It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Catholic Bible omit a part of the Lord’s Prayer?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Its an accusation Catholics face from time to time from our protestant friends; that we fail to recite the full wording of the Lord’s Prayer leaving out the part at the very end:

For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever

Some even go so far to accuse the Church of suppressing this verse in Catholic Bibles for some nefarious reason, resulting in endless arguments.


So several weeks ago, my fiancee (Protestant) and I were out with one of her bridesmaids (Protestant daughter of a Minister) and her boyfriend, and she asked me why I preferred the TLM. Describing some of the liberal abuses to the GIRM that was taken at the Church where the 4 of us attended college, I tried using a comparison that they would understand. I said "What if, during one of your services, someone used the wrong words for the Our Father? Wouldn't that upset you?" After some debate about whether it was called the Our Father or the Lord's Prayer, the bridesmaid said this: What do you mean, like how you Catholics changed the words of it?"

Fortunately, since we were out and my fiancee knows how quick I am to defend the faith, she defused the situation and we let it be. However, this has stuck with me since that time. The debate was over Catholics ending with "and deliver us from evil. Amen" whereas Protestants end "for the Kingdom..." I have looked at Matthew 6: 9-13 (using the NAB on the USCCB web page), and it appears to end with "but deliver us from the evil one."

Catholic Answers

I haven’t looked but, I am told this verse IS included in the King James version of the Bible but, it does not appear in any of the Bibles I have in my home (New American Translation and Douay-Rheims translation).

Apparently, it doesn’t appear in Catholic Bibles for a good reason; Jesus never uttered those words. So, how did they end up in the most popular edition of the Protestant Bible?


Very early on in the Catholic Liturgy, the Lord's Prayer was concluded with a doxology (a prayer of praise), “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever”. This was not part of the original Greek Scriptural text and consequently is not included in many modern Bible translations.

However, there are other non-Scriptural writings which have been preserved from the early days of the Church. It was here, where the doxology was first found in the important document called the "Didache," (written between 70-140 AD). “Didache” (Did-ah-kay) simply means 'teaching'. The “Our Father” in the Didache had the doxology tagged onto the end without the words “the kingdom”. The tradition of the doxology was carried into the Liturgy, and became so closely associated with the Lord's Prayer that it is now often mistaken to be part of the prayer itself. The words “the kingdom” were added later and are preserved in the document “The Apostolic Constitutions” (written 250-380 AD). The “Our Father” is contained twice in the Bible (Matt. 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4) with no doxology for although very ancient, it is not found in the original manuscripts. This is simply a prayer from the believers in the early centuries of the Church whose spirits were moved by the Holy Spirit to close this beautiful prayer in grandiose fashion. These early writings never present it as an essential part of the “Our Father”, but rather an “embolism," (added prayer), intended to increase fervor and direct the intention of the faithful.

It is believed that a copyist when copying Matthew's Gospel put a note in the margin, noting that in the Mass, we follow the “Our Father” with the doxology. A later copyist mistakenly transcribed the margin note into the text itself and it was preserved in all subsequent copies of the manuscript. The King James Version translators in 1611 A.D., (The King James Version is a Protestant Bible) used a copy of the New Testament that contained these added words. Most Protestant scholars admit that these words are not those of our Lord. But since this text was included by the translators, it is used by Protestants but is, ironically, a Catholic Liturgical prayer.

An English version of the Our Father without the doxology actually did become accepted in the English-speaking world during the reign of Edward VI when the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England did not add the doxology. However, during the reign of Elizabeth I there was a desire to rid the Church of England from any Catholic vestiges. Because of this wish for severance and not because of authenticity, the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer was re-included.

Therefore, when non-Catholics ask us why we make the “Our Father” shorter than their form, we should tell them that the added words which they use are not a part of the prayer as given by our Blessed Lord, but rather a pious addition which is ancient but not original.

Our Lady of Sorrows

While the Doxology is included in the King James Bible, other more accurate translations do note that it is not scriptural.


