© 2001 by David W. Daniels
Question: While it is true Luke's account of the
Lord's Prayer is lacking some of the phrases found in the King
James Version, this fact does not discount the validity of the
entire translation. In fact Matthew 6:9-13 contains a more
complete version of Jesus' prayer.
While I do not argue that Luke's version in the NIV may
resemble Marcion's version of the Lord's prayer, I am concerned
with the fact that you seem to discredit other translations of
the Bible solely on the fact that certain clauses are not found
in specific scripture passages.
I think that it is important to remember that the Bible should
be understood as a complete work, the Word of God, and that no
one passage should be extracted and used as the sole base for
doctrine.
Answer: There is a key here. Please notice the words
used: "lacking" and "not found."
God said "My words shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31) and
"thou shalt preserve them (God's words) from this generation
for ever" (Psalm 12:7).
Since God promised to
preserve
his words, it should arouse
our curiosity when we find that words, phrases, even whole
verses
are missing
from the Bible (see If the
Foundations Be Destroyed).
Here are some important questions:
- How do "scholars" decide when to remove a verse from the Bible?
The Bible revisers are carving up the Bible based on a mere 45 or so manuscripts, which disagree with over 5,000 copies of the Scriptures. If a modern scholar finds one single manuscript that does not have a word or verse found in the King James Bible, he often removes it on that basis alone, (unless he likes the verse, of course). Others of his favorite texts may actually have the word or verse. So if he wants to get rid of it, he simply picks the text that removes it. If this sounds arbitrary, it is. Critics simply pick and choose their favorite reading. That's what you end up doing when you ignore the broad evidence of history.
- Then how do we know when to stop?
The biggest temptation is to continue removing verses until
we feel that what's left is the truth. On what basis? By
our own feelings. Over 95% of all the manuscripts support
the King James. New Bibles are alike in that they intentionally
leave out most of the same words, phrases and verses.
- Finally, as you keep removing words from verses about
vital doctrines (the godhead, trinity, salvation, Jesus Christ
as God, hell, fasting, prayer, adultery, sodomy, etc.) you
will have a problem. God repeats himself to emphasize vital
doctrines. Modern Bibles take away many places where God
says the same thing again. Thus modern Bibles make it look
like those doctrines weren't so important to God.
My old Hebrew professor in a "conservative, Evangelical"
seminary taught us that if anything was not repeated in the
Bible, it was not true! He was willing to doubt historical
facts not found in more than one place in the Bible.
Even in the letter above is this statement: "no one passage
should be extracted and used as the sole base for doctrine."
The modern, Alexandrian-based Bibles make it even worse: they
knock down the number of times God teaches us important doctrines.
Ask yourself:
Do you want a Bible that has been shortened by men, or the
complete one that is inspired by God?
See more questions in this category
See complete list of questions
|
|