By Ed Pfenninger
Used by permission
The foundation of the individual Christian’s faith is the Bible. It is from the Bible that the Christian derives his doctrines, beliefs, and, indeed, his entire worldview. The reason that the Christian ascribes this importance to the Bible is that he believes that God Himself has Inspired it. It is, therefore, more than a book – it is The Book. As such, there can be no more important doctrine for the Christian than the Doctrine of Inspiration. For if the Bible is NOT inspired it becomes just another ‘great’ book and not the Christian’s final authority in all matters of faith and practice. As Dr. Merrill F. Unger noted:
“(T)he doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is of immense importance. This is at once apparent when one considers that all evangelical Christian doctrines are developed from the Bible and rest upon its authority. L. Bottner is correct when he calls the Biblical teaching of inspiration the mother and guardian of all the others.” 
It is no surprise, then, that the Doctrine of Inspiration would become a point of contention between those who believe that the King James Bible is the Inspired word of God and those who believe that only the Original Manuscripts were Inspired and that no translation is Inspired or perfect. The question that each Christian must ask himself is do I hold an inspired Bible in my hand, or, as many theologians maintain, merely a “reliable translation”? That is the issue this pamphlet will address.
The idea that only the Originals were inspired is considered orthodoxy by most theologians today. However, it is actually a relatively new concept, only gaining wide acceptance in the late 19th century. The historical orthodox position had always been that God had perfectly preserved His words and that Inspiration was carried on in this preservation. As the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 states:
“(T)he Old Testament in Hebrew (which is the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are therefore authentical (emphasis mine).”
Thus, the idea that the Scriptures were not perfectly preserved by the Providence of God would have been thought ridiculous to Christians before the 19th century. It wasn’t until the 1880’s that the “Autographs Only” idea began to gain adherents among scholars. As Dr. James Sightler notes in A Testimony FoundedFor Ever:
“The Princeton Theologians Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, in 1881, were the first to claim inspiration for the original autographs only and to exchange the doctrine of providential preservation for restoration of the text by critics…Actually it was Warfield’s teacher and predecessor at Princeton, Charles Hodge, …who was the first to take up naturalistic text criticism and abandon the doctrine of providential preservation. It (was) the Niagara Creed of 1878 adopted at the Niagara Conference on Prophecy, which was dominated by a coalition of Princeton graduates and followers of J. N. Darby, (that) may well have been the first document to claim inspiration for every word of scripture provided such word is found in the original manuscripts.”
Yet, as we shall see, the “Autograph Only” school’s only purpose was to undermine confidence in the King James Bible.
“Original autographs has proved itself to be a term with a mission and that mission is the destruction of the Textus Receptus which after more than a century of attack still carries majestically on far superior to any of its rivals”
Since the 1880’s, the idea that inspiration extended only to the original autographs has been taught and repeated so often that it is now actually considered a defense of Scripture. Indeed, we find such notable men as Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, writing the following:
“The claim for verbal, plenary inspiration is made only for the original writings and does not extend to any transcriptions or translations. It is also true that no original manuscript is now available. (Emphasis mine)”
C. I. Scofield, editor of the classic Scofield Reference Bible, stated it this way:
“The writers of Scripture invariably affirm, where the subject is mentioned by them at all, that the words of their writings are divinely taught. This, of necessity, refers to the original documents, not to translations and versions (Emphasis mine).”, 
Lastly, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, known for his “Ryrie Study Bibles”, wrote the following statement in his 1994 Expanded Ryrie KJV Study Bible:
“My own definition of biblical inspiration is that it is God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. (Emphasis mine)”
These men represent conservative, premillennial, dispensational theology. As such, they have had a profound influence. It is, therefore, not surprising that their adherence to the Hodge/Warfield position on the Doctrine of Inspiration has become the commonly held view among most modern theologians and their students who eventually became Pastors.
When modern scholars teach future Pastors that there are no perfect translations, only perfect Originals, the question naturally arises…Why didn’t God think it important enough to perserve them perfectly? In other words, why would God give mankind the exact words He wanted mankind to know and then allow some of them to disappear? Modern scholarship reassures us that the new versions are almost perfect – but not quite! In fact, they often confidently assert that they have between 99% of the Original text! Yet, no one has ever seen the “Original Text” so how is this possible? How do they know that the changes they have made to the King James readings are correct? Scholars will even go so far as to suggest that even if readings are wrong in the new versions, it doesn’t really matter because the translations are, on the whole, “reliable”, and that no fundamental of the faith has been affected. In other words, God did not intend for us to have His actual words but only His “message”. Thus, any natural inclination to question the modern view of Inspiration is countered with the idea that God is satisfied with 99% preservation so we should be too. Yet, the entire concept of “verbal” Inspiration rests on the idea that every word is important! Even Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote:
“To the same measure, to have left out one page one word (emphasis mine) that was inspired and designed of God with a view to its place in the canon would have marred as disastrously the faultless Word of God. Through the permission of … these hypothetical defects, the Bible would have been rendered unworthy of its divine Author.”
