A pagan vindicated?

[Owlswing]

Dunno, Rhi: "Do not bring us to the test, but remove us from evil" seems OK to me.

If the Bible, as Christians claim, is the revealed word of God why doesn't it say that instead of "lead us not into temptation"?.

And don't give that load of old rubbish about translation - if the Christian God is all powerful he could have stopped the mistranslation ever being published - if he can't even keep his own Book of Rules/Hisdtory updated properly he's not much good in my view.

[Anchorman]

Well, I haven't used the Jacobean version since I was at school - and then the idea was to see who could say it fast enough. We don't use it in my local church - we use a version in modern English or sometimes Scots.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the Bible, as Christians claim, is the revealed word of God why doesn't it say that instead of "lead us not into temptation"?.

And don't give that load of old rubbish about translation - if the Christian God is all powerful he could have stopped the mistranslation ever being published -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

[Anchorman]

If this is gonna become a thread about the various translations of Scripture into English, with politics thrown in to make it spicey, or why translations have to be made to keep up with linguistic variations caused by the ravages of time, it's going to be a turgid thread.

[Owlswing]

If this is gonna become a thread about the various translations of Scripture into English, with politics thrown in to make it spicey, or why translations have to be made to keep up with linguistic variations caused by the ravages of time, it's going to be a turgid thread.

And, as I have altready posted here, repetition of a thread going back yonks that was, as usual with this  kind of discussion, totally worthless, like hitting your head against a wall of Christian intransigence.

[Robbie]

There are many translations. I like this one (except the American spelling of 'honour'):-

The Lord's Prayer
Contemporary English Version

Our Father in heaven,
help us to honor your name.
Come and set up your kingdom,
so that everyone on earth
will obey you,
as you are obeyed in heaven.
Give us our food for today.
Forgive us for doing wrong,
as we forgive others.
Keep us from being tempted
and protect us from evil.

[Anchorman]

I like a few of the modern versions, Robbie - the NLT comes to mind, as does "The Message" paraphrase. Mind you, there's a bit I don't think we're getting right in English. The Koine is "epiousios" - it sort of translates as "imminant future"....and the line "give us this day our daily bread" should read something like "Give us our tomorrow bread today" - in other words, the "daily bread" is spiritual growth, not wholemeal seeded!

[Owlswing]

Bloody Hell!

We are back again to the fact that if you go back far enough and look at as many translations into as many languages as have been produced in the last 2,000 years, including the profusion of versions freom the good ol' U S of A over the last 50 years, you can find a version to fit just about whatever scenario you want.

All in all a total waste of time as the Christians are never, ever, in a month of Sundays and a year of Blue Moons, going to allow anyone else to win the argument even if they have to win by boring everyone else to death!

[jeremyp]

"Leadu us not into temptation" might me poetical, but it isn't accurate. Probably the best translation from the Koine would be something like "Do not bring us to the test" or "Preserve us from hard testing". Jacobean English, eh?

The NRSV has "And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one"

I think the Pope has a point.

[jeremyp]

If the Bible, as Christians claim, is the revealed word of God why doesn't it say that instead of "lead us not into temptation"?.

It does in good translations.

And don't give that load of old rubbish about translation - if the Christian God is all powerful he could have stopped the mistranslation ever being published - if he can't even keep his own Book of Rules/Hisdtory updated properly he's not much good in my view.

Yes, he could if he were all powerful. What does that tell you about God?

[Owlswing]

It does in good translations.

I was introduced to the Bible when I was five years old - the KJV - and as far as I can remember that was the only version in use in every C of E church in the country and the only one available to buy anywhere in the country.

The KJV (being what it says on the box) is over 400 years old, which means that Christians have been asking their God "not to lead [them] into temptation" for at least that long and it has taken that long for God's representative on Earth to get the e-mail from his Boss telling him to get his finger out and do something about this rather awkward bit of truth about how he, God, works hidden in some way - maybe by telling everybody that some human messed up the passage that says (enter phrase exonerating God from leading his flock into temptation) of your choice)!

Yes, he could if he were all powerful. What does that tell you about God?

Well, funnily enough that's another point that the Christians here have been dodging answering for as long as I have been here and, presumably, since the Beeb closed down, because they were dodging answering it on there too.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I was introduced to the Bible when I was five years old - the KJV - and as far as I can remember that was the only version in use in every C of E church in the country and the only one available to buy anywhere in the country.

The KJV (being what it says on the box) is over 400 years old, which means that Christians have been asking their God "not to lead [them] into temptation" for at least that long and it has taken that long for God's representative on Earth to get the e-mail from his Boss telling him to get his finger out and do something about this rather awkward bit of truth about how he, God, works hidden in some way - maybe by telling everybody that some human messed up the passage that says (enter phrase exonerating God from leading his flock into temptation) of your choice)!

Well, funnily enough that's another point that the Christians here have been dodging answering for as long as I have been here and, presumably, since the Beeb closed down, because they were dodging answering it on there too.

