Post Reply
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jehovah in NT in Scoffield Reference Bible marginal notes - need help finding online references
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:08AM #11
Newtonian
Posts: 12,145

I forgot to note the Jehoshaphat from Strong's Hebrew dictionary, to wit:


H3092 יהושׁפט yehôshâphâṭ yeh-ho-shaw-fawt' From H3068 and H8199; Jehovah-judged; Jehoshaphat, the name of six Israelites; also of a valley near Jerusalem : - Jehoshaphat. Compare H3146.


As noted, Scoffield note g on Mt. 1:8 - "g Jehohoshaphat 1 Chr.3.10"


Scoffield note h on Mt.1:8 which reads "Ozias" in KJV is:


"h Uzziah 2 Ki.15.13.   Called also Azariah, 2 Chr. 22:6"


Again, if anyone can find an online source that retains these marginal notes from the Scoffield Reference Bible before the counterfeit versions replaced the genuine versions - please  post the link!


Oh, btw, the suffix "ah" is the Divine Name in the suffix!   More on this when I come back online!  Not likely till after our meeting today!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:57AM #12
AnnOMaly
Posts: 3,201

Not trawling through the rest of your posts, but looking at the 1909-1917 edition of the Schofield Ref. Bible notes available online, I cannot find where he uses 'Jehovah' in connection with Matt. 22:37 or Rom. 10:13.


Do you have a scan of the two marginal comments you're beefing about?


Or p..p...perhaps God's name has b...been removed in the on..l..line versions as p..part of a b...big d...d...diabolical c...conspiracy!Surprised Wink


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 8:24AM #13
AnnOMaly
Posts: 3,201

The online Schofield Ref. Notes do discuss the name 'Jehovah' in connection with e.g. 1 Sam. 1:3 and Gen. 2:4 - likely in other places too, so scrub that about the 'b...b..big d....diabolocal c..conspiracy.' Breathe a sigh of relief, everyone. 


Laughing

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 12:49PM #14
Newtonian
Posts: 12,145

May 6, 2012 -- 7:57AM, AnnOMaly wrote:


Not trawling through the rest of your posts, but looking at the 1909-1917 edition of the Schofield Ref. Bible notes available online, I cannot find where he uses 'Jehovah' in connection with Matt. 22:37 or Rom. 10:13.


Do you have a scan of the two marginal comments you're beefing about?


Or p..p...perhaps God's name has b...been removed in the on..l..line versions as p..part of a b...big d...d...diabolical c...conspiracy!Surprised Wink





Ann - Actually, you are confirming what may indeed be a big diabolical conspiracy!   Indeed the original Scofield Reference Bible has those notes - though I do not have a copier scanner currently working.   But I do have the Bible right in front of me in black and white!  


I am pretty sure you can still purchase the original Scofield reference Bible - on CBD for example what seems like that edition is about $18.   However, I would rather actually see the translation to make sure it is the genuine Scoffield Reference Bible.


I could get a copier/scanner working, I guess - if it really is impossible to find these notes online!


Anyway - you will either have to find a copy yourself or take my word for it.  Btw - does  your online Scofield reference note source have the other marginal references for Matthew 1 I posted above???


OK, skipping to Matthew 22:37, KJV reads "Lord" and Scoffield note e for Lord reads in the margin:


"e Jehovah, Deut. 6:5" - page 1031


Romans 10:13 KJV reads "Lord" and Scofield note l reads in the margin:


"l Jehovah, Joel 2:32" - page 1204

Now, looking at the margin I see Scofield also notes "Jehovah" in two other places on these pages,, to wit also on page 1204 of the Scofield Reference Bible:


Romans 11:2 reads "God" in KJV (and NW btw) - Scofield note w reads in the margin:


"w Jehovah, Psa. 94:14"


I see now what Scofield is doing.  When he considers the verse is a quote from the Hebrew, he references the Divine Name if it is in the Hebrew text - which it is, btw, in Psalms 94:14.  Also note this is totally independent from NW - NW ref. doesn't even reference any translation containing the Divine Name in Romans 11:2!


Now, across to page 1205 Scofield also notes "Jehovah" for Romans 11:8 where KJV reads "God" Scofield reference "f" reads in the margin of page 1205 -


"f Jehovah, Isa.29.10."


Again the Hebrew text reads "Jehovah" here - Scofield is batting 1,000 so far!   NW also reads "God" but this time does reference other translations that read Jehovah - the NW footnote:


“God,” [aleph = Sinaiticus]ABVgSyp; J7,8,10,13-15,20, “Jehovah.”


to be continued


However, Ann, please do try to prove the removal of Scofield's marginal notes is not a big conspiracy.


One thing for sure - those versions claiming to be a Scofield Reference Bible that have removed these notes are indeed counterfeit - and in my opinion it is criminal!   And for shame they did this after Scofield died and could not defend his work!


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:02PM #15
AnnOMaly
Posts: 3,201

Ann - Actually, you are confirming what may indeed be a big diabolical conspiracy!   



LOL! I knew that would set you off!


OK, skipping to Matthew 22:37, KJV reads "Lord" and Scoffield note e for Lord reads in the margin:


"e Jehovah, Deut. 6:5" - page 1031


Romans 10:13 KJV reads "Lord" and Scofield note l reads in the margin:


"l Jehovah, Joel 2:32" - page 1204



Hmm. Curious.


Definitely need a scan. Shame.


