The "Our Father" prayer cut short!

[Love"n"Christ]

Hello all, I have a question: My wife is Catholic, although she goes to my Christian church rather than her Catholic church. But this Sunday we went to her chuch because her family was remembering her mother that passed three years ago. Well during mass when the priest was reciting the "Our Father" prayer they cut it short! It ended at:

"...lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil....."

That's it! That's where it ended....why is this? Why don't they say the whole thing? My wife didn't know, so I'm really curious.

Thanks!

[Patty T]

Originally posted by Love"n"Christ
Hello all, I have a question: My wife is Catholic, although she goes to my Christian church rather than her Catholic church. But this Sunday we went to her chuch because her family was remembering her mother that passed three years ago. Well during mass when the priest was reciting the "Our Father" prayer they cut it short! It ended at:

"...lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil....."

That's it! That's where it ended....why is this? Why don't they say the whole thing? My wife didn't know, so I'm really curious.

Thanks!

I checked four different translations. The King James, Amplified and New American Standard all have the following:

For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen.

The New International stops at "but deliver us from the evil one."

I'm not sure if that helps or not. I'm not catholic anymore, so I can't really guess as to why they stopped where they did :confused


Patty

[Child-Of-God]

Yes this is what i kept doing when i first started my secondary school, They are catholic and the first time we said it i kept oing, and everybody started laughing at me, Becuase i said "for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory amen". And they all stopped on "deliver us from evil", That was it all they said!

[KrispyKritter]

Maybe the Catholics cut that part out because if we stopped doing evil then the confessional booth would have to be removed... cant have that!

As far as the NIV stopping before the end of the prayer... no big surprise there. snip snip... cut cut...

[BHiles]

Where do you think the NIV translators got the text for the NIV?:nod :nod

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by BHiles
Where do you think the NIV translators got the text for the NIV?:nod :nod

Oooo... wanting to open up a can of worms, eh B?

My brain tells me they got the text from those manuscripts that are hidden away in the.... Vatican!

Oh no... here come the flames! You started it now, son!

[Tungsten]

The Anglican "Book of Common Prayer" contains the Lord's Prayer with and without the doxology at different services. I assume the Catholic services are similar. The reason it occurs in both forms is due to the multiple occurences of the Lord's Prayer in the bible. In my KJV it occurs without "For thine is the kingdom ..." in Luke.

From my KJV

Matthew 6:9-13
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil; For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Luke 11:2-4
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

[S Spade]

At a service I went to, the priest said another prayer between "... from evil" and "for Thine..."

[Jesusong]

The reason why the NIV and probably NASB leave it out is that there is serious questions about the validity of the phrase. The following is a quote from "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"


Some manuscripts end the Lord's Prayer in this fasion:

but rescue us from evil
Aleph, B, D, Z, 0170, f1

Several manuscripts have additional endings. The fifth is the most common:

1. but rescue us from evil. Amen.
one minuscule (17) and one Vulgate manuscript

2. but rescue us from evil, because yours is the power and the glory forever. Amen.
cop (sa) (fay); Didache (which omits "Amen" )

3. but rescue us from evil, because yours is the kingdom and the glory forever. Amen.
syr (c)

4. but rescue us from evil, because yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
it (k), syr (p)

5. but rescue us from evil, because yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
L, W, 0233, f13, 33, syr, M-TR

6. but rescue us from the evil, because yours is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen
one minuscule (1253), Chrysostom

Essential Guide to Bible Versions
Philip W. Comfort Ph. D.
Tyndale Books

What all of this is demonstrating as the years progressed additions were made to the ending of the Lord's Prayer as part of the liturigical setting of the church and these additions made their way into the text of Scripture. This is a common doxology. The oldest manuscripts do not have this doxology. The consensus of the scholars are that Jesus never said these words, and that Matthew didn't write these either. Now, is it wrong to recite this verse at the end of the Lord's prayer? No. The danger is declaring something to be "inspired by God," or "God breathed" when evidence shows the contrary.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Jesusong
The oldest manuscripts do not have this doxology. The consensus of the scholars are that Jesus never said these words, and that Matthew didn't write these either. Now, is it wrong to recite this verse at the end of the Lord's prayer? No. The danger is declaring something to be "inspired by God," or "God breathed" when evidence shows the contrary.

Then the question comes into play... what are the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts?

