King James Onlyists claim modern versions remove part of Colossians 1:14. Some say this is part of a conspiracy from the secular one world religion. How can we determine which textual variant works? Let us bring in James May from www.kjvonly.org.
King James Onlyists claim modern versions remove part of Colossians 1:14. Some say this is part of a conspiracy from the secular one world religion. How can we determine which textual variant works? Let us bring in James May from www.kjvonly.org.
King James Onlyists claim modern versions remove part of Colossians 1:14. Some say this is part of a conspiracy from the secular one world religion. How can we determine which textual variant works? Let us bring in James May from www.kjvonly.org.
James Onlyists is that the modern versions remove Colossians 1:14. Not the entire verse though. Instead, they remove the part about the blood of Jesus. Let us take a look first at the verses from the popular bible translations. The source used for the verses in the picture are from biblehub.com so you are free to check there if you wish to double check. Here is the scriptures:
So we have the redemption
THROUGH HIS BLOOD part taken out. Now the common claim by some is that this is part of a conspiracy from the secular one world religion to remove any mention of Christs redeeming blood. Theyll typically say, Without the blood of Christ, there is no atonement on the Cross. I find this to be ridiculous since they are obviously only focusing on one verse here compared to others. Some of the earliest manuscripts we have of this verse, first off, does not have this manuscript. We are dealing with the topic of textual variants at this point. What did the manuscripts say and how can we determine which textual variant works? Let us bring in James May from www.kjvonly.org. James May is an average theologian layman that has a B.A. in Bible and Greek and an M.A. in Theology from Bob Jones University. In his article on this topic, he states the following: When
scholars examine a particular variant in
the NT, they seek to understand how alternative readings may have arisen, and they examine the manuscript support for the various readings. One observation that scholars have made is that parallel passages tend to become more alike when they are copied many times by people familiar with both passages. There are a number of examples of this phenomenon in the Gospels. Ephesians and Colossians contain several parallel passages, including Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14. It is easy to imagine that a copyist familiar with Ephesians 1:7 may have inserted through his blood in Colossians 1:14 either by accident, or on purpose thinking that he was correcting someone elses omission. Copyists were regularly confronted with errors in the documents from which they made their copies.. KJV Only advocates regularly argue that
the text of the KJV is the correct text
because it is supported by the majority of manuscripts and that such support indicates the God-guided usage of the church. If majority readings truly represent Gods leading, then God is leading his church to reject the phrase through his blood in Colossians 1:14. The phrase is not only absent from the Alexandrian manuscripts, including Aleph and B, but is also not found in the majority of Byzantine manuscripts (1). So interesting set of information that we have here from James concerning the passage. In fact, the NET Bible notes gives us some more inside information on
the topic (2):
So not only do we have it not in the
earlier manuscripts, but there seems to be claims about Ephesians 1:7 that Colossians 1:14 borrows from this verse. However, if this is true and that modern bible translations wish to remove the atonement and redemption of Christ through his blood, then we wont find this phrase in Ephesians 1:7 in the modern translations that are quite popular right?
Well would you like at that now. The
idea of redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ is not removed from this passage. So why would that be if this conspiracy to remove the blood of Christ from the bible is set in stone in the modern translations? Simple answer is this: There is no conspiracy from the accused translations. This is just another straw that the KJV Onlyists try to grab at for a desperate attempt to prove their point from an uneducated position.
Sources and Citations
1) May, James Richard. "Another Bloodless Bible?" Another Bloodless Bible. 1998. Web. 28 May 2016. 2) NET Bible Online. Colossians 1:14. Web. 28 May 2016. (Under Notes Section)