Lords Prayer

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:59 pm

Since when has, "Forgive us our trespass(s)" been changed to, "Forgive us our debtor(s)"? Or is this just a inter-denominational thing?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:37 pm

Consider that the prayer was originally in Aramaic and then quoted in Greek and translated into English by people with varying goals in their translations (accuracy, readability, etc.)

There are 2 different Greek accounts (one in Matthew and one in Luke):

Matthew 6:12 "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
Luke 11:4 "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us."

In both cases, the people we have "also forgiven" are said to owe a debt (they're alternate forms of the same Greek word.) But in the case of the thing we're guilty of, in Matthew, it's a debt (a thing that is owed) while in Luke it's an error or offense (a failure to meet a mark or standard). Some translators translate both passages as "debts" while some translate one as "debts" and one as "sins" or "trespasses". Both are reasonable ways to translate what's there. So when you hear an alternate form, they're probably just reading from a different translation than you're used to.

I don't think it particularly relates to any one denomination -- different ones use different translations, but as far as I know, nobody makes a big doctrinal point out of it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:46 pm

Thanks Lothar. Since I was raised Catholic, I had learned it as "trespass's".

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:29 pm

The Catholic version of the prayer does use "trespasses," but I've heard various other wordings from other denominations. All seem to be variations on the original Biblical text. The Catholic version also does not include from "For thine is the kingdom..." on, although this is included within the Mass. Just some religious trivia for you

.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:49 pm

Since Vatican II it has been simplified to "For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever."

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:31 pm

I remember learning it both ways in Sunday School.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:42 pm

I saw a skit once called "fish eyes" that was about two of the disciples (two brothers, I think)... it was them telling what they remembered about Jesus.

One of the funniest parts was when they got to the Lord's prayer, and they're saying it together, and they get to "and forgive us our..." and one says DEBTS and the other says TRESPASSES, and then they just stare at each other...

Xamindar · Post by **Xamindar** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:01 pm

Also the Lords Prayer is in the bible more than once, I think it apears two or three times. It is slightly different each time.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 11:38 pm

Top Gun wrote:The Catholic version also does not include from "For thine is the kingdom..." on, although this is included within the Mass. Just some religious trivia for you .

No it doesnt.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:35 am

At methodist Sunday school i remember it as trespasses.

Vertigo · Post by **Vertigo** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:23 am

Hmm.... in dutch it's 'schuldenaren' wich means 'debtors'

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:10 am

all...you gotta love the inconsistencies of religion.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:06 am

Top Wop, I said it doesn't

.

Zuruck, it's not inconsistencies in religion, it's inconsistencies in translating a text written two millennia ago. Whatever way you phrase it, it means the same thing. And let me guess: you're yet another atheist hopelessly trying to discredit the 95% of the world's population that has religious beliefs, right?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:43 am

TG,

It's funny how you lump yourself in with the Muslims when it is you and them agaist the athiests.

Would you say that *A* God is better than *no* God, but *your* God is better than *their* God?

Just curious.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:31 am

Zuruck wrote:all...you gotta love the inconsistencies of religion.

Yeah, because when four people write four accounts of the same events 30 years after the occur, writing in different languages and emphasizing different events because they're writing to different target audiences, they're DEFINITELY going to be consistent.

And by the way Dedman, Mulsims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same God, and all descend from Abraham (Ibrahim). That would be why they're called the ABRAHAMIC religions.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:34 am

I know that. You missed my point.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:53 am

Zuruck wrote:all...you gotta love the inconsistencies of religion.

As someone who's been engaged in an academic study of philosophy and religion for about the past ten years, I'd say that no intellectual system is peferctly consistent (and complete.) Humans are finite, their mental resources are limited, their logic is prone to error. It would be more accurate to talk about the inconsistencies endemic to human thought.

Here's something from CS Lewis, A Grief Observed (from memory):

We have five senses, an incurably abstract intellect, a haphazardly selective memory. We hold a set of assuptions and presuppositions so numerous that we are not aware them, let alone able to analyze each of them . . . how much of total reality can such an apparatus let through?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:58 pm

Mulsims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same God

A better statement would be, all claim to believe in the same God as Abraham did. This does not mean they all *actually* believe in the same God as Abraham, only that they all claim to. (In a similar way, many religions claim to believe in Jesus -- but when they describe Jesus, it's clear they're using the same name to describe entirely different people. If I'm talking about God Incarnate, Savior of the world who taught repentance, while someone else is talking about a misunderstood prophet who taught tolerance, even though we both use the name Jesus it's clear we're not talking about the same guy.)

As is evident from the Muslim description of God's attributes, they do not believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. They explain this by saying that Jews and Christians have fallen away and have a corrupted picture of God, while they have the original and untainted picture of Abraham's God. Christians and Jews explain this by saying that Islam was a rip-off of Christianity and Judaism with some influences from various other religions. (An important point here is that all 3 religions acknowledge that the Muslim picture of God is very different from the Jewish and Christian pictures of God.)

you gotta love the inconsistencies of religion.

What a huge surprise... Zuruck sniping in a discussion about religion. I never would have expected that; he's usually so reasonable and so willing to discuss things.

At methodist Sunday school i remember it as trespasses.

At Mennonite Sunday School, I remember it both ways. Sometimes we read it from Matthew and sometimes from Luke.

The Catholic version also does not include from "For thine is the kingdom..." on

Neither does Luke's version, or the earliest few Greek manuscripts of Matthew's version (though the vast majority of overall manuscripts for Matthew have it.)

Then again, it's not as though they were intended to be verbatim quotes. More accurately, they're semi-verbatim summaries of Jesus' words, geared toward the particular audiences being written to -- Matthew was writing to Jews about their Messiah, while Luke was writing to a Greek (?) about a miracle-worker who was also the Jewish Messiah, so Matthew would include details Luke would not, and vice versa.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:28 pm

Dedman wrote:TG,

It's funny how you lump yourself in with the Muslims when it is you and them agaist the athiests.

Would you say that *A* God is better than *no* God, but *your* God is better than *their* God?

Just curious.

Dedman, I'm not "lumping myself" in with anyone, nor am I saying that anyone's beliefs are better than anyone else. Granted, I do believe that my own faith is the absolute truth, but that doesn't make me disdain the faiths of other people. But yes, I would say that any faith is better than none at all. To tell you the truth, I feel sorry for atheists. They've really locked themselves into their own little rooms of self-assuredness, unwilling to open up and look at greater possibilites. As the Bard said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." To me, the existence of a greater power is confirmed by looking out the window at the woods behind my house, by looking at the mirror at myself, and yes, even by my studies of the sciences. I have always appreciated the viewpoint of seventeenth and eighteenth century scientists, who saw their work as validation of God's creation. Having said those things, I don't see what the problem is by associating myself with Muslims, who worship the same God, in name at least. Lothar, thanks for the very informative post on that subject.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:42 pm

I learned it "trespasses" being raised in a Lutheran church, which incidently has a lot of the Catholic literagy.

Personally, I prefer the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Live,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

The Apostle's Creed is derived from this.

um.. "prefer" is the wrong word. Actually, it's more a misnomer.

awe well.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:44 pm

I also like the Rich Mullins song "creed", which is derived from one of the ancient creeds (I don't recall which one.)

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:46 pm

I was Just thinking that myself. It's taken from the the Apostle's creed.

hmm.. might just toss that on now. Thanks!

gotta love that hammer-dulsemer.