Who made Scofield and how did he gain influence?
I'm not aware of any Rothschid connection to Scofield, as Ian argues here.
However, there is reason to believe he was supported by the most powerful Zionist Jew in America at the time.
Scofield had no theological background, a criminal past, and lied about having a doctorate… https://t.co/KssEXNGzs5 pic.twitter.com/AM1iohMoQg
— Keith Woods (@KeithWoodsYT) March 6, 2025
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: NC Scout
NC Scout is the nom de guerre of a former Infantry Scout and Sergeant in one of the Army’s best Reconnaissance Units. He has combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He teaches a series of courses focusing on small unit skills rarely if ever taught anywhere else in the prepping and survival field, including his RTO Course which focuses on small unit communications. In his free time he is an avid hunter, bushcrafter, writer, long range shooter, prepper, amateur radio operator and Libertarian activist. He can be contacted at [email protected] or via his blog at brushbeater.wordpress.com .
5 Comments
Comments are closed.
GUNS N GEAR
Don’t fall into the ad hominem trap. If you are going to debate the theology, then do so based on sound exegetical and hermeneutical principles. If you are going to debate a translation, then do so based on sound translational and interpretational principles. If you don’t like the man, then say why you don’t like the MAN, not the idea. Do not confuse these things. You may have valid positions on the translation or theology, but attacking ideas based on the character of the man is a logical fallacy. (These are skills not taught much anymore.) At most, it is a warning flag that you should more diligently use proper critical thinking skills to evaluate the ideas. This even applies when the ideas put forward are from somebody you like. I don’t hold any position regarding Scofield’s character as I don’t have any credible information regarding him. I don’t hold any position regarding the Scofield Editions of the Bible as I have not read any of those (but have read many, many other versions in their entirety.) Let’s not confuse things.
The criminal record impugns the man’s honesty and sense of ethics, which are important considerations.
If he actually has a criminal record then real evidence should be presented to show what it is. What are the convictions for, and when? I don’t know. Right now I have heard only vague allegations. This is why you are not allowed to bring up the criminal record of a witness unless there is a conviction for a particular offense that shows a tendency to lie. (eg., False Reporting.) You can also have another witness bring up the first witness’s reputation in the community, but that is not given very much weight. Is his record from when he was a youth? You haven’t shown me any of this. All of this may (depending on what it is) go to his propensity to speak truth or lies in accordance with his actual beliefs, but does NOT go beyond that. Also, “sense of ethics” is not even a real thing. Take a class in ethics and you will find out. In fact, different disciplines (eg., legal and medical) have different ethical rules that actually change over time – and do so in writing.
Scofield himself may actually have serious credibility issues, and those *may* have a bearing on what he wrote, but that is *not* dispositive of the matter and actually doesn’t have any weight at all as to whether what he wrote is true. You need to evaluate what a man wrote first, apart from your feelings about that man’s character. If you find what he said or wrote suffers from inaccuracy, then you shy how it suffers. If it suffers badly, and especially if the error is intentional, then you add it to the list of infractions committed by the man.
This is why ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. (“Appeal to Authority” is the flip-side of that logical fallacy, where you accept as true something a man you respect said because *he* said it, and not because of an actual evaluation of the words.)
Again, these are critical thinking skills. You’ve got the evaluation backwards.
As an example, it was written in the post above that Scofield was a bitter enemy of Hitler. Using your logic, I could then assign credibility to Scofield’s writings because of that. Even if that also poorly cited statement about his anti-Nazi stance is true, it doesn’t make his theology accurate.
It certainly can be practical to abstain from reading works by people who you may have bad feelings about especially if you don’t have the time and instead read only the works of those you admire. I know I don’t have the time to read everything out there. But realize that part of growth is wrestling more with ideas and not men.
Some day I might read a Scofield edition. (maybe, maybe not.) But if I do it won’t be because I have peremptorily assigned some level of accuracy to his position – or what you might say it is. The saying “iron sharpens iron” is in reference to wrestling with another man’s ideas.
“Nevertheless, that same year Scofield was forced to resign “under a cloud of scandal” because of questionable financial transactions, that may have included accepting bribes from railroads, stealing political contributions intended for Ingalls, and securing bank promissory notes by forging signatures. Shortly thereafter Scofield may have been jailed on forgery charges.
Perhaps in part because of his self-confessed heavy drinking, Scofield abandoned his wife and two daughters during this period. Leontine Cerrè Scofield divorced him on grounds of desertion in 1883, and the same year Scofield married Hettie Hall von Wartz, with whom he eventually had a son.
During the early 1890s, Scofield began styling himself Rev. C. I. Scofield, D.D.; but there are no extant records of any academic institution having granted him the honorary Doctor of Divinity degree”
Strange hill to fight on.
Is the fight about Scofield the man, the Scofield editions of the Bible, or the method of analysis?
As I first said, I knew nothing about Scofield the man, nor have I read a Scofield Edition.
I don’t have a reasonable doubt that what you present about Scofield the man is true. Not likely a man of good character.
As I haven’t read any real work about his theology let alone his actual writings I can’t comment on the accuracy.
What I do have issue with is the presentation that because his character was likely (even if assuredly) bad that it follows that the Scofield Editions are inaccurate.
I’m not defending the Scofield Editions as I can’t speak about them with any knowledge, and I’m certainly not defending Scofield himself. What I am fighting is a poor analytical method.
State what is wrong with his analysis in theological terms.
Once you’ve done that, then you can provide an analysis of why you think he presented error.
You could even present your arguments about his character first, but you can’t automatically use that to attack the credibility of the work. ad hominem.
We can’t complain about the opposition making bad arguments if we’re going to use the same methods.