Lord’s Prayer Updated

[BibleVendor]

You are wrong on every point. Your mangling of the Lord’s Prayer is not an improvement.

The promises of God are secured by believing, not just confessing.

The kingdom of God on earth has not yet come. We are in His kingdom, but it has not fully arrived in this world.

We still must pray that God’s will be done on earth, for much of what goes on is contrary to the will of God.

We must still ask for our daily bread and thank God for it.

We must both forgive others and request God to forgive us.

We still ask God to not let us be deceived by temptation.

We need deliverance from evil moment by moment, and not assume we are immune.

It goes without saying, that if you are going to confess the promises of God, you obviously believe them first How can anyone confess or acknowledge something, they don’t believe?
There are situations and circumstances, where we must ask God or pray for an answer, because the Will of

You are wrong on every point. Your mangling of the Lord’s Prayer is not an improvement.

The promises of God are secured by believing, not just confessing.

The kingdom of God on earth has not yet come. We are in His kingdom, but it has not fully arrived in this world.

We still must pray that God’s will be done on earth, for much of what goes on is contrary to the will of God.

We must still ask for our daily bread and thank God for it.

We must both forgive others and request God to forgive us.

We still ask God to not let us be deceived by temptation.

We need deliverance from evil moment by moment, and not assume we are immune.

Sadly, you have provided no scriptures to debunk my points, that are based on scripture. You cannot make a convincing biblical case without scriptures. Similarly, a lawyer cannot make his case in court, without citing a specific law or laws. And it goes without saying, that if you are going to confess or acknowledge God’s promises and blessings, you obviously already believe in them. Do you know any Christian that does not believe the Word of God?
There are some situations and circumstances, when we must ask or pray to God for answers, because there is no specific promise or blessing, but why ask God to do, what He already has said, He will do? We can remind Him of what He said, by regularly confessing it or thanking Him in pray, for it.
When you acknowledge or thank God for His promises and blessings, you are not assuming anything, you are reminding God of what He promised , so He can perform it.

 

[Van]

Here is an interpretive translation which emphasizes our desired actions:

Pray like this:

Pray to the Father
and recognize His authority.

Ask for an understanding of His will,
and the willingness to follow.

Ask only for what you need,
and the wisdom to avoid needless desires.

Forgive anyone you think has sinned against you,
and ask for forgiveness for your sins.

Ask for guidance to overcome temptation, and
for insight to keep falsehoods and lies far from you.
(Matt. 6:9-15)

 

[John of Japan]

*Explaining The ‘Lord’s Prayer Updated’:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart, that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved - Romans 10:9

So, if the most important event in a Christian‘s life and the most important promise of God can be achieved or secured, by confessing, speaking or acknowledging sincerely the Word of God, or what God promised, wouldn’t the rest of God’s promises and blessings be secured in the same manner?

This is irrelevant. The "Lord's Prayer" is for believers, not unbelievers.

Death and life are in the power of the tongue - Proverbs 18:21

And if death and life are in the power of our mouth, what we speak or confess, wouldn’t the promises and blessings of God, be secured with the very same mouth also?

This is also irrelevant. You are not yet discussing the "Lord's Prayer."

.. consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus… - Hebrews 3:1

So, if Jesus Christ is the High Priest of our confession, that means there is something that we must be regularly confessing, speaking or acknowledging, that He would be High Priest of? And if we are saved by confessing, speaking or acknowledging sincerely, what God promised, isn’t it logical that Jesus would be the High Priest, over our confession, speaking or acknowledgement of God’s promises and blessings?

Again, irrelevant. What does this have to do with anything I wrote?

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of His Son - Colossians 1:13

Now, in the original Lord’s Prayer, when Jesus said, ‘thy kingdom come’, true the spiritual kingdom of God, had not come yet, because Jesus had not died and risen yet, thus paying the penalty for our redemption and ushering God’s spiritual kingdom on earth.

The "original Lord's Prayer" was the Word of God, spoken directly by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Yet somehow, you felt yourself worthy of "updating" (changing the meaning) of Christ's inspired Word.

Notice, that Jesus delivered us from the kingdom of darkness and conveyed us into His kingdom, right here on earth and not in the future or in heaven?
Therefore, under the new covenant and as Christians , there is no need to call on God to send His spiritual kingdom to earth We can simply regularly thank Him for sending it , through our regular confessions or acknowledgment.

