Bleeding from every pore

[Northwestcoug]

putting aside the every pore stuff from the BOM and D&C for a minute, what does the text from Luke mean? His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood. "As it were"? What does that mean there? Is that an effort to say that the writer realizes it really wasn't blood, but that it was a really heavy sweat, or was he trying to emphasize just how hard the task that was being observed (the atonement) really was to Christ? Can one of you Greek speakers explain if the translation giving us "as it were" might have some sort of meaning or offer some insight into the following clause?

Also, I find it sort of amusing that this thread acts as though the fact that the drops of blood verses were likely added long after the original text means they aren't accurate or have less legitimacy. Heck, Luke wasn't even there. In fact, he doesnt even claim to have been there. The gospel wasnt even written at all for decades after Christ's death. So if the whole thing is essentially inspired text (which it must be if you believe it) why couldnt there be some inspired augmentation later on? Maybe it's just me.

Inspired augmentation. I love it! In fact, I wish I would have come up with that term when I was trying to figure out who the scribes were who were furiously dictating all those long discourses and conversations in the BOM.

[Jeff Lebowski]

putting aside the every pore stuff from the BOM and D&C for a minute, what does the text from Luke mean? His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood. "As it were"? What does that mean there? Is that an effort to say that the writer realizes it really wasn't blood, but that it was a really heavy sweat, or was he trying to emphasize just how hard the task that was being observed (the atonement) really was to Christ? Can one of you Greek speakers explain if the translation giving us "as it were" might have some sort of meaning or offer some insight into the following clause?

Also, I find it sort of amusing that this thread acts as though the fact that the drops of blood verses were likely added long after the original text means they aren't accurate or have less legitimacy. Heck, Luke wasn't even there. In fact, he doesnt even claim to have been there. The gospel wasnt even written at all for decades after Christ's death. So if the whole thing is essentially inspired text (which it must be if you believe it) why couldnt there be some inspired augmentation later on? Maybe it's just me.

That wasn't my point at all.

[Sullyute]

Inspired augmentation. I love it!

I think Goatnapper does too!

[MartyFunkhouser]

So would bleeding great drops from every pore be so impossible that it would be considered a miracle if it actually happened?

Look we need our miracles grounded in reality. Dying, ascending to heaven, and 3 days later rising from the dead, that just makes scientific sense.

Bleeding great drops from every pore, that is scientific nonsense. Complete nonsense.

[Goatnapper'96]

Inspired augmentation. I love it! In fact, I wish I would have come up with that term when I was trying to figure out who the scribes were who were furiously dictating all those long discourses and conversations in the BOM.

I believe all augmentation is inspired. Let it written, let it be done!

[creekster]

That wasn't my point at all.

I didnt say it was. But, rather than play coy, why don't you just state your point rather than feign confused indifference?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I didnt say it was. But, rather than play coy, why don't you just state your point rather than feign confused indifference?

Good grief. Really? Do you have to take offense at everything?

This is all I said:

BTW, that line is not found in any of the earliest NT manuscripts. It was added later.

There was a section devoted to this passage in Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". It just happens to be one of the more well-known cases in the NT of scribes modifying the text later. I have no idea why it was changed, nor do I claim to know what the significance is. Just thought it was an interesting point given that we have a thread dedicated to the story.

In general, I suspect that scribal additions are nothing more than the merging of various oral histories. The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was also a late addition. I am happy it was added as it is one of my favorite stories.

[old_gregg]

putting aside the every pore stuff from the BOM and D&C for a minute, what does the text from Luke mean? His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood. "As it were"? What does that mean there? Is that an effort to say that the writer realizes it really wasn't blood, but that it was a really heavy sweat, or was he trying to emphasize just how hard the task that was being observed (the atonement) really was to Christ? Can one of you Greek speakers explain if the translation giving us "as it were" might have some sort of meaning or offer some insight into the following clause?