Sinaticus and Vaticanus are considered by most Bible scholars to be the oldest New Testament manuscripts available. They date back to the 4th centrry. Since they are considered to be the oldest manuscripts known, many scholars automatically consider them to be the best and most reliable manuscripts. For example, in the NIV (1978 ed.) just after Matt 16:8 we find this text "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." And what are these two most reliable manuscripts that they are talking about? The Schofeild Bible's (1998 ed) footnote for this passage gives us the answer: "Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient mss., the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. . ." They are claimed to be very relieble, but are they?

Sinaticus and Vaticanus disagree with about 90-95% of all known manuscripts, and they even disagree among themselves. Both have a long history of corruption and obscurity.

The Vaticanus is so named because it is contained in the Vatican library; it is the sole property of the Vatican. It was discovered on a shelf there in 1481, where it had been forgotten for centuries! It is closely guarded by the Catholic church, and only certain individuals are allowed to see it. When a scholar is allowed to read it, they are watched carefully, and if the guard thinks that they have looked at a certain passage for too long or too closely, they will force the scholar to leave the manuscript. The Vatican has released a photographic copy of Vaticanus, but even this is suspect because they may have altered the text in the copy.

Sinaticus is so named because it was found in 1844 at St. Catherine's Monastery. located at the base of Mt. Sinai. It was found in a trash can, waiting to be burned! The monks knew that it was worthless, especially since it had been written over and corrected several times after it had been initially written.

Sinaticus and Vaticanus disagree with each other at 3000+ times in the Gospels alone. It is estimated that the two manuscripts disagree with each other at least 7000 times. These are major dissagreements, not spelling or puntuation. Such disagreements mean that at least one, if not both, are in error at that specific passage.

Vaticanus omits:
a.) Everything from Genesis 1:1 to 46:28.
b.) Psalms 106-139
c.) All of First Timothy
d.) All of second Timothy
e.) All Titus
f.) All of Revelation
g.) All of Hebrews after Chapter 9:14 to the end of the book
h.) Our Lord's agony and blood like sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22:43-44
i.) Our Lord's prayer for his adversaries. Luke 23:34 "Father forgive them; for they know not what they do."
j.) Mark 16:9-20. There is a significant blank space in the manuscript where this passage would have gone, testifying for it's inclusion in the Bible.
k.) The story of the women taken in adultery John 7:53 - John 8:11"
l.) Heb 9:15 to the end of the book.
m.) 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13


Vaticanus adds the Apocrypha to the OT.


Sinaticus omits:
a.) John 5:4, 8:1-11
b.) Matthew 16:2-3
c.) Romans 16:24
d.) Mark 16:9-20 Again, there is a significant blank space where these verses should have gone.
e.) Acts 8:37
f.) 1 John 5:7


Sinaticus adds: The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the NT and the Apocypha to the OT.

Sinaticus was corrected at least 15,000 times by multiple correctors. Most of these corrections were made in the seventh century, but some of these corrections were made as late as the twelfth century. (Sure sounds like the "oldest" reading, doesn't it?) The writing quality is very poor; many times words or whole phrases are repeated in succession. The original writing is completely written over in parts, and the original writer even corrected some of his mistakes. Vaticanus also shows very sloppy penmanship.

If the scholars really believed that the "oldest" were really the best, they would be forced to admit that the oldest NT manuscript fragment ever found agrees with the Majority Text. As reported in The Times of London (Dec. 24,1994), this fragment was dated at 66 AD, centuries before Vaticanus and Siniaticus were ever written. But they refuse to admit this; thus they contradict their own theory.

The facts show us clearly that Sinaticus and Vaticanus are neither the oldest nor the best NT manuscripts.

And this, my friends, is what the NIV, NASB, NLT, and the other more modern translations is based on.

Am I KJV-Only?? No, I am not. For to be KJV-O it would require me to believe that the KJV is perfect in every way. It is not wholly perfect. But what is is the underlying text of the KJV, and the English translations before it... and that is the Received Text.

Unfortunately so many today dismiss anyone who stands for the Received Text as being KJV-O ... and some have accused those who stand for the Received Text as being cultish.

It is this type of careless, inaccurate, unfair, broad-brushed caricaturization that has darkened the entire debate surrounding the KJV vs. modern versions.