So, then, according to you, Christ was mistaken when He said "Thy kingdom come." What you failed to understand when you changed God's Word, the Word of Jesus Christ Himself, was that we are to pray for Christ to come again, the Second Coming prophesied so many times in Scripture. The Second Coming will be to make Christ king over all the earth. So, do you oppose the 2nd Coming of Christ? Yes, you do, by changing the prayer Christ taught us. I pray often for Christ to come back.

..the firstborn from the dead.. - Colossians 1:18

Jesus was the first to be born again from spiritual death to spiritual life, and also became the first Christian & first member of God’s newly arrived spiritual kingdom on earth. After Him , others followed, including us today.

This is irrelevant. I can't even figure out why you say this in reference to what Christ Himself taught us to pray.

For whoever is born of God overcomes the world - 1 John 5:4

Whoever is born again from spiritual death to spiritual life, by confessing and acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, overcomes the world, because they have the birthright for the will of God to be done, in their life, therefore there is no need under the new covenant and as Christians, to call on God to do His will on earth, when we have a birthright to it.
Under the old covent, when the original ‘Lords Prayer’ was given no one was a Christian and could not be, therefore they were not born of God, and did not have a birthright to the Will of God. No one could become a Christian without the death and resurrection of Jesus.

At last we have a theological hint about why you decided to completely rewrite what Christ Himself taught. You believe that what Christ taught us is under the old covenant. Please prove your belief. I disagree with it. Now, the position you take here says to me you may be a hyper-dispensationalist. May I ask your position on dispensationalism?

And my God shall supply all your needs, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus - Philippians 4:19

So, if God has promised to supply all our needs through Jesus Christ, right here on earth, should we ask Him to supply our needs, or should we jjust thank him and regularly acknowledge that He meets our needs?

Christ wants us to petition the Father. Answered prayer glorifies God. Therefore, Christ put into His model prayer that we should ask God to supply our needs, our "daily bread." When we do so, God receives glory as the only God who can answer prayer.

For if you forgive others their trespassed, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you - Matthew 6:14

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior , promised us that if we forgive others, God will automatically forgive us also, so when we forgive others, should we ask God to also forgive us, when He has already promised to do so? Shouldn’t we just thank and acknowledge his forgiveness for us?

No, because Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, commanded us to forgive others. Are you unaware of His teaching to Peter on this in Matthew 18:21-35?

God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone - James 1:13

If God does not tempt anyone, that means He cannot ‘lead us into temptation’ Therefore, instead of asking or begging God, not to lead us into temptation, we should thank him for our birthright of not to be led into temptation. The people that Jesus gave the prayer to, were not Christians and did not have the right to God’s will. We as Christians have the right.

You misunderstand the teaching at the same time as you change the Word of God, thinking you know more about righteousness than Jesus Christ Himself, who taught us to pray. God does not tempt anyone, it is true, but He sometimes allows us to be put to test to inform us whether or not we are depending on Him to protect us in temptation. He does not tempt to sin, but He does allow temptation. If you disagree, you deny the very words of Christ Himself--which is exactly what your "update" is all about. Christ was mistaken in the whole prayer, according to you, even though He is our Lord and Savior, the very Son of God.

Colossians 1:13 (already listed above)

So, if God has delivered us from the evil one, what is the point of asking Him again , to deliver us from the evil one? Shouldn’t we just thank and acknowledge His deliverance?

*All feedback negative or positive, is very welcome and I promise to respond to all, though not immediately.
I rest my case. Thanks to all, who have participated or followed this thread.

In addition to changing the words of Christ Himself, you are misinterpreting Col. 1:13. It says we are delivered from "the power of darkness," not from Satan. In other words, we can be tempted by Satan, but never have to yield, because we are

So, you changed the precious words of Jesus Christ Himself, which are a prayer (petitioning God), making them into your own interpretations of Scripture as declarative sentences. And you answered none of my objections from the Greek, but rather defended yourself. You must repent, because changing the Word of God is a very dangerous sin. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:5-6).

 

[Van]

The Lord's prayer is an instruction about how we (born anew believers) are to pray.

We are to pray to our Father in heaven, rather than to our biological father on earth.

We are to acknowledge and accept God's name - His attributes, holiness, love and provision.

His reign and authority over our life has come, as we desire to do His will.

In the same way within us, living on earth, as His will is done in heaven.

Adoration

 

[John of Japan]

Should we dismiss all the ordinary people in the Bible, who did not have human-awarded religious credentials, but knew the Word of God, found favor with God and achieved far more than all the modern religious credentials?