Also, I find it sort of amusing that this thread acts as though the fact that the drops of blood verses were likely added long after the original text means they aren't accurate or have less legitimacy. Heck, Luke wasn't even there. In fact, he doesnt even claim to have been there. The gospel wasnt even written at all for decades after Christ's death. So if the whole thing is essentially inspired text (which it must be if you believe it) why couldnt there be some inspired augmentation later on? Maybe it's just me.

except, this is basically how i feel about the lds canon in its entirety

[Sleeping in EQ]

Look we need our miracles grounded in reality. Dying, ascending to heaven, and 3 days later rising from the dead, that just makes scientific sense.

Bleeding great drops from every pore, that is scientific nonsense. Complete nonsense.

I like my miracles grounded in mythology!

[creekster]

Good grief. Really? Do you have to take offense at everything?

This is all I said:



There was a section devoted to this passage in Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". It just happens to be one of the more well-known cases in the NT of scribes modifying the text later. I have no idea why it was changed, nor do I claim to know what the significance is. Just thought it was an interesting point given that we have a thread dedicated to the story.

In general, I suspect that scribal additions are nothing more than the merging of various oral histories. The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was also a late addition. I am happy it was added as it is one of my favorite stories.

I wasn't offended. But I think the discussion is advanced more readily and productively if you simply state your point rather then deny it has been accurately described.

I read Ehrman's book. and it was an interesting point.

[creekster]

except, this is basically how i feel about the lds canon in its entirety

I think a fairly persuasive argument can be made for this. Sooner or later it all goes back to inspiration.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wasn't offended. But I think the discussion is advanced more readily and productively if you simply state your point rather then deny it has been accurately described.

Yes, and I think the discussion is advanced more readily if you don't assume negative motives where there are none, and if you avoid the snarky responses.

I did state my point very simply. I said that by bringing up the fact that it was a latter revision I was not implying that it has less legitimacy.

[creekster]

Yes, and I think the discussion is advanced more readily if you don't assume negative motives where there are none, and if you avoid the snarky responses.

I did state my point very simply. I said that by bringing up the fact that it was a latter revision I was not implying that it has less legitimacy.

Hmmm. I don't think I assumed anything and I don't think you were the only one making that comment. But if you were, and if I got it wrong and misread the implication then please allow me to beg forgivenenss. We all deserve to have our points read properly.

I love the Luke verses about the sweat, as it were, great drops of blood. But do you (or anyone) know what the phrase "as it were" is supposed to mean? I don't recall Ehrman talking about that. Do you?

btw, I'll agree to avoid snarky if you do; deal?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hmmm. I don't think I assumed anything and I don't think you were the only one making that comment. But if you were, and if I got it wrong and misread the implication then please allow me to beg forgivenenss. We all deserve to have our points read properly.

I love the Luke verses about the sweat, as it were, great drops of blood. But do you (or anyone) know what the phrase "as it were" is supposed to mean? I don't recall Ehrman talking about that. Do you?

btw, I'll agree to avoid snarky if you do; deal?

No, I don't recall.

[Eddie]

putting aside the every pore stuff from the BOM and D&C for a minute, what does the text from Luke mean? His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood. "As it were"? What does that mean there? Is that an effort to say that the writer realizes it really wasn't blood, but that it was a really heavy sweat, or was he trying to emphasize just how hard the task that was being observed (the atonement) really was to Christ? Can one of you Greek speakers explain if the translation giving us "as it were" might have some sort of meaning or offer some insight into the following clause?

Also, I find it sort of amusing that this thread acts as though the fact that the drops of blood verses were likely added long after the original text means they aren't accurate or have less legitimacy. Heck, Luke wasn't even there. In fact, he doesnt even claim to have been there. The gospel wasnt even written at all for decades after Christ's death. So if the whole thing is essentially inspired text (which it must be if you believe it) why couldnt there be some inspired augmentation later on? Maybe it's just me.

We need a ruling on whether or not that is a portion of the Bible that was translated correctly. What does the JST say?

There was a section devoted to this passage in Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"....

Wait a minute - if he's going to talk about stuff added to Luke that aren't even quotes attributed to Jesus, then doesn't he need to write a new book titled "Misquoting Luke"?

tic