Another hurdle modern scholarship must overcome in its race to destroy the concept of Biblical preservation is 2 Timothy 3:16 which is the proof text for the Doctrine of Inspiration.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
It is not until this verse is “wrested” that the future Pastor can be fully indoctrinated into the Autograph Only school. Therefore, we must look at this verse in some depth. Two words in the verse are at issue. The first word is that little word “is”. The second word is the word “inspiration” and will be dealt with momentarily.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, the word “is” is in the present tense. Paul has just stated in the previous verse (verse 15) that Timothy should study the Scriptures. In the next verse, verse 16, Paul is telling Timothy why he can be confident in the Holy Scriptures, because they are given by inspiration of God for our edification. Paul is not explaining how Scripture came to be Inspired at some point in the past. If he were, then the verse would be translated “all scripture was given by inspiration” and no translation ever translates the verse as such. Yet, this is exactly how the scholar must translate the verse in his mind in order to support his position. He must make a mental adjustment to switch the “is” to “was” the word of God (in the Originals). It is this mental change from “is” to “was” that allows the theologian to convince himself (and others) that he believes the Bible is the Word of God, when what he really means is that it was the word of God (in the Originals). (If this bit of mental gymnastics seems farfetched to the reader, this phenomenon was recently witnessed on the national stage, when the nation found itself in a debate on what the meaning of the word “is” is with regard to the current President!) Moreover, modern scholars always give 2 Peter 1:21 as a reference verse next to 2 Timothy 3:16, implying that both verses refer to the origination of Scripture. However, note that 2 Peter 1:21, which indeed does refer to the origin of Scripture, is in the past tense:
“For the prophecy came [past tense] not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved [past tense] by the Holy Ghost.”
This connection between 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Timothy 3:16 is an artificial one. While Peter is describing an historical fact, Paul is explaining a current reality. Peter explains how God moved men to speak his words, while Paul explains how the written words are preserved. Peter reveals how we obtained Scripture, Paul, its’ value.
The second word that must be dealt with in 2 Timothy 3:16 is the word “inspiration” itself. Modern scholars began ignoring the English word “inspired”, and, instead, began referring to the Greek word “theopneustos”, which literally means “God-Breathed”. Chafer eloquently states the point:
“(I)t is doubtful whether any one original New Testament word has been more scrutinized under the searching rays of scholarship than has theopneustos…The question at issue is one as to whether the term God-breathed is to be taken in the passive form which implies only that, as to its source, all Scripture is the breath of God - its distinctive characteristic being the fact that it orignates in, and proceeds from God, or whether it is to be taken in its active form which would imply that the Scripture is permeated and pregnant with the breath of God - its distinctive characteristic being the fact it has received by impartation or inspiration the breath of God. (Emphasis mine)”
In reference to “theopneustos”, Dr. B. B. Warfield stated:
“The Greek term has…nothing to say of…inspiration: it speaks only of a ‘spiring’ or ‘spiration’”.
J. I. Packer stated it this way:
“As B.B. Warfield showed, this Greek word actually means breathed out by God…not so much in-spired as ex-spired.”
Yet, the King James English says “inspired” not “expired”. The word “inspired” means to “breath into”. In fact, Dr. Ryrie admits, “Strictly speaking, inspiration means ‘filling or breathing’ into”. Realizing what he has just said, Dr. Ryrie quickly backtracks and restate the Warfield definition, “In 2 Timothy 3:16, the word usually translated ‘inspiration’ is more accurately ‘spiration,’ that is, ‘God-breathed’. Hence, the NIV translation, ‘all scripture is God breathed’.”
This semantic sleight of hand is played for only one reason, to avoid recognizing the fact that the Bible is “quick and powerful” (Hebrews 4:12). It is a Book that has God’s life (breath) in it and not merely a collection of dead manuscripts as modern scholars would have us believe. In fact, the correct understanding of both the English and the Greek taken in the context is that God breathes His life into Scripture.
Finally, modern scholars themselves are forced to admit that when Scripture is referred to in the Bible, it always means the actual words. Dr. Ryrie states:
“Christ attested to the fact that inspiration extends to the very words…Paul quoted Deuteronomy and Luke as Scripture…Peter declared Paul’s epistles to be Scripture….”
