The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible 

Thank you for watching and commenting.

Thanks for commenting, A Victorious Church! I've never been a dispensationalist. I read DeMar, Gentry, and other postmillennial authors back in the '80s, but remained unconvinced. You mentioned Wright: What do you think about the New Perspective on Paul?

Thanks, Stacy!

You're welcome, gypsy. When I was first beginning to take Christianity seriously, back in the early 1980s, I bought a 1967 Scofield and tried to make sense of the notes. I knew so little about the various approaches to Biblical interpretation that I couldn't have told you what was distinctive about the Scofield Reference Bible, nor did I have any idea that it was controversial, or who disagreed with it. Now all that it much more clear to me. I hope that, by pointing to some of the more distinctive notes, I'll save someone else a bit of effort and time. Thanks for watching!

Thank you for your kind comment!

Thanks for the comment, Rae. You can find some real treasures in used book and thrift stores!

Tom, I'm glad you found it worthwhile. I try to keep the personal to a minimum in these videos, though sometimes I let an anecdote slip. Incidentally, the friend who was trying hard to convert me in those days -- who invited me to see "The Late Great Planet Earth" -- went on to attend a Baptist college in the Chattanooga, Tennessee area. While there, he became involved with the Twelve Tribes (the Yellow Deli People) and dropped out of school. When he found out a few years later that I had become a Christian, he *apologized* if he had been a factor in my conversion!

@@RGrantJones wow, crazy! Never heard of that group before. Just looked them up. Thanks for sharing all that.

For me, never having been a dispensationalist, it provides useful insight into an unfamiliar way of thinking. Thanks for the comment, Philip.

Thank you for commenting, Deandra!

Thanks, Joseph. I sometimes stray from objectivity when it comes to red letters, glossy paper, ghosting, poor translations, and that sort of thing, but I try to express myself in an neutral way in these videos on theological issues.

@@RGrantJones 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 1-4.the gospel

Timeline charts maps by rose publishing order on Amazon..and order the spirit world by clarence larkin get all his books and order the power of faith by Derek prince and order watch your mouth by tony Evan's get all his books and order 101 weapons of spritual warfare by dr.olukoya and order a book called deliverance and spritual warfare manual by John eckhart and order Christian tracts to pass out to the lost souls and the blind and to the unredeemed...moments with the books order online there number is 814 -623-8737..and check out a pastor by the name of Richard Jordan by the messenger of Grace his number is 814-623-8737

That's good information. I haven't looked at any of the newer printings of the old Scofield, so what you say is news to me. I do have an NKJV Scofield III (I think that's what it's called) with a very nice typeset. I like almost everything about it. The characters are attractive and printed darkly, though they're narrow, as in most modern fonts. The line spacing is excellent. The Bible itself is quite a bit larger than this old Scofield, but it's far from huge. My only problem with that one is the bright red letters.

R. Grant Jones yes I love my NKJV Scofield III as well, it’s excellent. No getting around Oxford’s bright red letters though. Oxford still prints the Old Scofield facsimiles, they’re known as Classic Old Scofields today. I’m not sure when this new setting and the rebrand to Classic for the facsimile was made. I’m guessing just a few years ago for the 100th anniversary.

I have, FWIW, a 100th Anniversary edition of the Scofield from Oxford. Printed in Korea, but it's the exact same textblock as the one in the video. The red letters are bright PINK.

sarachikorita yes Oxford’s red letters are not great.

Thanks for the kind words and the recommendations!

@@RGrantJones You are ,"go to" source for thorough Bible reviews! Thanks for the time and effort you put into each review!

Thanks for commenting, Airik1111! Oxford Bibles in my experience - as far as I can recall - were printed well, and on very nice paper. Sad to hear that Oxford's print quality (at least in that edition) has gone downhill.

@R. Grant Jones The paper is good same with the binding but that print is very inconsistent, it could be a bad run .

I just saw this interesting video on that topic: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6bEqeJSzcV8.html .

