Talk:Scofield Reference Bible

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scofield Reference Bible article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Christianity: Bible Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Geneva Bible

If one examines the 1599 Geneva Bible, available at Amazon, you will find it first had a commentary known as the notes of the reformers. It is said these notes so aggravated the King James that he had an "Authorized" translation made without notes. Someone please take note of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.74.250 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untermeyer

NY Jewry funded the Zionist Bible. Is Wiki so Jewashed that this isn't even mentioned? 2607:FEA8:2A64:5900:C0CE:B7B7:ECCE:F4C1 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, I had removed this as nonconstructive (WP:NOTAFORUM), but I feel it needs to be publicly addressed. We don't dabble in conspiracy theories here. There are no legitimate, quality sources that I have found that would indicate that Untermeyer financed Scofield. The closest to being a source meeting WP:RS would be The Incredible Scofield and His Book, and that only makes mention of Untermeyer as not blackballing Scofield's entrance into the Lotus club. Regardless, it is nonsense to suggest that there is some kind of Zionist conspiracy amongst Wikipedians. People are welcome to have opinions (in either direction), but you are not welcome to air them here; and I take umbrage at your accusation. Editors are to check their biases at that door and edit with a neutral point of view. As such, a reliable citable source is required. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>Editors are to check their biases at that door and edit with a neutral point of view.

LOL

WikipediA is well documented to be systematically biased - May I add, famously so. Wikipedia:NPOV is practically used on the platform as a cudgel by editors AND admins to remove content that interferes with political bias.

IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]