The Lord's Prayer

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OMW,

Always good to see the return of an old favourite - I see the reification fallacy is getting a good outing here.

Welcome back old chum - asserting personal faith beliefs with the preface "don't forget" or similar as if they're facts never tires does it.

I think people know where they stand in terms of philosophical base in this argument.

if we are discussing Christianity then although we might not agree with it we must at least for dialogues sake enter into it's premises.

I think that the case was made that if we are to discuss what Christianity might be saying we need to get away from misconception.

If you don't want to do that don't get involved. If you don't want to move from holding a caricature of Christianity then you've got....er, a caricature of Christianity.

I can assure you that I have not strayed from orthodox or mainstream Christianity.

[Shaker]

if we are discussing Christianity then although we might not agree with it we must at least for dialogues sake enter into it's premises.

A great many atheists are to say the very least deeply suspicious of that approach since there have been too many occasions where, in discussing Christianity, "for dialogue's sake enter[ing] into its premises" is dishonestly interpreted by a theistic opponent as agreement with and even belief in what's under discussion. 

[Rhiannon]

It's not only atheists who find that approach an uncomfortable one.

[Owlswing]

The word temptation in Greek means to test. It does not always mean enticing to sin.

As we read here as well

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able..." 1Corinthians 10:13

Sorry atheists, pagans and others but this just isn't a puzzler nor contradiction.

There is only one particular problem with this, we are NOT Greek - and therefore whatever it meant to the Greeks is no longer of any consequence, therefore it is a contradiction

The point stands - why would the Christian God lead people INTO temptation - if it was a test it would be lead me TO temptation; and why NOT, surely a Christian would be perfectly prepared to be led to a test of his/her faith in their God?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Shakes,

A great many atheists are to say the very least deeply suspicious of that approach since there have been too many occasions where, in discussing Christianity, "for dialogue's sake enter[ing] into its premises" is dishonestly interpreted by a theistic opponent as agreement with and even belief in what's under discussion.

Quite. The moment “for the sake of the conversation” we accept that gravity is pixies holding stuff down with invisible string and move on to what brand trainers they prefer all sorts of madness ensues.  I saw the OP more as asking something like, “why would the authors have put it that way?” rather than the presumptive “why would God have written it that way?”

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Shakes,

Quite. The moment “for the sake of the conversation” we accept that gravity is pixies holding stuff down with invisible string and move on to what brand trainers they prefer all sorts of madness ensues.

Don't have the conversation then...........Honestly....You are like the man who sat on a radiator then complained his rear was burning.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Oh, I wish you would pause for an hour before you post something Matty. You realize that the New Testament was written in Greek not English? Greek because that was the language that most could understand, from a Roman to a Jew. And you want to dismiss what those words meant at the time because? You're to lazy to get a Greek concordance? Well my dad was a preacher and my house has always had a Strong's Greek and Hebrew.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3986&t=KJV

[Owlswing]

Oh, I wish you would pause for an hour before you post something Matty. You realize that the New Testament was written in Greek not English? Greek because that was the language that most could understand, from a Roman to a Jew. And you want to dismiss what those words meant at the time because? You're to lazy to get a Greek concordance? Well my dad was a preacher and my house has always had a Strong's Greek and Hebrew.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3986&t=KJV

OK - one more attempt to play nice to you - I have never, ever, heard the Lord's Prayer delivered in any other language than English - it is said in English and its meaning is understood by 99.99% of people in English. I doubt if I could find more than one or two who saw the meaning of the word 'temptation' in the way you describe it if I stood outside a Christian Church on a Sunday and asked every single person who was there what 'temptation' in the Prayer meant, and I include the officiating priest in that count.

As to the Blue Letter Bible - another American institution that, I would guess, not more than one in ten thousand English people, even Christians, has ever heard of. And how many Christians delve this deep into the origins of the bible's contents, even less than one in ten thousand I would guess.
 

[OH MY WORLD!]

Matty,
You do realize that temptation in Hebrew means trial? For you to ignore what the words mean in the language that the book was written (Greek) is a mistake.

Should the Greeks accept all your English homonyms? Sure, because they would probably want to know what was meant.
There is more than one English version of the Lord's prayer
Here is the Lord's prayer in basic English, please note
"And let us not be put to the test" 

http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/luke_gospel_scripture.html

[Owlswing]

Matty,
You do realize that temptation in Hebrew means trial? For you to ignore what the words mean in the language that the book was written (Greek) is a mistake.