The Doxology is found in the King James Version, it is true. The King James Revised Version, however, omits it and makes a marginal note that some manuscripts have this but that the better ones did not. So, too, the Revised Standard Version says in the footnote under Matt. 6:13:13:

"Other authorities, some ancient, add in some form 'for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever, Amen'." Therefore, we might say that NON-CATHOLICS are not using the text of the Lord's Prayer found in the latest versions of their own Bible.

The 40 Questions Most Frequently Asked
About The Catholic Church
By Non-Catholics



So, it appears that it is the Protestants who are using a non-scriptural version of the Lord’s Prayer which includes an addition which originated in CATHOLIC liturgical tradition. Luther must be spinning in his grave.


It’s ironic that, in their attempts to rid the Bible of “Papist” influences, the early Protestants ended up adding in an unscriptural Catholic devotion into their versions of the Bible.

Makes me wonder if there will be a movement in protestant circles to remove this “evil papist” addition to the Lord’s Prayer. If there were, it would probably be a hard fought uphill battle; Most Protestants that I know of hold this part of the prayer as very dear to their hearts. After all, it’s what differentiates them from the Catholics, right?


edit on 5/23/12 by FortAnthem because:
___________ extra DIV




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
What I always have heard growing up in a protestant church about the lords prayer was the repetition thing.

""And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words."

Matthew 6:7.

Not so much the content but the use of a "script" to pray.

In the lords prayer Jesus give an example of how to pray, not a script to use to the end of time.

Interesting



So, it appears that it is the Protestants who are using a non-scriptural version of the Lord’s Prayer


That shows much ignorance to the Protestants faith, as they don't use scripts to pray btw
edit on 23-5-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Here it is from the Codex Sinaiticus:

Matthew 6:5-15

5 And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say to you: They have their reward in full.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, go into thy closet; and having closed thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who sees in secret will reward thee.

7 But when you pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathens; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not therefore like them; for your Father knows what things you have need of before you ask him.

9 In this way therefore pray you: Our Father who art in the heavens: hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven also on earth.

11 Give us this day our needful bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors;

13 and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

14 For if you forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you;

15 but if you for give not men, neither will your Father forgive your offenses.

You can decide for yourself how the additional words appeared in the Bible, but this is the oldest known translation, translated into English. In George Bush's Bible, the ending reads, " ... but deliver us from the evil doers."


Personally, as long as one gets the point, the rest is trivial, IMO. But, for some, these things matter, so who am I to say.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
This "doxology" is in the majority of Greek manuscripts comprising the Textus Receptus, or "Majority Text".

It was removed from later translations in favor of a minority of manuscripts that are supposedly "older". Because older means better, even if older is a minority of manuscripts. Nestle-Aland/UBS.


The question then arises: "Did the prayer in Matthew originally contain the concluding phrase as found in the Traditional Text?" Among the Greek uncials it is found in W (fifth century), L (eighth century), 0233 (eighth century), K (ninth century), D (ninth century), Q (ninth century), and P (tenth century). It is found in the majority of all Greek minuscules such as: 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2174 (dating from the ninth century to the twelfth century). It is also found in the majority of all existing Greek lectionaries. Therefore, the weight of the Greek witnesses argues for its inclusion and validity.

Source


edit on 5/23/2012 by Klassified because: add



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Actually, the last three lines or so were added later. The original version corresponded to the seven chakras of the human body.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Here is an interesting fact that confuses so many religious christians (the ones who don't act on faith just the letter of the law)....

There was a letter to the Laodiceans.

Now if this letter still existed it may be part of the NT but it doesn't exist anymore. It was written by Paul himself.

So my question is a word here or a word there is not of that much consequence to ones salvation with hundreds of thousands of Chinese became radical Christians in underground churches based on a few scraps of scripture and not the whole NT.

The church started without a NT at all !!

The conclusion is there are many freaky, bound up, religious people who call themselves Christians and yet can't figure out that it has nothing to do with knowledge of the printed words....something the Bible they clutch so tightly even tells them !!!.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 


I tend to agree with your sentiments. It could be stated, that many Christians are committing "idolatry" by elevating the Bible as God. In my experience, many Christians could care less about how the Bible came about, who had it's fingers in it, etc. Its also such, that any text that is found from that era, let's say like the Nag Hamandi texts, Christians won't even look at them because they are not sanctioned by the "church."

