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).

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
3. 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.

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