken there is not the least warrant for the expectation that the nations engaged in the present gigantic struggle will or can make a permanent peace. It is fondly dreamed that out of all the duffering and carnage and destruction of this war will be born such a hatred of war as will bring to pass a federation of the nations-The United States of the World-in which will exist but one army, and that an international peace, rather than an army. For once there is some correspondence between a popular dream and the prophetic Word. For that Word certainly points to a federated world-empire in the end-time of the age… It is, of course, possible, nay, probable that some temporary truce may end, or suspend for a time, the present world-war, for ten kingdoms will exist at the end-time in the territory once ruled over by Rome.168 There are remarkable similarities between Scofield’s views and those written 60 years later by Hal Lindsey who equally dogmatically asserts, We are the generation the prophets were talking about. We have witnessed biblical prophecies come true. The birth of Israel. The decline in American power and morality. The rise of Russian and Chinese might. The threat of war in the Middle East. The increase of earthquakes, volcanoes, famine and drought. The Bible foretells the signs that precede Armageddon… We are the generation that will see the end times …and the return of Jesus.169 Dwight Wilson observes, The premillinarian’s history is strewn with a mass of erroneous speculations which have undermined their credibility… The supposed restoration of Israel has confused the problem of whether the Jews are to be restored before or after the coming of the Messiah. The restoration… Has been pinpointed to have begun in 1897, 1917, and 1948… It is not likely that the situation will change greatly.170 11. Conclusions: The Legacy of Scofieldism on Christian Zionism William E. Cox, a former dispensationalist and subsequently a critic of Scofieldism offers this appraisal of his abiding influence. Scofield’s footnotes and his systematized schemes of hermeneutics have been memorized by many as religiously as have verses of the Bible. It is not at all uncommon to hear devout men recite these footnotes prefaced by the words, ‘The Bible says…’ Many a pastor has lost all influence with members of his congregation and has been branded a liberal for no other reason than failure to concur with all the footnotes of Dr. Scofield. Even many ministers use the teachings of Scofield as tests of orthodoxy! Charles G. Trumball, late editor of the Sunday School Times, spoke of the Scofield Bible in the following terms, in his book, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield: ‘God-planned, God-guided, God-energized work.(p. 114).’171 In 1890 Scofield began his Comprehensive Bible Correspondence Course through which tens of thousands of students around the world were introduced to his dispensational teaching about a failing Church and a future Israel. Scofield directed the Course until 1914 when it was taken over by the Moody Press, associated with the Moody Bible Institute. In the 1890’s during Scofield’s pastorate in Dallas he was also head of the Southwestern School of the Bible, the forerunner to Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924 by another of his disciples, Lewis Sperry Chafer, who became probably Scofield’s most influential exponent. Chafer has, in the history of American Dispensationalism, a double distinction. First, he established and led Dispensationalism’s most scholarly institution through the formative years of its existence. Second, he produced the first full and definitive systematic theology of Dispensationalism. This massive eight-volume work is a full articulation of the standard Scofieldian variety of dispensational thought, constantly related to the Biblical texts and data on which it claims to rest. Its influence appears to have been great on all dispensationalist teachers since its first publication, though it is fading today. All of Chafer’s work and career was openly and obviously in the Scofieldian tradition. A few years before his death, Chafer, faithful to his mentor to the last, was to say of his greatest academic achievement, ‘It goes on record that the Dallas Theological Seminary uses, recommends, and defends the Scofield Bible.’ The major line of dispensational orthodoxy is clear and unbroken from Darby to Scofield to Chafer to Dallas.172 For example, Chafer repeatedly defended both Scofield’s and Darby’s foundational assumption that the Bible reveals God is working through two different channels, Israel and the church. …with the call of Abraham and the giving of the Law and all that followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into favour with God… These systems [of law and grace] do set up conflicting and opposing principles. But since these difficulties appear only when an attempt is made to coalesce systems, elements, and principles which God has separated, the conflicts really do not exist at all outside these unwarranted unifying efforts… The true unity of the Scriptures is not discovered when one blindly seeks to fuse these opposing principles into one system… Though dispensationalism does… Departmentalize the message of the Word of God according to its obvious divisions, [it] does also discover the true unity of the Bible. The outstanding characteristic of the dispensationalist is… That he believes every statement of the Bible and gives to it the plain, natural meaning its words imply. [Dispensationalism] has changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which purposes reach on into eternity to come.173 It is perhaps therefore not surprising that these two institutions, the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary have since then continued to be the foremost apologists for Scofield’s dispensational views, and Christian Zionism in particular. 1 For example, The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967); The Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute, 1994); The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984); Scofield Study Notes (Quickverse for Windows, Parsons Technology, 1994) 2 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 222. 3 Charles G. Trumball, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (Oxford University Press, New York, 1920) 4 Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and his Book (Vallecito, California, Ross House Books, 1988). Canfield refers to a third source by William A. BeVier, A Biographical Sketch of C.I. Scofield: A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Southern Methodist University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Master of Arts with a Major in History. May 1960. See also Albertus Pieters, A Candid Examination of the Scofield Bible (Grand Rapids, Douma Publications) 5 Trumball, Scofield., p. 125. 6 cited by Canfield, Incredible., p. 1. as reported in The Dallas Morning News, Monday Nov. 28, 1921, p. 7. 7 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 15, 108. 8 Canfield, Incredible., p. 48. 9 Canfield, Incredible., p. 52. 10 Canfield, Incredible., p. 54. 11 Canfield, Incredible., p. 55. 12 Canfield, Incredible., p. 66. 13 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 57, 67. 14 Canfield, Incredible., p. 79. 15 Canfield, Incredible., p. 80. 16 From the papers in case No. 2161, supplied by the Atchison County Court, cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 89. 17 From the papers in case No. 2161, supplied by the Atchison County Court, cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 89. 18 Canfield, Incredible., p. 95. 19 Canfield, Incredible., p. 98. 20 Canfield, Incredible., p. 100. 21 Canfield, Incredible., p. 115. 22 Canfield, Incredible., p. 196. 23 Canfield, Incredible., p. 135. 24 Canfield, Incredible., p. 148. 25 Canfield, Incredible., p. 181. 26 Canfield, Incredible., p. 231. 27 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 222, 277, 291. 28 From the files of the Kansas State Historical Society, as cited by Canfield, Incredible., pp. 79-80. 29 Newspaper from the files of the Kansas City Public Library, as cited by Canfield, Incredible., pp. 82-83. 30 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 83-84. 31 Canfield, Incredible., p. 151 32 Canfield, Incredible., pp. 76, 84. 33 C.I. Scofield, The Purpose of God in This Age, a sermon preached at First Congregational, Dallas, October 15, 1893, p. 19. Cited by Canfield, Incredible., p. 137. 34 John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), p. 38. 35 Ernest Reisinger, ‘A History of Dispensationalism in America’ (http://www.founders.org/FJ09/article1.html) 36 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 74-75. 37 Canfield, Incredible., p. 74. 38 Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1960), p. 18. See also Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1958), p. 369f. 39 W. G. Turner, John Nelson Darby (London, Chapter Two, [1901], 1986), back cover. 40 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 43. 41 C. I. Scofield, ‘Introduction,’ The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 1909. 42 Arno C. Gaebelein, Half A Century (New York, Publication Office of Our Hope, 1930), p. 20. Cited in Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 44. 43 Arno C. Gaebelein, The History of the Scofield Reference Bible (Spokane, WA, Living Words Foundation, 1991), p. 33. 44 J. R. Graves, The Work of Christ Consummated in Seven Dispensations (Texarkana, Baptist Sunday School Board of Texarkana, 1883) 45 Canfield, Incredible., p. 112. 46 C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (New York, Loizeaux Brothers, 1888) 47 Canfield, Incredible., p. 122. 48 The Authorised Version translates this verses as ‘rightly dividing the Word of Truth.’ Canfield wrongly attributes this to Paul’s first letter to Timothy, Canfield, Incredible., p. 166. 49 Scofield, Rightly., p. 3. 50 Scofield, Rightly., p. 2. 51 Canfield, Incredible., p. 166. 52 (John 3:16, 18) 53 (1 Corinthians 12:13) 54 Scofield, Rightly., p. 18. 55 Canfield, Incredible., p. 167. 56 C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute), pp. 45-46. 57 Scofield, Scofield., Index. 58 Barr, Fundamentalism., p. 196. 59 Canfield, Incredible., p. 112. 60 Canfield, Incredible., p. 122. 61 Bruce L. Shelly, ‘Niagara Conferences’, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. J. D. Douglas. rev. edn. (Exeter, Paternoster Press, 1978), p. 706. 62 Resolution included as Appendix A in Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970). 63 Charles G. Trumball, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (Oxford University Press, New York, 1920), pp. 61-62. 64 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1945), p. 267. 65 Fuller, Gospel., p. 1. 66 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) 67 Arno C. Gaebelein, Moody Monthly 43 (1943) p. 278. 68 Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1977), p. 15. 69 James Barr, Escaping from Fundamentalism (London, SCM, 1984), p. 6. 70 Craig A. Blaising ‘Dispensationalism, The Search for Definition’ in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, The Search for Definition ed. Craig A. Blaising & Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1992) p. 21. 71 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970), p. 222. 72 C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1917), Introduction, p. iii. 73 Scofield, Scofield., p. iii. 74 Canfield, Incredible., p. 209. Canfield calculates that comments appear on only 327 out of a total of 970 pages of the Old Testament, and on only 214 out of 352 pages in the New Testament. 75 Trumball, Scofield., p. 76. 76 Scofield, Scofield., p. 725. 77 Canfield, Incredible., p. 209. 78 James M. Gray, President of Moody Bible Institute, and William J. Erdman. 79 Canfield, Incredible., p. 204. 80 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970), p. 224. 81 Cornelius R. Stam, The New Scofield Reference Bible, An Appraisal, (Chicago, Berean Bible Society), p. 12. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 218. 82 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) 83 Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute, 1994) 84 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, p. 5. 85 Scofield, Scofield., Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible, p. iii. 86 C. I. Scofield, Addresses on Prophecy (New York, Chas. C. Cook, 1914), p. 13. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., pp. 216-217. 87 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, p. 5. 88 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 3. 89 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 3, p. 1250. 90 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 20. 91 Scofield, Scofield., p. 989 92 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2, p. 1115. 93 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1002. Many other dispensationalists take the same view. See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, (Dallas, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), vol. 4. p. 221. 94 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1115. This footnote is substantially modified in the New Scofield Study Bible, to stress that salvation is always through faith. p. 1094. 95 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1252. Here Scofield contradicts Paul himself in 2 Timothy 3:16. 96 Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum. The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 1980); Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, reprinted 1964); William Cox, Why I Left Scofieldism (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, n.d.); An Examination of Dispensationalism (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963) 97 C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Oakland, Western Book and Tract Co. n.d.), p. 18. 98 Scofield, Scofield.,. p. 989. 99 William E. Cox, Why I Left Scofieldism (Phillipsberg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d.) p. 8. 100 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 8. 101 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 9. 102 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 18. 103 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 725. 104 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1346. 105 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1347. 106 Scofield, Rightly., p. 13. 107 see Ephesians 1:22-23; Matthew 16:18. 108 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1629. 109 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 20. 110 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 20. 111 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 18. 112 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, pp. 724-725. This is another unpalatable footnote omitted in the New Scofield Study Bible (1984). 113 International Christian Zionist Congress Proclamation, International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem. 25-29 February 1996; and Colin Chapman, Whose Promised Land? (Oxford, Lion, 1992), p. 280. 114 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 3, p. 25. 115 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 18. 116 Scofield, Scofield., p. 989. 117 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2. p. 1021. 118 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1158. 119 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1204. 120 Cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 169. 121 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. p. 1036. 122 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 1012. 123 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 922. 124 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1348. 125 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1348. 126 Scofield, Rightly., p. 18. 127 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1206. 128 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1297. 129 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1148. 130 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2, p. 963. 131 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2, p. 157. 132 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 932. 133 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1151. 134 Scofield, Scofield., note, p. 25. 135 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 250. 136 The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967) 137 The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 217. 138 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. p. 250. 139 The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 19. 140 The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 217. 141 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. p. 723. 142 emphasis added. 143 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 795. 144 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 881. 145 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, pp. 1169-1170 146 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1. pp. 1169-1170 147 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 1152. 148 New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 916. 149 Fuller, Gospel., p. 180. Also James Barr, Fundamentalism (London, SCM, 1977), p. 355. 150 W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley, Los Angeles, University of California), 1974, pp. 166-167, 366ff. [n.b. a subject to be pursued in more detail later] 151 Gerstner, Wrongly., pp. 190-191. 152 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 191. 153 Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, (Neptune, New Jersey, Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), p. 72. 154 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 192. 155 Oswald Allis, Prophecy and the Church, An Examination of the Claim of Dispensationalists that the Christian Church is a Mystery (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1945), p. 78. 156 Truth (periodical), No. 19 (1897), p. 385. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., p.125. 157 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 883. 158 E. Schuyler English, The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) p. 857. 159 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1345. 160 E. Schuyler English, The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) p. 1331. 161 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, p. 1348. 162 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, pp. 1348-1349. 163 E. Schuyler English, The New Scofield Study Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) p. 1334. 164 Scofield, Scofield., p. 1221. 165 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1148 166 Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 1148 167 Charles G. Trumball, Prophecy’s Light on Today, (New York, Revell, 1937), p. 67, cited in Canfield, Incredible., p. 271. 168 C. I. Scofield, What Do The Prophets Say? (Philadelphia, The Sunday School Times Co., 1918), pp. 18-19. Cited in Canfield, Incredible., pp. 274-275. 169 Hal Lindsey, The 1980’s, Countdown to Armageddon, (New York, Bantam, 1981), back cover. 170 Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1977), pp. 216-218. 171 William E. Cox, An Examination of Dispensationalism (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), p. 55-56. 172 Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 46 173 L. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447. Quoted in Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutic of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapdis, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 24-25. This entry was posted in Bible, Christian Zionism, Dispensationalism, Israel, Palestine, Scofield, Theology and tagged Christian Zionism, Dispensationalism, Scofield on June 30, 2021.

SCOFIELD https://historicist.info/scofield/the-satanic-influence-on-the-scofield-bible/ The Satanic Influence on the Scofield Bible Posted on March 17, 2024 by historicist Joseph Canfield in The Incredible Scofield provides a clue that helps unravel the mystery surrounding the Scofield Bible. He states that on the second page of the introduction to the first edition published in 1909, Scofield acknowledged that he had been influenced by two Oxford Bible scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.1 Scofield traveled to Oxford University just prior to the publication of his Bible. At the time, these two men were highly regarded authorities on the Greek New Testament. However, the recent controversy over the King James Bible has thrown a flood of light into the dark corners of their lives. The revelations have been shocking. Westcott was a bishop in the Anglican church and Hort a professor of divinity but both men had abandoned their Christian faith. While an undergraduate at Cambridge, Westcott formed a club called Hermes.2 Hermes was a pre-Hellenic Greek deity considered to be bisexual. The club was noted for the intensity of the homosexual relations between its members.3 In 1851, Hort and Westcott started the Ghost Society, which over the years included some of the most noted intellectuals in England including future Prime Minister Arthur Balfour.4 Balfour was at the center of an elite group which had inherited great political power, wealth, and social position.5 They were leaders in the occult revival of the 19th century and founders of the New Age Movement with Luciferian Helen Blatavsky.6 Hort and Westcott were committed Communists.7 They hated America and democracy.8 There was a close tie between their occult group and Marxism in England;9 and under the leadership of Arthur Balfour, they began working on what has become the one world religion and the New World Order.10 A key strategy in bringing about this one world religion involved replacing the King James verson with a revised text where words were added and removed, and meanings were changed.11 Hort and Westcott’s New Age versions have virtually replaced the King James version today. Not content with changing God’s word, Scofield’s credit reveals they also worked to change Bible prophecy. Historicism had been the standard for 500 years; but the publication of the Scofield Bible resurrected the old Jesuit futurism with a Zionist twist. Today, the policies of our country are dramatically influenced by futurism and Christian Zionism, while few have even heard of historicism. During the years they worked on the revised text, they met secretly at night and held séances with their depraved society. These meetings were often held at Arthur Balfour’s residence or townhouse.12 They are acknowledged today as the fathers of modern channeling.13 Channeling involves inviting a familiar spirit or diving demon into one’s body. Channelers or mediums frequently end up in bondage with the occult. This practice is an abomination to God, who warned that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils” (1 Timothy 4:1). Men with familiar spirits in the Old Testament were to be put to death. According to Scofield, the real influences behind the publication of the Scofield Bible were two men who were influenced or possessed by demons. Their motivation was not to glorify God but to bring about a New World Order with a New World Religion based on spiritualism.14 Further Reading THE NINETEENTH CENTURY OCCULT REVIVAL The Legacy of Westcott & Hort The Necromancers ~H~ The Political & Occult Connections of Westcott & Hort ~H~ The Society for Psychical Research The Networks Of Westcott & Hort A look at Samuel Untermeyer ~H~ References Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book (Vallecito, Ca.: Ross House Books, 1988), page 195. ↩︎ Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1903), p. 47. ↩︎ Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), pp. 90-91. ↩︎ James Webb, The Occult Underground (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Press, 1974), p. 8. ↩︎ Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (New York: Books in Focus, 1981), page 32. ↩︎ Webb, page 155. ↩︎ Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Antony Hort, Vol I (New York: Macmillan and Company, 1896), p.104. ↩︎ Ibid. pp. 458-459. ↩︎ Norman and Jeanne MacKensie, The Fabians (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), pages 18, 316. ↩︎ G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Ararat, Va: AV Publications, 1993), pp. 419-421. ↩︎ Ibid., pages 11-13. ↩︎ Gauld, pp. 105, 104, 48. ↩︎ Riplinger, page 402. ↩︎ Gauld, pp. 305-307. ↩︎ hort and westcott, scofield

https://historicist.info/necromancers/the-ghostly-guild-channelings-lineage/ NECROMANCERS The Ghostly Guild: Channeling’s Lineage Posted on March 13, 2024 by historicist This entry is part 4 of 15 in the series New Age Bible Versions New Age Bible Versions The Necromancers Channelled Bibles and Doctrines of Devils The Occult Underground: Address for New Bible Translators The Ghostly Guild: Channeling’s Lineage Rosemary’s Baby: The Society for Psychical Research The Early S.P.R.’s Friends: Blavatsky and Westcott The One and the ‘One Life’ Blavatsky and Westcott Satan’s Apostles Eranus The Council of Twelve New World Order Footnotes Possessed Related Reading Westcott and Hort were not only ‘Fathers’ in the Angelican church but, according to numerous historians and New Age researchers, appear to be among the ‘Fathers’ of the modern channeling movement. (The Fox sisters along with H.P. Blavatsky were the ‘Mothers’.) The group referred to by James Webb as an element in the Occult Underground was ‘The Ghost Club’ or ‘Ghostly Guild’ launched in the 1850’s be Westcott, Hort and Benson. Webb discloses: Ghost Society [was] founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Bishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson writes in his father’s biography, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost Club became Bishops [Benson and Westcott] and one became a Professor of Divinity [Hort].(26) Hort writes of his and Westcott’s work to set this apparition association in motion. Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd ect. And I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things rally exist. . .Westcott is drawing up a schedule of question(27) In the very same letter Hort chaffs that the bible, extant in his day as the King James Version from the Greek Textus Receptus, was ‘Villianous’. (28) This letter, a foghorn sounded by Father Time to us today, testifies to the foreboding genesis of today’s community of translations like the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and NRSV. Westcott and Hort’s position in the current bloodline of the New Age movement is conceded by Hort’s son: Hort seems to have been the moving spirit of. . .’the Bogie Club’ as scoffers called it, [it] aroused a certain amount of derision and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon.(29) Authors of the Ancient Empires of the New Age see this trend without a son’s bias noting, “Once the elite had closed their minds to Biblical revelation, they almost immediately began to fall for every spiritual con game and fringe teaching around.” (30) Their contemporaries gave ample warning as Hort admits: . . .Macaulay is horrified at the paper. . .During the vacation I distributed some eight or ten ‘ghostly papers’. . .I left a paper on my table the other evening when the Ray met here, and it excited some attention, but not I think much sympathy. Dr. __ was APPALLED to find such a spot of medieval darkness flecking light serene of Cambridge University in the nineteenth century. There were also grave smiles and civil questions; and finally several copies were carried off.(31) Although Hort referred to evangelical Christians as “dangerous” and “perverted”, “unsound”, and “confused” he was rabidly ‘evangelistic’ about his ‘necromancy’ as the bible calls it. Writing to C.H Chambers, Hort proselytizes: I sent you two ghostly papers; you can have more if you want them, but I find they go very fast and the 750 copies which we printed go by no means far enough. We are promised a large number of well-authenticated private stories, but they have not arrived yet. Our most active members are however absent from Cambridge; to wit Westcott at Harrow and Gordon at Wells. . .(32) Westcott’s son writes, “Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings and their inquiry circular was originally drawn up by him. He also received a number of communications in response.” Westcott’s “Ghostly Circular” reads in part: But there are many others who believe it is possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us. . .Many of the stories current in tradition or scattered up and down in books, may be exactly true. . .(33) The members apparently had their own ‘experiences’ and the circular was for eliciting “information beyond the limits if their own immediate circle.” (34) Referring to ‘the foundations’ of the occult revival, another historian W.H. Salter, points to Westcott, Hort and Benson, their guild and circular. First mentioned should be made of spontaneous cases of haunts and the like. . .[T]he founders of psychical research . . .The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’ had collected them by circular.(35) Topping over the heap of secular historians which identify Westcott and Hort among the seeds of the present New Age thicket is The Founders of Psychical Research, by Alan Gauld. He lists their ‘Guild’ among the ‘Founders’. In 1851 was founded at Cambridge a Society to conduct a ‘serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of phenomena vaguely called ‘supernatural’, and a number of distinguished persons became members. (36) Pogo sticking through the index of The Founders of Psychical Research reveals the following ‘company’ in which our esteemed bible revisers find themselves. Automatic Writing, Benson, Biblical Criticism, Mme, H.P. Blavatsky, Clairvoyance, ‘Control’ Spirit, Crystal-gazing, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Ghost Club, F.J. A Hort, Hypnotism, ‘Inspirational’ writing and speaking in early British Spiritualism, C.G. Jung, Levitation, J.B. Lightfoot, Mediumship, Mesmerism, Multiple Personality, Plato, Society for Psychical Research, Spiritualism, Swedenborne Society, Synthetic Society, Telepathy, Trance Medium, B.F. Westcott. Westcott’s son writes of his father’s lifelong “faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call it Spiritualism. . .” The subject was, he notes, unintelligible or alarming to the general”. In response to public disfavor regarding his esotericism and liberalism and in light of his position in the ‘religious’ community, Westcott determined that public involvement in the Ghostly Guild “led to no good.” (37) In 1860 and 1861, Hort wrote to Westcott of their mutual concern in this regard. [T]his may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text [‘New’ Greek Testament] should be cast upon the world before we deal with maters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will find great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms. . .If only we speak our minds, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offense to. . .the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.(38) Their subversive and clandestine approach continued, as seen ten years later when Westcott writes, “. . .strike blindly. . .much evil would result from the public discussion.”(39) Westcott’s son alludes to the shroud of mystery surrounding the continuation of the ‘Ghostly Guild’. [M]y father laboured under the imputation of being ‘unsafe’. . . .What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered.”(40)

https://www.febc.edu.sg/article/def_the_inside_story_of_westcott_and_hort The Inside Story of Westcott and Hort Charles Seet Their Lives and Work Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), and Fenton J A Hort (1828–1892) were two renowned Anglican scholars at Cambridge University. They were known to be the chief architects of the critical theory which resulted in the revised Greek Testament which has replaced the Textus Receptus (TR) or Received Text. At the age of 23, in late 1851, Hort wrote to a friend: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus…. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” This early prejudice against the TR began Hort’s life-long crusade against it, and efforts to see it replaced with the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Scarcely more than a year later, the plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament was first agreed upon with Westcott. In 1857, five Anglican clergymen started efforts to secure a revision of the English Bible. Being aware of this, Westcott and Hort worked together on the Greek text for twenty years, preparing for the day when they would be appointed to sit on the New Testament revision committee. They also concocted an imaginary theory (150 pages long) that would be tight enough to convince others to favour a change in the Greek text. The false assumptions are these: They assumed that between 250 AD and 350 AD there was a revision of the Greek text which produced the Majority text. Discordant manuscripts were blended together to form this text, and thus many additional verses and passages were added. They say that this revision caused the original text to be lost (until the Vatican and Sinai codices were found). They say that this was a conspiracy by the whole Orthodox church which has successfully suppressed the original up to and including the present time. These are the standard arguments against the Text of the King James Version (KJV). They are not fair. They are not honest. They do not deal with the actual facts of the case which show that the earlier manuscripts were probably from a mutilated text produced by the heretical sect called the Adoptionists (a form of gnosticism) late in the second century AD (described in Eusebius’ History). Orthodox churches recognised these shorter texts as false ones and did not use them. They continued to preserve and make copies of the true text (which is the Majority Text). In 1870, The Church of England finally passed a resolution to revise the English Bible. The New Testament revision committee finally consisted of 25 scholars (though only about 16 eventually attended the meetings) which included Westcott and Hort. The committee worked for ten years in the Jerusalem chamber, and these two scholars swept the Revision Committee along with them after work commenced. In fact, the “Cambridge trio” (Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot) colluded with others to dominate the meetings with their views of the text and to defeat any who opposed them. Their letters reveal this conspiracy: Westcott wrote to Hort, May 28, 1870, “Your note came with one from Ellicott this morning…. Though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as ‘we three’ are together it would be wrong not to ‘make the best of it’ as Lightfoot says … There is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in the margin” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, I:231). Westcott wrote to Lightfoot, June 4, 1870: “Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should be agreed” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, I:391). Hort wrote to Williams: “The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time, if the process is allowed to go on quietly; and I cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism” (Hort, Life of Hort, I:400). The only voice defending the Textus Receptus was Dr Scrivener, probably the foremost scholar of the day in the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and the history of the Text. But he was systematically outvoted by the Cambridge trio and outdone by Hort’s powerful debating skill. When the revision was completed, they had altered the Greek Text in 5337 places, thus violating the original rule that had been set for the committee of not altering the Greek Text unless absolutely necessary to do so. Today, even naturalistic critics have come to the conclusion that the Westcott and Hort critical theory is erroneous at every point. Epp confesses that “we simply do not have a theory of the text.” K W Clark says of the Westcott and Hort text: “The textual history postulated for the Textus Receptus which we now trust has been exploded.” And again, “The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through.” Their Beliefs According to D A Waite, Westcott and Hort denied certain fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith (see D A Waite, Heresies of Westcott and Hort [Collingswood: The Bible For Today, 1979]). The two scholars held modernistic views. Hort clearly believed in the new theory of evolution. He wrote to the Rev John Ellerton, April 3, 1860: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…. My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period” (Hort, Life of Hort, I:416). Westcott did not believe in the literal interpretation of the creation account of Genesis. Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69). Both Westcott and Hort were in favour of the worship of Mary. They were both heavily influenced by the “Oxford Movement” of Cardinal Newman. Cardinal Newman, whom they greatly admired, was a high churchman who led many back into the Roman Catholic Church. According to Benjamin Wilkerson: “By the year 1870, so powerful had become the influence of the Oxford Movement, that a theological bias in favour of Rome was affecting men in high authority. Many of the most sacred institutions of Protestant England had been assailed and some of them had been completely changed. The attack on the Thirty-nine Articles by Tract 90, and the subversion of fundamental Protestant doctrines within the Church of England had been so bold and thorough, that an attempt to substitute a version which would theologically and legally discredit our common Protestant Version would not be a surprise.” Westcott and Hort, in their own words, openly confessed their adoration of Mary. Westcott wrote from France to his fiancee, 1847: “After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighbouring hill…. Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [ie a Virgin and dead Christ]…. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, I:81). Westcott wrote to Archbishop Benson, November 17, 1865: “I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:50). Hort wrote to Westcott: “I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry” (Hort, Life of Hort, II:49) Hort wrote to Westcott, October 17, 1865: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results” (Hort, Life of Hort, II:50). Their Secret Beliefs and Practices Although the integrity of Gail Riplinger’s work New Age Bible Versions (Ohio: AV Publications, 1993), has been questioned with charges that she has made up a lot of the information or got them from unreliable sources, it may be worth to mention her findings, based on the biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons, that: As a Cambridge undergraduate Westcott organised a club which he named Hermes, a mythological guide of departed souls to Hades. This club met from 1845–48 and was evidently a precursor to the Ghost Club. Westcott and Hort were among the founders of the Ghost Club (or “Bogie Club” as scoffers called it) in 1850, with the purpose of investigating “ghosts and all supernatural appearances of effects, being disposed to believe such things really exist.” Such practices are condemned in the Scriptures in Deut 18:11. Both of them were friends of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and Carl Jung who were enemies of the cause of Christ. Their Fruit Some have alleged that the background of Westcott and Hort is totally irrelevant to the issue concerning modern versions like the New International Version (NIV). But this allegation is untrue. Bringing up their background is not just an ad hominem argument. If Westcott and Hort had not been the kind of men they were, but had been true, regenerate, God-fearing, Bible-believing scholars like Dr Scrivener, how different the New Testament of the Revised Version (RV) would have been. There would have been no critical theory concocted to sway the committee into rejecting the Textus Receptus. There would have been no pressure to remove portions of Scripture that are not found in the “early manuscripts.” Indeed, the RV might have been an improvement on the KJV if its text had not been altered, and modern translations today would have been based on the Majority text. The background of the two Cambridge scholars has therefore made a very important difference in the recent history of the English Bible. The foregoing information on the lives and beliefs of the two men have demonstrated that they were hardly objective in their bigoted rejection of the Textus Receptus, but were deeply prejudiced against it by their liberal theology, anti-Protestant and anti-Evangelical stance, and by their low view of Scripture. Yet institutions and seminaries have continued to accept and use their views and dicta as if they were the totally objective and unbiased judgements of expert textual critics, even when later naturalistic critics have pointed out how erroneous they are. Moreover, the apostate spirit that motivated Westcott and Hort, as seen in their alleged disobedience to God’s Law prohibiting necromancy and spiritism, their persistent rejection of fundamental doctrines, and their elevation of humanistic scholarship above the authority of God’s Word, makes them very dangerous to the church. They should never have been allowed to come near to the precious Scriptures with their editorial scalpels. By tampering with the very sustenance that the flock needs in order to survive, they have inflicted much damage on the church for generations to come. They entered in as grievous wolves, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29). After Westcott and Hort published their revised Greek New Testament, the only other available printed editions of the Greek text are the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament (UBSGNT) and Nestle’s Greek New Testament. Both of these are derived from the Westcott and Hort text. Although the later editions claim to be eclectic, the vestiges of Westcott and Hort remain. For instance, the UBSGNT editions persist in questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), the passage on the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53–8:11), and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8), following Westcott and Hort. The New Testament of all modern English translations except the NKJV are based on these editions of the Greek New Testament. Besides that, Bible translators all over the world are using these Greek New Testaments for their translation work. All of these therefore bear the unmistakable legacy of Westcott and Hort to some extent. Thus, the damage done by them has been very extensive. Conclusion In conclusion, let it be said that no matter how good any modern version of the New Testament is in other ways, it is clearly blemished if the work of Westcott and Hort is present in it. The presence of their work means that it is based on a defective text. Those who want to honour the Word of God must not promote the use of any of these versions by the church, not because the content of the version is evil in itself, but because the attitude of being contented to use a blemished version rather than an existing unblemished one, dishonours God. If God has taken the trouble to preserve for His people a good Greek text of the New Testament for 18 centuries, how dishonouring it would be to Him if His people now chose instead to change over to a version that is based on a defective text. Let the biblical story of Nadab and Abihu be a lesson to all:

"I use only the King James Bible."

https://cprc.co.uk/articles/aboutwestcottandhort/ Things You Should Know About Westcott and Hort (Promoters of the Critical Text) Before you join in the hordes that are accepting the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, it is important to know who and what they were. The theories of Westcott and Hort are what most of our modern translations are built upon. B. F. Westcott rose through the various offices of the Anglican church finally becoming a Bishop. He believed in the apostolic succession of the Anglican priests through the Roman Catholic succession, supposedly from the apostle Peter. He was a worshipper of the Virgin Mary, a lover of ritualistic church services. He did not believe in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ for his chosen people. In 1848 Westcott wrote that he did not dare to assent to the 39 Articles, the confession of faith of the Anglican Church. Westcott did not believe in the first three chapters of Genesis as a history. “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis give a literal history.” He believed in the Roman Catholic doctrine which they designate as The Person of Christ. This teaches that Christ entered into everyone after he was resurrected, and as Westcott put it, then “Christ’s actions become his, and Christ’s life and death in some sense his life and death.” He rejected the atonement of the substitution of Christ for the sinner, denying that the death of Christ counted for anything as a final atonement. He was a lifelong friend of Hort, but he was more careful, not allowing his heretical views to become public. Therefore, as to how much he agreed with Hort’s more forthright denials of the teaching of the Scriptures, we cannot say but certainly when Hort revealed these to Westcott in letters, Westcott issued no rebuke in the form of a return letter [Sources: Life of Westcott, vol. 1, pp. 81, 99, 214, 231, 239, 254, 312; vol. 2, p. 69; Some Lessons, pp. 44, 127, 184, 185, 187, 195, 198]. F. J. A. Hort was a heretic, or call it merely an unbeliever, of the highest order. He wrote, “I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology … Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue … still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible.” Hort equated Mary worship with Jesus worship. He was a great believer in salvation by sacraments, including baptismal regeneration. He belonged to a club of spiritualists. He believed that “Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion … Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary.” Though being an Anglican, he stated that it had no sound standing, it “seems a poor and maimed thing beside great Rome.” Hort wrote to Westcott, “I entirely agree with what you say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that the absolute union of the Christian, or rather, of man, with Christ himself is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit.” Hort believed the Received Text to be vile and he sought revision in order to correct the “error and prejudices” in it. Hort believed in evolution; talked of a ransom being given to Satan; believed in purgatory; scoffed at the idea of an infallible Scripture; denied our guilt for Adam’s sin, and denied the Fall through Adam; considered Genesis 1-3 to be a parable, saying that no such place as Eden ever existed; denied the depravity of man by nature; disparaged Christ as the “believer’s God”; stated that God’s wrath was subservient to His mercy; etc. [Sources: Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, A. F. Hort, vol. 1, pp. 50, 78, 117, 213, 275, 329, 330, 332, 400, 416, 420-422, 424, 428, 430; vol. 2, pp. 30, 50]. How anyone can trust such a pair as these to tell us which are the words of God, and which the words of heretics, I cannot imagine! (Jay P. Green, The Australian Beacon, March 1993)

We do not have the originals. We have copies of them. God preserved them. The present thinking of many modern scholars is that yes, God preserved His ideas, but not the words. There are no verses that state this, but plenty that say, for example, "Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). The "copious amounts" of copies for the modern versions come from manuscripts and fragments that are other than the Textus Receptus (TR), which are about 10% of the TR's 5,000 manuscripts and fragments. https://www.preservedword.com/content/antioch-or-alexandria/ Antioch or AlexandriaHow did God preserve His Bible? Luke Mounsey June 1, 2004 Manuscript Evidence Print I have previously established that God has preserved His Word, listing many Scriptures affirming this. But exactly which Bible is the perfect Word of God? If God preserved His Word, then it must be around here somewhere. In order to find the perfect Bible, it is necessary to determine which manuscript text-type is the preserved line. (A text-type is a group of manuscripts that generally agree with each other.) There are two major text-types, the Byzantine/Antiochian/Majority/Universal text-type and the Alexandrian text-type. The Byzantine text-type had it’s origin in Antioch, Syria, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). The Alexandrian text originated in Alexandria, Egypt, which was probably the first place that the pure doctrine of Christ was perverted with false teaching. 95% of ALL known New Testament manuscripts fall into the Byzantine text-type. (Even those who prefer the Alexandrian text are forced to admit this.) Only a very few manuscripts fall into the Alexandrian text-type, and these manuscripts are known to have many serious problems. Of the two most popular Alexandrian manuscripts, one (Vaticanus) is owned by the http://www.mag-net.com/%7Emaranath/OLDBEST.HTM for more information. There are those who prefer the Antiochan/Byzantine text and those who prefer the Alexandrian. Each group has different beliefs about how God preserved His word. Here is a brief overview. Antiochan Alexandrian God inspired the original manuscripts using holy men as His pens. They wrote what He inspired them to.These manuscripts were faithfully copied and translated by other holy men. But some evil men started producing their own modified version of the scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church arose, making the perverted Scripture the official Bible of Catholicism. All copies of Scripture were banned, pure or perverted, and only church leaders were allowed to possess a copy. True Christians prevailed dispute horrible persecutions, refusing to join the idolatrous Catholic Church, and being used by God to preserve the pure Bible for all generations. The Protestant Reformation ended the Dark Ages as multitudes fled from Rome to the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible was translated into many languages from the preserved text, making God’s pure Word available to the masses. Revivals continued for centuries as people used God’s Word. In the 19th century, a push was made by the Vatican and some apostate Protestant scholars to declare that the perverted Roman Catholic manuscripts were superior to the God-honored preserved text. New versions of the Bible were produced, which were not accepted at first, but slowly grew into acceptance. Most Protestants did not realize that these new “Bibles” came from the corrupt line of manuscripts, not the preserved line. But some did realize it, and when they attempted to warn others, were ostracized and declared divisive. God inspired His word using men, who were not necessary holy (see below). About 300 A.D, the Christian church revised God’s Word to make it better and “more orthodox.” Thus the true Word of God was lost at this point. The Catholic Church united Europe in Christian unity, but then the Protestants destroyed that unity by braking with Rome. The Protestants ignorantly made their Bible translations from the revised manuscripts. In the mid 1800’s, a glorious discovery was made. Two ancient manuscripts were found that predated the revised text the Protestants were using. These differed significantly with the traditional text, and therefore were considered to be pre-revision. After being lost for 1600 years, God’s word had finally been found!! So they began cranking out Bibles translated from the new manuscripts. As for the pure, preserved, inerrant Word of God, it of course was nowhere to be found, since it was perfect only in the “original manuscripts” which are long vanished. The “Byzantines” believe God used holy men to inspire His word and holy men to preserve His word. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet 1:21). On the other hand, Alexandrians believe that you don’t necessarily have to be holy to be used by God to preserve His word. You don’t have to be holy to help with a Bible translation. Maybe this is why there are so many liberals, heathens, and homosexuals on these Bible translation committees! You’ve got to be kidding, you say. They certainly wouldn’t allow anyone on their translation if they were living in sin! Surely they would demand that they must be holy. Well, their own new Bible versions have stripped being holy as a requirement for helping to inspire AND preserve the Word of God. The word “holy” is clean gone from 2 Peter 1:21 in these new Bibles! So the Alexandrians believe that you don’t have to be holy in order to work on a Bible translation! Is it then no wonder that many of the modern translators are either apostate liberals or flat out heathens!!! Is it no surprise that the fruit of their “Bibles” is not great revival but great apathy and apostasy!!! But this will be covered in more detail in a future article. So we see that the Byzantine/ Majority Text proponents believe that God inspired His word using holy men, and preserved it using holy men to make it available for all generations. The Alexandrian proponents, however, believe that God inspired His word, then lost it!! After not having the word of God for centuries, they finally found it again in the “oldest and best” Alexandrian manuscripts. What kind of preservation is this? This is NOT preservation! If you believe that the oldest manuscripts are the best, then you do not believe that God has preserved His word. IF you believe that the scriptures were inerrant only in the “original manuscripts” then you do not believe that God has preserved His Word. If you don’t believe that God preserved His word, you disbelieve the Bible and are calling God a liar!! Therefore, you must make a choice. You must chose between the Antiochan or the Alexandrian text. For the Bible-believer, this choice should be an obvious one. (Views: 15429) Updated: February 24, 2015 — 2:07 AM

Does God preserve His word or does man need to reconstruct it? The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8 Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6-7 ... that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Deuteronomy 8:3b For verily I say unto you, Till haven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:23 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:25

https://brandplucked.com/nodoctrinechanged.htm No Doctrines Are Changed? I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true? Not at all, as we shall soon see. The Number One Doctrine that has been destroyed by today's Bible Babble Buffet versions is the belief in the Infallibility of the Bible! Recent polls show that the majority of professing Christians no longer believe in the Infallibility of the Bible and among seminarians and professional clergy the percentages are in the 90's of those who do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God. If you do not think this is a major doctrine then it is probably already too late for you to be persuaded otherwise. Don't just take my word for it. Here are the polls that show this widespread and ever growing unbelief in the Inerrancy of the Bible - ANY Bible. The Basic Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Bible - I have been engaged in the Bible version issue for several years now and have been quite active in several Bible clubs on the internet. Over the years I have posted countless articles and examples of the literally hundreds of very real and significant textual differences, contradictions and totally changed meanings found in hundreds of verses among the Bible Babble Buffet versions out there today that NOBODY seriously believes IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. What I have found to be almost universally true is the typical response of those I refer to as "Bible agnostics" always come up with is shown by this recent post at our Facebook club called the King James Bible Debate. After I posted one more in an almost endless series of very real textual differences that changes the meaning of a verse of Scripture and where not even the modern versions agree among themselves, a man who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the infallible words of God posted the following: "Let me see - what doctrine exactly is impacted here? Other than the presupposed doctrine of KJV onlyism? Indeed, redemption as we know it rests on this verse!" My Response: Hi folks. This is the standard mantra every confirmed bible agnostic and unbeliever in the Infallibility of the Scriptures always repeats when faced with the FACT that he has no infallible TEXT of any Bible on this earth to give someone or to believe in himself -"What doctrine is impacted here?" How about the simple and basic doctrine of the Infallibility of the Bible? Is this a doctrine any of these bible relativists are concerned about or thinks is at all important to the Christian faith? The bible agnostics like James White and John Piper and a multitude of other big name Christians and countless hoards of lesser lights like our Bible agnostic friend here all want to give you the impression that they are "Bible" believers, but the simple and obvious fact is this - Not one of them REALLY believes God has preserved His infallible words in any "book of the LORD". They do not believe the Book. Oh, they may believe selected portions, and some parts of many, but there is not a single Bible on this earth they believe EVERY word is the infallible words of the living God. THAT is the doctrine that is most assuredly impacted - It's the whole foundation of everything God has revealed to us about Himself and what we believe about our Redeemer and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He either told us the truth when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away, or He lied to us and cannot be trusted. You pick which option you are going to believe. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8 See "The Bible is NOT the inspired and Infallible word of God" http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet. Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions? Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God? I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV. However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either red or blue in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years. See the hand of God in history in this article called The Absolute Standard of Written Truth = the King James Bible http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English. Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines. The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, which omits some 45 entire verses from its text, and the ESV (omits 18 entire verses), when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible. The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English. Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One reading teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning. For a further discussion of Micah 5:2 and the heretical reading found in the NIV, RSV, ESV please see the following article I have put together on this. http://brandplucked.webs.com/micah52heb211origin.htm Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible read? John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902. However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV , Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985, and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast." Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (Ì66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10." So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right! Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw - P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y, 070,0105,0141,0250,f1,13, Byz, Lect, Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, Palestinian, Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic, "NOT YET" ; ouk --À, D, K, P, lat, Syriac Sinaitic, Coptic Boharic "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him. Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66,75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.) Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by Vaticanus but found in Sinaiticus, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and Vaticanus, but not in the NIV or Sinaiticus. and "AS IT WERE" is in Vaticanus and the NASB, but not in Sinaiticus and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell. Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem bible and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification. Can God be deceived as the NASB and Holman teach in Ps. 78:36? The NASB and the Holman Standard say the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God. For a much fuller discussion of this NASB blunder, and how one modern versionist tries to defend it, please see my article on this here. It is found in the second part of the article. The first part is interesting too http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze149ps7836deceive.htm Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV. The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18). In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!! The Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says: "today I HAVE FATHERED YOU." The NIV, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, ESV, St. Joseph, New Jerusalem bible to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting. Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://brandplucked.webs.com/john118begottenson.htm Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and others in 2 Samuel 14:14. The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king. In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard. Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible. However when we get to the New KJV, ESV, the NIV, Holman, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction. Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." 1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God." God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, Holman, and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life. In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV , St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem bible all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine. See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at: http://brandplucked.webs.com/2peter312hastingunto.htm Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan? In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS." Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness." We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence. However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words. The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE." NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One." ESV (English Standard Version) "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control." ISV (International Standard Version) "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one." Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 "the whole world is under the evil one." Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "the whole world is in the power of the Evil One." The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan. For a more detailed study of who rules the world see: http://brandplucked.webs.com/satanorgodcontrols.htm What is the fine linen, clean and white? Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS." Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message. But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, the NIV , the Catholic St. Joesph NAB and the Catholic New Jerusalem have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true? Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord." John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints. "Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)." (To see more on "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints" in Revelation 19:8 please see the article here: http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev198finelinen.htm ) 1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh? Hosea 11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS." The Bible versions that agree with the King James Bible in that Judah IS YET FAITHFUL are the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Young, Spanish Reina Valera, Green's interlinear, the Hebrew-English 1936, and the Third Millenium Bible. But the NKJV puts a new twist here saying: "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful." This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One." The NASB, NIV, TNIV, Catholic St. Joseph NAB completely spin this verse around to mean the opposite with: "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One." The St. Joseph NAB says: "Judah is STILL REBELLIOUS AGAINST God." But the other Catholic bible- the New Jerusalem- confuses things with "But Judah still is on God's side." Guess we need a "priest" or scholar ;-0 to sort this out for us, huh? The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure. If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God? Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF" An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF." The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently. Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off." John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation." Matthew Poole writes in his commentary - "our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation." David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself." John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation." However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing". Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles". Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM." The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART." Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT." 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true) St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY." Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS." Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER." Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "An Anointed One put to death without his...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." That is actually how it reads! The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM." Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us? This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses. These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant. If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones. Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly? If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true? If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth? Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world? Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm No Doctrines Are Changed?

https://brandplucked.com/1john57.htm 1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" 1 John 5:7 "And These Three Are One" And here is a shorter article by brother David Daniels on the historical evidence for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp Muslims love James White. They use James White's own material to try to convince Christians that we do not have an inerrant Bible. James White says 1 John 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20 are forgeries. The video is only 9 minutes long. Listen to the two Muslims discussing this in the last 4 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkPn2aXKds 1 John 5:7-8 KJB - "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." 1 John 5:7-8 - ESV, NIV, NASB - "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree." 1 John 5:7-8 is the clearest witness in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NET and Jehovah Witness New World Translation. English Bibles that contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 are the first complete English Bible ever made by John Wycliffe in 1380. It was in Tyndale's New Testament of 1525 - "For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one.", the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible from 1557 to 1599 -"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.", the Beza New Testament 1599, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, and the Authorized Version of 1611. It is also in the Bill Bible 1671, Mace's New Testament of 1729, John Wesley translation in 1755, the Clarke N.T. 1795, and Thomas Howeis N.T. 1795. It was included in The Revised Translation 1815, The Patrick Paraphrase Bible 1822, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, James Murdock's translation of the Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta done in 1852 - "For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.", Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Calvin Version 1856, the Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, and Young's literal in 1898. All the words are found in the NKJV 1982, the New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the 1994 KJV 21st Century Version, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Worldwide English New Testament 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson New Testament 2002, the the Easter/Greek Orthodox Bible 2008, the Heritage Bible 2003, Green's 'literal' translation of 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Apostolic Bible 2006, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Online Interlinear Bible 2010 by André de Mol, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010. Other English Bibles that include the whole verse are The Work of God Children's Bible 2011, Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Knox Bible of 2012 - "Thus we have a threefold warrant in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, three who are yet one.", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, The International Standard Version 2014 - For there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. and The Holy Bible, and the Modern English Version 2014 - 7 There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. 8 There are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are toward the one., and The New Matthew Bible 2016. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 in Chapter II, Of God, and the Holy Trinity gives 1 John 5:7 as their first reference. http://www.freepres.org/westminster.htm#chapter2 III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. 1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6. The London Baptist Confession of 1689 also specifically mentions 1 John 5:7 as being the first verse used to teach and support the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly believed it was inspired Scripture. http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter02.htm They write: "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him. ( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 ) The Belgic Confession of 1561 states, "The testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us to believe in this Holy Trinity, are written in many places of the Old Testament, which need not be enumerated but only chosen with discretion. " "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." In all these passages we are fully taught that there are three persons in the one and only divine essence. And although this doctrine surpasses human understanding, we nevertheless believe it now, through the Word, waiting to know and enjoy it fully in heaven. (The Belgic Confession, (CRTA), article 9.). The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 says, "Since there is but one only divine essence, why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" Answer: Because God has so revealed himself in his word, [b] that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God. Footnote b says, "1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (The Heidelberg Catechism, (CRTA), section 8.) The Catholic Connection The entire reading was included in the earlier Catholic bibles like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and as late as the Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985), but now once again the 2009 The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it. And so too does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 - And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. For some reason some of the online Vulgates have the shorter version of 1 John 5:7-8 and others have the longer version that reads like Wycliffe 1395, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the King James Bible. But Wycliffe translated his Bible long before the Clementine Vulgate came out in 1592, and he translated from the Latin Vulgate. So, if it was not in the Latin Vulgate, then where did Wycliffe get it from? It seems pretty obvious that he was using a Latin Vulgate copy that contained the whole of 1 John 5:7-8. Some bible critics like Michael Borosky tell us that the Latin Vulgate does not read like the KJB in 1 John 5:7 and that Jerome did not include it in his Latin translation but this online Vulgate clearly shows that it does. https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/jo1005.htm#007 He then points out that the Latin Vulgate says in 1 John 5:6 that ?Christ is the truth? rather than ?the Spirit it truth.? 6 Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus: non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas. 7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt. This is true. But the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 was translated from the Latin Vulgate and it not only says that ?Christ is the truth? in verse 6 but it reads just like the KJB in 1 John 5:7 proving that indeed the Latin Vulgate that was used by the Catholic translators of 1582 DID use the Vulgate and the Vulgate DOES read like it always has in the KJB in 1 John 5:7. The Douay-Rheims Bible. [6] This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. [7] And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. [8] And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. https://www.drbo.org/chapter/69005.htm And Wycliffe's Bible of 1395 was also translated from the Latin Vulgate and it also reads "Christ is truth" in verse 6 and verse 7-8 are the same as in the KJB. Wycliffe(i) 6 This is Jhesus Crist, that cam bi watir and blood; not in water oonli, but in watir and blood. And the spirit is he that witnessith, that Crist is treuthe. 7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon. 8 `And thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in erthe, the spirit, water, and blood; and these thre ben oon. https://studybible.info/Wycliffe/1%20John5:6-8 Even the Nestle-Aland Critical text tells us that the phrase "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" is found in several Old Latin texts and in some Vulgate manuscripts, and that it is so quoted by Cyprian 210-258 A.D. et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus] (itc itdem itdiv omit in Christo Iesu) itl itm itp (itq omit et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu) vgmss (Cyprian) (Ps-Cyprian) (Priscillian) Ps-Vigilius Cassian Speculum Varimadum Fulgentius Ps-Athanasius Ansbert mssaccording to Victor-Vita Allusions Cyprian Treatise I On the Unity of the Church: and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."[22] Cyprian on The Unity of the Church. - (scroll down to point number 6.) The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”3117 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”3118 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php The Latin Vulgates It is of interest that the Jerome's Latin Vulgate of 382- 405 A.D. as well as the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 both contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 - Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt. http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=23&c=5 The Latin Vulgate 382-405 A.D., even with its flaws, is considered an older Greek witness than that of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Jerome in his "Prologue to the Gospels" writes - "I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used." St. Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament Addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383. https://vulgate.org This makes Jerome's Latin Vulgate a clear 4th-century witness or earlier in knowing that the Vulgate comes right after the 2nd century Old Latin, Italic, and older Greek texts than that of Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Scholars must explain away these historical chains of custody and providence when confronted with them, and rarely bring this knowledge to the forefront. Yet now the New (Nova) Vulgate of 1979 has removed them and reads like the other Vatican Versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc.) This is how the New Vulgate reads in 1 John 5:7 - Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur You can see all three of these Latin Vulgate editions here - https://www.studylight.org Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405) 1 John 5:7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=1+John+5%3A7&s=0&t1=la_jvl Foreign language Bibles that contain all these words are: the Clementine Vulgate - " Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 editions, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (put out by the Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB that omits it) and the 2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, "Tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno." The words are included in the Italian Diodati Bible of of 1603 and 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991- "nel cielo: il Padre, la Parola e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono uno.". 1 John 5:7-8, is in the 1535 Olivetan Bible. - 7. Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit: et ces trois sont un. 8. Et il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage sur la terre, l'esprit, et l'eau, et le sang, et les trois sont d'accord. the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, -"dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont un.", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681 and A Bíblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Porque três säo os que testificam no céu: o Pai, a Palavra, e o Espírito Santo; e estes três säo um.". Other foreign language Bible that include these words are the Afrikaans Bible 1853 - "die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een", Smith and van Dyck's Arabic Bible, the Basque N.T.; the Western Armenian N.T., Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling "Want Drie zijn er, Die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het Woord en de Heilige Geest; en deze Drie zijn Een.", Finnish 1776 "Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovate", the Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T. s", Maori -"Tokotoru hoki nga kaiwhakaatu i te rangi, ko te Matua, ko te Kupu, ko te Wairua Tapu: kotahi ano enei tokotoru., Lithuanian" and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible of 1998 - "May tatlong nagpapatotoo sa langit, ang Ama, ang Salita, ang Banal na Espiritu at ang tatlong ito ay iisa." The words are in the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Pentru ca trei sunt cei care aduc marturie in cer: Tatal, Cuvantul si Duhul Sfant; si acestia trei una sunt.", Russian Synodal 1876, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Thai Bible, the Czech BKR - "na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti t?i jedno jsou." Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible 1934, The Indonesian - Terjemahan Baru (TB) - "Sebab ada tiga yang memberi kesaksian di dalam sorga: Bapa, Firman dan Roh Kudus; dan ketiganya adalah sati.", the Ukranian New Testament, the Xhosa language Bible, the Modern Greek Version - https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=1John+5%3A7&search_form_type=general&q1=1+John+5%3A7&s=0&t1=el_gmd&ns=0 Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550 - http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Stephanus/62/5 Theodore Beza's Greek text 1599 http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Beza/62/5 The Elzevir Textus Receptus 1624 - https://www.bible.com/bible/182/1JN.5.TR1624 Scrivener Textus Receptus 1894 - http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Scrivener/62/5 The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - 1 John 5:7 - http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/?id=22&book=1John&chapter=5 and the Modern Hebrew bible - https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=1+John+5%3A7&s=0&t1=iw_hmd Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse. Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite. Richard Muller and the History of the Preservation of Scripture pt. 1 http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-muller-and-history-of.html Richard A. Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. Muller holds the P. J. Zondervan Chair for Doctoral Studies as professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. His Ph.D. is from Duke University. Muller talks about the Johannine Comma, the text of 1 John 5:5-8. Here are sentences in favor of this trinitarian text: Of the early sixteenth-century editions of the Greek text of the New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglott (1504-1514) includes the phrase. . . . Later editions [of Erasmus] (1527 and 1536) also include the "comma." Erasmus' third edition was followed on this point by both Stephanus (1546, 1549, 1550) and Beza (1565; with annotations, 1582). . . . Reformed theologians, following out the line of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, tended to accept the text as genuine and, indeed, to use it as an integral part of their trinitarian theology. . . . In the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox---on the model provided by Calvin and Beza---the Johannine "comma" appears frequently, without question or comment, as one Johannine text among others cited in a catena of texts from the Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the epistles as grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity. Often the phrase is simply cited without comment as a supporting text, while some of the high orthodox writers note that it was cited by Cyprian---thus, by implication, refuting the arguments concerning its extremely late date. . . . Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a "most ancient British codex" and that "most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase. Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible. It is true that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are not found in the majority of remaining Greek manuscripts that exist today. However there is very much and weighty evidence for its inclusion. Those who argue that it is not in the majority of texts are being totally inconsistent when they bring up this argument. Most of the people like James White and Daniel Wallace who use this majority argument, do not care one bit for the majority of texts and what they might read. They themselves follow the constantly changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek text which itself departs from the majority readings in literally thousands of places. Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: "A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity (few number), appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them" (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45 Isn't it ironic that the very reason these two Bible critics gave for choosing a few manuscripts over hundreds suddenly becomes an 'issue' for them when it comes to the ONLY clear cut verse stating that "These Three are ONE", that is, the Godhead or the Trinity It should also be noted that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today that were written within the first 700 years of Christianity. And among these 5 early manuscripts only 2 of them agree with each other in 1 John 5:6-8. Sinaiticus does not agree with Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus or with 0296. Sinaiticus and A both say "by water and blood AND SPIRIT" in verse 6 instead of "by water and by blood". Then Alexandrinus "not by water only but by water AND THE SPIRIT" instead of "not by water only, but by water and the blood" and 0296 omits the verb "are" in verse 7 and has the unique word order of "by water AND SPIRIT and blood" in verse six. As the KJV Today article says: What it demonstrates is that scribes were prone to alter this portion of 1 John based on theological or stylistic motivations. By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5 was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have the verb "are" (eisin) there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7." See the KJV Today article on 1 John 5:7 for other examples of textual corruption and disagreement just in 1 John among the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" here - http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-The-use-of-the-Comma-at-the-Fourth-Lateran-Council What then is the textual evidence for 1 John 5:7? It is found in several Greek texts - Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Scrivener and Modern Greek Bible; it is quoted by several church fathers as Cyprian 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -380 AD, Varimadum 380 A.D., Jerome 420 AD, Victor Vitensis 430 A.D., Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus 580 A.D, and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible including the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate 382-405 A.D. and is found in some copies of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 636 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century). It was part of the text of the Old Latin Bible that was translated in the second century, as it witnessed by a remaining copy that we have today. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript. JEROME tells us that certain Arian scribes were removing this section of Scripture from the Greek manuscripts. Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate.14 At one point in his work, JEROME NOTED THAT THE TRINITARIAN READING OF I John 5:7 WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HE HAD COME ACROSS, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes, "Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where MUCH ERROR HAS OCCURRED AT THE HANDS OF UNFAITHFUL TRANSLATORS CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH, WHO HAVE KEPT JUST THE THREE WORDS WATER, BLOOD AND SPIRIT IN THIS EDITON OMITTING MENTION OF FATHER, WORD AND SPIRIT in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested." Thus, we see that JEROME SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THIS VERSE WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS IN HIS DAY. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss. The old commentators on 1 John 5:7 - John Calvin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley. JOHN WESLEY commented on 1 John 5:7 saying: " I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one." "As they lie in the text :" -- but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, -- the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, YET IT IS FOUND IN MORE; AND THOSE COPIES OF THE GREATEST AUTHORITY: -- ( 2.) That IT IS CITED BY A WHOLE GAIN OF ANCIENT WRITERS, FROM THE TIME OF ST. JOHN TO THAT OF CONSTANTINE. THIS ARGUMENT IS CONCLUSIVE: FOR THEY COULD NOT HAVE CITED IT, HAD IT NOT BEEN IN THE SACRED CANON: -- (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, -- "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." JOHN CALVIN - "There are three than bear record in heaven" The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and AS I SEE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES, I AM INCLINED TO RECEIVE IT AS THE TRUE READING." MATTHEW HENRY on 1 John 5:7 - "We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse...There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading." "The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle...Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt?and these three are one. NOW THESE ARE THE WORDS, NOT OF V. 8, BUT OF V. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost...If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt?they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt - they are one. And THEREFORE CYPRIAN'S WORDS SEEM STILL TO BE A FIRM TESTIMONY TO V. 7." "It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book." "I think, in the book of God,... THE TEXT IS WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION." JOHN GILL commenting on 1 John 5:7 - "As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerome, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters." "And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition the compilers of which made use of various copies" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.) Speaking of the citations of the early church fathers John Gill continues: "And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; AND IT IS CITED BY ATHANASIUS ABOUT THE YEAR 350; AND BEFORE HIM BY CYPRIAN, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY, ABOUT THE YEAR 250; AND IT IS REFERRED TO BY TERTULLIAN ABOUT THE YEAR 200; AND WHICH WAS WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS, OR LITTLE MORE, OF THE WRITING OF THE EPISTLE, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANYONE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THIS PASSAGE; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation." CYPRIAN (Latin: Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (c. 200 ? September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important Early Christian writer, many of whose Latin works are extant. He was born around the beginning of the 3rd century in North Africa, perhaps at Carthage, where he received a classical education. After converting to Christianity, he became a bishop in 249 and eventually died a martyr at Carthage. As a side note, the entire quote by Cyprian is this: In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, The Lord says, I and the Father are one, AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html This cannot be said of verse 8 where it says: "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." That verse is not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Only verse 7 does this. You can see the quote from Cyprian in context here - http://www.pennuto.com/bible/1jn5_7.htm THE TREATISES OF CYPRIAN Ante-Nicene vol. 5 page 423 The Lord says: I and the Father are one; (4) and again IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE."(5) (4) John X. 30. (5) I John V. 7 . (End of shorter Article on 1 John 5:7) Even the UBS 4th edition says that 1 John 5:7 was quoted by Cyprian. It's in their own Critical Greek text. the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the "comma" is attested by the Latin church fathers Cyprian (d. 258), Pseudo-Cyprian (4th century), Priscillian (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts. The Cyprian quote is simply irrefutable. Cyprian did cite 1 John 5:7, contrary to James White and Dan Wallace's argument to the contrary. Here are some: The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; John 10:30 AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 1 John 5:7 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1. On the Unity of the Church: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm) Note that the above source puts 1 John 5:7 after Cyprian's quote, indicating that the translators saw that this is where he was getting his reference from. UNITY OF GODHEAD, UNITY OF CHURCH. CYPRIAN. The Lord says, I and the Father are one. AND AGAIN OF THE FATHER AND SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IT IS WRITTEN, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 6.38 Additional Information about 1 John 5:7 It is sometimes erroneously asserted that this text originated close to the time of Erasmus. However, even the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the "comma" is attested by the Latin church fathers (Cyprian) (d. 258), (Pseudo-Cyprian) (4th century), (Priscillian) (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts. And these notes are found in the very Greek editions of those who oppose its inclusion in the New Testament! The UBS critical text keeps changing both its Greek texts and the footnotes found at the bottom of its pages. In addition to the names found in the UBS 4th edition that supported the inclusion of the Three witnesses in heaven - Cyprian, Priscillian and Fulgentius, the UBS 3rd edition also lists Varimadum, Cassian and Ansbert. Varimadum was an anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer in 380 A.D. that states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. Both UBS texts list Priscillian (380 AD) bishop of Avila, in support of the Three heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7 and many sites list him as "a Spanish heretic". And What exactly was his heresy? He DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY! Yet he himself writes in Liber Apologeticus: "As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Priscillian (who lived in the 4th century) said in 350 A.D., "As John says, There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Vigilius Tapsensis (who lived in the 5th century) stated in 450 A.D., "Also to the Parthians, "There are three", He says, "that bear record in earth, the water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us. And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." (Vigilius Tapsensis, Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), (KJV Today), Latin fathers. He also said in 480 A.D., "...the Evangelist John says in his Epistle: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit, and they are one in the Lord Jesus Christ..." Fulgentius Ruspensis (who lived in the 6th century) quoted from the Comma in 527 A.D. and even referred back to Cyprian's quotation of it in 250 A.D., For the blessed John the Apostle testifies, saying: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one.' This is also confessed by the most blessed martyr Cyprian in the letter On the Unity of the Church, saying: He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, he does against Christ, who in another place says in addition to a collection of the Church, says, scatters the Church of Christ. And in order to show that there is one Church of the one God, he immediately inserted this into the testimonies of the Scriptures: The Lord says: I and the Father are one. And again: of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And the three are one. He also said, Likewise regarding it: There are three, he says, who are said to testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one. More on Athanasius To read their entire quotes in context, see this site: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007_04_22_archive.html Athanasius appears to have quoted the Comma in Disputatio Contra Arium: "But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name" In addition to all these, John affirms, 'and these three are one.'" ONLINE LINK to Disputatio Contra Arium The clause "and these three are one", attributed to John, is quoted here explicitly in the context of the Trinity (of Matthew 28:19). If this work is indeed by Athanasius, then the Comma was cited in Greek by the 4th century. There is in fact no reason to doubt the Athanasian authorship, other than the fact that anti-Comma critics in modern times have done so in order to discredit the quotation of the Comma. Even if this work was by someone else, a "Pseudo-Athanasius," the work is still support for a Greek witness to the Comma well before 1000 AD. Thus the often heard claim that the Greek Church was unaware of the Comma for over a millennium is false. In English Francis Cheynell pointed this out as early as 1650; before that, in Latin is Estius (1614). The divine triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; or the blessed doctrine of the three co-essential substances in the eternal Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct substances, or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead (1650) Francis Cheynell http://books.google.com/books?id=gQE3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA255 "This Text is cited by the Ancient Fathers, by Athanasius in his dispute with Arrius at the counsel of Nice, and Arrius never denied it for to be Scripture, which certainly he would have done, it there had been any doubt made of it in the Primitive times."