pastorjeff
New Member
NIV, NKJV, NASB, and NRSV all have the words "in His blood." No discrepancys there, as for other translations, I have not checked.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Changes in the Doctrine of Redemption
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Terry_Herrington
New Member
What major problem was created here? I don't think My doctrinal statement is in jepordy because one version has blossem and the other has grapes. what's the point. </font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't talking about this particular verse, I was saying that it is not always the major doctrines that need to be affected in order for changes to have a detrimental effect on what the Bible says. Often it is the little changes that have a big effect on what is being said in God's Holy Word. For this reason I will stay with the KJV!
It's not the Bible I am afraid of or even the small differences. It's those who claim to be conservative who are practicing atheists. They don't witness and they don't disciple people. That is the majority sitting in the pews on Sunday.
There's the gospel according to Matthew.
There's the gospel according to Mark.
There's the gospel according to Luke.
There's the gospel according to John and then there's the gospel according to you.
Dogsbody: "Again, back to my question above. How about Colossians 1:14? Do any of the MV omit "through his blood"? Staying right in this verse, does anyone think the omission may affect someone’s interpretation of redemption?"
At this location nearly every modern translation omits the phrase. This is *not*, however, due to some “conspiracy against the blood” such as might appear in the TEV rendering elsewhere (e.g. Eph 1:7), but solely because nearly every existing manuscript of Col. 1:14 does *not* contain those words.
The few MSS that contain this phrase (MSS 614, 630, 1505, 2464, as cited in the Nestle-Aland apparatus), are all of the 9th century and later, with the remaining 600 or so Greek NT manuscripts dating from the 2nd century (p46) to the invention of printing *not* containing the phrase, which appears to have been inserted in those few MSS as a deliberate harmonization to the parallel passage Eph 1:7.
The interpretation of redemption should not at all be affected by the presence or absence of this phrase in Col 1:14, since it is specifically stated in Eph 1:7 and elsewhere throughout the NT.
At this location nearly every modern translation omits the phrase. This is *not*, however, due to some “conspiracy against the blood” such as might appear in the TEV rendering elsewhere (e.g. Eph 1:7), but solely because nearly every existing manuscript of Col. 1:14 does *not* contain those words.
The few MSS that contain this phrase (MSS 614, 630, 1505, 2464, as cited in the Nestle-Aland apparatus), are all of the 9th century and later, with the remaining 600 or so Greek NT manuscripts dating from the 2nd century (p46) to the invention of printing *not* containing the phrase, which appears to have been inserted in those few MSS as a deliberate harmonization to the parallel passage Eph 1:7.
The interpretation of redemption should not at all be affected by the presence or absence of this phrase in Col 1:14, since it is specifically stated in Eph 1:7 and elsewhere throughout the NT.
Paul in his lifetime wrote his letters to 2 locations containing "through the blood": Ephesians and Colossians. Paul wrote to Ephesians and Colossians that the redemption is through Jesus' blood. Why did MVs omit this phrase from Paul's letter to Colossians? Any modern version translators omitted this phrase from the Words of God. I am sure that Paul will accuse them in God's judgment. The warning is John 5:45-47; Rev. 22:18-19.
Dogsbody: "Again I have to ask; Could the omission in this one verse affect a person looking at only this verse(?), as many will build wrong doctrine on one verse."
If all one had was Colossians, and not the remainder of the NT, there would be a *lot* of doctrines not stated or known.
If one looks *only* at a single verse to establish a major doctrine, there are always implicit dangers (e.g. 1Cor 15:29 and the Mormon interpretation).
The *absence* of this phrase in Col 1:14 -- given that nearly all existing MSS do *not* have it, and it only appears in a handful of MSS *after* the 9th century -- is clear evidence that the text without the phrase did *not* cause problems to either scribes, believing Christians, or the various local churches for at least the first 8 centuries of the Church era.
