RSV2CE "incomplete" New Testament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ni8_shadow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

ni8_shadow

Guest
I was reading the intro to the 2E of the RSV and it said that some parts of the NT were not included because they were said to not have been part of the originals. Does that mean all the translations before this had “un -Sacred” parts of Sacred books?

One of the verses mentioned is the “For thine if the Kingdom…” part of the Lord’s prayer. Is that part not “God-breathed?” Do Protestant Bibles still have these parts? If so they could make the claim that we took stuff out of the Bible right?
 
ni8_shadow said:
I was reading the intro to the 2E of the RSV and it said that some parts of the NT were not included because they were said to not have been part of the originals. Does that mean all the translations before this had “un -Sacred” parts of Sacred books?

One of the verses mentioned is the “For thine if the Kingdom…” part of the Lord’s prayer. Is that part not “God-breathed?” Do Protestant Bibles still have these parts? If so they could make the claim that we took stuff out of the Bible right?
Click to expand...
Most Protestant Bibles no longer have these parts, such as the “for the kingdom…” and the “three witnesses” in 1 John 5:7ff. The best critical research has shown that these were glosses that later found their way into the text and were not part of the inspired originals. They may be doctrinally correct, but are not Scripture, per se. The “for the kingdom…” doxology, for example, is widely regarded as a liturgical acclamation (much as it is today) that somehow got included by a copyist somewhere along the line.

So not, un-sacred, but more of un-inspired (as in not inspired as Scripture).
 
porthos11 said:
Most Protestant Bibles no longer have these parts, such as the “for the kingdom…” and the “three witnesses” in 1 John 5:7ff. The best critical research has shown that these were glosses that later found their way into the text and were not part of the inspired originals. They may be doctrinally correct, but are not Scripture, per se. The “for the kingdom…” doxology, for example, is widely regarded as a liturgical acclamation (much as it is today) that somehow got included by a copyist somewhere along the line.

So not, un-sacred, but more of un-inspired (as in not inspired as Scripture).
Click to expand...
I believe that no English translation of the Catholic Bible has ever included “For thine is the kingdom…”. I don’t know about Jerome’s Vulgate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top