When They Say There's No Atonement

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"!!!

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

Distorting the truth to prove a fallicious statement is abominable...

 

No distortion, the blood was removed from Colossians 1:14.

 

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 .

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

No they added it.. it was not in the originals...
Which is worse, adding to the word or taking away?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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