MennoNet.com

Hats Off wrote:That is how we would teach on this verse (although it does not happen very often.) We are too conservative (prude, cautious, whatever) to talk frankly about this in a church service where young and old, married and single, are all present. Some of the modern versions of the Bible are too different for me - I want something fairly traditional - so I would never compare all the different translations for wording.

That's understandable, the way Paul puts it, young ears wouldn't really understand unless he elaborated on it- but it was an epistle so.......

The ESV translation actually skips verse 21- it's numbering goes 18, 19, 20, 22 ,23 etc-

It really does seem to mix up Christianity to use all these different translations- we arrive at different conclusions on things simply because translations take liberties or this manuscript versus that manuscript.

Valerie wrote:It really does seem to mix up Christianity to use all these different translations- we arrive at different conclusions on things simply because translations take liberties or this manuscript versus that manuscript.

It's quite rare for translations, especially formal-equivalent translations like ESV and NASB, to "take liberties"; that's not what's happening in this passage. It would be quite libertarian for them to add "fasting" if it's not in the text they are working from (though a footnote indicating a difference between manuscript traditions, as NET does, can be appropriate).

Sure, it would be nice to have a single manuscript that everyone agrees is the One True Text, or better yet the originals. But that is not the case, so we have to use the best information we have. And of course it's more productive to focus on the things that are indisputable (such as, the scriptures contain no requirement for fasting prior to baptism) than to bemoan the differences.

ohio jones wrote:

Valerie wrote:It really does seem to mix up Christianity to use all these different translations- we arrive at different conclusions on things simply because translations take liberties or this manuscript versus that manuscript.

It's quite rare for translations, especially formal-equivalent translations like ESV and NASB, to "take liberties"; that's not what's happening in this passage. It would be quite libertarian for them to add "fasting" if it's not in the text they are working from (though a footnote indicating a difference between manuscript traditions, as NET does, can be appropriate).

Sure, it would be nice to have a single manuscript that everyone agrees is the One True Text, or better yet the originals. But that is not the case, so we have to use the best information we have. And of course it's more productive to focus on the things that are indisputable (such as, the scriptures contain no requirement for fasting prior to baptism) than to bemoan the differences.

I think there is a difference between traditions and actually taking verses (and books) out of the Bible though- i know every church has its own ways of doing baptism which differ from each other, same with communion- different "traditions" in Ordnung (rules in addition to Bible) but changing meanings & leaving obut actual scriptures is not the same imo- Scripture itself claims "oral" traditions not written, for churches to follow but changing passages- well if one wants to pick what suits their preference okay

Hats Off wrote:That is how we would teach on this verse (although it does not happen very often.) We are too conservative (prude, cautious, whatever) to talk frankly about this in a church service where young and old, married and single, are all present. Some of the modern versions of the Bible are too different for me - I want something fairly traditional - so I would never compare all the different translations for wording.

One of the commentaries in that biblehub link says the oldest manuscripts omit 'fasting and'. I guess if we want most original it would be one omitting fasting regardless of traditional. I think we know more about the oldest manuscripts than they did in the KJV translating days. I wonder why the NKJV stuck with the added fasting ?

And, another topic, for those who believe the warning in Revelation about adding things to the book also applies to the rest of scripture, how do you explain this add on in translating the oldest manuscripts ?

We just read and accept the Bible - we don't get into arguments about which is oldest and most valid. If we start questioning, where do we stop? What are we to believe? And I would ask Valerie again - what books have we dropped from the Bible?

Sudsy wrote: And, another topic, for those who believe the warning in Revelation about adding things to the book also applies to the rest of scripture, how do you explain this add on in translating the oldest manuscripts ?

The fact that a particular manuscript is older does not necessarily mean that it is more accurate. It is possible that the older manuscript was inaccurate in having dropped some words.
Probably none of us will ever know for sure (this side of eternity) which manuscripts are most accurate.

ken_sylvania wrote:

Sudsy wrote: And, another topic, for those who believe the warning in Revelation about adding things to the book also applies to the rest of scripture, how do you explain this add on in translating the oldest manuscripts ?