Here Dr. Ryrie concedes that Christ Himself attested to the fact that inspiration extends to the very words. However, using Ryrie’s own definition, we must surmise that since the “Originals” were long gone by the time of the writing, no one – not The Lord Jesus Christ, nor Paul, nor Timothy, had ever seen Old Testament Scripture. They only had reliable copies which for some reason they called Scripture. However, because of 2 Timothy 3:16, Scripture cannot be called Scripture if it is not Inspired.
In conclusion, we must realize the significance of the words that we have in our Bible. Scholars downplay the importance of the specific words maintaining that it is the “doctrine” not the “word” that is important. Yet we must remember that it is the words with which we formulate Christian doctrines.
“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1Corinthians 2:13)
The danger in ignoring this fact is pointed out by Dr. Peter Ruckman:
“Wherever Apostasy sets in, it is preceded by an attack on the WORDS of the Received Text…Those words in Greek were attacked by the church fathers preceding the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.); they were attacked in Germany by German scholars preceding German Rationlism (1700-1850 A.D.); and they were attacked (in English) by A.T. Robertson, J.G. Machen, R.A. Torrey, Philip Schaff, John R. Sampey, C.I. Scofield, Bullinger, and other Conservatives, before the final sell out of Biblical Christianity (1945-1972 A.D.).”
This truth was further brought home in a recent Zola Levitt newsletter that pointed out a number of seminaries, including Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, and Talbot Seminary, have grown lukewarm in defending and teaching Biblical Dispensationalism and had begun to accept the growing heresy known as “Progressive Dispensationalism.” This falling away is a natural result of having no final authority, no Holy Scriptures. The scholars have only their own opinions to guide them. As one astute reader wrote in,
“I watch your program. I’m an old, uneducated Baptist. Well, I did go through high school and I’m 82 years old. For many years, I’ve read the Bible (King James) through each year. I read that
Israel was given to the Jews for an everlasting possession. God’s firstborn nation, He began with the Jews and He will end with the Jews. God says He changes not. They are His Chosen People. I just cannot understand how people can come up with something different, unless some Bibles are translated differently from the King James Version. If God could create this world, He certainly must be able to watch over His Word.”
There is a war being fought today inside the Church. It is a secret war; a war fought behind seminary walls and the doors of book publishers and in the libraries of ministers. It is a war that Satan wants to keep in the shadows until it is too late and Satan is using his tremendous power for deceiving subtlety as his primary weapon. This is a war to disarm the Church. It is a war of misinformation, distortion and lies. In the last one hundred years Satan has accomplished much. He has created “new” and “improved” Hebrew and Greek texts. These texts have resulted in the printing of over 150 counterfeit bible “versions”. All of this was done with one goal in mind…to destroy the faith of the people in the one Book, the King James Bible. Over a hundred years ago a warning was issued:
“It seemed to me that the time had fully come, for the friends of the Bible, as it is, to speak once more…Does anyone suppose that a question of conscience touching the integrity of the word of God, can be given up by Christian people even to avoid trouble in the church of God, much less trouble with a secular society?…The word of God is, next to the Spirit itself, the most precious gift of Christ to his church; and if the church has any clear duty upon earth, one duty is to preserve that Divine Word in purity…and here is a new standard English Bible, changed…in somewhere about 24,000 particulars…we are told they have discovered…in the text and punctuation alone…and then they distinctly assert, that of all these 24,000 variations … there is not one which mars the integrity of the text, or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible … the principle on which the procedure has been undertaken and carried through, are perilous in the highest degree… the results reached are evil, and only evil.”
The results are evil and only evil. That condemnation can be applied to every new translation since 1885. The condemnation can also be applied to the view that God did not preserve His words perfectly for His Church on earth. God promised He would and He did.
“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 forever.” (Psalms12:6-7)
Thus, there has always been a perfect, inspired word of God in the hands of Bible believers. Today, that word is preserved for the English-speaking world in the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
C. I. Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible
With the permission of Carl Graham and TWOGISTATES Publications, we are reprinting, in its entirety, an article by Carl Graham on the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible (for further information also see
Carl Graham Ministries, “http://carlgraham.home.mindspring.com”).
A TWOGISTATES Publication
The Scofield Reference Bible
Science Falsely So-Called
“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity,
but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”(2 Cor. 2:17)
Table of Contents
Notes in Scofield’s Reference Bible that Support The Revised Version and, Consequently, All Modern Versions
John 7:53 & John 8:1-11
1 John 5:7
1 John 5:8
2 Timothy 3:16
I have personally used the Scofield Reference Bible, which is based on the King James Bible (KJB), as a primary source for Bible study for over 50 years. In my early Christian life I didn’t have the vaguest idea what Scofield was referring to where he mentioned the alternate readings of the various manuscripts; I just accepted his explanations. After all, he was a greatly respected Bible scholar who knew much more about the Bible than I did, and I had been programmed to accept the words of the scholars.