If you were a Jesus Fan and wanted to learn everything about him and his ways, wouldn't you read everything about him? When I started to play guitar and listen to Jimi Hendrix, I owned every album, every import, every comic book, book, video, etc. I KNEW Jimi. You would think it would be the same for Christians.

Anyway, I now step down from my soap-box.
Sorry for the rant.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
What I always have heard growing up in a protestant church about the lords prayer was the repetition thing.

""And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words."

Matthew 6:7.

Not so much the content but the use of a "script" to pray.

In the lords prayer Jesus give an example of how to pray, not a script to use to the end of time.

Interesting



So, it appears that it is the Protestants who are using a non-scriptural version of the Lord’s Prayer


That shows much ignorance to the Protestants faith, as they don't use scripts to pray btw
edit on 23-5-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)


Beat me to the punch. Quality not quantity.

Hail Mary, blah blah blah
Hail Mary, blah blah blah

Ah and fasting (Lent):

Matthew 6:16-18

16 “Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17 But you, when you fast, anoint your . and wash your face, 18 so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

"Up it's Lent, i gotta give up that Snickers bar i like so much for 40 days".

Much like the 40 days of Weeping for Tammuz:


"Whence, then, came this observance? The forty days abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess [Astarte / Ishtar]. Such a Lent of forty days, 'in the spring of the year,' is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, who have inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians.


Ah Ishtar whose name just happens to be prounounced...EASTER.

Source

Here's a pic of Ishtar (also known as Inanna or Ashtoreth/Asherah) who bears the titles "Queen of Heaven" and "Whore of Babylon" and who also happens to be...a sungoddess.



Ah here's another picture of one of her many myriads of idols:



Notice the circle inside the monstrance in which the "eucharist" is placed, and then the cross on top forming the symbol for female:



Lets see what I AM has to say about the Queen of Heaven:

Jeremiah 7: 17-19

17 Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. 19 Do they provoke Me to anger?” says the Lord. “Do they not provoke themselves, to the shame of their own faces?”

Queen of Heaven.. So the Almighty hates the Whore of Babylon, fascinating.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Here is an interesting fact that confuses so many religious christians (the ones who don't act on faith just the letter of the law)....

There was a letter to the Laodiceans.

Now if this letter still existed it may be part of the NT but it doesn't exist anymore. It was written by Paul himself.

So my question is a word here or a word there is not of that much consequence to ones salvation with hundreds of thousands of Chinese became radical Christians in underground churches based on a few scraps of scripture and not the whole NT.

The church started without a NT at all !!

The conclusion is there are many freaky, bound up, religious people who call themselves Christians and yet can't figure out that it has nothing to do with knowledge of the printed words....something the Bible they clutch so tightly even tells them !!!.



Good observation. Catholics and Protestants alike are merely "playing Christian" and don't realize or understand how or why. There is only one Church, only ever has been one. Founded 33AD. All the rest are knock-offs and knock-off of knock-offs.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
www.lords-prayer-words.com...


Common bible versions, such as the New International Version, and the Contemporary English Version, exclude the doxology from the Lord's Prayer in the main body of the text (in Matthew 6:9-13), and instead feature it as a footnote on the page. Critical editions of the New Testament used by the United Bible Societies (an organisation representing 145 national bible societies) concur that this doxology does not belong to the original manuscripts of Matthew's gospel, and seems to have been added at a later date.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike
 





Good observation. Catholics and Protestants alike are merely "playing Christian" and don't realize or understand how or why. There is only one Church, only ever has been one. Founded 33AD. All the rest are knock-offs and knock-off of knock-offs.


Careful, you lump all these into one giant generalization. The true church is a spiritual brotherhood, not made by the hands of men or governed by the traditions of men and their rituals. I say to you, when you begin to think that your church is the only true church, then you're already on the path to damnation, for your thoughts are bound by vanity and pride. Those who believe in Yeshua and keep his commandments shall be saved and if anyone does not know what those commandments are then i highly suggest you begin with Matthew Chapter 1 and start reading them. The two shall become one.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join