Should the Greeks accept all your English homonyms? Sure, because they would probably want to know what was meant.
There is more than one English version of the Lord's prayer
Here is the Lord's prayer in basic English, please note
"And let us not be put to the test" 

http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/luke_gospel_scripture.html

Fine, but I ask again - where and by whom is this version of the Prayer used and when. I have never heard it used in any of the churches to which my father took me during the time before my lapsing from Christianity.

The only version I have ever heard used - even in the army and at the Cenotaaph on Rememberance Sunday is:

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;
Deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.
          
I have never, ever, heard a minister refer to the Greek or Hebrew origins of the Prayer, or even the Latin version, so why should those versions have any relevance to modern Christianity if the clergy do not mention it to their congregations; do they, perhaps, presume that the members of their congregations have researched the Greek, Latin and Hebrew origins and meanings for themselves?

I am sorry, but I seriously doubt that this is the case.

[OH MY WORLD!]

You don't understand Matty. When my Bible was translated the English word temptation meant, testing, proving, trying and tempting. So the translation from the Greek is correct, it is the English language that has narrowed the meaning of the word temptation over the centuries. At the time of translation it was understood as it should be. That you refuse to accept the original meaning is very silly. It's like somebody 300 years from now won't accept that there were synonyms back in your day. It makes no sense that you refuse to realize it is English that has narrowed the meaning of this word. Do a little research on it Matty, it is at your finger tips.

[jeremyp]

The word temptation in Greek means to test. It does not always mean enticing to sin.

Why did God allow the English to translate it wrong?

[jeremyp]

What do you mean by "restoration" in this context?
Fine, but why is it necessary to engineer the death of your son in order to swallow your righteous sense of hurt?

But the son is God.

OK, why is it necessary to engineer your own death in order to swallow your righteous sense of hurt?

Plus the fact you seem to be forgetting the consequence of sin on the perpetrator themselves i.e. progressive corruption of the self.

And somebody else dying stops that because....?

If I wronged you would expect restoration to be made by me.

In many situations, I might, however, I might choose to forgive you and waive restoration. Or restoration might be impossible.

If you broke my window, you could provide restoration by paying for it to be fixed. However, if I forgive you, I might waive the cost.

If you murder me, what possible restoration could you make? Some people seem to think your own execution counts as "restoration" but I'd still be dead.

[Owlswing]

You don't understand Matty. When my Bible was translated the English word temptation meant, testing, proving, trying and tempting. So the translation from the Greek is correct, it is the English language that has narrowed the meaning of the word temptation over the centuries. At the time of translation it was understood as it should be. That you refuse to accept the original meaning is very silly. It's like somebody 300 years from now won't accept that there were synonyms back in your day. It makes no sense that you refuse to realize it is English that has narrowed the meaning of this word. Do a little research on it Matty, it is at your finger tips.

We are not talking 300 years, we are taking 2,000 years; are you teling me that there are this ids te ponly word that has changed its meaning in that time? How many other words do you/we/everyone use today that have different meanings fromn their original.

So nowadays, when we describe a man as being 'gay', what we are really saying is that he is happy or when we describe a woman as being 'gay' we mean that she is a prostitute. For these are what the word gay meant about 60 or 100 years ago respectively and they are not even translations from other languages, they are English meaning s of the word.

Do you seriously suggest that calling a woman or a man gay today means what it meant then and not what it is taken to mean now?

[Owlswing]

Why did God allow the English to translate it wrong?

I don't think that it is so much a matter of translation. It is more an evolution of meaning; the meaning of the word has changed in day-to-day usage. How long is it since the word 'temptation' was used IN ENGLISH to mean 'test'?

As I said to OMW above, how many words that we use today mean something different to that which they meant 60 years ago, never mind 2,000 years ago?

[jeremyp]

Perhaps it is time to look at what it really says. This is the version in the NRSV, which  is a translation that aims to accurately get the Greek meaning across

Our Father in heaven,
   hallowed be your name.
   Your kingdom come.
   Your will be done,
     on earth as it is in heaven.
   Give us this day our daily bread.
   And forgive us our debts,
     as we also have forgiven our debtors.
   And do not bring us to the time of trial,
     but rescue us from the evil one.

That's Matthew. For completeness, here is the version in Luke.

