The importance of the words "By Himself".

[Bob from England]

In my Quiet Time this morning I read Hebrews chapter 1.  In verse 3 we read that Christ purged our sins "By Himself".

These words are important as they teach that Christ purged away our sins without any help from us.  We did not contribute anything in the way of good works or religious observances.

However, the modern versions have removed these words and so, by implication, have downgraded one of the chief evidences in the Bible that salvation is a totally free gift.

To be fair, the NKJV does keep these words in; but even then, they append a footnote that calls them into question.

I would be interested to know what others think about this point.

Edited March 13, 2017 by The real Bob Hutton
"religious" spelled wrong

[Alan]

"... by himself ..." only the Lord Jesus could have paid the price of our eternal redemption. The redemption of the soul rests upon the shed blood of Christ.

The newer versions (including the NKJV), are a religious sham. If "... by himself ..." is not supposed to be there than we have no salvation of the soul. As far as I am concerned, the individuals (translators), who left it out (among many other doctrinal issues), are liars of the worst sort. If they are saved, they have been deceived.

[Bob from England]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

"... by himself ..." only the Lord Jesus could have paid the price of our eternal redemption. The redemption of the soul rests upon the shed blood of Christ.

The newer versions (including the NKJV), are a religious sham. If "... by himself ..." is not supposed to be there than we have no salvation of the soul. As far as I am concerned, the individuals (translators), who left it out (among many other doctrinal issues), are liars of the worst sort. If they are saved, they have been deceived.

You are so right, dear brother.  I sometimes read modern versions for reference sake, but find that there are so many problems with them; an example being the removal of the word "yet" in John 7 which sugests that Jesus lied to His brothers.  Also "being saved" in 1st Corinthians 1 v 18 suggests salvation by works, with no assurance that we are actually saved.

Edited March 13, 2017 by The real Bob Hutton

[Ukulelemike]

Unfortunately, those of the reformed mindset will try to use this to say that it upholds their view, ie, Jesus did it, we didn't even have to accept, He just did it and saved us before we knew we were saved.

I've been going around and around with a Calvinist fellow on Facebook. He quoted the verse that says that none can come to Jesus except the Father draw them. Boom, in their mind, only certain men are drawn, so only those will be saved. So I countered that Jesus said if he is lifted up (on the cross) he will draw ALL men unto Himself. So, Boom, ALL men are drawn. SO from my understanding if ALL men are drawn, BUT not ALL are born again, that means that some must reject the drawing. He countered, "That's not in the scripture, you're adding to the word of God", I told him, 'No, it isn't directly, but if as you say only those who are drawn can be saved, and Jesus draws ALL, yet all aren't saved, some must reject being drawn'. No, again, I am adding to scripture. 

I mentioned Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Clearly Jesus is saying that it was His will to gather them to Himself, but they would not. If this isn't man's will, vs God's will, I don't know what is. No answer to that yet, however. He still wants to fight over the drawing issue.

Sorry, got a bit off track.

[Bob from England]

3 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Unfortunately, those of the reformed mindset will try to use this to say that it upholds their view, ie, Jesus did it, we didn't even have to accept, He just did it and saved us before we knew we were saved.

I've been going around and around with a Calvinist fellow on Facebook. He quoted the verse that says that none can come to Jesus except the Father draw them. Boom, in their mind, only certain men are drawn, so only those will be saved. So I countered that Jesus said if he is lifted up (on the cross) he will draw ALL men unto Himself. So, Boom, ALL men are drawn. SO from my understanding if ALL men are drawn, BUT not ALL are born again, that means that some must reject the drawing. He countered, "That's not in the scripture, you're adding to the word of God", I told him, 'No, it isn't directly, but if as you say only those who are drawn can be saved, and Jesus draws ALL, yet all aren't saved, some must reject being drawn'. No, again, I am adding to scripture. 

I mentioned Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Clearly Jesus is saying that it was His will to gather them to Himself, but they would not. If this isn't man's will, vs God's will, I don't know what is. No answer to that yet, however. He still wants to fight over the drawing issue.

Sorry, got a bit off track.

You want to try Acts 7 v 51 where Stephen chides the Sanhedrin for resisting the Holy Spirit. 

[1Timothy115]

Many of the MVs leave out blood, sin, or Christ's alone redemptive power as in your example. I don't use them, I don't even refer to them for 'greater understanding' as some might say. I can usually find at least a verse or two in the MVs which I recognize from my 1769 KJV and even show someone from them how to be saved but, I have my KJV and that is all I need for "...inspiration of God, ...doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" that I may be "...perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy 3:16-17

I would not recommend another version but, I will not argue MVs with a babe in Christ.

Disclaimer: on the "perfect" from verse 17...God is still working on me.

[Ukulelemike]

2 hours ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

You want to try Acts 7 v 51 where Stephen chides the Sanhedrin for resisting the Holy Spirit. 

I suspect they will 'resist' it. They are still busy explaining why 'all' doesn't mean 'all'.  Of course, there are times when 'all' has a smaller reference to it, but the context cleans that up. But when Jesus said "I will draw all men unto me" there is not context to assume it means anything BUT 'all'.

However, I have little doubt I am smacking my head on a wall.

 

[Invicta]

7 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Unfortunately, those of the reformed mindset will try to use this to say that it upholds their view, ie, Jesus did it, we didn't even have to accept, He just did it and saved us before we knew we were saved.

I don't think the scripture says we have to accept, but that we have to repent and we have to believe.

[fastjav390]

13 hours ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

In my Quiet Time this morning I read Hebrews chapter 1.  In verse 3 we read that Christ purged our sins "By Himself".

These words are important as they teach that Christ purged away our sins without any help from us.  We did not contribute anything in the way of good works or religious observances.

However, the modern versions have removed these words and so, by implication, have downgraded one of the chief evidences in the Bible that salvation is a totally free gift.

To be fair, the NKJV does keep these words in; but even then, they append a footnote that calls them into question.

I would be interested to know what others think about this point.

Because the modern versions which are partly based on the Vaticanus want to leave it open for Mary, the Pope and the local priest taking part in a man's purging of sins also.

[Invicta]

24 minutes ago, fastjav390 said:

Because the modern versions which are partly based on the Vaticanus want to leave it open for Mary, the Pope and the local priest taking part in a man's purging of sins also.

Not sure what that has to do with it.

[Alan]

"... by himself ..." Wonderful words from a Wonderful Saviour!

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6

The Lord Jesus, by himself, after all of us have gone astray in our sins; the LORD God in heaven, laid our sins on the Lamb of God that took away our sins. "... Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29 Why? Because He loved us.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Alan
spelling deleted doubled word

[Bob from England]

14 hours ago, fastjav390 said:

Because the modern versions which are partly based on the Vaticanus want to leave it open for Mary, the Pope and the local priest taking part in a man's purging of sins also.

As a former RC I can see how MVs can be acceptable to the Roman "church".  I'm sure that God, in His mercy, can use an MV to lead someone to Him, but, when it comes to sound, serious study the KJV is far and away the best.

Moreover, it is the only version that's been used at times of revival in the English speaking world.  Could it be that the reason we haven't seen recent revivals, in the English speaking countries, is because we have undermined God's word by casting aside the KJV?  Just a thought.