Through His Blood

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Hmmm? Any of yalls "versions" have this phrase removed from Colossians 1:14?

And ye dare to include any version as equitable as it being the Bible?

Poor Colossians if ye do, they are given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ and be saved by His death? Not.

And some would even dare to trod underfoot the Precious Blood of Christ!

Just a note for consideration when it comes to your approval of what ye deem as Scripture, so g'head ARGUE!!!

 

[Johnv]

You should study scriptural source texts more. The phrase "in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins" appears in later manuscripts. Earlier manuscripts read "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins".

Youre contention that versions "removed" this phrase is not supported by the source texts. The logical conclusions is that later manuscripts "added" the phrase instead.

you stated that in the earlier text "Collossians are given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ". Your claim is completely false, because you have taken a snippet of one verse and built a false conclusion around it. Yet, when you read the entire chapter AS A WHOLE (something which you clearly have failed to do), you will notice that the context is not salvation, but thanksgiving. The phrase in question is a nonissue to the context. To make it an issue by focusing on one specific verse to the exclusion of the rest is a clear twisting of scripture, regardless of the source text.

The NIV, btw, includes both sourse text translations.

However, there is a major flaw in the intent of your OP. At the very best, the debate over source texts is in no way a support over single-translation-onlyism. Even if we were to presume that the TR is the only correct source text, it does not in any way support the false doctrine of KJVOism.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

uh-oh! Thank God for His word!

 

[pastorjeff]

This does not change the doctrine of redemption. It is through Christ that we are redeemed. The context sais nothing of His death either, only that it is He who redeems. The blood of Christ is sighted in many other places modern translations and taken as a whole ( as we should even read the KJV) they teach and speak of the remission of sin being by the shed blood of Christ.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Hmmm? Any of yalls "versions" have this phrase removed from Colossians 1:14?

And ye dare to include any version as equitable as it being the Bible?

Yes and yes. For the same reason I accept the KJV as equitable as it being the Bible for having "through Jesus Christ our Lord" removed from Jude 1:25.

Poor Colossians if ye do, they are given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ and be saved by His death? Not.

No, they are not given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ. Read forward 6 verses.

And some would even dare to trod underfoot the Precious Blood of Christ!

Yes, some would dare. But nobody here.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Hmmm? Any of yalls "versions" have this phrase removed from Colossians 1:14?

And ye dare to include any version as equitable as it being the Bible?

Please give me the name of the faithful translation of the Bible that you think omits the blood atonement. I am fairly certain that I can show you this doctrine in the NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV, and several others.

Poor Colossians if ye do, they are given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ and be saved by His death? Not.

Same as the poor Romans, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Hebrews,... and many others whose epistles did not contain this specific phrase?

Just a note for consideration when it comes to your approval of what ye deem as Scripture, so g'head ARGUE!!!

I don't deem your word scripture... nor that of any other person that promotes the man made teaching of KJVOnlyism.

 

[AVL1984]

Ralph, it in no way gives people permission to bypass the blood of Christ. Again, you have twisted scripture to fit your own interpretations. The NIV has the verse listed. Also, in context, the NASB has reference to the blood of Jesus Christ in v. 20. Again, an untrue representation of the MV's by a hyper-KJVonlyist and an attempt to defame God's Word (again another violation of posting rules, isn't it?)

 

[robycop3]

An old KJVO argument, shot down during the biplane era. Wrong then, wrong now.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Amen. Sad how the same-old-same-old trite arguments resurface. Why old Ralph and I have probably heard that one a HUNDRED TIMES in our lifetime!

In honor of it, let's all start singing "Nothing but the Blood".

(NOT demeaning the Blood, just the old arguments)

 

[rsr]

The NIV, et al., retain the Collosians language in Ephesians 1:14; most textual critics explain the inclusion in Colossians as an attempt to make 1:7 parallel to the verse in Ephesians.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Johnv:
You should study scriptural source texts more. The phrase "in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins" appears in later manuscripts. Earlier manuscripts read "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins".

Youre contention that versions "removed" this phrase is not supported by the source texts. The logical conclusions is that later manuscripts "added" the phrase instead.

you stated that in the earlier text "Collossians are given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ". Your claim is completely false, because you have taken a snippet of one verse and built a false conclusion around it. Yet, when you read the entire chapter AS A WHOLE (something which you clearly have failed to do), you will notice that the context is not salvation, but thanksgiving. The phrase in question is a nonissue to the context. To make it an issue by focusing on one specific verse to the exclusion of the rest is a clear twisting of scripture, regardless of the source text.

