Consume Product

> 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

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.

>honestly, it strikes me as some honest mistake

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.

FWIW, from AI. It was before the Schofield translation so it may be worth getting a copy. I found the DRA version on the Bible app but you need to search for "Douay".

DRA Bible
The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) is a pivotal translation in the history of English Catholicism, serving as a cornerstone for the Catholic faith in English-speaking countries. It was a response to the Protestant Reformation, aiming to provide English Catholics with a faithful rendering of the Scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. The original Douay-Rheims Bible was a collaborative effort by English Catholic exiles in Douai, France, and Reims, France. The New Testament was published in 1582, followed by the Old Testament in 1609. The 1899 American Edition was a revision and adaptation of the original Douay-Rheims, incorporating textual refinements and updates while preserving the core character of the original translation.

This translation was revised by Bishop Richard Challoner in the 18th century, who made significant changes to the text to make it more accessible to English-speaking Catholics. Challoner's revisions included eliminating archaic words and English Latinisms, and he also drastically reduced the extensive notes and commentary of the original 1582/1610 version, resulting in a more compact one-volume edition.

The Douay-Rheims Bible remains one of the standard English Bible translations for Roman Catholics around the world, though it is less commonly used in liturgy compared to newer translations like the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible Revised Edition, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, and New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.