Through His Blood

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.

 

uh-oh! Thank God for His word!

 

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.

 

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.

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

Yes, some would dare. But nobody here.

 

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.

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

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

 

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?)

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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

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

 

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

False witness, despite your barely comprehensible grammar.