Bloodless Bibles?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 12, 2005.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    In another thread it was mentioned that some people use "Bloodless Bibles." Does anyone know a version or translation that leaves out the blood of Christ?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

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

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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). :D
     
  6. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    The GNB replaced "blood" with "death" 10 times in the NT; although theologically suspect, I doubt the omission would have permanently warped a 9-year-old's understanding of Scripture. (I liked the drawings too.)

    Interestingly, the American Bible Society's successor version, the Contemporary English Version, restored "blood" in nine of the references, omitting it only where other MVs also do (Col. 13-14: God rescued us from the dark power of Satan and brought us into the kingdom of his dear Son, who forgives our sins and sets us free.)
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ;)
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Does any poster here use GNFMM as their main Bible?
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    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
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. ;)
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    You really should learn how to use e-sword, Ed. It doesn't do much to enhance your scholarly mystique.
     
  13. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have not seen a bloodless Bible
     
  15. Glory2God

    Glory2God
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The 1769 Oxford KJV has
    sin - 389 times
    blood - 375 time

    Does that mean that there are 14 times that blood did not cover sin?

    The KJV1611 has
    sinne - 429 times
    blood - 451 times

    Here blood does not cover sin 22 times.

    Is the 1769 KJV a watered down version since it leaves sin/sinne out 40 times and blood out 76 times?
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Mine was using the whole Bible and e-sword search

    Sorry - my e-sword version is not 1769 I got the numbers from Online Bible, which is 1769 and e-swords version of the KJV1611.

    Using the same I came up with sinne in the NT 110 times (KJV1611) and sin 90 times in the 1769.


    1611 - blood 101 times
    1769 - blood 93 times

    My mistake - I was not reading carefully enough. I was looking at verses, and not occurances. Apologies and apparently a valid point

    [ February 12, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  20. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     

Share This Page

Loading...