Arthur, allow me to reply here instead of using email.
Perhaps the reason is that most English versions base their translations on Greek manuscripts, ignoring or placing lesser value to other manuscripts and the internal evidence. However, based on existing manuscripts (Greek and otherwise) and on the internal evidence, it is highly unlikely that God is said to have purchased the Church with his own blood. In other words, it is highly unlikely that the Greek corresponding to "Church of God which he purchased with his own blood" came first.
Arthur, allow me to reply
Arthur, allow me to reply here instead of using email.
Perhaps the reason is that most English versions base their translations on Greek manuscripts, ignoring or placing lesser value to other manuscripts and the internal evidence. However, based on existing manuscripts (Greek and otherwise) and on the internal evidence, it is highly unlikely that God is said to have purchased the Church with his own blood. In other words, it is highly unlikely that the Greek corresponding to "Church of God which he purchased with his own blood" came first.