To turn the statement around and suggest wrong doctrine based on this single verse in isolation is a red herring type of argument, trying to spin matters in a particular direction without sufficent reason.
If all one had was Colossians, and not the remainder of the NT, there would be a *lot* of doctrines not stated or known.
If one looks *only* at a single verse to establish a major doctrine, there are always implicit dangers (e.g. 1Cor 15:29 and the Mormon interpretation).
The *absence* of this phrase in Col 1:14 -- given that nearly all existing MSS do *not* have it, and it only appears in a handful of MSS *after* the 9th century -- is clear evidence that the text without the phrase did *not* cause problems to either scribes, believing Christians, or the various local churches for at least the first 8 centuries of the Church era.
To turn the statement around and suggest wrong doctrine based on this single verse in isolation is a red herring type of argument, trying to spin matters in a particular direction without sufficent reason.
Simple facts:
The NKJV main text in Col 1:14 followed the TR. The TR editions contained the phrase "through his blood," despite the lack of much manuscript support.
The NKJV footnotes state correctly that the Nestle/UBS text as well as the Majority Text do *not* contain this phrase.
Nothing more than factual data.
The NKJV main text in Col 1:14 followed the TR. The TR editions contained the phrase "through his blood," despite the lack of much manuscript support.
The NKJV footnotes state correctly that the Nestle/UBS text as well as the Majority Text do *not* contain this phrase.
Nothing more than factual data.
pastorjeff
New Member
Going back to Eph. 1:7, as I stated previously at least 4 of the major MV's contain the words "through His blood" Yes other places may differ, but are the modern versions distorting, or changing any doctrine? The Doctrine of redemption through the shed blood of Christ has not been changed in at least the NIV, NASB, NKJV, or the NRSV.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Redemption the most "important" doctrine? Hmmmm? I thought the Holiness of God is the first and foremost! Second would be so closely linked is His Righteousness, redemption at best 3rd.
But then the advo's of mv's do tend to get things out of "order"
But then the advo's of mv's do tend to get things out of "order"
Thanks again Ziggy for you responce.
"To turn the statement around and suggest wrong doctrine based on this single verse in isolation is a red herring type of argument, trying to spin matters in a particular direction without sufficent reason."
I did have a reason, or so I thought; to get us all thinking!
Gota go! Supper time!
Take care.
"To turn the statement around and suggest wrong doctrine based on this single verse in isolation is a red herring type of argument, trying to spin matters in a particular direction without sufficent reason."
I did have a reason, or so I thought; to get us all thinking!
Take care.
pastorjeff
New Member
As for marginal or footnotes, they are just observations. Some texts do leave out through the blood. These footnotes are not false, and they don't add to or take away from the text, it is still there. Footnotes are no more inspired than Chapter and verse markings.
My Bible has no study notes, and just the basics in reference marks. I bought it for this reason. I've also marked my Bible in places where the thought continues from one chapter to another and should not be broken. But all this is beside the point that the doctrine of redemption has not been altered in most MV's.
My Bible has no study notes, and just the basics in reference marks. I bought it for this reason. I've also marked my Bible in places where the thought continues from one chapter to another and should not be broken. But all this is beside the point
that the doctrine of redemption has not been altered in most MV's.So Askjo, now it matters what the NKJV has in the footnotes but it does not matter when the KJV translators put things in the margin or footnotes? That the NKJV put in the footnotes is just a statement of fact, that many older manuscripts did not carry the phrase "through His blood". There is no great conspiracy here, as a matter of fact it shows the integrity of the translators of the NKJV. And integrity is always important, even here in this forum.
Bro Tony
Your question is completely irrelevant.
If "in the blood" did not exist in the original manuscripts, which is very likely to be true, then I would imagine the Holy Spirit can handle the interpretation of what God actually inspired to His liking.
Just because it is an addition in the KJV does NOT mean it was in the original manuscripts. The original manuscripts WERE God breathed, and if it wasn't in the original manuscripts, then your question does not need an answer.