That is not what this is about. One is considered a scholar not only from credentials, but from accomplishments. You are inventing a new meaning for the term "scholar" which is held by no one that I know of.

And should we dismiss the ordinary modern day missionaries, who are reaching far more people, with the message of. Jesus Christ, than all those with high religious credentials?

As a former missionary to Japan for 33 years, I object strongly to this. I never considered myself a scholar as a missionary, nor did any other of the many, many missionaries I know. And I knew many when I was a missionary, and as a former missionary I still know and even correspond with many--but no missionary I know will call himself a scholar.

In June I will be going to a missionary Bible translating conference, and there will rub shoulders with many wonderful men of God. There will be Dr. B., translator of the Mongolian Bible and currently consultant on 10 missionary translations, but he doesn't consider himself a scholar--a very humble man who learned Hebrew by living in Israel. GK will be there...not sure if he has yet achieved his doctorate in Hebrew, but he has been a consultant on many missionary Bible translations. He has never called himself a scholar. Other leaders in the area of missionary Bible translation will be there, good men all, and I seriously doubt if any of those other speakers will stand up and say, "I'm a Bible scholar."

Anyone that seriously studies the Bible, can be considered a scholar, even if they may not have impressive human-awarded credentials.
And your son is entitled to his own opinion of scholarship.

By calling yourself a scholar, "and proud of it," you lift yourself up. But Christ taught that we should have the heart of a servant (John 12:4-10). This doesn't give us permission to lift ourselves up with titles. Your pride is offensive.

 

[John of Japan]

If all believers are scholars, then no believers are scholars. It is nothing more than another word for Christian, like "believer" or "saint" or "Christian." BibleVendor scoffs at those like my son who have spent years of their life and many thousands of dollars to learn more deeply the Word of God so as to teach others the Word. For that matter, I myself (no scholar) have spent many thousands working on an accredited BA, MA, and now DMin (not there yet) in order to represent my Lord Jesus and my Bible college and seminary the best that I can. But I would shudder to say I'm "proud" of that, and even after achieving the DMin (hopefully within another year), I will never label myself a scholar. Pride has no place in the life of a Christian. I am only trying to be the best I can be for the Lord and my students.

I suggest that you would do better calling yourself a "student of Scripture." That is what "scholar" used to mean, and no one would object to it. We are all students of Scripture here on the BB.

The professor of the DMin class I just took has a PhD from a famous seminary, is passionate about reaching souls for Christ, being the head of a mission to Jewish people. He has edited or written various scholarly books, and has had dozens of theology papers published by reputable journals, yet he never once called himself a scholar the whole class, though he is known as one.

 

[canadyjd]

So, apparently I created controversy when I commented that John of Japan had given a “scholarly” well thought out, biblical response to the “updated” Lord’s Prayer demonstrating why it changed the meaning our Lord intended.

My focus was on his analysis of the biblical Greek, which was well explained and “scholarly”, imo. Well done John of Japan. Once again, you have enlightened us.

The discussion has revealed much, however.

There are a few folks here that show distain for those well studied in the biblical languages.

Not surprisingly, these same folks are constantly attempting to change the word of God to fit their beliefs.

It seems they realized the objections will come from our well studied brethren and seek to undermine their opinions while elevating their own opinions which reek of pride based on ignorance.

Bottom line, beware those who seek to “update” God’s Word. It has been done throughout history and always leads to error and, at times, heresy.

Peace to you

 

[John of Japan]

I want to believe BibleVendor means no harm, but is just mistaken in his hermeneutics. I see no sign on this thread that he knows anything about hermeneutics, the study of interpretation. I hope our interactions here so far have helped him instead of driven him away, and I hope he continues to think about the issue. I hope he'll take a course in biblical hermeneutics somewhere so he can learn proper Bible interpretation. If he doesn't learn better, he will never be a true Bible scholar (since that seems to be what he wants to be).

"The Lord's Prayer" he presents is a classic case of eisegesis, reading your own views into the Scripture. Exegesis is when you take the passage for exactly what it says, getting the meaning out of the text instead of from some other source. (Eis is the Greek preposition for "into," and "ex" is the preposition for "out".)

 

[Scarlett O.]

Ok, here I go.

The Bible can always be translated properly. By people who know the original languages and the language they are translating to. It's difficult and takes quite a while.

The Bible can be explained in simpler terms to someone who doesn't understand. [1] I've done this more times than I can count with 5-year-olds, 6th graders, my own peers, and the elderly. [2] I have to seek out those who know more than ME when I don't quite understand what I've read.

