[Samuel]

Ezra 2:26, reads "Gaba" in my Scofield lll.

I have a 1967 edition of the New Scofield Study Bible, and it does replace most of the older words. Most damaging are alternate readings here and there, with no warning of such. And these follow the NASB readings, and we know what that is.

All most all new editions of the KJV carry footnotes, indicating certain verses are not in the "best text". The Scofield lll at least identifies which text these "best text's" are (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). But it does not bracket them, as far as the text - it is left alone.

Rather than a bad thing, I find it helpful so I can point out what changes have been made in the new bibles. But yes to a new reader, if he did not read the introduction, might be some bad news. The intoduction clearly states; these are made for comparison purposes only.

I would like to find an Old Scofield original, but they are hard to find, around here anyway. Also a lot of them are reprints, not made by Oxford. I don't think I would trust ordering one, unless I could examine it.

Nearly all of the research I did stated the Scofield lll, which is a reprint of the 1901-1917 editions (by Oxford), follows the KJV 1769 faithfully.

I checked a lot! but not all the examples on the Bible Protector, when I first got the Scofield lll. And everyone I checked, came out like the Oxford 1611 reprint examples.