The NIV, btw, includes both sourse text translations.

However, there is a major flaw in the intent of your OP. At the very best, the debate over source texts is in no way a support over single-translation-onlyism. Even if we were to presume that the TR is the only correct source text, it does not in any way support the false doctrine of KJVOism.

Oh, so now only the earliest and readily available MSS areable to conclude something directly in contradiction to Scriputre?

I believe, though The Holy Bible is taken from later (just those found, and also not still available due to their frailty and perished with age)MSS ans STILL in harmony, thos "bibles" that come from other mss are NOT in harmony [attack snipped]

[ December 02, 2004, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by pastorjeff:
This does not change the doctrine of redemption. It is through Christ that we are redeemed. The context sais nothing of His death either, only that it is He who redeems. The blood of Christ is sighted in many other places modern translations and taken as a whole ( as we should even read the KJV) they teach and speak of the remission of sin being by the shed blood of Christ.

Yeah, But what about those poor Colossians, they didn't have all the other Epistles, only the one that was written by Paul at that time?

You're denying, along with other "versions" their chance to be saved. If salvation isn't through His Blood, which it IS, then praytell, it certainly isn't His death, that was the penalty, NOT the redemptive provision. So please don';t reckon the Blood of Christ to be any less.

 

[natters]

POR said "Yeah, But what about those poor Colossians, they didn't have all the other Epistles, only the one that was written by Paul at that time?"

READ AHEAD SIX VERSES.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Yeah, But what about those poor Colossians, they didn't have all the other Epistles, only the one that was written by Paul at that time?

Yeah, but what about those poor Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, etc. They didn't have Colossians.

You're denying, along with other "versions" their chance to be saved.

No more so than you are denying the Romans their chance to be saved.

If salvation isn't through His Blood, which it IS, then praytell, it certainly isn't His death, that was the penalty, NOT the redemptive provision. So please don';t reckon the Blood of Christ to be any less.

The blood of Christ is symbolic of His sacrificial death. Please don't create divisions and inconsistencies where none legitimately exist.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

But isn'tthe Blood of Christ a wee bit more than the lesser value which you place on it? Like finalpayment for sin, for instance? Not really "symbolic when it IS literal, huh?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

BTW< the Blood of Christ and it's redemptive value are in all those Epistles. So please don't tread the Precious Blood of Our Saviour underfoot so readily?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by natters:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Hmmm? Any of yalls "versions" have this phrase removed from Colossians 1:14?

And ye dare to include any version as equitable as it being the Bible?

Yes and yes. For the same reason I accept the KJV as equitable as it being the Bible for having "through Jesus Christ our Lord" removed from Jude 1:25.

Poor Colossians if ye do, they are given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ and be saved by His death? Not.

No, they are not given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ. Read forward 6 verses.

And some would even dare to trod underfoot the Precious Blood of Christ!

Yes, some would dare. But nobody here. </font>[/QUOTE]Funny thing natters, I didn't even mention the KJB and YOU attack it's voracity!!

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Hmmm? Any of yalls "versions" have this phrase removed from Colossians 1:14?

And ye dare to include any version as equitable as it being the Bible?

Please give me the name of the faithful translation of the Bible that you think omits the blood atonement. I am fairly certain that I can show you this doctrine in the NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV, and several others.

Poor Colossians if ye do, they are given permission to by-pass the Blood of Christ and be saved by His death? Not.

Same as the poor Romans, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Hebrews,... and many others whose epistles did not contain this specific phrase?

Just a note for consideration when it comes to your approval of what ye deem as Scripture, so g'head ARGUE!!!

I don't deem your word scripture... nor that of any other person that promotes the man made teaching of KJVOnlyism. </font>[/QUOTE]Just had to address that last statement, first of all, I never tried to suggest my word as Scripture, the Scripture is plain "Through His Blood". Col. 1:14

We're dealing with ONLY one Epistle. Isn't the Blood of Christ for ALL men? Calvinistic defining of all or not?

 

[natters]

POR said "YOU attack it's voracity!!"

False witness, despite your barely comprehensible grammar.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Grammtically comprehending barely? Like barely and grammatically comprehending that leaving "through His Blood" out of Col. 1:14 definitely effects in the negative the salvation of the Colossians? Yep.