No. It's similar, but not the same. Thanks for the question!

LOL. But I'm not selling it, just reviewing it. Thanks for commenting!

1945. You can see that at the 5:14 point. Thanks for the comment!

@@RGrantJones Thank you! My phone couldn’t zoom in that clear. God bless!!

By 1940, Oxford said that over 2 million had been printed.

One of these days I'll review that Bible and your jealousy will melt away. The cover is nice, but the printing job -- not so much.

Ebay is great for these BIbles! I just saw the same copy he reviewed for a decent price on there (

Sorry for the delay in responding, Numa! I just saw your question. No, this Bible isn't for sell at the moment.

I got the heinz57 from my family too...after I got my DNA test (not 100% reliable) back a couple years ago I realized i'm not as mixed up as I was told. I just feel it though.

@@livingwithfaithbiblereview3413 😂😅😉

Airik, Scofield was a sinner -- like me. If I had to stick to the theological commentaries of perfect people, I'm sure I wouldn't find any to read. I think the number old school Darby/Scofield dispensationalists has to be falling, so I'm not sure why anyone thinks they're a threat. I still find them on the radio, but they seem to be a minority, or they're no longer comfortable expressing themselves openly. It's also interesting to me how dispensationalism started strong among Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and now it's migrated almost entirely to Pentecostals and Independent Baptists. (It hasn't been that long since Donald Gray Barnhouse and James Boice preached dispensational eschatology, and both of them were Presbyterians, I think. But it seems almost all Presbyterians are amillennialists these days.) Even John MacArthur, who teaches the pretribulation rapture and keeps Israel and the Church distinct, seems by teaching Lordship salvation to have slipped away on what is really the key concern of dispensationalism -- to regard works as entirely irrelevant to salvation. I'm looking forward to your review of the large print 1996 updated Scofield. Unless it's what Oxford was calling the Scofield III, I'm sure it will be new to me. And thanks for mentioning my videos from time to time. I have no doubt you've helped quite a lot in building my subscription base. I really appreciate it. I have the LCBP Scofield I showed, a couple of old Ryries, and an NKJV Scofield III to review at some point. I'd also like to do a review that focuses on changes between the 1917 and the 1967, especially in the notes. That would interest me, even if no one else watches! I like your idea of publishing The Airik1111 Common Man's End Times Bible. I hope you print a black letter option -- and be sure to advertise the porosity of the paper in Airiks!

@@RGrantJones I worded that wrong "unrepentant sinner" LOL.. Its as though they were alive in early 1900s and not just stalking Mr Scofield but actually with him when he died asking him to repent of his adultery 😂 I know we got really really really really really old guys😉 in this bible geek community but, I'm guessing they ain't that old nor all knowing. Now that Dark ages thing is new to me I gotta check that out....Is this also connected to the " blind them with red letter conspiracy😂"😅

Sorry, Warblerab 295 -- I don't understand your question.

AT 23:06 in the video you make reference to a 1867 Scofield. I am pretty sure no such Scofield Bible exists. I think you meant the 1967 Scofield.

Thanks! I don't always enunciate very clearly, and my voice certainly isn't very clear at that point in the video. But the closed captioning thinks I said 1967. Usually, it struggles to make sense of what I say, but it got it right this time.

Sorry, I didn't have the captions on. It sounded like 1867.

The historicist interpreters seemed to think it was their role not only to assign specific historic events to the visions of the Apocalypse (e.g., the rider on the white horse was Constantine; the fifth trumpet = the Islamic conquest), but also to predict the end of the world on the basis of the day=year equation. My guess is that these bizarre historical assignments made literal interpretations appealing by contrast, and the failed predictions plowed the ground for the imminent second coming theory. Literal interpretation plus an imminent second coming sounds a lot like Darby. So I find it curious that some of Darby's modern heirs love to assign the visions of the Apocalypse to specific modern inventions (e.g., Cobra attack helicopters) and predict the end based on historic events (the establishment of the state of Israel) and the generation=40 years theory.