Even later in life when I discovered the deliberate deception that was taking place in biblical criticism, I still disregarded the notes. I guess I was just too complacent and satisfied to question a source that I valued so highly. However, I recently came across an anti-King James Bible book, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, where one of the writers, Mark Minnick, pointed out that Dr. Scofield advocated the modern critical approach in his reference Bible. This got my attention!
At first glance I thought Minnick, who is an avowed enemy of the KJB, was making a feeble attempt to foster modernism upon unsuspecting users of the Scofield Reference Bible. However, when I checked his references, I found that he had correctly documented Scofield’s notes, and they clearly showed that Scofield championed the modern method of science falsely so-called, which is biblical textual criticism. I concluded that if enemies of the King James Bible felt that these notes were far enough away from the truth that they could use them as supporting evidence in a frontal attack on God’s Word, then I had to look further into the situation.
I will have to admit that it is difficult for me to accept Scofield as a modernist. However, the evidence certainly seems to point that way, and since he is not here to defend himself, we’ll just have to accept what evidence we have and proceed on from there. Knowing as much as I do abut Scofield’s fundamentalist views though, I can’t but help wonder if He’d support the today’s scholars (scientists falsely so-called) in their slipshod treatment of God’s Word.
Rightly or wrongly, the enemies of the King James Bible have clearly placed Scofield in their camp. This fact is well documented in the previously mentioned book, From the mind of God to the Mind of Man, which praises Scofield for his bold stand, and then uses his comments to attack the accuracy and reliability of the King James Bible. On pages 94, 95, and 96, of this book Mark Minnick wrote:
I want to give one further brief illustration of how a respected pastor and Bible teacher approached this issue of manuscripts and their variants. I refer now to the practice of C.I. Scofield, whose name appears on the famous reference Bible that many of us grew up with and that has been so widely used within Fundamentalism that we have steered audiences to our texts, not by chapter and verse references, but by its page numbers!
Scofield displayed no inhibition about including comments on variants in his footnotes. For instance, concerning the ending to Mark’s Gospel, he wrote,
The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and
Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century (The Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 edition, first footnote to p. 1069).
Concerning the account of an angel going down into the pool of Bethesda and stirring the water to heal the first ailing person who could get into it (John 5:3-4), Scofield’s note reads, “The Sinai Ms. omits ‘waiting for the moving of the water’ and all of v. 4” (p. 1120, center column reference).
Concerning the disputed phrase in Romans 8:1 (“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’), his note reads, “The statement ends with ‘Christ Jesus’; the last ten words are interpolated” (p. 1201, center column reference).
His comment on Acts 7:59, “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” is the directive to “Omit God, “and to translate “Lit. And were stoning Stephen as he was invoking and saying Lord Jesus give welcome unto my spirit” (p. 1159, center column reference).
At I John 5:7 he includes the opinion, “It Is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority” (p. 1325, center column reference). By “no real authority,” Scofield means, no manuscript evidence.
I could multiply these examples, but Scofield’s notes are as accessible to you as your phone book—right there in that Reference Edition that you love and out of which you’ve learned so much. You can browse through his notes for yourself for his comments about manuscripts and variants. In addition, you’ll find that on nearly every page of the New Testament, his center column includes words he suggests to be better translations for expressions within the King James Version text. His Introduction explains that these alternate translations are “such emendations of the text as scholarship demands” (p. iv).
From the above quotes, we find hard evidence that Scofield was leaning heavily towards the modernistic approach to Scripture. He in effect confirmed this in the introduction to his reference Bible as he mentioned his reliance on the Revised Version and its underlying Greek text. Part of this is presented below to help us understand that Scofield placed a lot of faith in the opinions of the fathers of modern textual criticism. The quoted material is from The Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1917.It reads in part:
The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people’s Bible of the English-speaking world. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship.
While the preceding reference gives us insight to Scofield’s thoughts about the Revised Version (RV), I doubt very seriously if he knew all the shenanigans that took place in the making of it. I base this statement on my own experience with Scofield’s writings and my knowledge of the Godlessness of the authors of the Greek text underlying the RV.I feel that Scofield was a fundamentalist in the true sense. He firmly believed the Bible was God’s Word and lived his life accordingly. To affirm this, one only has to scrutinize the way he analyzed the Scriptures and tied then together in his reference Bible. I also feel that many of today’s acknowledged fundamentalists are blindly following the scientists falsely so-called (scholars) and being led astray exactly the same way Scofield was.