Btw - does  your online Scofield reference note source have the other marginal references for Matthew 1 I posted above???



As I said, I'm not trawling through all your refs. The first two are enough to pique my interest.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:25PM #16
Kemmer
Posts: 16,438

And all of this kerfluffle over what name to call God, as if he gives a rat's derriére.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:31PM #17
AnnOMaly
Posts: 3,201

The kerfuffle for me is why Newt is seeing things in his edition of Scofield that aren't online. Yes, I know it's Newt and he has a vivid imagination and gets bees in his britches over ... well ... something and nothing ... but still ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:46PM #18
AnnOMaly
Posts: 3,201

Ah, the online editions are the commentary bits only (the footnotes). They don't include the marginal notes and cross-references [edit: I see you've already noted this, Newt] - no doubt due to space or formatting difficulties. No diabolical conspiracy. Wink 


Now, hopefully one day somebody will scan the whole caboodle and put it on archive.org or scribd or similar and your feverish mind will be at rest. 


As for the New Scofield Bible - an online search reveals that you're not the only one ticked off about it, LOL!


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 6:46AM #19
Newtonian
Posts: 12,145

May 6, 2012 -- 2:46PM, AnnOMaly wrote:


Ah, the online editions are the commentary bits only (the footnotes). They don't include the marginal notes and cross-references [edit: I see you've already noted this, Newt] - no doubt due to space or formatting difficulties. No diabolical conspiracy. Wink 


Now, hopefully one day somebody will scan the whole caboodle and put it on archive.org or scribd or similar and your feverish mind will be at rest. 


As for the New Scofield Bible - an online search reveals that you're not the only one ticked off about it, LOL!





Ann - Well, yes, others are upset for various other valid reasons.   What gets me is that these sources are supposedly the Scofield Reference Bible - but have removed all the cross references!


How can you say it the reference edition and omit the references!


And note - it is ALL the references that are removed, not not just those which have the name Jehovah.


My 'feverish' mind is at rest - far worse misrepresentations are on the internet!   However, this is good reason for me to post the references - and it will be good research, since it will involve reading virtually the entire Christian Greek Scriptures!


I will, btw, try harder to find a source btw.  


Meanwhile, I was on Matthew 1 - and the names in the genialogy as different in KJV from most translations - what I have found, as I posted above, is that KJV is one of the most accurate translations from the Greek - the names found in KJV in Matthew 1 more closely resemble the Greek versions of these names as found in the Greek text.  


Scoffield, on the other hand, is showing in his marginal notes, the English from Hebrew versions of these names.  


So, for example, Scoffield notes the following (in review) of what I already posted:


Mt. 1:2 KJV Judas - "a Judah, Gen.29:35"


Mt. 1:3 KJV Phares - "b Pharez, Gen.38:27" [cp. Perez]


Mt. 1:5 KJV Booz - "c Boaz, 1 Chr. 2.11"


Mt. 1:6 KJV Urias - "d Uriah, 2 sam.11.3"


Mt. 1:7 KJV Roboam - "e Rehoboam, 1 Ki. 11:43"


Mt. 1:7 KJV Abia - "f Ahijah, 2 Chr.11:20"


Mt. 1:8 KJV Josaphat - "g Jehoshaphat, 1 Chr.3:10"


That's where a I left off - to be continued.


But note the Scofield notes show accurate English from Hebrew for all of these Bible names, a number of which contain the Divine Name in either the  prefix (Jeho in Jehoshaphat) or the suffix (ah in Uriah &  jah inAhijah) - also note the Greek confirms the vowels of the tetragrammaton - e.g. the middle vowel "o" in Josaphat - the Greek prefix in the Greek text is "Io.


[Note: thus Scofield consistently notes in many marginal references the accurate Hebrew to English spelling of the Divine Name: Jehovah - and I hope to eventually find all of Scoffield's marginal notes stating the Hebrew Scripture quote source and the name Jehovah - remember, they are different from NW - as in Romans 11:2,8 where NW reads like KJV "God" while Scoffield accurately notes "Jehovah" since the Divine Name is in the source quote!]


The long form prefix for the Divine name is thus confirmed to be "Jeho" in English, while the short form prefix for the Divine Name is confirmed to be "Je" (As in Jesus - Greek text: Iesous) or "Jo."


Compare the various forms of the name Jesus, all having the same defintion, namely: Jehovah is Salvation, to wit:


Jesus, Joshua, Jehoshua.  Prefix Je, Jo, Jeho.


Note with the suffix "ah" we have confirmed the location of all 3 vowels in the proper order: e, o, a - and 3 of the 4 consonants: J H _ H.   Thus the only letter not confirmed is "v." 


And with that I end with my sense of humor - I got this from a commercial, btw.


One man asks another - How do you pronounce Hawaii?   Havaii or Hawaii?


The other answers:  Havaii!


The first man says: Thank You!


The other answers: Your Velcome!Smile 




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 9:11AM #20
AnnOMaly
Posts: 3,201


What gets me is that these sources are supposedly the Scofield Reference Bible - but have removed all the cross references!


How can you say it the reference edition and omit the references!



I hear ya. It's the kind of thing that would bug me too. Even Barnes' Notes on the NT, reproduced on sites like studylight and similar, includes the cross-references (but skips some of the alternate renderings in the margin - I have a volume on my shelf). Then again, you can see a proper scanned version on the internet (ccel) for comparison.


As I said, hopefully one day Scofield's will be scanned and digitally archived.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook