Scofield and Thompson
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:48 am
Steve...Steve from the Mission here. I hope this finds you well. A few weeks back as I was coming home from work, I was listening to what I guess is a rebroadcast of the radio show on KKMC that comes on at 11pm. The topic I happened to catch was a discussion on Bibles (a subject, by the way, with which I am absolutely tired of...which makes me wonder why I am posting this... 
) and the particular Bibles being discussed were the Scofield and the Thompson. From what I could discern, you are very familiar with the Scofield, but not with the Thompson through your own admission. You stated that you prefer a plain straightforward text rather than any sort of study or reference Bible, that you use to use a Scofield but no longer. When I began my walk, I was given a Thompson and absolutely fell in love with it for the simple reason that it is a reference rather than a study structure. The part of the discussion I am questioning was your thought that the Thompson is a "study" Bible rather than a "reference" Bible, and that the Thompson somehow puts forth a theological foundation through the study and/or reference notes. I understand the difference between a study and a reference work, and am under the impression that a Thompson, as opposed to a Dake, Ryrie, Scofield, or MacArthur study Bible, puts forth no theology. Maybe I don't see it yet...the differences in a belief system such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism that permeates the study or reference notes. I suppose my question is, is it possible that someone could put forth a theology in a supposed reference work simply by the way they use the reference system? A particular verse pointing to one specific verse as opposed to another? I sort of let God give me the info He wants me to have when He wants me to have it as I read the Bible. Can one actually put forth a theology in that way rather than actually putting forth a belief system based on...what...opinion? Thanks...
) and the particular Bibles being discussed were the Scofield and the Thompson. From what I could discern, you are very familiar with the Scofield, but not with the Thompson through your own admission. You stated that you prefer a plain straightforward text rather than any sort of study or reference Bible, that you use to use a Scofield but no longer. When I began my walk, I was given a Thompson and absolutely fell in love with it for the simple reason that it is a reference rather than a study structure. The part of the discussion I am questioning was your thought that the Thompson is a "study" Bible rather than a "reference" Bible, and that the Thompson somehow puts forth a theological foundation through the study and/or reference notes. I understand the difference between a study and a reference work, and am under the impression that a Thompson, as opposed to a Dake, Ryrie, Scofield, or MacArthur study Bible, puts forth no theology. Maybe I don't see it yet...the differences in a belief system such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism that permeates the study or reference notes. I suppose my question is, is it possible that someone could put forth a theology in a supposed reference work simply by the way they use the reference system? A particular verse pointing to one specific verse as opposed to another? I sort of let God give me the info He wants me to have when He wants me to have it as I read the Bible. Can one actually put forth a theology in that way rather than actually putting forth a belief system based on...what...opinion? Thanks...