| Tim Dunkin, who is far more qualified than I to defend the historical authenticity of this verse, has written a very good defense of 1 John 5:7. He supports the contention, made by John Gill and others, that Athanasius did refer to this verse. Here are some of his quotes and the link to his site. He also demolishes the common claim that no Greek texts before the 16th century contained 1 John 5:7. A Defense of the Johannine Comma Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8 http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great (Greek) defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Gill observes that Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians. A clear citation of the Comma is also found in the Synopsis, also know as the Dialogue between an Athanasian and an Arian, attributable to Athanasius. Critics have attempted to dismiss the Dialogue as spurious, largely on the basis of stylistic arguments (i.e. the style of the Dialogue is not consistent with Athanasius' other writings). For example, one early critic to make this argument was the 18th century classics scholar Richard Porson. However, Charles Forster refuted this line of argument by showing that the style and type of citation employed in the Dialogue is entirely consistent with that which appear in other works of Athanasius that are accepted as genuine by all. Additionally, David Martin (who believed that one of Athanasius' contemporaries was the author) writing in 1772, observed that the Dialogue itself speaks of the Emperor Constantine in the present tense, as ruling with his son Constantius, which would argue for a date of composition in the first half of the 4th century. Hence, there is no real reason to accept the arguments that the Dialogue is spurious or late - a position which appears to exist for no other reason than to try to get around the evidence testifying to the authenticity of the Comma. Further, as Forster points out, even if the Dialogue were attributable to one Maximus, writing in the 7th century, as some revisionists allege, this would still clearly demonstrate the existence of the Comma in the Greek witness at an extremely early date, which destroys the claims of critics that the Comma only appeared in Greek at a very late date. (73) - See John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, comments on I John 5:7, where he states that Athanasius cites the verse in his Contr. Arium. (74) - Forster, op. cit., pp. 48-63 (75) - See D. Martin, The Genuineness of the Text of the First Epistle of Saint John, Chap. v., V. 7, pp. 137-8 In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635. Go to this site to actually see for yourself the Facsimile of a portion of I John containing the Comma, as it appears in Codex Montfortianus, a 13th century miniscule (reproduced from T.H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 241, Robert Carter and Bros.:NY, 1854). Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.) on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate. At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes, "Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.? - Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell. Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss. (end of selected portions from Setting the Record Straight on 1 John 5:7) Another witness to the Athanasius witness The Antijacobin review and true churchman's magazine (1816) William Hale But further, is not that quickening and sanctifying baptism, productive of remission of sins, without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful, by the thrice blessed appellation [of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.] And beside all these [texts,] John affirms, "and these three are one.'' - Athanasius. op. Paris, 1698, Vol. II. p. 229, or Travis, p. 143. "This admirable collection and condensation of texts relative to Baptism and the Trinity, concluding with an express appeal to the disputed clause; namely, Mark i. 3; Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 3 - 5; Tit. iii. 5; Matt, xxviii. 19; 1 John V. 7 ; is so conformable to the spirit of the Synopsis, and so worthy of Athanasius himself, that I can scarely be persuaded that it was written by any other." Please notice that the quote from Athanasius is not just "and these three are one" but he prefaces this quote with "John affirms "and these three are one." It was written in the first epistle of the apostle John! "Majority text" or "minority readings" It is also fallacious and hypocritical to suggest that just because the reading found in 1 John 5:7 is not "in the majority of texts" that it therefore cannot be legitimate, when the very men who are behind the ever-changing modern critical text admit that the true reading may be found in a few or even one manuscript. Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: "A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them" (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45) J. K. Elliott, a modern textual critic comments on transcriptional probabilities: "By using criteria such as the above the critic may reach a conclusion in discussing textual variants and be able to say which variant is the original reading. However, it is legitimate to ask: can a reading be accepted as genuine if it is supported by only one ms.? There is no reason why an original reading should not have been preserved in only one ms. but obviously a reading can be accepted with greater confidence, when it has stronger support." Even Kurt Aland says: "Theoretically, the original readings can be hidden in a single mss. thus standing alone against the rest of tradition," and Tasker has a similar comment: "The possibility must be left open that in some cases the true reading may have been preserved in only a few witnesses or even in a single relatively late witness." - The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies," The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1956) Sure, there are a few minority readings in the King James Bible, but for every one in the KJB there are at least 20 minority readings found in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and that is no exaggeration. Another very common objection to 1 John 5:7 is the allegation that Erasmus said he would include the verse if he found a Greek manuscript that contained it. Then almost made to order, hot off the presses, one appeared. Bruce Metzger who was partly responsible for propagating this urban myth at least had the integrity to retract this false accusation in the 3rd edition of his book. Here is the exact quote from Mr. Metzger himself. "What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2. The church Council of Carthage in A.D. 484 is highly significant. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. Acting as spokesman for some 350 church bishops Eugenius confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren with these words: "...and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by THE EVANGELIST JOHN, FOR HE SAYS, "THERE ARE THREE WHICH BEAR TESTIMONY IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE Holy Spirit, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. The Council of Carthage of 484 AD - In English one of the interesting summaries is given in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record "Victor Vitensis on the Vandal Persecution". Part II is in the 1898 edition, p. 24-37 by Philip Burton. And the basics are that there was a confession of faith presented, and that confession of faith included and emphasized the heavenly witnesses. Summaries are given, e.g. William Aldis Wright (1831-1914): "It is also cited by a contemporary African writer, Victor Vitensis, in his history of the Vandal persecution, written about the year 484, who, in his third book, thus represents the clause as contained in the Confession of Faith, drawn up by Eugenius, bishop of Carthage, and signed by 400 bishops. " Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt." Victor Vitensis (b. circa 430) was an African bishop of the Province of Byzacena (called Vitensis from his See of Vita). His importance rests on his Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, temporibus Geiserici et Hunirici regum Wandalorum. This is mainly a contemporary narrative of the cruelties practised against the orthodox Christians of Northern Africa by the Arian Vandals. Victor throws much light on social and religious conditions in Carthage and on the African liturgy of the period. His history contains many documents not otherwise accessible, e.g. the Confession of Faith drawn up for the orthodox bishops by Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Huneric at the conference of Catholic and Arian bishops in 484. Victor of Vita: history of the Vandal persecution (1992) Victor Vitensis (who lived in the 5th century) said in 485 A.D., And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Council of Carthage 484 - confession of faith, with heavenly witnesses, English translation (emphasis added): And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them ?' No, he says that the 'three are one.' But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: 'It is the divine Spirit ... (p. 56) It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in "the most approved copies". John Gill also believed in the inspiration of this verse. When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he included 1 John 5:7-8. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; and he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"? They must have contained 1 John 5:7 because Ximenes included the verse. A Trail of Evidence We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful time line of references to this verse: Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage." 200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number." 250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN? 350 AD - Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.] 350 AD - Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.] 380 AD - Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." In his book A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7, Michael Maynard, M.L.S, has at least two references to this quote. On page 39 he writes: 380 Priscillian. Liber Apologeticus. (This quote as given by A.E. Brooke from Schepps. Vienna Corpus, xviii) As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are on in Christ Jesus." Then on page 239 of his book, Mr. Maynard quotes from a Mr. Claude Jenkins' 1942 article titled A Newly Discovered Reference to the Heavenly Witnesses (1 John 5:7). From this book Mr. Maynard says: Jenkins made an especially valuable comment here: "Since the days of Porson, the most important contribution on the Latin side has been the discovery of the tractates of Priscillian in the Wurzburg MS. which throws the evidence back to the fourth century and quotes the passage (Priscillian Tractate i.4)." Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one. (Varimadum 90:20-21). 415 AD - Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus". 450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.] 500 AD - Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.] 527 AD - Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: "Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt." 550 AD - The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.] 636 AD - Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB. 750 AD - Wizanburgensis, a Latin mss., contains the reference. 800 AD - Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today. 157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse. Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. Theodore Beza, John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today. Many critics of this passage like to say that 1 John 5:7 occurs in no ancient language version except the Latin. Well, not only is the passage found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is also in some Old Latin manuscripts, and the Old Latin translation dates from around 200 A.D. As far as I know we do not have any specific manuscript from this date, but we do have some later copies of this ancient translation. The known Old Latin affirmations of the Comma (some with variations from the "canonical" version) are: m -- around the 5th century in the Catholic Epistles p -- 13th century c -- 12th -13th centuries dem -- 13th century div -- 13th century q -- 7th century The Old Latin translation was first made 150 years before anything we have in the remaining Greek copies. In addition to this, the newest UBS critical text has now admitted that it is found in some Armenian manuscripts. The first printed edition of the Armenian Bible was published in 1666 by Bishop Uscan. It contains 1 John 5:7. Also Giles Guthier, using two Syriac manuscripts published an edition at Hamburg in 1664. This edition places the passage in the text. There is a fairly modern translation of the Syriac that includes the verse done by James Murdock in 1852. It contains 1 John 5:7 in full. And the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in 1743 contains 1 John 5:7. Dr. Schrivener mentions a "few recent" Slavonic manuscripts as having the passage. (Jack Moorman, "When the KJV departs from the majority text" 2nd. edition.) Internal Evidence Dr. Thomas Holland, who recently wrote "Crowned with Glory", a very good book which defends the King James Bible, states: "The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are [preceded] by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar." Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book "A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8" quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . "he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?" Mr. Maynard concludes: "Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7." It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. Dr. Edward F. Hills argues the same grammatical points in defending the legitimacy of 1 John 5:7 in his book "The King James Version Defended" on pages 211-212. Dr. Hills says: "...the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in I John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in I John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. FOR IN VERSE 6 THE WORD SPIRIT PLAINLY REFERS TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY. SURELY IN THIS VERSE THE WORD SPIRIT IS "PERSONALIZED," AND YET THE NEUTER GENDER IS USED. Therefore, since personalization DID NOT bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, as reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. IT WAS DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE NOUNS FATHER AND WORD, WHICH ARE MASCULINE. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties." (Emphasis mine.) Dr. Gaussen in his famous book "The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures" uses the same grammatical argument and concludes: "Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent." Regarding the grammatical argument in favor of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, King James Bible critic Gary Hudson made this erroneous comment: "As far as we have been able to discover, this argument was first suggested by Robert L. Dabney in 1871. Aware of the fact that the manuscript (external) evidence for the verse is extremely scant, Dabney introduced a new argument in its favor based upon what he believed to be an important internal consideration:" (I John 5:7 Grammatical Argument Refuted, Gary Hudson) Mr. Nolan employed usage of this "grammatical argument" in 1815, that is, 56 years prior to Hudson pinning it on Robert Dabney. Nolan discusses it on pages 259-261,294, and 304 of his work. Gregory Nazianzus in "Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit, c.XIX acknowledges such a grammatical difficulty as well. Another King James Bible critic, Doug Kutilek, says: "No Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words." On the contrary, Mr. Kutilek is refuted by Ben David in his work, "Three Letters Addressed to The Editor of The Quarterly Review, In Which is Demonstrated The Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses- I John v.7." Mr. David informs us, "If we turn to the Greek fathers, we shall find them equally well acquainted with the verse, and equally reluctant to quote it. I will notice a few of those who have been brought forward as vouchers for its genuinenss: "Basil paraphrases the text, but is afraid to quote it: "Oi pisteuontes eis Theon, kai Logon, Kai Pneuma, mian ousan theoteta. WHO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND THE WORD, AND THE SPIRIT, BEING ONE GODHEAD." (Ben David, pg. 57) Continuing with Ben David: "Theodorus, the master of Chrysostom and a contemporary of the emperor Julian, wrote in "A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist" ( Eis ten Epistolen Ioannou tou Euaggelistou peri tou eis Theos en Triadi.) This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century." "Cyril, in his Thesaurus, attempts to prove that the Holy Spirit is God. With this view he extracts the 6th and 8th verse, and omits the 7th: yet he inserts an argument which demonstrates that this verse lay before him, though he was too much afraid directly to use it. Cyril's words are these: Eirekos gar oti to pneuma esti tou Theou to marturoun mikron ti proelthon, epipherei, a marturia tou Theou meizon esti. Pos oun esti poiema to ton olon Patri suntheologoumenon kai tes agias triados sumplerotikon - For having said that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little forward he adds, the witness of God is greater: "How then is he a creature WHO IS SAID TO BE GOD WITH THE UNIVERSAL FATHER, AND COMPLETES THE NUMBER OF THE HOLY TRIAD." The words in capitals form the substance of the seventh verse which Cyril wished to quote, as being direct to his purpose; yet through fear he declined to produce it in express terms. This was in the fifth century. Mr. Frederick Nolan stated in 1815: "instead of "the Father, Word, and Spirit," the remaining passage would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and the Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenents." (An Inquiry Into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Rev. Frederick Nolan, 1815, pg. 278-279) Mr. Nolan gives two reasons why I John 5:7 is seemingly scanty in reference to quotations from the church fathers: One - The passage in I John 5:7 is among those like I Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 that have all been tampered with in the manuscript tradition, all three having to do with the deity of Christ as "God." Two - That the major reason for NOT QUOTING I John 5:7 was based on its wording, chiefly, purporting Jesus Christ as the "WORD" instead of the "SON." Hence, with the Sabellian heresy being debated that Jesus Christ is the Father with no distinction, I John 5:7 would further propagate that notion. Therefore it wasn't quoted. Jesse Boyd also suggests the following reasons why the passage may have "dropped out" of 1 John 5:7. He says: "The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle. The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. The Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the Johannine Comma. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian." Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the New Testament. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching." There is another argument based on internal evidence that anyone can clearly see just by reading the Holy Bible in English. This has to do with the spiritual significance of numbers. We all know how significant the number 7 is, representing the spiritual perfections of the Godhead. There are many highly significant words or titles that are found either 7 times or in combinations of 7 only in the King James Bible. Words like Son of man (49x4) Son of God (49 or 7x7 in the New Testament), Most High (49), Jesus Christ (196 or 49x4 - different numbers in Critical Texts), Word of God (49 - different numbers in Critical Texts), My Beloved Son (7 times), It is written (63 or 7 times 9 in N.T.), Firstborn (7), Kingdom of God (70), Holy Spirit (7 in the KJB), Church (77 - different numbers in Critical Texts), Worshippers (7), Jerusalem (144 times in Textus Receptus, 21 times 7, different numbers in Critical Texts since they omit Jerusalem in Luke 2:42; 24:49 and Acts 18:21) and only when 1 John 5:7 is included does the title referring to Jesus Christ as the Word occur 7 times. It is found in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." 1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." Not only does the expression "The Word", referring to the Lord Jesus Christ occur 7 times with the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, but also in the epistle of 1 John itself, the word "ho logos" (the word) occurs exactly 7 times when including this verse. See 1 John 1:1,10; 2:5,7,14; 3:18; and 5:7. Just another coincidence - huh? If you are looking to scholars to settle the issue for you, there will never be any certainty at all. Those who criticize the King James Bible as being just another fallible book, riddled with errors, have nothing sure and certain to give you in its place. They set themselves up as the final authority but they constantly differ among themselves. It is like playing "scholar poker". "Well, my scholars can beat your scholars." No, they can't. I'll see your scholars and raise you two more." They may say that Dr. So and So went to Dallas Theological Whatever and he doesn't believe 1 John 5:7 should be in the bible. Well, on the other hand, there are many learned men with just as much knowledge who absolutely believe 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Holy Bible. Again, here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse. Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 7 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the French Martin and Ostervald bibles, the Russian Synodal, the Portuguese de Almeida and Bíblia Sagrada, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, and in most English versions till 1881. It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The first printed text of the entire Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of 1520. It included all of 1 John 5:7 and it continues to be found in the Greek New Testaments used by the Greek Orthodox Churches today. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/biblegreek/ Pre-Lutheran German Bibles that include 1 John 5:7 1466 A.D. Strassburg: Johann Mentel 1470 A.D. Strassburg: H. Eggestein 1475 A.D. Augsburg: Gunther Zainer 1476 A.D. Augsburg: Gunther Zainer 1476 A.D.Nuremberg: Johammes Sensenschmidt & Andreas Frisner 1477 A.D.Augsburg: Gunther Zainer 1478 A.D. Kolner Bible, Die Neiderdeutschen Bibelfruhdrucke 1483 A.D.Nurember: Anton Koberger 1485 A.D. Strassburg: Johann Reinhard de Gruningen 1490 A.D. Augsburg: Johann Schonsperger: "wann drey sind, die da geben gezeugknub auff der erde, der geyst, das wasser, onnd auch de blutt, onnd dise drey sind eyns. Und drey sind die da geben gezeugknub im hymmel. Der vater, das wortt, onnd der heylige geyst, on dise drey sind eins. Ob wir auffnemen." And it is in the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 today - "7 Denn drei sind es, die Zeugnis ablegen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist, und diese drei sind eins;" The full text of 1 John 5:7 is found in several of the surviving Old Latin copies. The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 includes the verse. In the Clementine Vulgate it reads just like the King James Bible: "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt." The Clementine Vulgate can be seen here: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide. Will Kinney This is pretty amazing once you see the number similarities of the first and last verses in the King James Bible, along with the most disputed verse in Scripture about the Triune God who is himself the beginning and the end. These numbers do not work with any other modern bible, not the NKJV and certainly not with the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. both because of different texts (Revelation 22:21) and different translations (Genesis 1:1). Genesis 1:1, Revelation 22:21 and 1 John 5:7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnsgYcvXTyI&feature=share The numerical "coincidences" will not convince the gainsayers, but one brother posted the following example of numerical symmetry regarding this most disputed verse. Standing Up for The King James Bible: Beauty of Gods Perfect Word. The First Verse and Last Verse in King James Verse Bible: Who knows what lies in between! Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Rev.22:21 Now this last verse: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Count the number of letters in the first verse of the KJB 44 Count the number of letters in the last verse of the KJB + 44 Count the number of letters in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 88. Count the number of vowels in the first verse of the KJB 17 Count the number of vowels in the last verse of the KJB + 17 Count the number of vowels in the 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 34 Count the number of consonants in the first verse of the KJB 27 Count the number of consonants in the last verse of the KJB + 27 Count the number of consonants in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 54? Therefore the total number of letters, consonants, and vowels in the 1 John 5:7 equal those in "the first and the last" verse in the Holy Bible. Now if that's not enough proof...The first verse's words - 10. The last verse's words 12. The words in the verse 1 John 5:7 -22 For further study and documentation about the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, may I recommend a well done article by my Christian brother and friend, Marty Shue. He has written a response to Daniel Wallace's criticism of this verse found here: http://www.avdefense.webs.com/1John5-7.html Another good site is KJV Today. It has a lot of historical references to 1 John 5:7 and other evidence proving that 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and belongs in our Bible http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Origen-or-Pseudo-Origen- Additional information in this KJV Today article on 1 John 5:7 http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Gregory-of-Nazianzus The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission. 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One" https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html?fbclid=IwAR0VaAZMhgGnt3MFjKHzAGHhrtkVxgoK4mJQ-e1GlAQrtA7z1CmOH-eV5KY Additional comments: At our Which Version club - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/ - we were discussing the textual and historic evidence for 1 John 5:7 and one of the members wrote in with these questions: "I know there are other reasons why ya'll claim the comma (1 John 5:7) should be included, but doesnt it makes sense to just admit that the KJV is assumed to be right, and where evidence supports it, that evidence reigns supreme, and if the same type or even the same exact evidence does not support it, that evidence is lacking in that case?" I then replied: Hi Kevin, these are good questions. I think basically what you are asking is Why do we sometimes uphold a particular reading (1 John 5:7 for example) that does not share the same textual evidence as do many other verses that are in dispute. Kevin, this is the problem faced by ALL translations and all Bible versions. Modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, Holman, NKJV etc. ALL often will adopt or include a reading or omit an entire verse or several whole verses, even when the vast majority of texts and other Bible versions do not agree with them, and none of these modern versions agree all the way through with any other. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a whole verse, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, Holman etc. will omit it all because it is not found in one or two mss. The KJB will also, though not nearly as often nor to the same extent, sometimes adopt a "minority" reading. Very often, particularly in the book of Revelation, the textual evidence for certain readings is equally divided. If one takes a purely humanistic view of Scripture, then the only conclusion we can come to is that there is no complete and inerrant Bible in any language and that God has basically left the scene as far as preserving His words is concerned. This also means that God actually lied to us when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His WORDS (NOT just the general, ballpark message) shall not pass away. It is my belief that Textual Criticism or Textual Studies alone will never solve the problem or answer the question of "Do we have an inerrant Bible?" Generally speaking, the textual evidence is far and away in favor of the King James Bible readings, but there are a few notable exceptions. What I believe we need to do to come to a final decision on the issue of an inerrant Bible is to look elsewhere than mere Textual Criticism (which is a totally confused mess, and I can prove it). We need to look at the internal evidence and the spiritual fruit produced by the two different approaches to God's pure words. The true Holy Bible will be internally consistent and always true (even if there are some "apparent" contradictions). I have found through my comparative studies that ONLY the King James Bible is internally consistent and doctrinally sound 100% of the time. ALL other versions, especially the more modern ones like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV break down at several points and teach false doctrines, thus proving themselves to be false witnesses. Here is one study you might like to look at called "No Doctrines are Changed?" http://brandplucked.com/nodoctrinechanged.htm ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV frequently (or sometimes as in the NKJV), reject the clear Hebrew texts, and God only gave His inspired words in the O.T. to the Jews - not to the Latins, Syrians or the Greeks. Another huge difference is the spiritual fruit produced by the various bible versions. God has used the King James Bible like no other in history. It has replaced all other previous English Bible versions, and was the one God used in bringing about the worldwide modern missionary movement. People who use and still believe the King James Bible are the only ones who actually believe The Bible IS (NOT "WAS in the non-existent originals") the inspired and inerrant words of God. The fruit of the modern, multiple-choice and contradictory bible versions is the open denial of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in any language. Unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture is increasing more and more every day, and it will only get worse, not better. The Bible itself tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days, and this is happening now at an alarming rate. For more information on this growing unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture, may I suggest you read this article I have put together called "There is NO inerrant Bible" http://brandplucked.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm The Battle for the Bible is a spiritual battle and only God can open the eyes of the blind, and He does this by His grace and mercy alone; not because we are more holy, or smarter, or pray and study more than others do. It is all by His grace and He often chooses the weak and the babes to reveal these things to. "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." Matthew 11:25-26 You either believe that the King James Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, or you become your own final authority and make up your own peculiar "bible version" as you go along and your version will differ from everybody else's. You won't even believe that "yours" is the 100% true and inerrant words of God Almighty. Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.com/kjbarticles.htm Tyndale, Old Latin on 1 John 5:7 http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/bibletrans/mbtu26.htm Another site called King James Version has some useful information on how even among the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, we see textual differences and corruptions in 1 John 5:6 (the previous verse) and Why as well as How the words in verse 7 would have "dropped out" of the inspired text. You can see that article here: http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57 Didn't Erasmus and the Reformation Editors Use Textual Criticism? http://libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/reports%5CDidn%27t%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Reformation%20Editors%20Use%20Textual%20Criticism.htm Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy Nick Sayers Sept 3, 2020 https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/720761625436369/ Voulgaris vindicated by leading Greek expert. Most critical text proponents don't even engage in the grammatical issues surrounding the Johannine Comma, and those who do, such as Barry Hoffstetter, or James White, only reveal that they are not adequately informed about this issue. In an email discussion with Professor Georgios Babiniotis a few months ago, I asked him about validity of the claims of legendary Greek professor Eugenius Voulgaris concerning the Johannine Comma. Those familiar with the grammatical arguments made by Voulgaris will be pleased to know that Babiniotis, who is probably one of the most important Greek linguists alive today, said that not only was Voulgaris correct to say we need to keep the Comma for grammatical reasons, and he also took it a step further by pointing out that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the "syntactic parallelism" of these two verses. Babiniotis is a Greek linguist and philologist who has written several books about Greek grammar, etymology, and other Greek language related topics. He is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece, and previously served as rector of Athens University. As David Crystal is to English speaking people, so Georgios Babiniotis is to the Greek speaker. Here are some of the books he has written here: https://babiniotis.gr/ergografia/vivlia. You may know of Babiniotis from his Greek dictionary which is often simply called the "Babiniotis" dictionary. (Word Doc) I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically though with another explanation is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8. What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek. The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8. is linguistically justified on the pattern of "syntactic parallelism", i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (parallel) in structure with that of 5.7. So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical "gender agreement rule" (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender, simple gender agreement rule. Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7. === (End of word doc) George later said in an email: ...I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly "syntactic parallelism" of these two verses... So I hereby challenge those of the Anglo Sanhedrin who desire to delete the Comma, such as James White, Dan Wallace, Barry Hoffstetter, James Snapp Jr, Stephen Boyce, Bill Brown, Bart Ehrman, Elijah Hixson, etc, to refute the claims of this top Greek linguist, who has basically just confirmed that the Greek grammatical argumentation that myself (Nick Sayers), Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Edward Hill, Jack Moorman, and many other TR/KJV people hold to, is not only correct, but that the Comma is also linguistically justified on the pattern of syntactic parallelism.

