New Covenant Ministries
Other than the
Birth, and Resurrection of our
Lord Jesus Christ, no other truth is so essential to our faith as that of
the Blood Atonement. "Without shedding
of blood there is no remission" of sins (Hebrews 9:22). "It is the blood
that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Leviticus 17:11). Jesus Himself said,
"This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission
of sins" (Matthew 26:28).
Is there a reader who would dare say
that any of the great fundamental truths of the Christian faith are founded
upon only a single text of Scripture? The Inspiration of the Bible,
the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement
NONE are established by an isolated verse. There are however
brethren who tell us that modern versions of the Bible
"attack" Christian doctrine because they
do not contain certain words of doctrine in places where the KJV has these
words. Let us take an example of one of these alleged "attacks", or rather,
DIFFERENCES between the KJV and
some newer translations.
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness
"In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
The above comparison of Colossians
1:14 in the KJV with the NIV (as seen also by comparing to the NASB) reveals
an omission of the words "through his blood"
from the verse as it reads in the KJV. Such is a favorite
proof-text for those of the
position. This difference is often cited to "prove" that modern translations
of the Bible cannot be trusted, and should be regarded as
"leaving out the
blood," or such the like.
It is further misleading when these
same brethren accuse "all the new translations" of the Colossians 1:14 omission.
The New King James Version, a modern
translation, does contain the words in dispute:
"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of
advocates conveniently avoid the
NKJV when citing their favorite "anti-blood" text. Those who
do this reveal not just dishonesty but deliberate cover-up
in their attempt to smear "all modern translations." Furthermore,
if "through his
blood" in Colossians 1:14 makes the
"superior" to the
NASB, and several other translations,
then it makes the New King James Version
just as "superior". In fact, the NKJV may even be "superior" to the KJV for
capitalizing "his" and reading "through
His blood," emphasizing the
Deity of the One whose blood was shed!
Let the reader examine the following selections from the
NIV to see how clearly it establishes
the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ
"In him we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches
of God's grace."
[1 Peter 1:19
"But with the precious blood of Christ,
a lamb without blemish or defect."
"...To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins
by his blood."
"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought
near through the blood of Christ."
"How much more, then, will the blood of
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished
to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that led to death, so that we may
serve the living God!"
We could multiply countless references
to the Blood Atonement, the Deity of Christ, etc., from the NIV and NASB.
what," someone will say,
"that does not give them the right to
take the blood out of any verse, even if it's only one
place." We would certainly agree that none
have the "right" to remove a single word of God anywhere from the Bible
(Revelation 22:19). We would just as strongly agree that this rule must apply
equally to the KJV, for the King James translators had no "right" to omit
words from the Bible. We would also equally agree that the KJV men did not
add words, such as
"through his blood" to Colossians 1:14
The truth is, translators simply translate
the form of the Greek text that is before them and do not make
words from the standard text on which they are assigned. If that Greek text
omits or adds certain words based upon the readings of good manuscripts,
the translator includes or else excludes them. Translators are simply following
their texts, and this is exactly what the KJV translators did when they followed
their Greek text, the Textus Receptus, at Colossians 1:14. The
Greek New Testament currently in use is that
of Nestle's and follows older manuscripts at
Colossians 1:14. The difference in the way the two Greek Bibles read is reflected
by the translation. The picture portrayed of translators conspiring behind
closed doors to "attack
"taking a pair of scissors to the word
of God" is simply FALSE.
When we examine the manuscript evidence
for the words, "through his blood" in Colossians
1:14, we find that the words were probably borrowed from the parallel passage
in Ephesians 1:7 by a later copyist of the Greek manuscripts. Only a
minority (though a strong minority, roughly 200 out of 600 extant)
of the Byzantine manuscripts contain the words.
Some of these are identified in Nestle's text
as MS 2464 (10th century), MS 614 (13th century), and MS
630 (14th century). On the other hand, the words are omitted from
most of the majority text and from all
the early Greek papyri of Colossians, including P15, P46,
P49, and P65 (these papyri and 3rd century copies.)
Regarding the manuscript evidence
on Colossians 1:14, Dr. Peter S.