To lump every defender of the King James Bible into one monolithic camp and to pretend that all believe the same thing and march to the same piper's tune in regard to Bible texts and versions is either ignorance or dishonesty. It is one thing to criticize the perceived errors and extremism and peculiarities of some individual personality. That is easy to do inasmuch as every member of the human race is peculiar and prone to mistakes! It is quite another thing to pretend that all defenders of the King James Bible are followers of some man. Many, though, are guilty of doing this very thing. They are caught up with the personalities of the movement and refuse to face the real issues.

Let me also emphasize, because I know from past experience that some will misunderstand and misrepresent my position, that I am not encouraging the variety which exists among King James Bible defenders. I'm simply saying this variety is a reality which must be acknowledged. If I had my way everyone would hold the RIGHT position, which is, of course, MY position! (I say that tongue in cheek, of course. I am not so deceived to think that I am right in everything.)
I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.) I believe that God had His hand upon the KJV in a special way because of the singular role it would play in the transmission of the Word of God during a long and crucial epoch of church history. (This is not to say that I believe it is some sort of "advanced revelation.") In contrast with the modern English versions, I believe that the KJV is based upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by superior translators; it incorporates superior translation techniques; it demonstrates a superior theology; it embodies a superior English; it was created in a superior era; and it has a superior history.

To reject the King James Bible for the modern versions is one's privilege this side of eternity; to claim or imply, on the other hand, that the King James Bible is no longer defensible and is only guarded today by sentimental, tradition-bound obscurantists is to darken the truth.

[Jesusong]

originally posted by KrispyKritter

Sinaticus and Vaticanus are considered by most Bible scholars to be the oldest New Testament manuscripts available. They date back to the 4th centrry. Since they are considered to be the oldest manuscripts known, many scholars automatically consider them to be the best and most reliable manuscripts.

Sinaticus and Vaticanus (Aleph & B respectively) are not the two oldest manuscripts (mss) available today. Theyare the two oldest Codices (manuscripts in book form) in existence today, but, however, there are at least a dozen mss that are 100 to 200 years older than these. And these mss, taken together and weighed against what Aleph & B attest to along with what the rest of the mss evidence shows is that there are alot of added material in the text. Scholars don't "automatically assume" that just because a ms is the oldest means that it is the most reliable.
You haven't addressed the variations in the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer, and how it evolved into what we know it today.
Mark 16:9-20, did you know that there are four different endings to that gospel? Do you know why, scholars have concluded that Mark's gospel ended at verse 8?

There are always two sides to every story, and usually the truth is found somewhere in the middle, never at the extremes.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Jesusong
There are always two sides to every story, and usually the truth is found somewhere in the middle, never at the extremes. That principle needs to be applied to EVERY conflict.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Jesusong
Sinaticus and Vaticanus (Aleph & B respectively) are not the two oldest manuscripts (mss) available today. Theyare the two oldest Codices (manuscripts in book form) in existence today, but, however, there are at least a dozen mss that are 100 to 200 years older than these. And these mss, taken together and weighed against what Aleph & B attest to along with what the rest of the mss evidence shows is that there are alot of added material in the text. Scholars don't "automatically assume" that just because a ms is the oldest means that it is the most reliable.
You haven't addressed the variations in the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer, and how it evolved into what we know it today.
Mark 16:9-20, did you know that there are four different endings to that gospel? Do you know why, scholars have concluded that Mark's gospel ended at verse 8?

There are always two sides to every story, and usually the truth is found somewhere in the middle, never at the extremes.

I wasnt addressing the verse in question, I was responding to the post that called those two manuscripts the "oldest and most reliable". That is a fallicy that can not be left unchallenged. I didnt address the verse in question because I havent studied that part out, thus do not wish to venture a guess at this time.

As for the middle of the road... I believe my stand on the RT is very middle of the road. The extreme would be to say that KJV translaters were "inspired", and KJV is the perfect Word of God in English, and all others (including those based on the RT) are perversions. I didnt say that.

But what I have said about the V & S manuscripts is factual, proovable, and true. And thanx to Wescott & Hort, those are the manuscripts that the Modern Translations are based on. They are flawed, inferior, and grossly perverse.

[Jesusong]

That's your opinion :):

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Jesusong
That's your opinion :):

Yes, it is... and it's your perogative to ignore it.

But what cant be ignored is the facts. I would hope that you would be as a Berean and study this out, if you havent already. Everything we believe and think is our "opinion". But what makes an opinion correct is what it is based on.

