-
Were Zionist Jews Responsible for the Scofield Bible?
In recent years, a narrative has gained traction suggesting that Zionist Jews were instrumental in funding the creation and distribution of the Scofield Reference Bible as part of the Zionist plan to gain legitimacy as a nation state. This claim posits that the Zionist agenda significantly influenced the rise of dispensationalism—a theological framework emphasizing a literal interpretation of biblical prophecies, particularly those concerning Israel. Such assertions often appeal to conspiracy theorists or individuals eager to uncover hidden influences shaping religious thought. But how much truth is there to these claims? Does It Really Matter? Even if we were to entertain the notion that Zionist Jews funded the Scofield Bible, it’s essential to ask: does this undermine dispensationalism’s theological validity? In other words, even if (and as we will see, it is a big if) it could be proven that Zionists had a major role to play in the promotion of…
-
Why the Idea of Literal or Dynamic Bible Translations Isn’t Quite Right
I am often asked what makes for a good Bible translation. To many people, the answer is simple—you just need a literal Bible translation (i.e., one that translates word-for-word from Greek or Hebrew into English). However, there is a little more complexity to the issue that needs to be considered. Literal and Dynamic Bible Translations Bible translations have traditionally been classified as literal-formal or dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is normally used to refer to translations which attempt to emphasize the meaning of phrases rather than each individual word (NIV is often used as an example). In these kinds of translations, there is a little more flexibility in how a word or phrase might be translated given the given context. Alternatively, a literal translation (or formal equivalence) is often touted as the best due to its word-for-word approach and its attempt to be more objective or consistent in its translation (KJV…