Faith building for believers in the KJV. 52 minutes

https://bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. A conservative, bible believing perspective! God's providence gave us the 27 book New Testament Canon, not the church. God, not men decided the canon. This providence does not mean that church leaders were inspired in their selecting the canon, only that God had his eye on the scriptures the whole time and brought about His will to form the Bible we see today! A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. Go to: "Canon of the Bible" Home Page A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. Introduction: The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. This does not mean they are not inspired. And Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. List of Old Testament texts quoted in the New Testament: Gen 1:27 Matt 19:4 Gen 5:2 Mark 10:6 Gen 2:2 Heb 4:4 Gen 2:7 1 Cor 15:45 Gen 2:24 Matt 19:5, Mark 10:7-8,1 Cor 6:17, Eph 5:31 Gen 5:24 Heb 11:5 Gen 12:1 Acts 7:3 Gen 12:3 Gal 3:8 Gen 12:7 Acts 7:5 Gen 13:15 Gal 3:16 Gen 14:17-20 Heb 7:1-2 Gen 15:5 Rom 4:18 Gen 15:6 Rom 4:3,9,22, Gal 3:6, Jas 2:23 Gen 15:13-14 Acts 7:6-7 Gen 17:5 Rom 4:17 Gen 17:7 Gal 3:16 Gen 17:8 Acts 7:5 Gen 18:10 Rom 9:9 Gen 18:14 Rom 9:9 Gen 21:10 Gal 4:30 Gen 21:22 Rom 9:7, Heb 11:18 Gen 22:16-17 Heb 6:13-14 Gen 22:18 Acts 3:15 Gen 25:23 Rom 9:12 Gen 25:23 Rom 9:12 Gen 38:8 Luke 20:28 Gen 47:31 Heb 11:21 Ex 1:8 Acts 7:18 Ex 2:14 Acts 7:27-28,38 Ex 5:2 Acts 7:30 Ex 3:5-10 Acts 7:33-34 Ex 3:6 Matt 22:32 Ex 3:15 Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 Ex 4:16 Rom 9:17 Ex 5:18 Jam 2:11 Ex 12:46 John 19:36 Ex 13:2 Luke 2:23 Ex 16:18 2 Cor 8:15 Ex 19:6 1 Pet 2:9 Ex 19:12-13 Heb 12:20 Ex 20:12-16 Matt 19:18-19 Ex 20:13 Matt 5:21 Ex 20:13-17 Rom 13:2 9 Ex 20:12 Matt 15:4 Ex 20:14 Matt 5:27 Ex 20:17 Rom 7:7 Ex 21:17 Matt 15:4, Mark 7:10 Ex 21:24 Matt 5:38 Ex 22:27 Acts 23:5 Ex 24:8 Heb 9:20 Ex 25:40 Heb 8:5 Ex 32:1 Acts 7:40 Ex 32:6 1 Co 10:17 Ex 33:19 Rom 9:15 Lev 10:9 Luke 1:15 Lev 12:8 Luke 2:24 Lev 18:5 Rom 10:5, Gal 3:12 Lev 19:2 1 Pet 1:16 Lev 19:12, Num 30:2 Matt 5:33 Lev 19:18 Mark 12:33 Lev 19:18 Matt 5:43,19:19,22:39 Lev 19:18 Mark 12:31, Gal 5:14,Jam 2: Lev 23:29 Acts 3:23 Lev 24:20 Matt 5:38 Lev 26:12 2 Co 6:16 Num 16: 2 Tim 2:19 Num 27:17 Matt 9:36 Deut 5:16-20 Mark 10:1, Luke 18:20 Deut 24:14 Mark 10:19 Deut 5:16 Mark 7:10, Eph 6:2-3 Deut 5:17 Jas 2:11 Deut 4:24 Heb 12:29 Deut 4:3 Mark 12:32 Deut 6:5 Luke 10:27 Deut 6:4-5 Mark 12:29-30 Deut 6:5 Matt 22:37 Deut 6:13 Matt 4:10, Luke 4:8 Deut 6:16 Matt 4:7, Luke 4:12 Deut 8:3 Matt 4:4, Luke 4:4 Deut 9:4 Rom 10:6 Deut 30:12-14 Rom 10:6-8 Deut 9:19 Heb 12:21 Deut 17:7 1 Co 5:13 Deut 18:15-16 Acts 7:37, 3:12 Deut 19:15 Matt 18:16,2 Co 13:1 Deut 21:23 Gal 3:13 Deut 24:1,3 Matt 5:31, Matt 19:7, Mark 10:4 Deut 25:4 1 Co 9:9,1 Tim 5:18 Deut 25:5,7 Matt 22:24, Mark 12:19 Deut 27:26, Gal 3:10 Deut 29:3 Rom 11:8 Deut 30:12-14 Heb 13:5 Deut 32:21 Rom 10:19 Deut 32:35-36 Rom 12:19 Deut 32:43 Rom 15:10 1 Sam 12:22 Rom 11:2 1 Sam 13:14 Acts 13:22 2 Sam 7:8 2 Co 6:18 2 Sam 7:14 Heb 1:5 2 Sam 22:50 Rom 15:9 1 Ki 19:10,12 Rom 11:3 1 Ki 19:`8 Rom 11:4 2 Ki 1:10,11 Luke 9:54, Rev 20:9 1 Chr 17:13 Rev 21:7 2 Ch 18:16, 30:2 Mark 6:34 Job 5:13 1 Co 3:19 Job 16:19 Mark 11:10 Job 41:3 Rom 11:35 Ps 2:7 Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5,5:5 Ps 2:9 Rev 2:26-27 Ps 4:5 Eph 4:26 Ps 5:10 Rom 3:13 Ps 6:9 Matt 7:23 Ps 8:2 Matt 21:16 Ps 8:5-7 Heb 2:6-8, 1 Co 15:27 Ps 10:7 Rom 3:14 Ps 14:1-3 Rom 3:10-12 Ps 16:8-11 Acts 2:25-28, 2:31,13:35 Ps 19:5 Rom 10:18 Ps 22:1 Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34 Ps 22:18 John 19:24, Matt 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:24 Ps 22:23 Heb 2:12 Ps 24:1 1 Co 10:26 Ps 31:6 Luke 23:46 Ps 32:1-2 Rom 4:7-8 Ps 34:9 1 Pet 2:3 Ps 34:13-17 1 Pet 3:10-12 Ps 34:21 Joh 15:25 Ps 36:2 Rom 3:18 Ps 40:10 Heb 10:5-7 Ps 41:10 Joh 13:18 Psa 42:5,11 Matt 26:38 Ps 43:5 Mark 14:34 Ps 44:23 Rom 8:36 Ps 45:7-8 Heb 1:8-9 Ps 51:6 Rom 3:4 Ps 62:12 Matt 16:27 Pro, 24:12 Rom 2:6 Ps 68:19 Eph 4:8 Ps 69:10 Joh 2:17 Ps 69:23-24 Rom 11:9-10 Ps 69:26 Acts 1:20 Ps 78:2 Matt 13:35 Ps 78:24 Joh 6:31 Ps 82:6 Joh 10:34 Ps 86:9 Rev 15:4 Ps 91:11-12 Matt 4:6, Luke 4:10-11 Ps 94:11 1 Co 3:20 Ps 95:7-11 Heb 3:7-11, 3:15,4:3,5,7 Ps 102:26-28 Heb 1:10-12 Ps 104:4 Heb 1:7 Ps 104:12 Matt 13:32, Mark 4:32, Luke 13:19 Ps 110:1 Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42-43, Acts 2:34-35, Heb 1:13 Ps 110:4 Heb 5:6,-10, Heb 7:17,21 Ps 111:2 Rev 15:3-4 Ps 112:9 2 Co 9:9 Ps 116:10 2 Co 4:13 Ps 117:2 Rom 15:11 Ps 118:6 Heb 13:6 Ps 118:22-23 Matt 21:42, Mark 12:10-11, Luke 20:17 Ps 118:22 Acts 4:11, 1 Pet 2:7 Ps 118:25-26 Matt 21:9,Mark 11:9-10, Joh 12:13, Matt 23:39 Ps 118:26 Luke 13:35, Luke 19:38 Ps 132:11 Acts 2:30 Pro 3:11-12 Heb 12:5-6 Pro 3:34 Jam 4:6, 1 Pet 5:5 Pro 11:31 1 Pet 4:18 Pro 25:21-22 Rom 12:20 Pro 26:11 2 Pet 2:22 Isa 1:9 Rom 9:29 Isa 6:9-10 Matt 13:14-15, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26-27 Isa 6:9 Luke 8:10 Isa 6:10 Joh 12:40 Isa 7:14 Matt, 1:23 Isa 8:12-13 1 Pet 3:14-15 Isa 8:17-18 Heb 2:13 Isa 9:1-2 Matt 4:15-16 Isa 11:10 Rom 15:12 Isa 13:10 Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24-25 Isa 34:4 Luke 21:26 Isa 22:13 1 Co 15:32 Isa 25:8 1 Co 15:54, Rev 7:17 Isa 26:19 Matt 11:5 Isa 35:5-6 Luke 7:22 Isa 26:20 Heb 10:37-38 Isa 28:11-12 1 Co 14:21 Isa 29:13 Matt 15:8-9, Mark 1:3, Joh 1:23 Isa 40:6-8 1 Pet 1:24-25 Isa 40:13 Rom 11:34, 1 Co 2:16 Isa 42:1-4 Matt 12:18-21 Isa 45:23 Rom 14:11 Isa 49:6 Acts 13:47 Isa 49:8 2 Co 6:2 Isa 52:5 Rom 2:24 Isa 52:7 Rom 10:15 Isa 52:11 2 Co 6:17 Isa 52:15 Rom 15:21 Isa 53:1 Joh 12:38, Rom 8:17 Isa 53:7-8 Acts 8:32-33 Isa 53:9 1 Pet 2:23 Isa 53:12 Luke 22:37 Isa 54:1 Gal 4:27 Isa 54:13 Joh 6:45 Isa 55:3 Acts 13:34 Isa 55:10 2 Co 9:10 Isa 56:7 Matt 21:13 Jer 7:11 Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 Isa 59:7-8 Rom 3:15-17 Isa 59:20-21 Rom 11:26-27 Isa 61:1-2 Luke 4:18-19 Isa 62:11 Matt 21:5 Isa 64:3 1 Co 2:9 Isa 65:1-2 Rom10:10-21 Isa 65:17 2 Pet 3:13 Isa 66:1-2 Acts 7:49-50 Jer 5:21 Mark 8:18 Jer 9:23 1 Co 1:31, 2 Co 10:17 Jer31:15 Matt 2:18 Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8:8-12 Ezk 11:20 Rev 21:7 Ezk 37:5, 10 Rev 11:11 Dan 3:6 Matt13:42, 50 Dan 7:13 Matt 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:26,14:62, Luke 21:27,22:69 Dan 9:27 Matt 24:15 Dan 11:31 Mark 13:14 Hos 2:1, 3 Rom 9:25-28 Hos 6:6 Matt 9:13, Matt 12:7 Hos 10:8 Luke 23:30, Rev 6:16 Hos 11:1 Matt 2:15 Hos 13:14 1 Co 15:55 Joel 3:1-5 Acts 2:17-21, Rom 10:13 Amos 5:25-27 Acts 7:42-43 Amos 9:11-12 Acts 15:16-17 Jonah 2:17 Matt 12:40 Mic 5:2 Matt 2:6 Mic 7:6 Matt 10:35-36 Hab 2:3-4 Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11 Hab 1:5 Acts 13:41 Hag 2:6, 21 Heb 12:26 Zac 8:16 Eph 4:25 Zech 9:9 Joh 12:15 Zac 11:12-13 Matt 27:9-10 Zac 12:10 Joh 19:37 Zac 13:7 Matt 26:31, Mark 14:27 Mal 1:2-3 Rom 9:13 Mal 3:1 Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2,Luke 7:27 Mal 4:5-6 Matt 17:10-11

What is made of leather and sounds like a sneeze? A shoe. How do you turn soup into gold? Add 24 carrots. What is white and ruins your dinner? An avalanche.

Bible Baptist Bookstore https://store.kjv1611.org/bbb/

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/