But, the Bible should NEVER be "updated". Perhaps the OP didn't mean to use that word. Update mean to alter the meaning of a text which is what his "update" did with the Lord's Prayer.

 

[BibleVendor]

This is irrelevant. The "Lord's Prayer" is for believers, not unbelievers.

This is also irrelevant. You are not yet discussing the "Lord's Prayer."

Again, irrelevant. What does this have to do with anything I wrote?

The "original Lord's Prayer" was the Word of God, spoken directly by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Yet somehow, you felt yourself worthy of "updating" (changing the meaning) of Christ's inspired Word.


So, then, according to you, Christ was mistaken when He said "Thy kingdom come." What you failed to understand when you changed God's Word, the Word of Jesus Christ Himself, was that we are to pray for Christ to come again, the Second Coming prophesied so many times in Scripture. The Second Coming will be to make Christ king over all the earth. So, do you oppose the 2nd Coming of Christ? Yes, you do, by changing the prayer Christ taught us. I pray often for Christ to come back.

This is irrelevant. I can't even figure out why you say this in reference to what Christ Himself taught us to pray.

At last we have a theological hint about why you decided to completely rewrite what Christ Himself taught. You believe that what Christ taught us is under the old covenant. Please prove your belief. I disagree with it. Now, the position you take here says to me you may be a hyper-dispensationalist. May I ask your position on dispensationalism?

Christ wants us to petition the Father. Answered prayer glorifies God. Therefore, Christ put into His model prayer that we should ask God to supply our needs, our "daily bread." When we do so, God receives glory as the only God who can answer prayer.

No, because Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, commanded us to forgive others. Are you unaware of His teaching to Peter on this in Matthew 18:21-35?

You misunderstand the teaching at the same time as you change the Word of God, thinking you know more about righteousness than Jesus Christ Himself, who taught us to pray. God does not tempt anyone, it is true, but He sometimes allows us to be put to test to inform us whether or not we are depending on Him to protect us in temptation. He does not tempt to sin, but He does allow temptation. If you disagree, you deny the very words of Christ Himself--which is exactly what your "update" is all about. Christ was mistaken in the whole prayer, according to you, even though He is our Lord and Savior, the very Son of God.

In addition to changing the words of Christ Himself, you are misinterpreting Col. 1:13. It says we are delivered from "the power of darkness," not from Satan. In other words, we can be tempted by Satan, but never have to yield, because we are

So, you changed the precious words of Jesus Christ Himself, which are a prayer (petitioning God), making them into your own interpretations of Scripture as declarative sentences. And you answered none of my objections from the Greek, but rather defended yourself. You must repent, because changing the Word of God is a very dangerous sin. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:5-6).

*The original Lord’s Prayer had to be updated, because it was designed for people, who were not Christians and were under the Old Covenant, which wasn’t as good or effective as the New Covenant.
Just as we no longer sacrifice animals or have to go through a human high priest to approach God, under the New Covenant, as they did in the past
So, Jesus was not mistaken, when He gave the Lord Prayer, but that version was for people, on the other side of the cross, we are on the opposite side of the cross.

Romans 10:9:

This scripture is very relevant in understanding the ‘Lord’s Prayer Updated’, because it is an example of how the most important promise and blessing of God is attained or obtained.
Simply put, if the process described in the above scripture, can produce salvation, then the very same process can produce lesser promises and blessings.

Proverbs 18:21:

This scripture is also extremely relevant, because if your mouth, tongue or confession can determine, whether you live or die, or how long you live, then the very same mouth, tongue or confession, can also determine whether you receive or don’t receive, the needs and wants mentioned in the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ updated or not.

Hebrews 3:1:

I have already explained the significance of this scripture, in my previous response. Now, if you believe that Jesus, as High Priest of our confession, is not relevant to our prayers and confessions, there is nothing
more that I can say to you on this issue.

All the different versions of the present day bible, are updates of updates of updates of updates of the original bible and without a doubt there will be more updates in the future.
In our time we have so many different bibles, using different styles , phrases and words, but the core message remains the same.

Colossians 1:18

This scripture is also extremely relevant, because to provides more evidence of the arrival of the spiritual kingdom of God, on earth. The scripture tells us about the firstborn in this spiritual kingdom. So, if there is a firstborn, there has to be more born into this spiritual kingdom. And it is through this spiritual kingdom that our prayers are answered and we receive God’s promises & blessings, some of which are listed in the Lord’s Prayer.

