The Lord's Prayer Controversy

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Dr. Bob, Apr 27, 2010.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Was reading in a translation

    "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 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."

    In another it was

    "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. 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."

    Apart from a few phrases reversed, the two seemed identical. Except the second one simply left off the entire last verse!!
     
  2. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same old story, its not found in the older mss save one controversial piece known as the Didache. Just Google it for more info.
     
  3. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,618
    Likes Received:
    44
    Why so cryptic? Which translation? Verses and chapters would help.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Kinda like the differences between the renditions of the LP in Matt. 6:9-13 & Luke 11:2-4. Different writings by different witnesses; however, God chose BOTH to become Scripture.
     
  5. Bone

    Bone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's a matter of which translation or version it is but rather one is from Matthew and the other is from Luke. The last line is not included in Luke 11.
     
  6. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a loaded question. He is trying to provoke a certain [type of] response.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Both are from the Oxford revision 1769 KJV. Matthew 6 (where I'm preaching) and Luke 11.

    The Talmud said that any prayer that did NOT mention the "kingdom" was not a valid prayer. So Jewish prayers (still today) include a rote beginning or ending to be sure to include this!!

    Matthew records that rote ending, even though it was unnecessary (Jesus prayed about the Kingdom earlier in the prayer). Luke did not.

    Which is correct?

    And was truly amazed at the sentence structure given by the Anglican translators here.

    Matthew = Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

    Luke = Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

    THESE ARE IDENTICAL WORDS/ORDER IN GREEK (Stevens 1555) and wondering why the flip-flopping of order in translating them??
     
  8. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    It strikes me as ironic that even Erasmus himself argued that the doxology in Matt 6:13 was spurious!

    But I think the doxology is original. It was omitted due to liturgical practice, since only the priest, and no one else, was to recite it. Since most manuscripts of the NT were made for religious use, it is not surprising that such a change would have found its way into some manuscripts and versions, and subsequent copies would have multiplied the error. It is wholly reckless for critics to suggest that pious scribes would have added the doxology here, when not a single one was pious enough to insert it at the same place in Luke's gospel. Thus the argument that the doxology is a pious addition is seen at first to diminish, and at last to vanish away. It is possible that Matthew himself added the words, but equally possible that Jesus himself spoke them, as such benedictions are thoroughly Jewish.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
    #8 jonathan.borland, Apr 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2010
  9. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the translators was dyslexic? :laugh:
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,139
    Likes Received:
    320
    There are many instances in the Scripture where an account of the same incident (presumably but not always definitely the same incident) have differing accounts.

    e.g. the inscription above the cross.

    But in this case, perhaps Jesus repeated this prayer in one instance with the "kingdom" mentioned and then in the other without, each human author recording what he heard.

    Another example:

    In 2 Kings 21 Manasseh is portrayed as one of the worst kings of Judah.

    11 Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols:
    12 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle.
    13 And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down.
    14 And I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies;
    15 Because they have done that which was evil in my sight, and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt, even unto this day.
    16 Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

    But in 2 Chronicles 33

    12 And when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers,
    13 And prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God.
    14 Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish gate, and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.
    15 And he took away the strange gods, and the idol out of the house of the LORD, and all the altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the LORD, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the city.
    16 And he repaired the altar of the LORD, and sacrificed thereon peace offerings and thank offerings, and commanded Judah to serve the LORD God of Israel.

    Had we only the 2 Kings account who could have guessed of Manasseh's repentance.​

    Also, I'm sure you know this Dr Bob. The KJV committee of translators were broken into groups, each not fully aware of what the others were doing. Therefore some groups were more skilled at koine idiom and grammatical structure than others.

    Therefore, as you mentioned, the original Greek mss copy the final authority.

    HankD​
     
    #10 HankD, Apr 29, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2010
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12

    One that had me questioning (and I've heard some horrendous preaching on it) is John 3:15 and John 3:16

    Identical Greek words. No hidden nuance.

    15 says "eternal life"
    16 says "everlasting life"

    Actually had a camp speaker go on and on over the difference between eternal and everlasting. And the Anglicans were just changing the words to add a little variety.

    (I believe Jesus' words stop at 15 and then John's inspired commentary and a whole change of tone/language summarized and amplified Jesus' story of Nick at Night.)
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,139
    Likes Received:
    320
    That makes sense "for" (gar) indicating a transition.

    But the "eternal" vs. "everlasting"?

    Maybe the translators were concerned that "underachievers" wouldn't understand the concept of "eternal".

    HankD
     
  13. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    The KJV translators were cribbing Tyndale (as were the Bishops Bible and the Geneva translators):

    As to the earlier observation about inversion of word order, I think stylistic variation is the best explanation. I can find no earlier English Bible that does this.

    It didn't come from the Vulgate, because the Vulgate (and Wycliffe and Rheims) omit that section from Luke.

    The form of the Pater Noster in English had been fixed since 1541 when Henry decreed a uniform English translation that included "in earth as it is in heaven."

    Alternatively, the KJV translators might have been influenced by the word order of the Latin Pater Noster, "Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra."

    So was it simply a little stylistic variation or an attempt to retain an echo of the old church Latin? Beats me.
     
  14. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,618
    Likes Received:
    44
    Further Lord's Prayer discombobulation:

    Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:32 (Geneva translation)

    Matthew = Giue vs this day our daily bread.

    Luke = Our daily bread giue vs for the day:

    OH NO, ONE SAYS GIVE US...OUR DAILY BREAD AND THE OTHER SAYS OUR DAILY BREAD GIVE US!!!!

    IN THE GREEK (Stevens 1555) THE WORD ORDER DOES NOT FLIP FLOP LIKE THAT!!!

    I am truly amazed at those Reformed translators.
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Kinda like "Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit" when the Greek for both is identical.
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sounds like a new thread! :applause:
     

Share This Page

Loading...