Aren't we all physically ill?

JimB said:

BTW, I found 38 references to atonement for sin in my NKJV; 0 for atonement for healing, and all in the OT. In other versions of the Bible the word “atonement” does not appear and is usually translated “reconciliation.” In fact, except for Romans 5.11, and only in the KJV, the word reconciliation does not even appear in the Bible. Elsewhere, in other translations, the word “καταλλαγή” is “reconciliation.” Ergo, it looks like we have made a complicated doctrine out of a mistranslated word. If that is the case, then to say healing is in the atonement would be like saying that to be physically healed is to be eternally reconciled with God.

Click to expand...

Biblicist said:

I suspect that if most of us were asked about how many times we thought the NT mentioned the word ‘atonement’ that we could have had figures upwards of a dozen or so, but:


Atonement

CSB (Holman)
OT: 81 times in 74 verses
NT: Nil

ESV
OT: 90 times in 78 verses
NT: Nil

KJV
OT: 80 hits in 69 verses
NT: 1 occurrence (Rom 5:11)

NASB
OT: 88 times in 76 verses
NT: Nil

NIV/2
OT: 103 times in 93 verses
NT: 4 occurences (Act 27:9, Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17;9:5)

NKJV
OT: 99 times in 86 verses
NT: Nil

NLT
OT: 38 times in 36 verses
NT: 1 occurrence (Heb 9:5)

NRSV
OT: 85 times in 75 verses
NT: 2 occurrences (Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17)

RSV
OT: 87 times in 75 verses
NT: Nil

Click to expand...

TasManOfGod said:

Therein lies a total misunderstanding of the Cross

Click to expand...

Biblicist said:

Do you see this as a problem that the translations have produced or that we have maybe misunderstood what the New Testament has to say regarding the atonement or atonement in general?

Click to expand...

TasManOfGod said:

I see it as bad teaching . Atonement means covering. What Jesus did was more than that

Click to expand...

Biblicist said:

If I was asked the question in a homegroup setting as to how many times that I thought the NT spoke of the 'atonement', I think that I would have probably said about a dozen times myself.

So are you of the opinion that we should avoid or that we should at least be applying a bit of caution with how we use this term? I know that I am now moving into a time of theological crisis as this is something that I should have been aware of - but obviously I was clueless as to how the NT speaks directly of the atonement.

Click to expand...

TasManOfGod said:

To be honest I am surprised at one who speaks against shallowness of WoF teaching when it is obvious that you are unaware of many fundamental principles. Still I suppose that is what we are all here for

Click to expand...

Faulty said:

That's misleading as well. People were not the dwelling of the Spirit prior to the cross. They did not go straight to heaven when they died, Jesus had to go get them. They required a sacrifice to draw near to God because they did not have the sacrifice of Jesus as their covering. It wasn't the same at all.

But like you said, the healings were the same. In fact, the healing required no blood sacrifice to take place, unlike forgiveness. Salvation requires blood. Scripture states without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins, but physical healing requires no such requirement, ever.

Click to expand...