And see, to me, the doxology means the short hymn:
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise him, all creatures here below;
Praise him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.
Raised Presbyterian.
You can recognize it contains “flaws”. But when the flaw is something that was inserted in 17th century England, and yet somehow found its way into a 5th-century American abridgement of a 1st-century record of the alleged words of Jesus to the American people, then the authenticity of that record is suspect. The Book of Mormon contains the doxology copied nearly word-for-word from KJV. If its existence in the KJV Bible is a flaw, then you may draw your own conclusions.
Missed the edit window:
Another interesting bit about various versions of the Lord’s Prayer. The Book of Mormon says “lead us not into temptation.” But the Joseph Smith Translation corrects Matthew to say “And suffer us not to be lead into temptation.” So if KJV Matthew got it wrong, why did Nephi also make the same mistake?
Jman – another branch of the Presbyterian Church here. Yes that is what we also called the Doxology. It was also called “Old One Hundredth,” but that may refer to the tune it is sung to.
As Presbyterians, we ended the Lord’s Prayer with “Thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.” The musical version of the Lord’s Prayer is like that. I think most Protestants use that version.
When I attended the Catholic Church in college for a while, I was surprised when they stopped with "And thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
When I attended the Episcopal Church, I was surprised to here them add "forever and ever. Amen.
I used to think that the KJV was actually a translation of the original texts. But the “V” is supposed to stand for version. I know that that is true for the Revised Standard Version which was published in the 1960s or late 1950s. It does not go back to translate the original texts, but is based on other translations of the Bible. So which is KJV – only a version or an actual translation?
It’s a translation, which borrows some archaic phrasing from previous versions.
The problem is, what original texts? We don’t have originals, just lots of copies with minor (and they are mostly minor) inconsistencies.
**moriah **linked this in post #35:
The Greek text they used for the NT when translating the KJV isn’t the original perfect version (there is no such thing), it’s a pretty good version thrown together by Erasmus.
But “pretty good” and “only minor inconsistencies” can still lead to disputes when people want the text to be an authoritative holy book–especially Protestants, who imagine the Bible to be perfect.
I used to think that the italicized words were either sort of clarifications, or, when I was little and learning graphics, signs of importance.
They are–pleases correct me if I’m wrong–“extraneous” words that in the Hebrew are folded into the syntax and are there freestanding because of the English, and the translators were loathe to imply otherwise.
This is the first time in my life I have written the words “loathe to.” I think I spelled it right.
That’s a doxology, not the doxology. Similar wording also occurs at the end of “Christ Is Made The Sure Foundation”:
Laud and honour to the Father, laud and honour to the Son,
Laud and honour to the Spirit, ever Three and ever One;
Consubstantial, co-eternal, while unending ages run.
which is very similar to verses that get sung at the end of psalms:
Glory be to the Father and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: world without end, Amen.
When we were in school we said those 3 lines. Prayer in school was dropped before I reached high school but we did learn it the way you described. Also, the Catholic Church we attended, during the same time frame, also used this version.
Perhaps it’s just a localized cultural thing, remains in some places, not in others.