As has been pointed out above, we don't all use this translation, and we are not all Anglicans, nor RC's.

What concerns me the most here is that you have outed yourself as an Express reader 

[Anchorman]

As a matter of interest, most RCs I know have used the GNB or the Jerusalem Bible for decades. There's no set translation in the CofS. Most denominations use the NIV,GNB....or when they're feeling Scottish, the Lorimer New Testament in Scots or the Glasgow Bible. The only time I can recall the KJV being ued in the last thirty or so years was at a funeral, when the next of kin wanted the 23rd Psalm read from that translation. I did a bit of digging yesterday: my own local kirk abandoned the KJV in the early '60's.

[Owlswing]

What concerns me the most here is that you have outed yourself as an Express reader 

How so?

The only papers that I have read in the last ten or more years have been Metro, usually for the Nemi cartoon, City A M   and the Standard for the Soduko and the crossword.

[Owlswing]

As a matter of interest, most RCs I know have used the GNB or the Jerusalem Bible for decades. There's no set translation in the CofS. Most denominations use the NIV,GNB....or when they're feeling Scottish, the Lorimer New Testament in Scots or the Glasgow Bible. The only time I can recall the KJV being ued in the last thirty or so years was at a funeral, when the next of kin wanted the 23rd Psalm read from that translation. I did a bit of digging yesterday: my own local kirk abandoned the KJV in the early '60's.

Like I said - the Christians, of ALL stripes, will say just about anything the prevent their religion and its God being criticised in any way - another thread that is going to flounder on the rocks of "the Christian God can do no wrong and the Bible is the unadulterated truth.

[Nearly Sane]

Like I said - the Christians, of ALL stripes, will say just about anything the prevent their religion and its God being criticised in any way - another thread that is going to flounder on the rocks of "the Christian God can do no wrong and the Bible is the unadulterated truth.

This reads as if you are accusing Anchorman of lying, 'saying just about anything' in his reply. It doesn't read like that to me but rather that you owe him an apology.

[Robbie]

Bloody Hell!

We are back again to the fact that if you go back far enough and look at as many translations into as many languages as have been produced in the last 2,000 years, including the profusion of versions freom the good ol' U S of A over the last 50 years, you can find a version to fit just about whatever scenario you want.

All in all a total waste of time as the Christians are never, ever, in a month of Sundays and a year of Blue Moons, going to allow anyone else to win the argument even if they have to win by boring everyone else to death!

Oh sorry you're bored, Owlswing,
I'm not trying to win an argument nor am I arguing. Don't think Anchor is either.

[Anchorman]

Like I said - the Christians, of ALL stripes, will say just about anything the prevent their religion and its God being criticised in any way - another thread that is going to flounder on the rocks of "the Christian God can do no wrong and the Bible is the unadulterated truth.

"Unadulterated truth"? ....
I'm not a KJV-only-er, nor, as you should know, a YEC.
However, the Bible is, s the Kirk puts it in its' usual theology speak "The supreme standard for faith and life".
Is there a perfect tanslation?
If there is, I've never found it yet.
I use a varirty of versions, depending on the situation, potential hearers, etc.
If I'm engaging on personal study, I usually have several versions from several thought strands before me - NIV, NLT and the Message.

[Robbie]

Like I said - the Christians, of ALL stripes, will say just about anything the prevent their religion and its God being criticised in any way - another thread that is going to flounder on the rocks of "the Christian God can do no wrong and the Bible is the unadulterated truth.

Don't predict how the thread will go! It seems you would prefer Christians to say nothing on a subject that interests them Owlswing. The Pope isn't doing anything controversial with the Lord's Prayer really, there have been many different translations used at different times, they have the same basic meaning but are easier to understand in less archaic language. None of that matters to non-Christians except academically.

[Owlswing]

This reads as if you are accusing Anchorman of lying, 'saying just about anything' in his reply. It doesn't read like that to me but rather that you owe him an apology.

Don't put words into my mouth.

No way am I accusing him or anyone else of lying.

What I am saying is that the Lord's Prayer as it was worded when I was taught it stated "lead us not into temptation" in  a prayer addressed to "Our Father who art in Heaven" who was identifaied as God.

I can see no reason not to take that as meaning that thoSe praying are asking their God not to lead them into temptation. 


Matthew 6:9-13 King James Version (KJV)

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen

All these lines are addressed to "Our Father which art in heaven" - God!

This being the case in this prayer the persdon praying is asking his/her "Father which art in heaven" NOT to lead him/her into temptation.

All other translations - the KJV being created for the subjects in England and Scotland of said King James so they could understrand what was being said/what they were saying rather than understanding not a word in a language, Latin. that none but the clergy understood - therefore are totally and utterly and completely irrelevant  to my question - Why would the God of the Christians lead his followers into temptation and they need to pray that he not do so?

Now the Pope has decided that the wording is misleading - an enormous understatement in my view.