Since Scofield left himself wide open for being identified with the modernist camp, and they are using him as such, it is only proper that we look at the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible to see if their claim holds up under scrutiny. I will have to admit that this study has left me with no doubt about his direction, for I readily recognize some the modern scholars’ deceptive tricks in how he presented his references.
You will notice that he uses several terms that the average student of the Bible will not be familiar with. Often time he refers to the Sinaitic (Sinaiticus) and
Vatican (Vaticanus) manuscripts. Other times he refers to the best to oldest manuscripts, which is the way modern scholars often times refer to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and some times he merely gives the alternate reading without giving the source. I think the most deceptive note he uses is found in James 5:7 where he refers to the original language. This is a ploy that is used deliberately by the modern scholars in an attempt to create an illusion that they actually know the exact wording that is contained in the original manuscripts.
If any person is to refer to the manuscripts, it would be more honest to name them, and then at least there would be a reference to check. Describing the source as the best, oldest, or most accepted manuscripts imply an authority that is not warranted and places these statements totally in the realm of deception. This alone should be reason enough to reject notes identified as such. Actually, most of the times these kinds of notes are referring to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which are probably the two most untrustworthy manuscripts available. It is also interesting to note that the majority of the textual changes in the modern Bibles come from them. Sam Gipp addresses some of the issues in his book, The Answer Book, page 30, as follows:
The new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000manuscripts of Bible text. Critics of the Bible claim that these manuscripts are better than those used by the translators of the Authorized Version. This is not so.
The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted. While the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti- scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.
Gipp further describes the characteristics of these two manuscripts on page 110 of the same book.
One of the most prominent manuscripts which has been discovered since 1611 is the Sinaitic manuscript. This witness, though horribly flawed, was found amongst trash paper in St. Catharine’s monastery at the foot of
Mt. Sinai in 1841 by Constantine Tischendorf.
Sinaiticus is a sister manuscript of the corrupt manuscript, Vaticanus. Both read very similarly. So, although the Sinaitic manuscript was discovered over 200 years after the Authorized Version was translated, its
READINGS were well known to the translators through the Vatican manuscript which was discovered in 1481 and also through the Jesuit Bible, an English translation of 1582.
Not only were the manuscripts the Greek text underlying the Revised Version flawed, the revisers left a lot to be desired in relationship to their Christian faith. The Revised Version had these two strikes against it from the beginning, but the scientists falsely so-called continue to give the world inaccurate Bibles using the same illogic that the revisers used. If any reader wishes to research this topic further, I suggest he/she get in touch with The Bible For Today,
900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 080108, Phone 856-854-4452.They have a large selection of books that point out the procedural discrepancies of the revisers and sundry errors in the various manuscripts underlying the modern Bible versions.
Notes in Scofield’s Reference
Bible that Support The Revised Version
and, Consequently, All Modern Versions.
These notes following are illustrative examples of the references made by Scofield to the Revised Version of the Bible and its underlying Greek manuscripts. There are many other alternate readings that he suggests, but these are included so that the reader may see for himself that Scofield leaned heavily towards the modernistic view of the Scriptures.
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Scofield note: The two best MSS omit vs. 21.
Author’s comments: The two MSS he is referring to are the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. The modern scholar always identify them this way because they want you to think they are really the best available.(MS = manuscript; MSS = manuscripts)
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Scofield note: The best MSS omit vs. 14.
Author’s comments: Probably, the “best” MSS that he is referring to are the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. They always translate as being the best by the scientists falsely so-called. There are about 5,000 other manuscripts. The question is, “How is this presented in then?
26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Scofield note: Verse 26 is omitted for the best MSS.
Author’s comments: Probably, the best MSS he is referring to are Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. See notes preceding this reference.
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Scofield note: The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and
Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third
Author’s comments: The two most ancient MSS, Sinaitic and
Vatican, are supposed to be dated in the late 4th Century. The Scripture was quoted as being authentic in the late second or third centuries by reliable sources, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, which clearly predate the two most ancient MSS.I would say if they had documents available to them that correctly quoted the Word of God, as their quotes imply, we should accept their readings as authentic. I’ll have to give Scofield credit here. He at least cited the early writers as a possible source of authenticity where the modern scholars usually don’t.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Scofield note: The Sinai MS omits “waiting on the movement of the water” and all of verse 4.
Author’s comments: So only the Sinaiticus manuscript omits it. What about the Vaticanus? How is this presented in the other 5,000 plus MSS? One leaves it out, so we should throw it away?
