In some parts of the Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England also omits the doxology. No cite because I don’t have a BCP to hand.
As is often typical of Anglican tradition, the liturgy actually splits the difference here. Most of the services outlined in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer include the doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer; but it is omitted from the prayer in the following services:
- Order of Service for Noonday
- Compline
- Ministration at the Time of Death
I couldn’t tell you why these are different, though.
I’m not disputing that the KJV translators got it from an older text. I’m questioning that they didn’t realize what they were doing.
Of course they knew what they were doing. That doesn’t mean they were entirely aware of the imperfections left by the hurried publication of the Textus Receptus.
Really, your LDS devotion to the KJV (which itself comes from Yankee attachment to same, which traces to revival meetings of the 19th Century) is a bit misplaced. The KJV was published with poetry in mind, not absolutely perfect translation.
Well, you started off okay.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Moderating
Monty, dial it back.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
This is how I learned it in Methodist Church, and it doesn’t look like any of the version so far posted
Our Father, who art in Heaven
Hallowed be thy name
Thy Kingdom come
Thy will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil
For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever, Amen.
This from the Internets is pretty close to how I learned it
http://www.the-lords-prayer-parsed.com/
Apparently it is the “Traditional English Version”
I am LDS now and it isn’t part of our Sunday service. I think people learn it but we don’t tend to say it in meetings.
FYI, there is no “LDS devotion to the KJV”
It is the version we use, but recognize it contains flaws.
OK.
I just know that I met a Mormon missionary who made a point of saying he read, “the King James Version of the Bible.” I was bemused, because while a lot of evangelicals have traditionally favored the KJV, my Baptist preachers-and-missionaries family were not so impressed with it.
I just talked to my mom; she says usually the newer the translation, the better, because there have been more discoveries of old texts. And of course with a new translation the language of the translation is less archaic, and there’s been opportunity to refine the text and correct mistakes.
ETA: Oh, and evangelicals have totally been known to mock the style of the Book of Mormon, as a poor imitation of the archaic language of the KJV.
Missionaries are generally over zealous, immature youngsters that have a lot to learn about talking to people. If you talk to an older Missionary, like the Mission president I am sure you would get a different impression.
Okay, genuine question here: How did that post violate the rules? I asked about an asinine comment, without insulting the individual who made the asinine comment.
No, the boy was fine. He was personable, and he certainly didn’t insult anyone. It was just interesting that my cousin offered him some book or another, and he said something like, “While we’re on our mission, we only read [Doctrines and Covenants? I forget] and the King James Version of the Bible.” He volunteered that.
So I wondered, do LDS missionaries in my part of the country talk about it that way because they are taught to revere KJV, or because they think the Gentiles revere it?
Considering the pseudo-archaic language of the Book of Mormon, I can believe that a lot of Mormons actually think Scripture’s supposed to sound vaguely like 16th Century English. That’s perhaps unfair.
But the way Monty was posting, he sounded offended that anyone would say the team working on the KJV had any faults. Well. So I connected the dots and responded to what I suspected was the case. Maybe I’m wrong.
That is not an accurate description of my posts in this thread.
Moderating
Monty, you’ve been here plenty long enough to understand that General Questions is served best when the tone of the discussion remains civil. “What the fuck are you talking about” is unnecessarily hostile - and yeah, it is insulting to the poster it’s directed to. Remarks like that are apt to provoke more hostility in return and derail the thread. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you.
Further discussion of the rules or moderation should be taken to ATMB.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
OOH, LOL. Missionaries are given a list of books and music, which depending on the mission varies, they can read and are permitted to own while on a mission. The reasoning behind this is reading, for example, Tolken while you are supposed to be studying the scriptures and answering investigators’ questions probably isn’t the best use of your time. These rules get violated frequently, obviously, because you can’t cloister missionaries and they will hear music and read books which aren’t “spiritual” but the list is a guide as to what is most conducive to spiritual growth and maintenance. The KJV put out by the Church has extensive foot notes and cross references to other scriptures and is a great resource when talking to investigators, so it is the preferred and recommended version.
But, as was noted in my other post, the Church does use other versions of the Bible when the translated language makes more sense in a different version.
The pattern is the same, but the priest’s words are now “Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
The Arte or Crafte to Lyve Well And to Dye Well published by Wykyn de Worde in 1505 has a wood cut of Christ teaching the Paternoster in these terms:
Our fader that art in heuê sactified be thy name
Thy kyngdom come to us.
Thy wyl be done in erth as in heuen.
Our dayly breed gyve us to day, & forgyve us our detts as we forgyve our detts
& lede us not in to teptaton, but delyuer us frõ evyl. Amê
[some of the printer’s symbols are difficult to reproduce here]
If I remember correctly, some parts of the Book of Mormon attest to be more accurate translations of the original than the KJV text. This is usually via variations in the italicized words, which are words added by the translator for clarity, and not direct translations.
There are Joseph Smith translations of the Bible in the foot notes of the KJV, not the BOM.
Yes, this was mentioned recently in another thread. The LDS edition of the KJV includes footnotes, chapter headings, a Topical Guide, and a Bible Dictionary that explains topics in terms of mid-20th-century Mormonism. The Joseph Smith “translation” (a few words and phrases are added to better match Smith’s theology at the time) is in the footnotes and appendix. This is not to be confused with the Book of Mormon, in which one Egyptian-writing Native American Hebrew named Nephi plagiarizes several entire chapters verbatim from KJV Isaiah and another (also named Nephi) paraphrases the KJV Sermon on the Mount.