THE BLOOD IS REMOVED IN THE NEW BIBLES

[Doug]

[Colossians 1:14 KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

[Colossians 1:14 NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

 

[Rockerduck]

[Colossians 1:14 KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

[Colossians 1:14 NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

No, the NIV removed it. Site the others before lumping them all in the same pile.

 

[Deborah_]

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

It is indeed through Christ's blood that we have redemption and forgiveness.
But if the new Bibles have "removed" the reference to Christ's blood, what alternative method do they put forward?

Colossians goes on, "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in Him [i.e. in Christ], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Colossians 1:19,20)

Or just flip back a few pages to Ephesians: "In him [Christ] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins..." (Ephesians 1:7)

Those of us who read the whole Bible (as opposed to picking out individual verses) don't have an issue with this.

 

[Deborah_]

That doesnt change the fact they corrupted the verse by removing blood

But what if that was what Paul originally wrote?

It could be argued that adding the bit about the blood does no harm (because it is true). But it isn't necessary to his argument, and so removing it again also does no harm.

And then to claim that the new Bibles "remove the blood" is (1) complete exaggeration and (2) illogical. If you really did want to remove Christ's blood from Scripture, why do it in only one place? It's all over the rest of the New Testament!

 

[Lambano]

[Colossians 1:14 KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

[Colossians 1:14 NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

Here's the NET Bible translators' note. Some highlights:

1. "Through his blood" is witnessed in miniscule manuscripts (a form of cursive Greek writing developed in the 9th century), so it is a later development.

2. The older uncial manuscripts across multiple text-types overwhelmingly do not have "through his blood" and witnessed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

3. The translators speculate that some scribe was motivated to align Colossians 1:14 with Ephesians 1:7 (which does have "through his blood"); hence its late addition.

tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou haimatos autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule mss (614 630 1505 2464) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 M latt co as well as several other versions and fathers. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

 

[quietthinker]

THE BLOOD IS REMOVED IN THE NEW BIBLES​

Did they clean them up?

 

[Deborah_]

That doesnt change the fact they corrupted the verse by removing blood

If they changed every verse their text would not be credible

But if they (these imaginary people who were out to destroy Christianity) didn't change every verse and passage mentioning Christ's blood, there was no point in them even changing one!
It hasn't altered the overall message of the New Testament by one iota.
It hasn't stopped Christians who use the NIV from trusting in the blood of Jesus.
It hasn't't led anyone astray.
If I ever want to quote "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins", I simply use Ephesians 1:7. Why do I need the exact same wording in Colossians as well?

I am totally unconvinced by your arguments, and I really don't understand why the whole matter upsets you so much.

 

[Lambano]

SPECULATE

The purpose of such speculation is to give a logical reason for WHY a scribe would add words to the Bible. As you have speculated why they would remove them.

 

[Lambano]

The fact remains tons of words are missing from the new Bibles
They contain the Word but they arent the Word of God

I'm sure you meant to say that the fact remains that tons of extra words were added to the KJV that were not in the original Word of God.

 

[Lambano]

Is it logical to propose thousands of scribes decided to add the same words?

Think about how the text was transmitted. Parchments degrade and have to be replaced; new churches develop and need bibles, so the manuscripts have to be copied by hand and distributed. Any early divergence of the text will get propagated to later copies. There are three major text-types that share similar characteristics: Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western. The Textus Receptus manuscripts used by the KJV translators came from the Byzantine branch in Europe and Asia Minor. The distinctive characteristics of this text type would have been introduced relatively early and propagated down the line.

 

[Lambano]

I did just a modicum of searching on scribal procedures and I think the scribal error theory is fanciful and desperate.

This one may not be scribal error. It is highly possible that it was intentionally introduced because some scribe thought "through the blood" belonged there.

Some of the other ones we've discussed may have been introduced to reinforce church theology and/or praxis. Same as you have accused the Alexandrians of.

 

[Lambano]

These corrupt manuscripts were eventually adopted by textual critics and incorporated in the new Bibles

The key point of the textual critics is that certain verses were not in the biblical manuscripts in the 400s, but appeared in the manuscripts in the 800s. Which manuscripts are "corrupt"? What criteria do you use to decide?

 

[Justified]

[Colossians 1:14 KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

[Colossians 1:14 NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

Just like with every other similar thread you've started: no, that is not the case. It's all based on the manuscript evidence, not the translations themselves.

Mat 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Joh 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
Joh 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
Joh 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Act 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Rom 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
Rom 3:26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Rom 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace (Note that this is the very same wording as Col. 1:14.)

Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Heb 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
Heb 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

1Pe 1:18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors,
1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Rev 7:14 I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

(All NIV.)

If they really were trying to remove the blood of Christ, they did an absolutely terrible job of it. That's why we know they weren't trying to do it. Yet again, you have no legitimate argument against the NIV.

 

[Lambano]

You say nothing of how they would have to bypass all the procedures to curtail accidental or deliberate error
If a scribe inserted words it would also have to involve a complicit supervisor

Would that shock you?

 

[Justified]

That doesnt change the fact that the blood was removed from Colossians 1:14

Not necessarily. You're beginning with the assumption that it should be there in the first place, simply because the KJV has it, and then concluding that other versions removed it and so the KJV is right. This is called circular reasoning.

 

[David Lamb]

[Colossians 1:14 KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

[Colossians 1:14 NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

That's a sweeping generalisation. Not all modern bible translations omit any reference to His blood in Colossians 1:14. For example, the New King James Version has:

(Col 1:14) in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

The Modern King James Version has:

(Col 1:14) in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins.

Young's Literal Translation says:

14 in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins,

 

[David Lamb]

NLT
who purchased our freedom[fn] and forgave our sins.

NIV
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

ESV
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

CSB
In him we have redemption,[fn] the forgiveness of sins.

NASB20
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

NASB95
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

LSB
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

NET
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

RSV
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

ASV
in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

YLT
in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins,

DBY
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins;

WEB
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

HNV
in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins;

VUL

So perhaps it might be better, instead of saying, "The new bibles...." to say, "Many new bibles....". After all, I quoted 3 that don't omit "blood", and your list adds a fourth, the WEB.

 

[amigo de christo]

for years and for years many wondered how on earth
can all religoins and peoples unite as one under what all will beleive is GOD .
For they said ALL them different religions are opposed to the other .
SO how on earth are they all gonna b uy the same lie .
PRETTY CLEAR IN THESE LAST HOURS as to exactly how that is and will be done .
THEY chan ged the image of GOD i nto an image that all false religoins and the world
and the decieved of christendom can accept as THE GOD , AS HIS LOVE , as HIS PLAN FOR WORLD peace .
THEY were busy my friend .
The devil was never sleeping my friend . His harlot was not just a bed time story either , SHE has been at work .
HOW do you convince muslims , christains , buddists , a theiests , hindus, jews to be as one .
WHY you preach a version of love that is of the world for years .
You break down the walls of doctrines that had seperated them by guiese of its the loving thing to do .
You tell them for years THAT GOD is not concerned with DOCTRINE but rather UNITY
YOU lie to them more and more and always h oller jUDGE NOT if anyon e exposes your lie and or sin .
And keep reshaping them and their iamge of G OD i nto a god that all will beleive is God , is love .
THEN when the king of all dark kings does stand , all have been made ready
by teh voices of the dark elijahs who had prepared them unto ANTI CHRIST , FOR TO HEAR IT
and be a co helper in its war to OVERCOME And KILL THE SAINTS . We really should have stayed in the bible my friend .
THE SHEEP DID . JESUS HAS THE SHEEP .

 

[Deborah_]

I just had a thought about this
Yes they removed the blood only from one verse. but how do you know it should be in the other verses?

You're shooting down your own argument here

The fact remains tons of words are missing from the new Bibles

And yet you can't answer any of my points