Chart on p.57. If the intent was as described, to lead us to a “Father” other than “Our Father in Heaven,” then why did Satan/New Agers leave the version of the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6? Is it possible that previous scribes put Matthew’s version in Luke? The fact that the new versions still have Matthew 6 makes this argument unconvincing.
P.60-61 and the discussion about the removal of the word “our?” Let’s look at the verses in the chart:
a. John 10:29, 30, 32. Even KJV verse 30 italicizes “my.” NAS and NIV both say “my” for v.32. But with the other verses the context identifies who “the Father” is - i.e., God.
b. John 14:28. KJV first says “the father,” before it says “my father.” NAS/NIV both identify in context.
c. Acts 3:25. The only difference between “our fathers” and “your fathers” would be that Peter would not necessarily be included in “your,” but that doesn’t mean he is excluded. The understanding is still Abraham, etc (this is not even in relation to whether the “father” mentioned is Satan or God!). Even in KJV v.22 says “the fathers.”
d. Gal. 1:13. “the Lord” vs. “our Lord.” I don’t see the problem. I can speak of George W. Bush as “the President” or “our President” with the same meaning.
e. 1 Thes. 1:3 KJV has “God and our Father,” vs “our God and Father”
f. 1 Thes. 3:11 KJV has “God himself and our Father” vs “our God and Father”
g. 1 Thes. 3:13 KJV has “God even our Father” vs “our God and Father”
(Actually in these three, KJV could be construed to refer to two persons, while NAS and NIV say it better! So, what is the complaint?)
h. 2 Thes. 1:2, 1 Tim. 1:2, Philem. 25. KJV says “God our Father” in the first two, “our Lord Jesus” in the last one. New versions say “the” vs “our.” There is no change to understanding in any of these examples. (see sub-paragraph d)
i. Rev. 22:21. KJV says, “our Lord Jesus Christ,” while new ones say “the Lord Jesus.” “Christ” is omitted in NAS/NIV but that doesn’t change the identity of the subject. V.20 doesn’t say “Christ” in KJV! In context back to Rev. 1:1, Jesus is identified as “Christ” from the get-go. There is nothing deceptive or hidden by leaving “Christ” out of v.21.
j. Eph. 3:14. KJV says, “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” NASB says, “I bow my knees before the Father.” Since God is identified as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ in Eph. 1:3, the context tells the same thing. Besides, when we speak of “the Father” (i.e., God), doesn’t our theology - as well as the entire N.T. - tell us that God is the Father of Jesus?
P.65. John 3:13:
KJV: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.”
NAS, etc: “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.”
The charge by Riplinger is that the corrupt manuscripts left out the phrase “which is in heaven” so as to agree with those who believed Christ was not God before incarnation. Well, NIV footnotes it, so it is not “hidden” with that version. However, the point of the passage is that Christ had to be in heaven first to descend from it. Jesus is speaking in this passage, and so could not be in heaven at the time of the conversation, so KJV would be in error!
a. Luke 12:31. Refer to the review of Chapter One, page 17 discussion in regards “kingdom of God” being replaced by “his kingdom.” Context tells to whom “His” kingdom belongs. Would it matter if I said “house of Glenn” or “his house”? The meaning is the same in context.
b. Matt. 6:13b. The claim is that the verse was omitted to hide the fact of God’s kingdom. The NIV (and most likely others) footnotes the verse, so it is not hidden! Although I don’t intend to address the underlying manuscripts, in this case I do want to point out that there is much scholarly debate as to whether this verse was in the original, and that it was likely added by a later scribe. The point, however, is what does it matter? Is there a doctrinal change as is charged by the whole book? Is there an agreement with “New Age” teaching by leaving this out? Even in the KJV this doxology is not in the parallel passage in Luke, and yet Riplinger makes no charge against Luke for its omission!
P.68-70. This section deals with the Lord’s Prayer. Whatever is missing from Luke is already in Matthew, so where is the attempt to suppress it? Most of the prayer is contained in Luke anyway. A major complaint is the omission of the phrase, “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.” This supposedly is because “the ‘will’ of ‘heaven’ is in opposition to that ‘will’ spoken of frequently by the New Age.” Then Riplinger says the reason the following verses are left in is because they agree with new age teaching! Well, using HER yardstick, these passages agreeing with New Age teaching make the KJV a “New Age Bible Version.”
P.70 chart of John 14:14 comparisons between KJV and the others. KJV says: “If ye shall ask anything in my name I will do it.” while the others say, “If you as me anything in my name, I will do it.” The charge is that by adding “me” it violates the biblical “formula” of praying to God in Jesus’ name. I think the implication is to “ask me,” but I’ll grant that this may not be the case. However, the “formula” Riplinger notes seems to be AFTER Christ died. Since he was standing there telling them to ask, I would think the implication is to ask him.
P.71, first paragraph, says that the reason for 14:14 is that in 14:13 the KJV says, “that the Father may be glorified in the Son,” and that the new versions omit “the Father” by placing “me” in 14:14. This is eisegesis in the extreme!
P.71, John 16:23. KJV reads, “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you.” NAS (and possibly others, but not the NIV - which reads the same as KJV) reads: “If you shall ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name.” So there is a distinct, subtle difference: one says to ask God in Jesus’ name (using Jesus as the mediator) while the other says God will give in it in Jesus’ name. But is it “new age” in any sense? No.
P.71 and the paragraph which says “prayer, even fervent prayer, is omitted seven times from new versions.” It then lists the passages. I couldn’t imagine prayers being omitted, so I had to look to see the problem. Essentially, “new versions” say “ask” instead of “pray.” Of course, I thought prayer of supplication is asking. I guess if you don’t use the word “pray” or “prayer,” then in Riplinger’s illogic you’ve omitted prayer.
a. John 14:16. KJV says “pray”; NAS/NIV say “ask.”
b. John 17:9, 15, 20. KJV and NIV read the same with “pray,” NAS says, “ask.”
c. Luke 21:36, Acts 1:14, James 5:16. NAS/NIV say “prayer” in all of these verses. So going online to a parallel Bible with numerous versions, I find most say “prayer” or “pray” or “praying,” but some say “making supplication.” Since supplication is a form of prayer, the passage says the same thing in every version. In fact, in Acts 1:14 KJV says, “prayer and supplication,” and the argument is that the others leave off “supplication”! James 5:16 in some versions use “pray” in the first sentence and “supplication” (instead of prayer) in the second. Riplinger intentionally misrepresents all new versions by claiming they omit prayer.
P.71. Mark 13:33. KJV reads, “watch and pray.” I decided to use the online parallel Bible for this, and many versions do indeed leave off “pray,” as does the NAS. NIV footnotes the phrase, so I wonder how many others do also - meaning that “pray” isn’t “hidden” or “omitted.” So far, this seems to be the only one with a valid complaint, and even then it only applies to a few new version, while most still have “watch and pray.”
P.71 chart showing how “Prayer’s powerful partner - fasting - also disappears in new versions.” And the claim says by deleting “fasting,” the new versions “short circuit man’s prayer life” - which is supposedly “a reflection of some new version editors’ unbiblical beliefs.” So let’s look where “fasting” disappeared:
a. Matt. 17:21. NAS has it and NIV footnotes it!
b. 2 Cor. 6:5. Fasting and hunger can be synonymous. In this case, fasting in KJV appears to me to be that which is suffered, not chosen. Therefore hunger seems an appropriate choice.
c. 2 Cor. 11:27. Is not fasting synonymous with “gone without food”? This could be active or passive. To assume only the active sense in this case is unwarranted - Paul was discussing his trials! Even Matthew Henry said, “it may be out of necessity.”
d. Mark 9:29. NAS and NIV both footnote what KJV says.
e. 1 Cor. 7:5 and Acts 10:30. Legitimate charge of removal, but nothing is changed doctrinally.
Summation of this chapter:
a. The claim of suppression of elements of the Lord’s Prayer is unfounded because it is still in Matthew.
b. Missing words complaints are more to do with style, especially when the context has the meaning.
c. Items e thru g on P.61, the NIV and NAS are better than KJV!
d. Most claims of “missing” text is footnoted in NIV and is not suppressed.
e. Some of the charges are not valid for NAS or NIV, or even most others, as noted above.
f. All “changed” or “missing” words or phrases have no doctrinal implications. Neither Satan nor New Agers gain any benefit.