- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bibles After 1960 Withheld Best Weapon Against Satan
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
crap translation
It's not a crap translation. None of the essentially literal translations are crap translations, they're just based on different manuscripts.
Now the thought-for-thought translations, on the other hand, can get very questionable.
0
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:44 am to GumboPot
Early manuscripts had "and fasting" both omitted and included. Scholars differ on which version is the earliest (i.e., was it deleted because of scrivener error or because it suggested Jesus' power over demons required fasting, or was it added later because the early church started putting a greater emphasis on fasting).
This isn't a 20th century issue.
This isn't a 20th century issue.
This post was edited on 11/30/22 at 9:45 am
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:47 am to GumboPot
douay-rheims ftw.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Most modern Bible translations ignore the King James translation because it IS so VERY bad a translation, and go all the way back to translate directly from Koine.
i am pretty sure all versions go back to the Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew manuscripts....i think the variables are just that on how they translate those first writings.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:49 am to GumboPot
quote:
Bibles After 1960 Withheld Best Weapon Against Satan
Trans people?
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:50 am to Honest Tune
Mate your testosterone and hgh must have been through the roof 
Posted on 11/30/22 at 9:52 am to SirWinston
quote:
Mate your testosterone and hgh must have been through the roof
See, Jesus knew the benefits of fasting before it was cool.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:01 am to Stan Switek
quote:
Early manuscripts had "and fasting" both omitted and included. Scholars differ on which version is the earliest (i.e., was it deleted because of scrivener error or because it suggested Jesus' power over demons required fasting, or was it added later because the early church started putting a greater emphasis on fasting).
This isn't a 20th century issue.
I looked at this passage in my ESV Bible. It had a footnote at the end that said, "Some manuscripts add 'and fasting.'" There's nothing inherently wrong with the ESV translation.
Also, for all of the KJV purists out there, didn't it add a phrase to the end of Jesus' model prayer?
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:11 am to GumboPot
I haven't read through the responses, so it may have already been mentioned that (and this is a hazy memory from my rather expensive Parochial education) dpending on the translators' POV, fasting could've been considered an integral part of prayer, and omitted due to assumed redundancy.
I'm not championing this take, just adding it as a possible explanation. The idea that fasting was omitted to intentionally weaken prayer "power" is hard to imagine, tho admittedly it cannot be ruled out.
I'm not championing this take, just adding it as a possible explanation. The idea that fasting was omitted to intentionally weaken prayer "power" is hard to imagine, tho admittedly it cannot be ruled out.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:13 am to Honest Tune
How did you feel at the end? Did you only consume water, or did you consume other liquids, like fruit juices or broth? I need to do that (not sure about 28 days, though). Really interested in your experience.
I have friends who fast regularly and say it's great physically but more importantly helps their spiritual practice.
I have friends who fast regularly and say it's great physically but more importantly helps their spiritual practice.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:15 am to GumboPot
quote:
See, Jesus knew the benefits of fasting before it was cool.
Was also the first person to crossfit
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:18 am to GumboPot
I don’t really understand what fasting is for. Like what is the point?
I became an angry mean son of a bitch when I’m hungry
I became an angry mean son of a bitch when I’m hungry
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:21 am to Powerman
The usual participants on this topic are the theocratic believers who want a democratic theocracy over the founding father's freedom of and from religion.
See Pence recent remarks on this.
See Pence recent remarks on this.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:23 am to GumboPot
quote:
I'm still curious about the reasoning to take out "fasting" in the latest editions of the bible.
Have you seen the average Walmart shopper lately? It’s the same reason 99% of preachers never preach against gluttony with the same vigor as other vices.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:25 am to deltaland
quote:
I became an angry mean son of a bitch when I’m hungry
Now use that energy to MAGA.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:28 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Have you seen the average Walmart shopper lately?
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:33 am to GumboPot
And long before that the only people who could even read were royalty and the church. Im sure they were totally honest about the word with the people and nothing has been re written whatsoever.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:35 am to GumboPot
excuse: translation
truth: to keep you sick/population control
truth: to keep you sick/population control
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:38 am to GumboPot
quote:
Bibles After 1960
Interestingly coincides with Vatican II, when the Catholic Church really laxed a lot of their prior fasting strictures.
I guess all that history was just based on bad translations.
Posted on 11/30/22 at 10:41 am to Roaad
quote:
KJV is only of note for being the 1st english translation. Which was a HUGE deal, and a clear defenestration of the Catholic church in England.
Technically, the Duoay-Rheims predates it, being first published in 1582 and completed in 1609 vs King James version in 1611.
Interesting article on debate between Duoey-Rheims & King James Version:
catholic culture website
Cliff notes:
- Duoay-Rheims was 1st (1582-1609), was based mostly on Jerome's Latin Vulgate bible that I think was the formal Catholic bible, and has a Catholic bent. (this is an broad summary of a quick read of the link so may not be perfectly accurate... Feel free to correct me)
- King James version (1611) also went to Latin Vulgate version, and maybe the Koine Greek (I can't recall w/out re-reading), but also specifically leaned on the Douay (openly/publicly rejecting some points while embracing others). The KJV takes a protestant bent.
- Bishop Challoner revised the Douay-Rheims as we generally see it (1749-1752) using Vulgate & Greek... and leaned on the KJV at times.
In short, both versions significantly influence one another.
It seems the "onlyist" position (as in: only this version is legitimate) stems from the pissing match between catholics & protestants. There were Douay-Rheims onlyists who insisted it was more legitimate due to adhering to approved catholic sources. Protestants upheld the KJV as superior.
It isn't explained in detail in the article, but it's obvious that the original premise of asserting KJV as superior (for Protestants) devolved over time the way certain issues on this board become zealously binary so that some protestant sects proclaim KJV is the one bonafide, inspired version in existence & are completely unwilling to consider merits of others translations.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News