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".
Bloodless Bibles?
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 12, 2005.
Page 3 of 4
-
-
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: -
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 -
-
Ed,
Authorship was not given on that site.
Thakyou
The sin number was dealt with on a previous post, do your homework. -
Probably it would not be wrong to
atribute the words to:
http://www.robertbreaker.com/
Robert Breaker was a missionary. -
That's better.
Continue on.
In HIS service;
Jim :D -
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.
Can someone please explain the point of this list to me, in my ignorance I am mystified. -
-
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. -
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. -
Maybe 'Less Blood' bibles would be 'more accurate'
-
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? -
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.
-
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. -
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!
I will let you know what I find. -
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? -
HankD -
-
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]And one may be an outright lie.
Page 3 of 4