John 7:53 and John 8:1-11
53 And every man went unto his own house.
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Scofield note: John 7:53-8.1-11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality! But the immediate context (vs. 12—46), beginning with Christ’s declaration, “I am the light of the world,” seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in verse 9; as, also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisees’ words (v. 41).
Author’s comments: I find it curious that Augustine is quoted as an authority when the scholar wants to confirm a viewpoint, but is discredited when he takes an opposite stand. Again, we are at a loss about which MSS he is referring to. However, we know that it is usually the Sinaiticus and VaticanusMSS.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Scofield note: Omit God. Lit. And were stoning Stephen as he was invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, give welcome to my spirit.
Author’s comments: This note is directly out of the RV even though Scofield doesn’t tell the reader that I have found that most of his alternate readings come for that same source. Incidentally, most of the variant readings in the RV come from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS.
37 And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.
Scofield note: Some ancient authorities read, about threescore and sixteen souls.
Author’s comments: I would like to know what ancient authorities.
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Scofield note: This statement ends with “Christ Jesus”; the last ten words are interpolated.
Author’s comments: This is taken from the Revised Version, which Schofield states as a fact. However, he didn’t tell the reader that is where he got it. I wonder who said it was interpolated and where he got his facts.
2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Scofield note: The best authorities omit “and of the Father and of Christ.”
Author’s comments: He is probably referring to the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, but we can’t know for sure.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Scofield note: Two words are used in the original for “gift,” the first meaning the act of giving; the second the thing given.
Author’s comments: The original what? I don’t know of any copy of the original MSS in existence, but he is probably referring to the text underlying the Revised Version.
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Scofield note: It is generally agreed that vs. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.
Author’s comments: Generally agreed to by whom? This falls into the realm of “most scholars say,” and is not even worth addressing. I don’t need a Bible that is based on the opinion of scholars, but rather one that has been preserved by the hand of God.
1 John 5:8
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Scofield note: Omit “in earth.”
Author’s comments: Here Scofield again goes to the RV for his information. He chose to omit these two words and the Christian world is supposed to accept it.
There are a multitude of other places in Scofield’s references where he prefers the RV readings. They are scattered throughout and are not addressed in this paper. I also noticed that he didn’t always go along with the RV, for example 2 Timothy 3:16.
The King James Bible reads:
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJB)
The Revised Version has a significantly different reading.
16 Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is righteousness: (RV)
I suppose (this is a guess) that Scofield didn’t like the implication that some parts of Scripture are inspired while other parts are not. I feel that honesty would demand that if a person accepts any part of the corrupt texts and their subsequent versions that he must accept all of their implied corrections. If an individual doesn’t have a basis for what he accepts or rejects, he is in effect making his own opinion equal to God’s Word. Even those who totally trust some modern version at least have some standard with which to measure their beliefs. Scofield’s notes don’t even do that, and if you trust his notes to tell you the truth about errors in the King James Bible, you’re in for a shocker. The truth is not in them.
After detailed research and much solemn prayer about the Scofield Reference Bible, I have to admit that I still like his explanations of various subjects, but I greatly dislike the implication that the KJB is in some way inferior to the Revised Version. His notes also imply that all the modern versions of the Bible are superior to the KJB because they are all based to some degree on the same RV Greek text.
I expect this paper will generate some discordant feelings by some who have devotedly used the Scofield Study Bible for years and have come to trust it explicitly. I don’t blame you. I have been expounding the merits of the Scofield Reference Bible for about 50 years myself. At this time in my life, I’ll just have to admit that God promised to preserve His Word, and based on what I’ve seen of Scofield’s notes, they certainly were not a part of that promise. I think I’ll just forget about Scofield and just go on doing God’s work the best I can with the old reliable King James Bible.
* * * * * * *
For the reader who would like to investigate the King James issue for himself, I would recommend the following works:
Anti King James Bible and Textus Receptus works:
“Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek” by B.F Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
“The King James Only Controversy” by James R. White
“History of the Bible in English” by F.F. Bruce
“The Canon of Scripture” by F.F. Bruce
“The King James Version Debate” by D.A. Carson
“The Text of the New Testament” by Kurt and Barbara Aland
“The Text of the New Testament” by Bruce Manning Metzer
“Inerrancy” edited by Norman L. Geisler
“The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture” by Rene Pach
“God has Spoken” by J.I. Packer
“The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible” by Benjamin B. Warfield
All of the above are currently in print and easily found in any major Christian bookstore.
