But you are saying Colossians isnt wrong in not having the blood
How can we know all the verses that do have it are right in having it?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
THE BLOOD IS REMOVED IN THE NEW BIBLES
- Thread starter DougE
- Start date
How can we know all the verses that do have it are right in having it?
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
KJV only is aberrant because of many reasons, one of which is the errors that are obviously in it, including Rev. 22:19 which never got corrected. Another reason is that the KJV translators issued an official statement that their translation was not inspired (no translation is). The KJV is not any better than any other accepted and recognized translation, except for a few outliers. One of those outliers is the New World Translation, another was the 1977 edition of the NIV, and there are some others that, for example, use feminist language. I personally use the KJV as well as other translations. One year I examined the NLT compared with the KJV against the Masoretic text, Nestle Greek, and Textus Receptus, and found that the NLT was more accurate than the KJV in some places.
In my experience with KJV Onlyers I've encountered in the past, they mostly focus on single words and phrases and nitpick at what doesn't matter while missing the overall point of scripture. The activity is cult-like in nature. I recommend reading this book which tends to dispel the suspicions about modern versions: Amazon.com
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
If it means words only, and not the meaning of the words in context, then no translation is God's word, including the KJV, because the original words were Hebrew and Greek words. My response to you is this: it is the meaning of what Jesus said that He is referring to.
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes, I am saying that Colossians in the NIV isn't wrong by lacking the word "blood" in the verse, because it's the exact same meaning as Rom. 5:1 and other places that say the same thing, howbeit in perhaps different words.
Upvote
0
That doesnt answer my question
How can we know all the verses that do have the blood are right in having it?
Upvote
0
Here is another question for you
What would a different word for blood be?????
[Romans 5:1 KJV] "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" ********* where do you see the blood????????
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Does Col. 1:14 say it is without the blood of Christ? Absolutely not! Then how are we redeemed, unless it is by the blood of Christ, as other scriptures explicitly say so? You need a lot more study and familiarity with scripture before you start denying the meaning of the message, or doubting what it says.
2 Tim. 3:16 "all scripture is inspired of God and profitable for doctrine, rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness." The same man who wrote this wrote Colossians. Stop nitpicking at words, and start trying to understand the whole message. Does the KJV-only doctrine build your faith? Doesn't look like it to me. Those who claim that other versions are "of the devil" are slanderers of brothers who are actually trying to make the message of gospel easier to understand. And if you know what Paul said about slanderers, you'll get out of that faction.
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Sorry for the confusion, I meant Rom. 5:9, which in the NIV says, "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!"
"Justified" means all of this: redeemed, sanctified, accepted, adopted, and more. Various scriptures say we are justified by His blood, by His death, by grace, and by faith. It's all aspects of the same action of God toward us.
With that said, there is no "different word" for blood in the literal sense, either in Greek or English. But "blood" has several meanings, depending on the particular context. Literally, it means physical blood, but it has nuances in which the term "blood" is used figuratively at the same time. So it also means death (since the life is in the blood). The song saying, "there's power in the blood" is using the term "blood" figuratively, although the referent is the literal blood of Jesus.
Then, in regard to Col. 1:14, Rev. 5:9 clearly states we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, and therefore redemption is obviously based on the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Peter says the same thing in different words in 1 Pet. 2:24 which says that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. Jesus bearing our sins in His body certainly includes the spilling of His blood, and this is how we are redeemed.
Upvote
0
Once again you cant answer my question
You are saying the blood in Colossians 1:14 isnt needed because it can be found in other verses. My objection to this is you have put all scripture in question. You cant say other verses validate the blood because you cant know they are the Word of God.
Once again, how can we know any of the verses that speak of the blood are valid?
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Your objection is ludicrous! Can you find the term "trinity" anywhere in scripture? According to your logic, you can't believe that the Bible teaches it because it lacks the term. Likewise, if you read Eph. 2:8, it doesn't have the word "blood" in it, so you can't believe that's God's word, either. Are you really 75 years old? You're acting like a 5-year old.
It reminds me of a quote in the movie "Deer Hunter": "This is this; this isn't something else; this is this." Stop nitpicking and search out the truth.
Upvote
0
You wont answer me
[Ephesians 2:13 KJV] "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." ******** you said scribes added words. Prove to me a scribe didnt add the blood in this verse
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,944
- 1,175
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
"The blood of Christ" is in this verse in all of the manuscripts, both earliest and latest, which is proof that a scribe did not add those words here. You need a lot more study. I answered your questions, but it appears you just don't get it. I think your attitude blinds you to the truth of the matter.
Upvote
0
Just because its in a manuscript doesnt prove a scribe didnt add it
The fact remains you are undermining confidance that we have the Word of God
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,203
- 7,214
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The older MSS do not include the phrase but the newer Majority text does. This is probably a margin note that made it to the text to harmonize verse 14 with verse 20.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,203
- 7,214
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No. This is basic Textual Criticism on an issue that has happened many times before.
Upvote
0
