The publisher's justification for a new "edition" is that Dr. Scofield, whose reference Bible was first published in 1909 added material and published another edition in 1917. But it is an author's preogative to alter his own works, but that certainly does not give others, more than 45 years after his death, a blank check to make alterations and then sign his name to it!
If we altered the ending of "Macbeth" we would be less than honest to claim that the change met Shakespeare's approval.
Secondly, the editors exercised great liberty in changing attributes of Dr. Scofield's reference work that Dr. Scofield himself felt important enough to include in his work. In the introduction to their doubly dishonest 1967 publication they admit such changes.
New Scofield:"Among the changes and improvements in this edition are: important word changes in the text to help the reader; a modified system of self-pronunciation; revision of many of the introductions to the books of the Bible, including designation of the author, theme, and date; more subheadings; clarification of some footnotes, deletion of others, and the addition of many new notes;: more marginal references; an entirely new chronology; a new index; a concordance especially prepared for this edition; new maps; and more legible type. Some of these features are explained below." By their own words, they admit to altering Dr. Scofield's text (the King James Bible), introduction of books of the Bible, notes, marginal references, chronology and many other features. Did Dr. Scofield give his approval to these changes? Not unless one of the nine committee members had the witch of Endor conjure him up as she had Samuel! In fact, the publisher even admits that the changes made were arbitrary choices of the revision committee. "Each position taken represents the thinking or conviction of the committee as a group." What are the results of such shenanigans? One example will suffice. Let us examine the footnote found in Acts 8:12 of the New Scofield Bible concerning baptism. "Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is recognized as one of two sacraments - the other being the Lord's Supper. Since early in the Church's history three different modes of baptism have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping)." Here we see that the nine revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) believe that there is a difference between the true Christian church and Protestant "communion". Might I ask? When one group is defined as "Protestant" what is the other group called? Secondly, the nine apostate revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) claim, without scriptural proof that Christians baptize by pouring and sprinkling as well as immersion. Remember, the footnote is found in a S-C-O-F-I-E-L-D of 1967. A book which claims on its title page that a dead man (Dr. Scofield) is one of its editors. What does the footnote for Acts 8:12 in the REAL Scofield Bible of 1917 which had a living Dr. Scofield as its editor say? Nothing. There IS no such footnote! That's right! The New "Scofield" bible has a "Scofield" note added after the death of "Scofield" the editor which the REAL Dr. Scofield never approved of and never had in a text anytime in his life time! I ask you, is this honest? Proof that the New Scofield Bible isn't a King James Bible is found on almost every page where the margin notes the twin Bible reading as "KJV". The text of the New Scofield Bible is NOT a King James Bible and it is NOT a Scofield Bible. It might be noted that in recent years the size and shape of the New Scofield Bible has been changed to more resemble the Scofield Reference Bible. Many Christians who desire a true Scofield Reference Bible have purchased a New Scofield Bible by mistake. The "Bible" business is lucrative. Isn't it?