Father, hallowed be your name.
   Your kingdom come.
   Give us each day our daily bread.
   And forgive us our sins,
     for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
   And do not bring us to the time of trial.

Luke obviously decided that Jesus' original long boring version needed some editing.

[Owlswing]

Perhaps it is time to look at what it really says. This is the version in the NRSV, which  is a translation that aims to accurately get the Greek meaning across

Our Father in heaven,
   hallowed be your name.
   Your kingdom come.
   Your will be done,
     on earth as it is in heaven.
   Give us this day our daily bread.
   And forgive us our debts,
     as we also have forgiven our debtors.
   And do not bring us to the time of trial,
     but rescue us from the evil one.

That's Matthew. For completeness, here is the version in Luke.

Father, hallowed be your name.
   Your kingdom come.
   Give us each day our daily bread.
   And forgive us our sins,
     for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
   And do not bring us to the time of trial.

Luke obviously decided that Jesus' original long boring version needed some editing.

. . . and just how long is it since either of these versions was used in a Christian church service in England? Or anywhere? How many people saying the prayer in church or in private understand that 'temptation' in the Lord's prayer does not mean what they think it means?

Other than biblical scholars, of course?

And why has this only come to light now, when the reason for the request needing to be made by the supplicant is being questioned?

Why are the versions that you quote above not used today? Well, not to my knowledge anyway!

[Hope]

. . . and just how long is it since either of these versions was used in a Christian church service in England? Or anywhere?

Probably several times a week in most churches, Matt - depending on how many services that church holds on a Sunday and whether they also hold mid-week services - like a mid-week communion service or have Bible Study groups where it may be said as part of the prayer time.  On our projection software at church, we have 4 different versions of the prayer for use with different congregations.

How many people saying the prayer in church or in private understand that 'temptation' in the Lord's prayer does not mean what they think it means?

The Lord's Prayer is quite a common sermon topic, and each preacher may or may not choose to concentrate on this particular 'do not ... but' pairing.  It should also be remembered that Bibliclally, temptation is not regarded as a sin; the sin is giving into it.  After all, Jesus was tempted whilst in the desert.

Other than biblical scholars, of course?

The advantage of having the Bible in English, and other native languages is that one doesn't have to be a Bible scholar to understand things.  Many of us have access to commentaries - both in hard-copy and online - neither of which require Biblical scholar status to be able to read and understand.

And why has this only come to light now, when the reason for the request needing to be made by the supplicant is being questioned?

Has it?  As far as I'm aware, it has been discussed and sermonised on for at least as long as I've been alive.  As for your earier comment about never hearing Greek or Latin referred to by a preacher, your experience is pretty well diametrically the opposite of mine - I can only think of one clergyman whose preaching I've known over a decent period of time (ie not just a one-off sermon) who never referred to Greek and/or Latin in their sermons.  I haven't preached for some time now, but when I did, both here in the UK and in nepal, I too would refer to the original language of a passage to try to draw out its original meaning, so that one can apply it honestly toi modern-day situations.

Why are the versions that you quote above not used today? Well, not to my knowledge anyway!

There are a number of versions that reflect the same meaning as the examples jeremy gave in use in churches across the country and the world.  As you say, you have moved away from the church, so you would seem not to know the developments that have occurred within the liturgy, versions of the Bible, etc. over the years.


More generally, its worth noting that the Greek word that is translated 'lead' (in the AV and some other older versions) in the two forms of the prayer we have, was interpreted as meaning 'protect us from' as far back as many of the Early Church Fathers.

[Owlswing]

Probably several times a week in most churches, Matt - depending on how many services that church holds on a Sunday and whether they also hold mid-week services - like a mid-week communion service or have Bible Study groups where it may be said as part of the prayer time.  On our projection software at church, we have 4 different versions of the prayer for use with different congregations.
The Lord's Prayer is quite a common sermon topic, and each preacher may or may not choose to concentrate on this particular 'do not ... but' pairing.  It should also be remembered that Bibliclally, temptation is not regarded as a sin; the sin is giving into it.  After all, Jesus was tempted whilst in the desert.
The advantage of having the Bible in English, and other native languages is that one doesn't have to be a Bible scholar to understand things.  Many of us have access to commentaries - both in hard-copy and online - neither of which require Biblical scholar status to be able to read and understand.
Has it?  As far as I'm aware, it has been discussed and sermonised on for at least as long as I've been alive.  As for your earier comment about never hearing Greek or Latin referred to by a preacher, your experience is pretty well diametrically the opposite of mine - I can only think of one clergyman whose preaching I've known over a decent period of time (ie not just a one-off sermon) who never referred to Greek and/or Latin in their sermons.  I haven't preached for some time now, but when I did, both here in the UK and in nepal, I too would refer to the original language of a passage to try to draw out its original meaning, so that one can apply it honestly toi modern-day situations.
There are a number of versions that reflect the same meaning as the examples jeremy gave in use in churches across the country and the world.  As you say, you have moved away from the church, so you would seem not to know the developments that have occurred within the liturgy, versions of the Bible, etc. over the years.