[Owlswing]

"Unadulterated truth"? ....
I'm not a KJV-only-er, nor, as you should know, a YEC.
However, the Bible is, s the Kirk puts it in its' usual theology speak "The supreme standard for faith and life".
Is there a perfect tanslation?
If there is, I've never found it yet.
I use a varirty of versions, depending on the situation, potential hearers, etc.
If I'm engaging on personal study, I usually have several versions from several thought strands before me - NIV, NLT and the Message.

That is the whole point, Anchor!¬

YOU use!

How many other Christians do the same? I am not sure my memory serves me right but are you not a lay preacher, meaning you are likely to have rather more interest in such details as other translations of the Bible than the (proverbial) (Christian) man-in-the-street? 

[Owlswing]

Don't predict how the thread will go! It seems you would prefer Christians to say nothing on a subject that interests them Owlswing. The Pope isn't doing anything controversial with the Lord's Prayer really, there have been many different translations used at different times, they have the same basic meaning but are easier to understand in less archaic language. None of that matters to non-Christians except academically.

Oh, Robbie, I am so sorry to have offended!

Try going back over the threads under the Christian Topic and see just how many go on for 10 or more pages of argument which consist of Christians quoting great swathes of the Bible to refute arguments about what God/Jesus said and/or did.

Even more try reading the ones where the argument comes down the question 'Does the God of the Christians exist? - if so what proof exists to substantiate this claim'. 

I think you will find that my prediction is not far off the mark.

[Anchorman]

That is the whole point, Anchor!¬

YOU use!

How many other Christians do the same? I am not sure my memory serves me right but are you not a lay preacher, meaning you are likely to have rather more interest in such details as other translations of the Bible than the (proverbial) (Christian) man-in-the-street? 

I've always had an interest in various versions, Owlswing, since I came across a Mofat Translation - long before I was Christian (in fact, while I was atheist.)
I've always encouraged folk to find the version they can feel comfortable with, as long as that version is accepted by mainstream Christians, and has been scrutinized by a team of linguistic experts, all of whose credentials are known.
As a historian, I was fascin ated to learn that the kjv ws influenced by James VI - himself heavily indoctrinated by the 'divine right of kings' notion, and certain words and phrases were 'tweaked' to promote his ideas.
I suppose that's why the Kirk had to be forced by law in Charls II's time, to give up the Geneva Bible in favour of the KJV.
Most modern translations - especially those endorsed by Biblica - go through a rigorous review process, their translators examined for bias, before hitting the shelves.
That doesn't mean they're all the same - the Koine, Aramaic and Hebrew core MSS may be the same, but the translators' approach to the shifting sands of the English language evolves as the language itself changes.

[Owlswing]

I've always had an interest in various versions, Owlswing, since I came across a Mofat Translation - long before I was Christian (in fact, while I was atheist.)
I've always encouraged folk to find the version they can feel comfortable with, as long as that version is accepted by mainstream Christians, and has been scrutinized by a team of linguistic experts, all of whose credentials are known.
As a historian, I was fascin ated to learn that the kjv ws influenced by James VI - himself heavily indoctrinated by the 'divine right of kings' notion, and certain words and phrases were 'tweaked' to promote his ideas.
I suppose that's why the Kirk had to be forced by law in Charls II's time, to give up the Geneva Bible in favour of the KJV.
Most modern translations - especially those endorsed by Biblica - go through a rigorous review process, their translators examined for bias, before hitting the shelves.
That doesn't mean they're all the same - the Koine, Aramaic and Hebrew core MSS may be the same, but the translators' approach to the shifting sands of the English language evolves as the language itself changes.

Please, I am not arguing that any other version is wriong, right or totally indiferent.

The Church of England, which i attended until I was fifteen, and also where I was, upon the insistance of my in-laws, married to my first wife, and the Bapitist Church I attended, again at the inistance of the in-laws, the C of E wouldn't take me as I was divorced, for my second mattiege, use the KJV.

I have no idea which version of the Christian bible is used at any Church of the C of E these days, but the presumption is that it is still the KJV which contains the line under discussion.

My argument is that this line has been taught to hundreds of thousands of chuildren of C of E parents, a line which asks their God not to lead them into temptation.

If their God is all powerfull, sees and hears all, why has ne ho changed this line if it does not mean what it says?

If he is NOT all-powerful, all seeing and all hearing why are all these hundreds of thousands of kids taught that he is, thus producing posters like Sassy, Hope, Alan Burns, Spud etc who are hell-bent on convincing all of us who do not believe in this all-powerful, all-seeing, all hearing God that we are to burn in Hell for all eternity for our apostacy?   

[ippy]

The Pope is trying to change the Lord's Prayer saying it makes it look like God is "leading us into temptation".

It's taken how long for the Church to wake up to this and I, personally, have been subjected to chorus of denial from the Christians on this forum telling me how wrong I am for saying exactly the same thing!


https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/889365/Pope-Francis-Jesus-Lords-Prayer-Bible-God-Catholic-scripture-religion-christianity

The Pope is trying to change the Lord's Prayer, so what? Sounds like a really big deal?

ippy