What is your's based on? Can you clarify for me why you reject mine? If you can not reject my "opinion" without an honest and factual rebuttal... how do you know for sure that I am wrong? :D:

[Jesusong]

I was a KJVO for 15 years. It wasn't until I decided to check out the claims I've been reading on the arguments against the modern bible translations in stead of just accepting what was being documented. I have found that the arguments against the newer translations & their underlying texts were at best misrepresented. In some cases just outright lies. In turn, I had to come to the conclusion that the superiority of the KJV & its underlying text is inferior to that of modern translations. That's not to say that the KJV is a bad translation and that it should be thrown out. I still use the KJV in certain situations and circumstances. My own personal preferences is for the NIV. :thumb

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Jesusong
I was a KJVO for 15 years. It wasn't until I decided to check out the claims I've been reading on the arguments against the modern bible translations in stead of just accepting what was being documented. I have found that the arguments against the newer translations & their underlying texts were at best misrepresented. In some cases just outright lies. In turn, I had to come to the conclusion that the superiority of the KJV & its underlying text is inferior to that of modern translations. That's not to say that the KJV is a bad translation and that it should be thrown out. I still use the KJV in certain situations and circumstances. My own personal preferences is for the NIV. :thumb

"I had to come to the conclusion that the superiority of the KJV & its underlying text is inferior to that of modern translations"

Thats a bit of a contradictory statement... but anyway...

I understand that many people in the KJV camp have gone way overboard on the issue... to the point where I have met those who believe the greek can be corrected using the KJV. So I know where you are coming from on that. But I am not of that camp, and in fact I use the NKJV.

Let me ask ya a simple question... what do you make of it when the NIV skips crucial scriptures that pertain to Christ's diety? Most of the "changes" in the NIV directly effect Christ's diety. It's much more than changing "thees" and "thous" into a more modern language.

For instance (just one of many) ... consider Acts 8

KJV Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Pretty important piece of doctrine, wouldnt you agree? It's in all 5,000 manuscripts that make up the "Received Text". Thats 5,000 manuscripts that are in agreement.

What about the TWO underlying manuscripts of the NIV (and other modern versions)?

Keep in mind we're talking about 5,000 to 2. If this were a life-line on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire... which would you go with?

Look it up in your NIV and get back to me.

[Jesusong]

This is the evidence concerning Acts 8:37,

This passage does not appear in any Greek mss before the 6th century. Its first appearance is found in the Codex Laudianas dated 500 - 600 AD. It does not appear in p45 (150 AD), Aleph (Sinaiticus), B(Vaticanus) (both 4th century 325 - 350 AD), A (Alexandrinus - ca,400 AD), C (Emphraemi - 5th Cen), 33 (4 - 5th Cen).
In fact, its not part of the Majority Text at all. If you look at the dates of the mss I've listed, the oldest one is p45 dated 150 AD. And that doesn't even have it. So to state that the verse in question is found in 5000 mss is really reaching, especially in light of the fact that it isn't in the majority of the mss. The facts of the evidence states otherwise.

[LongLiveRawk]

Anyway, getting back on topic...

Whenever I go to my mom's RCC church, we say "for thine...". I don't know why these other churches don't.

[BHiles]

Regardless of the whole debate of Bible versions (And I read the KJV without any other commentary for relationship building time).

The idea of reciting a prayer is complete nonsense. God doesn't want us to recite something for Him that He wrote. How ridiculous. He gave it to us as a pattern in which to pray. He wants a conversation with us and He would like us to use His talking points. These are the things that He is interested in. Vain repetition are noxious fumes to Him.

Get Real people. God is.

[blitzkreig]

I was a KJVO for 15 years.

There was a young lady who posted some time ago here in this very forum and she made her KJVO upbringing sound like child abuse. She got very emotional about it and I never did understand. Am I missing something? I just don't see the conflab.

My father was an Oldsmobile man. I drive a VW. So what?

Just curious...

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
My father was an Oldsmobile man. I drive a VW. So what?

How dare you blaspheme General Motors!