Hyper-dispensation a list or dispensationalism?

I have no clue what that is? Never heard of it. All I know, is that I am a born again Christian and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Colossians 1:3

The power of darkness and satan, the evil one, spiritual death, evil kingdom are one and the same thing. If the power of darkness is not associated with Satan , the devil or the evil one, then who is it associated with? Is it associated with God?
If you sincerely believe, that darkness and the devil are not the same, then I really don’t know, what else to tell you.

I did not address every one of your many opinions, because I have already dealt with them abundantly, and I don’t have the time to keep repeating myself.
Goor night.

 

[Ascetic X]

*The original Lord’s Prayer had to be updated, because it was designed for people, who were not Christians and were under the Old Covenant, which wasn’t as good or effective as the New Covenant.
Just as we no longer sacrifice animals or have to go through a human high priest to approach God, under the New Covenant, as they did in the past
So, Jesus was not mistaken, when He gave the Lord Prayer, but that version was for people, on the other side of the cross, we are on the opposite side of the cross.

You have disqualified yourself as a “Bible scholar” by erroneously claiming that something Jesus said needs to be updated, i.e., changed.

If you think the Lord’s Prayer is no longer relevant, how about the Sermon on the Mount? John 1:1? The parables? The Prayer of Jesus in John 17?

The Lord’s Prayer is timeless and designed for all people. Nothing in it needs to be altered by a “scholar” with no credentials.

A theology this corrupt and confused is not something a genuine believer can waste time with. It is shameful for anyone to think they can mangle scripture, especially the holy words of the Savior.

 

[Ascetic X]

All the different versions of the present day bible, are updates of updates of updates of updates of the original bible and without a doubt there will be more updates in the future.
In our time we have so many different bibles, using different styles , phrases and words, but the core message remains the same.

Wrong. No versions of the present day Bible are updates as you employ the word. You use the word update to mean changing the scriptures to suit your hyper-dispensationalist eisegesis, based on peculiar, non-scholarly, idiosyncratic hermeneutics.

If you were a scholar, you would know that the modern Bible versions are new translations or paraphrases, and not updates.

The core message of your updated Lord’s Prayer is very different from and alien to the original Lord’s Prayer.

 

[David Lamb]

You have disqualified yourself as a “Bible scholar” by erroneously claiming that something Jesus said needs to be updated, i.e., changed.

If you think the Lord’s Prayer is no longer relevant, how about the Sermon on the Mount? John 1:1? The parables? The Prayer of Jesus in John 17?

The Lord’s Prayer is timeless and designed for all people. Nothing in it needs to be altered by a “scholar” with no credentials.

A theology this corrupt and confused is not something a genuine believer can waste time with. It is shameful for anyone to think they can mangle scripture, especially the holy words of the Savior.

I agree. There is a great difference between updating English words and phrases that over time have changed their meaning, and changing the meaning of the original Greek of the New Testament. An example of the former is changing "fetched a compass" to "circled round."

 

[BibleVendor]

I agree. There is a great difference between updating English words and phrases that over time have changed their meaning, and changing the meaning of the original Greek of the New Testament. An example of the former is changing "fetched a compass" to "circled round."

No one said, that the Lord’s Prayer is no longer relevant. The Lord’s Prayer is still relevant, but not in i it’s original form, because those who originally received it were not Christians and could not be Christians even if they wanted to, because Christ had not died and risen , to usher in the Christiandom or God’s spiritual kingdom, but not the physical kingdom, which will come later.

 

[BibleVendor]

The Lord's prayer is an instruction about how we (born anew believers) are to pray.

We are to pray to our Father in heaven, rather than to our biological father on earth.

We are to acknowledge and accept God's name - His attributes, holiness, love and provision.

His reign and authority over our life has come, as we desire to do His will.

In the same way within us, living on earth, as His will is done in heaven.

Adoration

There were no born anew believers or Christians, when the Lord’s Prayer was originally given, therefore it was originally tailored for people who were spatially dead and not born again.

 

[David Lamb]

No one said, that the Lord’s Prayer is no longer relevant. The Lord’s Prayer is still relevant, but not in i it’s original form, because those who originally received it were not Christians and could not be Christians even if they wanted to, because Christ had not died and risen , to usher in the Christiandom or God’s spiritual kingdom, but not the physical kingdom, which will come later.

Sorry, but I'm not sure how that answers my post. I didn't mention relevance, but the language used.