Pro King James and the Textus Receptus works:
“The Revision Revised” by Dean John William Burgon
“God Wrote Only One Bible” by Jaspers James Ray
“Defending The King James Bible” by D.A. Waite
“The King James Version Defended” by Edward F. Hills
“Which Bible” by David Otis Fuller
“For Love of The Bible” by David W. Cloud
“The Translators Revived” by Alexander McClure (1858)
“New Age Bible Versions” by G.A. Riplinger
“The Answer Book” by Samuel C. Gipp
“The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence” by Peter S. Ruckman
“Final Authority” by William P. Grady
These works will give the reader an excellent foundation in understanding the great spiritual deception that the Church has fallen prey to. These works are not as easy to obtain as the anti-King James Books. Most can be obtained either from:
A.V. Publications Corp
P.O. Box 280
Ararat, VA 24053 U.S.A
The Bible Baptist Bookstore
P.O. Box 7135, Pensacola, FL. 32534
With these works the reader can decide for himself what is the truth. If, however, the reader at this point says, ‘but my Pastor says…’, then all I can say is turn over and go back to sleep. “The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.” (Proverbs 26:16)
 “Studies in Theology”, 1947, p. 48; “Ungers Bible Dictionary”, 1966, p. 527.
 “Creeds Of Christendom”, Vol. 3, Philip Schaff, p. 604 .
 The view that only the Originals were inspired was originally received with scorn and sarcasm. As one writer pointed out “nobody can use those lost autographs; [therefore] the Bible on our table is not the inerrant and infalliable word of God, and so today the church has no inerrant Bible by which to live, and preaching is thereby made impossible because it would be founded on the uninspired word of man”, Inerrancy, pp. 158-159.
 It is, I believe, no coincidence that this occurred at the end of 1800’s. At that time Satan was moving on many fronts. In 1885, the Westcott and Hort Greek text and the Revised English Version were released. This was also the time of great social, economic, and political upheaval in the
United States, England and Germany (Darwin, Marx, Freud, Westcott and Hort). See “The Fateful Turn, from Individualism to Collectivism 1880-1960”, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1963.
 Textus Receptus is a term given for the Received Greek text (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir all put out editions) that the King James Bible was translated from. The term itself was found in the preface to the 1633 edition put out by the Elzevir brothers. The Received Greek text is the pure text originating in
Antioch and stands in contrast to the Alexandrian text, a corrupt text which originated in Alexandria, Egypt. It is the Alexandrian text type that is the basis for all new versions.
 Ibid, p. 137.
 Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (8Vol), Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, Vol. 1, p.87.
 Dr. C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 1917, p. 1213.
 It was, in fact, the venerable Scofield Bible that planted the seeds among dispensational fundamendalists for the acceptance of all the “New Age versions” plaguing the Church today. (“New Age Versions” by G. A. Riplinger, 1993, shows the spirit behind all the new bible versions printed since 1885 using the Westcott and Hort Greek text.) Scofield introduced into his reference Bible a new chain reference system based on topics not words. The Scofield editors believed that the old system of references was based solely upon the “accident” of the English words and, therefore, was unscientific and misleading. Thus, topical chain references were born, breaking the association to the specific words in the text. Topical chain references are based on the association of “ideas” rather than words. This allowed for changing the words of the text as long as the “doctrine” was left fundamentally in tact. In addition, the Scofield Reference Bible also introduced margin notes with the notation that “such emendations of the text (a)s scholarship demands have been placed in the margins (Emphasis mine)”. Therefore, although the 1907 / 1917 Scofield Reference Bible used the Authorized Version as its text, Scofield did not believe it was perfect and he advocated “other readings”. This began to prepare the Church for the more extreme changes that would later be made in the name of “science”. See Appendix A, Carl Graham, “The Scofield Reference Bible Compared To Science Falsely So-Called”.
 Dr. Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, King James Version, 1986, p. 1985.
 The closest Greek text that best represent the Original text to the scholar is the Alexandrian text found in two major manuscripts, Uncials (manuscripts which were written only in capital letters) Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They are two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existance. It is also amazing that after 150 new versions the last hundred years they haven’t yet eliminated that last fraction of “error”.
 In fact, this hunt for the “Original” text is nothing more than a ruse used by those who seek to overthrow the authority of the King James Bible. When called upon, many scholars will appeal to the vast amount of evidence they have for the ‘Greek Text’. The Christian is assured that “All the data plus all of the scholarly work that has been done assures us that we possess today an accurate and reliable text of the New Testament.” (Ibid; p.1992) What the scholars don’t tell you is that the overwhelming amount of evidence, the 5000 manuscripts, the vast majority of the papyri, the lectionaries and church Fathers supports the King James readings. It is the 3 major Uncials (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus) that stand against the Textus Receptus, and they do not agree with each other in over 3000 places! Yet, whenever any of these ‘great’ Uncials contradict or disagree with that vast amount of evidence, the scholars will still choose the Uncial readings over the KJV! Why? Because, in their view, the Unicals are the true representatives of the ‘Originals’. The Textus Receptus is held in very low regard.