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Jesusong
This is the evidence concerning Acts 8:37,

This passage does not appear in any Greek mss before the 6th century. Its first appearance is found in the Codex Laudianas dated 500 - 600 AD. It does not appear in p45 (150 AD), Aleph (Sinaiticus), B(Vaticanus) (both 4th century 325 - 350 AD), A (Alexandrinus - ca,400 AD), C (Emphraemi - 5th Cen), 33 (4 - 5th Cen).
In fact, its not part of the Majority Text at all. If you look at the dates of the mss I've listed, the oldest one is p45 dated 150 AD. And that doesn't even have it. So to state that the verse in question is found in 5000 mss is really reaching, especially in light of the fact that it isn't in the majority of the mss. The facts of the evidence states otherwise.

I guess it depends on where you are getting your info from... Obviously it is a source that is biased toward modern versions because I have seen just as many sources debunking what you're saying concerning this verse.

[Whosoever]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
There was a young lady who posted some time ago here in this very forum and she made her KJVO upbringing sound like child abuse. She got very emotional about it and I never did understand. Am I missing something? I just don't see the conflab.

My father was an Oldsmobile man. I drive a VW. So what?

Just curious... I've seen people get emotional over the issue too, blitzkreig, on both sides. I guess it's because the issue is controversial and rather touchy with a lot of folks. I've never seen the need to get "hot under the collar" so to speak over it; I read several versions, NKJV and NIV included, to get the full picture. I have, however, come across a number of KJV-onlyers wo seem to think I'm a backward hay-eating hick or some "out there" cult member for reading anything else. They take it as a sign of my inferior intelligence. :rolleyes So in that sense I can see why feathers get ruffled all the way around. The way I see it, keep everything in prayer as you read, and Yeshua or the Holy Spirit will tell you if something isn't quite right about what you're reading.

Oh, and Oldsmobiles rocked at one time. Now I go for Hummers. :cool

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Jesusong
This is the evidence concerning Acts 8:37,

This passage does not appear in any Greek mss before the 6th century. Its first appearance is found in the Codex Laudianas dated 500 - 600 AD. It does not appear in p45 (150 AD), Aleph (Sinaiticus), B(Vaticanus) (both 4th century 325 - 350 AD), A (Alexandrinus - ca,400 AD), C (Emphraemi - 5th Cen), 33 (4 - 5th Cen).
In fact, its not part of the Majority Text at all. If you look at the dates of the mss I've listed, the oldest one is p45 dated 150 AD. And that doesn't even have it. So to state that the verse in question is found in 5000 mss is really reaching, especially in light of the fact that it isn't in the majority of the mss. The facts of the evidence states otherwise.

Here is where your information is lacking... :D:

Check this out:

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

The testimony of this Ethiopian eunuch has been removed in modern versions and their Greek texts. The verse is omitted by the standard Alexandrian codices, as well as P45 (third century), and P74 (seventh century). It is also omitted from several of the cursive manuscripts and early versions.

However, the passage is found in Codex E (eighth century) and in several other manuscripts. Also, it is in the Old Latin manuscripts (second to fourth century) and the Vulgate of Jerome (fourth century). Still further, the passage is cited by Irenaeus (202 AD) and Cyprian (258 AD). Thus, while not in the majority of the Greek witness, it does have both early and wide range support.

James White objects to the passage by claiming that it was introduced by Erasmus taking the reading from Jerome's Vulgate.

"Acts chapters 8 and 9 are also rather expanded in the TR due to material brought over from the Vulgate. If one looks up Acts 8:37 . . . in the NIV, one will not find such a verse (outside of the textual footnote, that is). The reason is the verse is found in only a very few Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the sixth century, and Erasmus inserted it due to its presence in the Vulgate and in the margin of one Greek manuscript in his possession." (The King James Only Controversy, [Bethany House, 1995], 66.)

True, the passage in question appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. However, it also appears in all the Old Latin manuscripts which pre-date the Vulgate. And, as already stated, Irenaeus cites it in his thesis Against Heresies (3:12:8). Dr. Bruce Metzger sees the citation by Erasmus in a different light and cites Erasmus himself on this issue.

"Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms. 2), it stands in the margin of another (ms. 4), from which he inserted it into his text because he, 'judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes (arbitror omissum librariorum incuria).'" (A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, [United Bible Societies], 360.)

It appears in all the early English Versions and all the authoritative/standard versions of the Reformation.

[KrispyKritter]

I think we've successfully de-railed this thread. Sorry about that... perhaps someone should start another thread if they want to pursue this further.

Or not... depends on if someone else thinks we should not discuss this on this thread.