Bloodless Bibles?

I get tired of "missing data" from MVs
stories. 1/3 of the time the "missing data"
is withing 2 verses. Recall that the
Hebrew and the Greek did not use puncuation.
The Hebrew doesn't even have word breaks.

In Today's English we don't like to have
a sentence over 14 words long. So we have
to reintroduce the subject of the
sentence. Just exactly what the sentence
is is a subject for the translator.

 

I have dozens and dozens of different versions on my selfs and on my computer. Although I've heard of this mythical "bloodless Bible", I've never actually seen one.

 

nope, never seen one. Nor the virgin-less birth, as some claim.

 

C4K, the only translation that I know that was agreed upon by almost everybody as "bloodless" was the old "Good News for Modern Man". With the cute stick-figure drawings. . .

I used to read it in church instead of listen to the boring preacher (my opinion at about 9 years of age). I could understand it and it told stories of the New Testament in a language I could understand. The KJV was just too difficult for me to get excited about. I DID get excited about the Good News. Today, I hear that it was quite bloodless.

Whether that left me deficient in knowledge to this very day or not, I can't tell you (something did, but I doubt it was the GNFMM).

 

The Modern Version King James Version (KJV1769)
removes BLOOD from the Whole Bible 76
times. Yep the KJV1611 edition has 'blood'
451 times while the KJV1769 edition
has it 375 times. But they are the same?
Sorry, if the KJV1769 MV takes the BLOOD
out 76 times ....

Guys, this is really bad , the KJV1769 reduces
the blood 16.666 percent.

I'm giving up reading the KJV1769 MV for Lent

 

Hmm, In the combined Testaments of the original languages the word "blood" (Hebrew DAM, Greek haima) occurs 460 times.

In the combined Testaments of the 1769 KJV the word "blood" occurs 447 times.

Where did the 13 go?

HankD

 

Excellent point Ed. Another nail in the ole' "onlyism" coffin.

What amazes me is the number of KJVo's who claim to be 1611 KJV's, while they use the Oxford, and as you said: 76 "blood's" missing. Was that 76 "printer's" errors? I think not.

 

while i was looking at "the blood" in Colossians 1:13-14,
i noticed that the 'agape' in verse 13 is
translated as 'dear'. Generaly the Godly type love
'agape' is translated 'love' or in the KJV as 'charity'.
The translator footnote in the KJV1611 notes both
renderings.

 

You really should learn how to use e-sword, Ed. It doesn't do much to enhance your scholarly mystique.

 

Heres what I came up with using the search in e-sword. This is assuming that the 'KJV' that comes with e-sword is the 1769, I haven't verified this.

BLOOD - with partial matches
1611
394 VERSES 469 HITS
1769
392 VERSES 465 HITS

Difference = 2 Verses, 4 words

BLOOD - EXACT WORD MATCH
1611
378 VERSES 452 HITS
1769
375 VERSES 447 HITS

Difference = 3 Verses, 5 words

The differences are much fewer than, say, the differences between the 1611 and the HCSB...

1611
378 VERSES 452 HITS
HCSB
341 VERSES 394 HITS

Difference = 37 Verses, 58 words

I don't know for sure that none of the 'differences' showing up between the 1611 and the 1769 are not apocryphal, since the 1611 text in e-sword does include it. But I will probably go through all the differences and see exactly how different these bibles are, and bring this information to the table.

 

I have not seen a bloodless Bible

 

Sin occurs 447 times and the only thing that covers sin is blood, and blood occurs the exact number of times 447 to cover all sin.

 

Ed, I think James may have us here. I count 101 times in the New Testment 1611 and 101 times in the New Testament 1769. No apparent change, unless I did something wrong.

Just keeping us honest.

 

C4K, I came up with the same numbers as James. What is going on? See what you get for "blood" in the NT of each.

 

Are we talking about these types of verses?

(NIV) Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
(KJV) Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Which one is right?

God bless