When They Say There's No Atonement

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Linda64, May 2, 2007.

  1. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if this article belongs in this forum--if not, please move it to the appropriate forum--thanks.

    I receive the Lighthouse Trails Research Newsletter and I found this article interesting in the light of the fact that we are in the last days and our adversary, the devil is seeking to destroy God's Word, blind the eyes of the lost and weaken the faith of God's children.


    Whatever happened to "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"? (Hebrews 9:22) Why is the "blood" removed from some of the modern versions of the Bible? I believe that we are in the last days and the apostasy is increasing.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. Watchman

    Watchman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever happened to "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"? (Hebrews 9:22) Why is the "blood" removed from some of the modern versions of the Bible? I believe that we are in the last days and the apostasy is increasing.

    Any thoughts?

    Yes, If our Lord's death on the cross is "Slaughterhouse Religion", than thang God for "Slaughterhouse Religion"!!!
     
  3. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please show me the modern version that takes away the shed blood of Jesus...
    you are telling tall tales. All versions have the crucifixion.. and teach that it is through the blood that we are saved.. you are better than that sister.. don't lie.
     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    Uh Oh! Now you've done it. You criticized modern versions. Thirty lashes with a wet noodle is what you will get.
     
  5. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Colossians 1:14 ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, TNIV
    in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins

    Colossians 1:13,14 The Message
    God rescued us from dead-end alleys and dark dungeons. He's set us up in the kingdom of the Son he loves so much, the Son who got us out of the pit we were in, got rid of the sins we were doomed to keep repeating.

    Colossians 1:14 NLT
    who purchased our freedom and forgave our sins

    Colossians 1:14 WE
    Because of his Son, we are set free and the wrong things we have done are forgiven.

    There are multiple versions out there that remove the blood from this verse. These are just a few.

    There are many other verses that omit the blood.
     
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hebrews 9:22

    NKJV
    And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

    NIV
    In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

    NASB
    And according to the Law, one may (A)almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and (B)without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

    NLT
    In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

    HCSB
    According to the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

    ESV
    Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Which modern version omits blood?
     
  7. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Distorting the truth to prove a fallicious statement is abominable...
     
  8. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    In looking at my NLTse it says for Col. 1:14 : who purchased our freedom* and forgave our sins .

    * Some manuscripts add : with His blood .

    Just 6 verses later it says in 1:20 : And through him God reconciled everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ's blood on the cross .

    Removing the blood charge is a flimsy one . For shame .
     
  10. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    Doesn't sound like a flimsy charge to me.
     
  11. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not surprised that everyone has missed the point of the thread. I'm not talking about Bible versions here, I am talking about serious heresy. I would suggest that you read that article again. Harry Emerson Fosdick was only one of many liberal pastors who have denied the truth of God's Word. There are many today doing the same. The point of the thread started back in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 when the serpent said to Eve "yea, hath God said".
     
  12. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fosdick also said preaching should be counseling on a group basis. Preaching should be to reslove problems of the congregation. He had a poor view of scripture.
     
  13. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    In your OP you write

    I thought we were addressing that...

    But... I believe we are in the last days too...
    Peter said we were in Acts....When he applied the passage to Joel to that situation....
    But we are growing closer and closer to our heavenly reward...
    It won't be as long now... Romans 13...

    And it is high time for it Jesus to arrive....

    I see apostacy increasing too... in every realm of Christianity.
    People have moved from the mindset of serving Christ to going to church to see what they can "get" out of it...
    Like church is some sort of cafeteria where we go get what we want...

    People have stopped loving each other the way we should, and judaizers are infiltrating the churches just like they did back in Pauls time, trying to bind up the free with their legalistic ways. Telling people that others are not as good as they are unless they act like them... carry the same bible version, wear the same clothes, believe the same doctrine, even listen to the same style of preaching...

    People are moving from the truth of the scriptures to their own man made doctrines...
    Preachers would rather preach that "God wants you happy" with a smile on their face than preach the truth that unless you accept Jesus you will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

    If you want a happy meal go to McDonalds.. the church doesn't serve happy meals...we dish out the truth.

    But no... they don't want to condemn anyone... their's is a ministry of encouragement.. .yeah right... encourage people straight to hell while the preacher is smiling away being happy and victorious... then talk about how how his daddy would be so proud.... uh...mmmmmmmmm.....Ok now I've gone to meddlin:laugh:
     
    #13 tinytim, May 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2007
  14. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Might as well address this half-truth again...

    In Ephesians 1:7, the NIV has the phrase that is omitted in Colossians.

    Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 are identical in the first part of the verse in the KJV.
    It is thought by some scholars that Colossians was a duplication.

    Well now...If I desire to "take the blood" out of the Bible, why would I remove it in only one place? If my agenda were that sinister, I'd take it out of both references.

    "Blood" appears 392 times in the KJV.
    "Blood" appears 389 times in the NIV.

    From Acts to Revelation--where we find the most occurences of blood in relationship to Christ...

    KJV: 67 times
    NIV: 64 times.

    If they're trying to "take the blood out," they're doing a poor job of it.

    Of course, HBSMN knows this...but it doesn't fit his agenda.
     
  15. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    When they say there is no atonement, I am not sure how they say they are saved Christians in accordance with the Bible.

    As an aside. Fosdick was certainly a major cog in the production of apostasy. It is no small matter that the Riverside Church was built for him by John D Rockefeller and it is certainly an area of curiosity that grotesques (non-water spewing gargoyles) would be chosen to be placed on the outside of this supposed Christian church.
     
  16. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether they took away only three instances of the blood or all instances, they have still taken away from the Word of God for which the Word says bring dire consequences.
     
  17. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    No they added it.. it was not in the originals...
    Which is worse, adding to the word or taking away?
     
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Actually, Brother Tim, in 1966 when Good News For Modern Man (Today's English Version, Good News Translation) came out, there was quite a controversy about this when translator Robert Bratcher, using the dynamic equivalence method of translation, translated "death" in some places instead of "blood," saying that what was important was Christ's death rather than translating literally.
     
  19. Friend of God

    Friend of God
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not "meddlin" when you're speaking the truth.
    "Easy Believism" is preached in many Churches today.
    Anything to put a fanny in a pew IMHO...but don't the attendance numbers look good?
     
  20. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0

    What's even MORE funny is that in the late 80's/early '90's John McArthur taught that the "blood of Christ is a metonym," meaning that it referred to the "death of Christ," not the literal blood itself -- thus he concluded that Christ's blood always referred to His death...

    Huh, whaddaya make of that? Is McArthur no better than Bratcher?

    JDale
     

Share This Page

Loading...