The fact that a particular manuscript is older does not necessarily mean that it is more accurate. It is possible that the older manuscript was inaccurate in having dropped some words.
Probably none of us will ever know for sure (this side of eternity) which manuscripts are most accurate.

What is interesting to me is when a Christian practise is based on one of these texts thought by many to be interpolations. In this case of 1 Cor 7:5 the requirement that married couples live apart during Lent was grounded on what many scholars view as an interpolation. And women keeping silent in the church is another one. Without some knowledge on where manuscripts do differ, one can just take the version they hold in their hand or prefer best and believe it to be the inerrant word of God and build their practise on it.

Anyway, as has been pointed out 'the scriptures contain no requirement for fasting prior to baptism' and I think the vast majority of Christians were baptised without first fasting as the Didache says they should.

Sudsy wrote:I wonder why the NKJV stuck with the added fasting ?

NKJV used the same (Byzantine) text family as KJV, in contrast to the Alexandrian text that many other translations are based on. That's why it's called New King James and not New Not King James.

Hats Off wrote:We just read and accept the Bible - we don't get into arguments about which is oldest and most valid. If we start questioning, where do we stop? What are we to believe? And I would ask Valerie again - what books have we dropped from the Bible?

These would be Old Testament books- that the Protestants took out- I am not sure what the Mennonites use-
For us, we are more comfortable (now) with the Septuagint- and there are quite a few books in it, that were dropped from the Protestant Bible, not sure at what point, not sure if that was Martin Luther's doing or what-

Last year, I appreciated an article written in a publication called "The Vendor". This is a publication put out weekly by an Amish man, and I love it (even send it to my mom in CA, who enjoys it). This Amish man did a 2 part article on his defense of these books in the OT, that the Protestants took out. I admit it took me by surprise but his articles were very good about it!
So there are apparently Anabaptists who do defend these OT books that were taken out later-
In my own Septuagint Orthodox Study Bible, it has a page listing the Protestant books, the EO books, and the Roman Catholic Books-

We all have our own opinions on these things, I realize.

Sudsy wrote:

ken_sylvania wrote:

Sudsy wrote: And, another topic, for those who believe the warning in Revelation about adding things to the book also applies to the rest of scripture, how do you explain this add on in translating the oldest manuscripts ?

The fact that a particular manuscript is older does not necessarily mean that it is more accurate. It is possible that the older manuscript was inaccurate in having dropped some words.
Probably none of us will ever know for sure (this side of eternity) which manuscripts are most accurate.

What is interesting to me is when a Christian practise is based on one of these texts thought by many to be interpolations. In this case of 1 Cor 7:5 the requirement that married couples live apart during Lent was grounded on what many scholars view as an interpolation. And women keeping silent in the church is another one. Without some knowledge on where manuscripts do differ, one can just take the version they hold in their hand or prefer best and believe it to be the inerrant word of God and build their practise on it.

Anyway, as has been pointed out 'the scriptures contain no requirement for fasting prior to baptism' and I think the vast majority of Christians were baptised without first fasting as the Didache says they should.

Perhaps the Church at that time the Didache was written was recognizing the need to fast prior to Chrismation, where they are anointed with oil to receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was deposited into the Church to guide Her, not a text book and again you are assuming they were writing everything down step by step. This assumption is what has led to myriads of understandings, practices, ordinances etc, based on Sola Scriptura but the Scripture never taught Sola Scriptura- they had the Living Word, and Holy Spirit, guiding them- to assume fasting prior to baptism is not a 'good' thing is to not really understand fasting it seems. If our Lord thought it necessary to fast 40 days, I'm not sure why we criticize it. Where was it 'written' for Him to do this? But again, He is the one who pointed out his disciples were unable to heal the young man because of their 1) unbelief & 2) "this kind" cannot come out but by prayer & fasting. He understands fasting, more than we do.