Ruckman writes the following:
"Both of the Catholic Bibles
(and all Catholic Bibles from
A.D.) resent the
words 'through his
blood' in the text, so they
simply remove the words"
(The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript
Evidence, 1976, pg. 163). Such a statement,
packed with emotional code words such as "Catholic Bibles" and "resent the
words," etc., is dishonest and unfounded. In the first place, Colossians
1:14 read without the words, "through his
blood" back in the 3rd century, long before any "Catholic Bibles"
or even the Catholic church existed! Secondly, if there was ever a "Catholic
Bible" it was the Clementine Vulgate (decreed
incidentally to be "infallible" by the Pope himself), and
it contains the words. Ruckman further writes,
"The verse [Colossians
1:14] is a check-point placed by the
Holy Spirit to enable the Bible believer to spot the corrupt Bibles when
they appear" (The Books of
Galatians--Colossians, Bible Believer's
Commentary series, 1980, pg. 472). According to this
statement, the New King James Version
cannot be one of these
"corrupt Bibles" !
also accuses modern translations of teaching a heresy
in Colossians 1:14. He argues that by omitting the words
"through his blood," we are led
"into thinking that
9:15) is synonymous
473). This is Ruckman's twisting of
the passage in Bibles that have the omission. "Redemption" and "forgiveness"
are certainly not identical, but our "forgiveness" is included in
the redemptive work of Christ, for we are "justified
freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"
(Romans 3:24). [See also
2:13; John 1:29;
Revelation 5:9] "In whom we have
redemption," reads the verse and because of His redemption, we have
"forgiveness of sins." The shedding of His "blood" is understood in
the work of "redemption" as much as the word "whom" in Colossians 1:14 is
understood to be referring to Christ.
In conclusion, once again, accuracy
of information regarding both the manuscripts and Biblical doctrine are
absolutely indispensable when dealing with the irrational, emotional appeals
of KING JAMES
translations into any languages that omit the words,
"through his blood," from Colossians 1:14
are certainly not "attacking the blood" or "resenting the blood," but are
IN FACT following what the strongest manuscript support declares to
be the apostle's rendering. The "check-point placed by
the Holy Spirit" in these matters is the
TRUTH itself, which, thank God, sets us
free (John 8:32).
written by Gary R. Hudson former
co-editor of Baptist Biblical
now called THE
| Join our
"The Lord gave the
WORD: great was the COMPANY of those that PUBLISHED
this article, pass it on, and mail to others. Permission granted
by Bob L.
No Copyright |
A friend recently asked me about one
of the common objections raised by the KJV-Only movement to
the use of "any manuscripts that come from
Egypt." One particular preacher he sat under was very fond
of launching into a tirade against "those evil
modern bibles" because "they're based on manuscripts out
of Egypt" and "the Bible says Egypt is a type
of the WORLD!" This is obviously
typical of Peter Ruckman, Chick Publications,
Gail Riplinger, J. J. Ray, and other KJV "defenders" who recklessly throw
every device they can concoct against the early manuscripts of the Greek
New Testament. They reason as thus: "The Bible
says Egypt is a type of the world; the world is
associated with sin; therefore, it must logically
follow that Alexandrian manuscripts are evil." This is
certainly a "case study" in one of the best examples of
"guilt by association" ever
Actually, the Bible making "Egypt a type
of the world" (which, by the way, is not explicitly stated in the
Bible, only implied), does not mean it teaches that all other regions
of the planet are untainted by sin. In fact, it implies the very opposite!
If the Bible teaches that "Egypt is a type of the WORLD," then it DOES
"logically follow" that "the whole WORLD is typified by Egypt"
which, in the case of KJV-Onlys, would
make no region of the entire planet safe for preserving Bible manuscripts!
(read 1 John 5:19).
Bob Ross comments: We
should also remember the wonderful Providence
of the Lord in regard to Moses, Joseph and the Israelites in Egypt,
as well as how the infant Jesus was taken to Egypt as a
means of escaping death in Israel during
the time of Herod's campaign of infanticide. The
Lord is Sovereign
in Egypt as well as in Antioch, Jerusalem,
and Rome! He works His wonders all over! In fact, if you had to
have the "right place" in which the Lord could do His work, it would have
to be a "wrong place," as the whole world is defiled by sin.
TOP OF PAGE
If the history of the Textus Receptus itself is a history of revision,
why is it beyond revision today?
Accuracy of Translation and
the NIV pg. 76]
This Page was Created on 27 November 1998