1. 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!

Bloodless Bibles?

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

Top Posters
Page 3 of 4
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Col 1:14 (KJV1611):
    In whom we haue redemption through
    his blood, euen the forgiuenesse of sinnes:

    Col 1:14 (Latin Vulgate, 380AD):
    in quo habemus redemptionem remissionem peccatorum

    No Blood there in 380AD. BTW, the
    Latin Vulagate was THE STANDARD BIBLE
    for 1,000 years. (compare to KJVs none
    of which was used much over 200 years.)

    No Blood there in 380AD.
    WOuld be some form of "sanguinis" from
    which we get the English term "sanguine" = "the
    color of blood".
     
    #41 Ed Edwards, Feb 15, 2005
  2. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Ed said, :
    The previous post contains unethecial quote.
    This site is quoted:

    http://www.robertbreaker.com/honduras/pages/NIVvsKJV.htm

    But without attribution.

    __________________________________________________

    Ed;
    OR both authors have the SAME sources. Rather than infer dishonesty Mr. Ed, perhaps you sould show a little GRACE.
    :mad:

    Why is it Mr. Ed that you see dishonesty in everyone who disagrees with you?

    What is it with you? Rather that toss out unfounded accusations, shouldn't you do the right thing and come right out and ask the man if that is where he got his information? And THEN if it is true that he quoted without credit, you would have something with which to accurately call him on the carpet about. But NOOOO, you jump the other way and risk making a fool of yourself.

    In HIS service;
    Jim :mad:
     
    #42 av1611jim, Feb 15, 2005
  3. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    __________________________________________________

    Mr. Ed;
    Now be COMPLETELY accurate and see if you can find the OLD LATIN which has been around MUCH longer than the Vulgate. I am curios to see what you find.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
    #43 av1611jim, Feb 15, 2005
  4. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    My software says "sin" appears 448 in the KJV.

    Absolutely.

    Amen! But not all those "blood" verses are about Jesus' blood.

    I went 57 today. I'm still alive.

    Silly has 5 letters.

    Yes, but it doesn't involve this ridiculous numerology mumbo-jumbo.
     
    #44 natters, Feb 15, 2005
  5. Glory2God

    Glory2God New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,
    Authorship was not given on that site.
    Thakyou [​IMG]

    The sin number was dealt with on a previous post, do your homework.
     
    #45 Glory2God, Feb 15, 2005
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are welcome.

    Probably it would not be wrong to
    atribute the words to:
    http://www.robertbreaker.com/
    Robert Breaker was a missionary.
     
    #46 Ed Edwards, Feb 15, 2005
  7. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's better.
    Continue on.

    In HIS service;
    Jim :D
     
    #47 av1611jim, Feb 16, 2005
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    You forget that in the REAL JKV "sinne" also has five letters.

    I find it tragic that some build a theology around a numerical system that only works in modern English, then say that their theology is proven because of their numbers.

    The speed limit is 120 k/ph here, how does that fit?

    Surely, you jest.


    Can someone please explain the point of this list to me, in my ignorance I am mystified.
     
    #48 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 17, 2005
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    In the real KJV(1611) "sinne" and "sin" (not the wilderness of Sin) appears 441 times and blood occurs 451 times. It appears your numbers only work in the Oxford 1769 edition of the KJV. Is this correct?
     
    #49 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 17, 2005
  10. Glory2God

    Glory2God New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K,
    The whole thing was just for fun. I'm not a bibliolater or whatever you guys call us. I have no idea about the "real" 1611. I try to live by faith, not sight. I said "land of sin" cause' my memory ain't all that great. I just figured that of all the folks(bible scholars) posting, that that would be a no-brainer. Just tryn' to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.
     
    #50 Glory2God, Feb 17, 2005
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Well, nobody calls anyone "bibliolaters" here and gets away with it.

    The "real" 1611 is the translation as carried out by the translators and is now available through e-sword.

    My count of the "land of Sin" was not included in my numbers.

    I trust that each of us is tryong to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour.

    The point is there is still no "bloodless Bible" as folks were accused of using in another thread.
     
    #51 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 18, 2005
  12. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe 'Less Blood' bibles would be 'more accurate'
     
    #52 James_Newman, Feb 18, 2005
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    and which Bibles de-emphasise the blood?

    The KJV 1769 has 4 less occurances of the word "blood" than does the 1611KJV.

    So the 1769 has less blood than the 1611?
     
    #53 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 18, 2005
  14. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am still going to go through all these occurances and figure out what it means. I hardly think that using e-sword word counts as our basis of accepting/rejecting a bible version would be pleasing to the Lord. There is probably a good reason for the discrepancy, especially since no one has written a book exposing the missing blood in the KJV.
     
    #54 James_Newman, Feb 18, 2005
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    It means the same thing as the supposed "less blood"ness in other quality version - nothing.

    Let me know how your physical count of "blood" in the 1611 compare to "blood" in the 1769.
     
    #55 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 18, 2005
  16. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    It goes hand-in-hand with the bloodless gospel that does not offend. Which of the following do you suppose is more palatable to the unregenerate?

    1. Your a miserable wretch of a sinner and your going to die and go to the lake of fire for all eternity unless you get your sins covered by the blood of Jesus Christ.

    2. Jesus died on the cross so you could be happy and have a purpose driven life. And there are donuts and coffee in the foyer! [​IMG]

    I will let you know what I find.
     
    #56 James_Newman, Feb 18, 2005
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    How does this apply to the bloodless Bible topic.

    Are you saying that only KJVO churches preach on the blood of Christ?

    Do you have a 1611 at hand?
     
    #57 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 18, 2005
  18. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, to be technical James, neither is the complete Gospel.


    HankD
     
    #58 HankD, Feb 18, 2005
  19. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have e-sword same as everyone else. If I have to, I will go look at the online image version to verify every reference, but I suppose that I will settle for electronic for now. And no, I am not saying only KJVO churches preach on the blood, but there are those who would remove the blood from the gospel because it is offensive. The bible says that the gospel is offensive, who are we to try to clean it up? The fact is, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. To say that the blood doesn't matter is absurd, and that removing references to the blood doesn't mean anything? I don't know if it does or not, so I am going to find out. I'll be back later with my preliminary report ;)
     
    #59 James_Newman, Feb 18, 2005
  20. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, to be technical James, neither is the complete Gospel.


    HankD     </font>[/QUOTE]And one may be an outright lie.
     
    #60 James_Newman, Feb 18, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 4
Loading...