More generally, its worth noting that the Greek word that is translated 'lead' (in the AV and some other older versions) in the two forms of the prayer we have, was interpreted as meaning 'protect us from' as far back as many of the Early Church Fathers.

Why am I not surprised at your response?

Only your experiences and knowledge, when it comes to Christianity (which are, of course all embracing), to all its nuances and all its ramifications, have any validity and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant upstart who should be ashamed of having the temerity to question the master!.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Just out of interest, is your understanding of standard orthodoxy that the words of the prayer were dictated/inspired/whatever by "God", or just that they have been authored by people who wanted to put together something that worked for them as a meaningful supplication?

[Hope]

Hope,

Just out of interest, is your understanding of standard orthodoxy that the words of the prayer were dictated/inspired/whatever by "God", or just that they have been authored by people who wanted to put together something that worked for them as a meaningful supplication?

My understanding of standard orthodoxy is that the wording of the prayer was established by Jesus, the Messiah as anticipated by the Jews, (possibly on more than one occasion during his ministry) and recorded by two of the Gospel writers.  It is also orthodox understanding that the words may have been uttered in Aramaic originally, and translated into Koine Greek by the gospel writers - which have since been translated into Latin and then English (as far as we in the UK are concerned).  As for your second option, it is unlikely for the same reason that the idea of resurrection is unlikely to have been dreamed up by the disciples - the ideas were very different to traditional Jewish thought.

[floo]

My understanding of standard orthodoxy is that the wording of the prayer was established by Jesus, the Messiah as anticipated by the Jews, (possibly on more than one occasion during his ministry) and recorded by two of the Gospel writers.  It is also orthodox understanding that the words may have been uttered in Aramaic originally, and translated into Koine Greek by the gospel writers - which have since been translated into Latin and then English (as far as we in the UK are concerned).  As for your second option, it is unlikely for the same reason that the idea of resurrection is unlikely to have been dreamed up by the disciples - the ideas were very different to traditional Jewish thought.

That is what you want to believe, but there is NO supporting evidence.

Besides which if the guy did pop up alive, why didn't he stick around instead of conveniently disappearing skyward?

[Hope]

Only your experiences and knowledge, when it comes to Christianity (which are, of course all embracing), to all its nuances and all its ramifications, have any validity and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant upstart who should be ashamed of having the temerity to question the master!.

A bit hypocritical coming from someone who chooses to expound on a belief system that they don't believe in and whose experience of is - if their own posts are to be believed - some considerable time in the past.

Might I also point out that what I post is generally a distillation of information from other sources, such as commentaries and sermons, my own reading of the Bible, and discussions and debates with other Christians, atheists and religious non-Christians.

[Shaker]

A bit hypocritical coming from someone who chooses to expound on a belief system that they don't believe in

So in HopeWorld you're allowed only to discuss things that you actually believe in?

[Hope]

That is what you want to believe, but there is NO supporting evidence.

Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but there is documentary evidence to the information, there is linguistic evidence that the recording of that information is 1st century AD in nature, as well literary evidence that the ideas that Jesus espoused, whilst based on Jewish thought, went a long way beyond them.  As I pointed out in the post you have responded to, the idea of resurrection was also one that was by no means mainstream Jewish thinking.

Besides which if the guy did pop up alive, why didn't he stick around instead of conveniently disappearing skyward?

Answer 1: If he had still been around today - 2000 years later - would that have convinced you of the reality of the documentary evidence?
Answer 2: History is full of people initiating ideas and then leaving those who support those ideas to teach them to other people.  Note that Answers 1 and 2 are not alternatives but complementary to each other.