You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
5
el_hoovy on scored.co
1 year ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)3 children
really interesting! i looked up a "literal translation" on some site that looked like it was going to ask me for money to buy it (turned out free, thankfully) and even that lacked the extended version!
it took going to the interlinear Greek Bible to [find that it was in fact there](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/proverbs/18.htm). that's really strange. why edit this out of so many translations, but not things way more contentious for the jews?
honestly, it strikes me as some honest mistake way in the past that's just kept going. still, interesting.
1 year ago2 points(+0/-1/+3Score on mirror)2 children
> That's really strange. why edit this out of so many translations, but not things way more contentious for the jews?
I only found out in a discussion about "anullment vs divorce" ([post](https://padreperegrino.org/2025/04/annulment-correction-post/)). Basically, the redpill is that originally (pre Vatican II), divorce was not permitted, under any circumstances except "porneia", which doesn't mean "infidelity", but "incest".
So, if a partner cheats (or makes life unbearable, refuses sex, becomes a spiritual or physical harm to children), you are permitted to "separate", but not to remarry or "annull" or divorce.
What feminists want is push people towards to a false dichotomy:
- "You can never do anything, just pray": Means, you just have to stick with the abusive wife and can't do anything about it, reduces the attractiveness of marriage
- "You can always divorce": Reduces the sanctity of marriage
The true part is: you cannot divorce and remarry, but you can petition an ban on sacraments from the bishop (so that the person in question comes back) and you can separate yourself physically. On the other hand, the "annulments" or quasi-divorces are not valid according to Matthew 19:9, as Jesus didn't mean "infidelity". So if you pick the wrong wife - tough call, you only get to pick once, watch out who you marry. However, you also have the right to separate from your wife and get your wife banned from the sacraments as a disciplinary measure.
[Lots of redpills here, on how women can be kept in check, even without divorce.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHpZxuoRfY) - as a note, I'm not married, but I just saw this post today
Those have also been removed in many (((masoretic text))) based translations, generally stuff referring to the Church of the OT being the same as the NT Church and prophecies of Christ have been altered.
IIRC the things Jesus said about divorce roughly meant in context "if you separate from your wife give her a bill of divorcement so she can remarry rather than have to choose between starvation and adultery."
Of course Jesus also said divorce is not good, but at least follow the law Moses gave.
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
Weird. It's one of the reasons why I've been enjoying reading the ESV on Bible Gateway, because many of the notes quote what other manuscripts say in a specific section. However, there's no note here. I verified that the original Greek does have the missing section. I may have to go back to reading the DRA.
The DRB moves around some of the original greek because its based on the vulgate, but outside of one part of Job (which may have just been moved to the middle from the end), It seems it keeps most of the context.
It wasn't, St. Paul himself warned us that Judaization would occur and to be on guard against it, unfortunately Protestantism was Judaized hard in its inception, and the Goyest Generation allowed (((Them))) to ransack the Church in Vatican II.
it took going to the interlinear Greek Bible to [find that it was in fact there](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/proverbs/18.htm). that's really strange. why edit this out of so many translations, but not things way more contentious for the jews?
honestly, it strikes me as some honest mistake way in the past that's just kept going. still, interesting.
I only found out in a discussion about "anullment vs divorce" ([post](https://padreperegrino.org/2025/04/annulment-correction-post/)). Basically, the redpill is that originally (pre Vatican II), divorce was not permitted, under any circumstances except "porneia", which doesn't mean "infidelity", but "incest".
So, if a partner cheats (or makes life unbearable, refuses sex, becomes a spiritual or physical harm to children), you are permitted to "separate", but not to remarry or "annull" or divorce.
What feminists want is push people towards to a false dichotomy:
- "You can never do anything, just pray": Means, you just have to stick with the abusive wife and can't do anything about it, reduces the attractiveness of marriage
- "You can always divorce": Reduces the sanctity of marriage
The true part is: you cannot divorce and remarry, but you can petition an ban on sacraments from the bishop (so that the person in question comes back) and you can separate yourself physically. On the other hand, the "annulments" or quasi-divorces are not valid according to Matthew 19:9, as Jesus didn't mean "infidelity". So if you pick the wrong wife - tough call, you only get to pick once, watch out who you marry. However, you also have the right to separate from your wife and get your wife banned from the sacraments as a disciplinary measure.
[Lots of redpills here, on how women can be kept in check, even without divorce.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHpZxuoRfY) - as a note, I'm not married, but I just saw this post today
Those have also been removed in many (((masoretic text))) based translations, generally stuff referring to the Church of the OT being the same as the NT Church and prophecies of Christ have been altered.
Of course Jesus also said divorce is not good, but at least follow the law Moses gave.
It wasn't, St. Paul himself warned us that Judaization would occur and to be on guard against it, unfortunately Protestantism was Judaized hard in its inception, and the Goyest Generation allowed (((Them))) to ransack the Church in Vatican II.