It is for this reason that the scholars will choose the 1% readings over the 99% maintaining that these are the ‘Original Text’ reading. So, the proofs of the ‘reliablity of Scripture’ that the scholars are fond of citing, i.e. massive manuscript evidence, to allay any fears that the Christian might have that his Bible is not ‘reliable’ are in fact. disregarded by the scholars themselves in favor of the few Alexanderian manuscripts.
 This is Neo-Orthodoxy.- a system of theology that ‘represented a return to modified forms of orthodox doctrines as contrasted with the liberal abandonment of such doctrines’(Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, Baker Book House, 1987) It did so, however, by deemphasizing the words in the Scriptures and while maintaining that it was the message that mattered, not the factual accuracy of the Bible.
 Chafer…p. 95.
 For a good discussion of the logical fallacies and assumptions of the “Autograph Only” crowd, see Timothy S. Morton’s pamphlet, “The Arrogant Assumptions of the Autograph Only”, Morton Publications,
2101 Morton Road, Sutton, West Virginia, 26601.
 The word ‘is’ is not in the Greek but is necessary to translate the sentence correctly. That is why in the King James the word is in italics. It is used in all major translations.
 Consequently, despite their protestations, many conservative theological scholars today are actually neo-orthodox, albeit a more conservative branch. Neo-orthodoxy was a system that attempted to compromise with liberal theology by accepting textual criticism and philosophical thought while maintaining certain orthodox doctrines such as human sin and the need for a savior. The neo-orthodox view of Scripture is that it was the ‘message’ that God was conveying through various means that was important and not the ‘actual words’. However, although conservatives do their best to keep from being associated with neo-orthodoxy, their conclusions are the same. Note also, that the neo-orthodox always capitalizes the ‘W’ in ‘Word of God’. This trait has been picked up by conservatives. At least the neo-orthodox do not pretend to believe that the Bible is perfect while also contending that the actual words are unimportant since it is the message that counts.
 The importance placed by the Autograph Only School on this connection between the two verses cannot be overstated. As Chafer states, “The two passages are supplementary and together (emphasis mine) form the entire revelation” (i.e., their interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 and the Autographs Only position). Systematic Theology, Volume I, p. 80.
 Chafer citation
 While maintaining that no scripture was inspired by God (just ‘spired’), Warfield, in praising the Bible, states “In the beginning of Genesis to the Amen of the Apocalypse, breathed into by God, and breathing out God to every devout reader…(Emphasis mine).” “The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible”, W. I. Warfield, p.125.
 “Fundamentalism and the Word of God”, J.I. Packer, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
Grand Rapids Michigan, 1990, p. 77.
 Ryrie KJV Study Bible
 Ryrie KJV Study Bible
 “The Bible Believers Commentary Series – The Book of Acts”, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore,
Pensacola, Fl., 1974, p. 95.
 Progressive Dispensationalism is a blending of classical Dispensationalism and amillennial theology.
 Levitt Letter, Vol. 22, Number 3, March 2000.
 As Dean Burgon (1883) pointed out, the history of the New Testament text is the history of a conflict between God and Satan. Soon after the New Testament books were written Satan corrupted their texts by means of heretics and misguided critics whom he had raised up. These assaults, however, on the integrity of the Word were repulsed by the providence of God, who guided true believers to reject the false readings and preserved the True Text in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. And at the end of the middle ages this True Text was placed in print and became the Textus Receptus, the foundation of the glorious Protestant Reformation. But Satan was not defeated. Instead he staged a clever comeback by means of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism. Old corrupt manuscripts, which had been discarded by the God-guided usage of the believing Church, were brought out of their hiding places and re-instated…. And today thousands of Bible-believing Christians are falling into this devil’s trap through their use of modern-speech versions which are based on naturalistic textual criticism and so introduce the reader to the naturalistic point of view. By means of these modern-speech versions Satan deprives his victims of both the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit and leaves them unarmed and helpless before the terrors and temptations of the modern, apostate world. (
Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p.231). For the historical nature of this war see the classic work by Dr. Otis Fuller, “Which Bible” (1995). For the spiritual nature of the conflict see Gail Riplinger’s, “New Age Versions” (1993) and Dr. James Sightler, “A Testimony Founded For Ever” and “The King James Bible Defended in Faith and History”(1999).
 See “Forever Settled - A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible”, complied by Jack Moorman, 1985.
Plan Of God Publications