yeah, i've seen that too, it is precise, as to alert us of our own human capacity to fall into what is personally ours by nature. what i was responding within is the context of common translation, which we agree is not at all the case. God wouldnt lead us into temptation, however...we'd sure mislead ourselves. that's why i pointed out scriptural reference in support of it making no sense. was my point. i know you see that though, just saying.
the way i see to read the "lead us not into temptation", is as a challenging statement of fact within the prayer that the one praying faithfully states as truth that God does not lead us into temptation, but does in fact deliver us from evil [our own self-made]. for in that time it was widely misunderstood/believed as being very "God" that would tempt us, that would lead us into. that's why this is stated, as i see it, as an affirmation of truth, as well as restated/supported variously throughtout collective subsequent scriptures. for there is no real timeline as to when or how the NT books/letters were as individual writs sequentially fell, just that at a point in time they were arranged just so.
i chose this particular language of reference because it is where we are respectfully given of Archangel Michael. yep, there's much about english translation that bothers me too, is why ive treaded elsewhere for the deeper sight. latin is cool, greek is cool, hebrew is cool, sanskirt...on and on. but, i imagine english/american language is here and now, and must be forged through for forgeries, as especially american speak is a gatherance from all manner of linguistic origins. might say that when pairing out the word, ya have to turn away from the general which aint on the battle front and get down in the trenches with the non-coms who have actual sight on experiential evidence of what the battle is and is not.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks