Talk:Lord's Prayer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edits

Added an apostrophe to this article, and fixed the links to it. Left Lords Prayer as a redirect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 July 2002

Text

---

I was just wondering why the text of the prayer is not included and a discussion of the meaning of its' contents? Obviously then, my next question is, will anyone be averse to its' inclusion? george 22:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Catholics, when reciting the Lord's prayer, omit the doxology, since in the Mass it is separated from the rest of the prayer by the additional section.

This is not really true. I'm catholic and I'm used to pray it including the doxology. I've learned it that way at school and therefor assume that I'm not the only one doing so. -- JeLuF 22:48 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

It's omitted in the Latin Mass, I've noticed, which they still hold at St. Paschal Baylon in Toronto. So perhaps the doxology is only omitted in Latin. -- Mephistopheles

In Massachusetts, U.S.... I recently attended a Catholic wedding in which the priest said "Let us now say the Lord's Prayer." He then did so, in English, and stopped at "deliver us from evil." He then paused for about ten seconds and said "OK, have the Protestants had time to catch up?" (In case I haven't conveyed the mood, it was very pleasant--I certainly perceived his intention to be welcoming and inclusionary). Dpbsmith 18:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm Catholic and never learned it using the doxology. Also recall reading something to the effect that it was more of a Protestant thing, as it were. :) We use it at mass, separated from the rest of the prayer by another little blurb by the priest ("Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. Protect us from all (unnecessary) anxiety, etc, ect.") before the congregation does the doxology. I had actually done an edit similar to the one above, but I reverted it, since I guess my case isn't the same as everyone else's. --User:Jenmoa 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true. The doxology is not said as part of the prayer but if at all as a separate prayer in both the Tridentine and Pauline Masses. I would be highly surprised if a Catholic school actually taught the doxology as part of the prayer. If they did it was rather a big theological faux pas on their part, as they weren't supposed to. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 30 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)

---

Is there any reason for the Croatian, German, Swedish versions? Couldn't they be in other language Wikipedias? --Henrygb 17:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, or a separate page could be created with the Lord's Prayer in many different languages of the world. Otherwise, I assume it's better to remove the versions in these three languages. Meursault2004 20:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They're there, like the versions in archaic languages, for purposes of comparison, and so should stay. orthogonal 03:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

"In Greek (from which all others are translated):"

Wouldn't the original be in Aramaic, as that was what Jesus spoke? Of course, whether the Aramaic version we have now is the same as the original is another question. DopefishJustin 21:31, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly the Aramaic was the original, but I guess that all others were translated generally from greek or latin or perhaps from later translations being closer (either in language or in availability) to the clerics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.113.85 (talk • contribs) 13 January 2005

---

Certainly the original could have been in Aramaic, yes! I meant the original 'written' version.

There is some evidence that Jesus spoke some Greek, (and possibly even Latin!). Want to discuss?

Of course a Christian view is that he speaks all languages.

Timlane

---

Is there any chance of this page somewhere addressing the new age-style versions that seems quite popular around the internet. The following seems to be the most popular:

A Translation of "Our Father" directly from the Aramaic into English

(rather than from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English)

by Mark Hathaway

O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration!

Soften the ground of our being and carve out a space within us where your Presence can abide.

Fill us with your creativity so that we may be empowered to bear the fruit of your mission.

Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance with your desire.

Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share what each being needs to grow and flourish.

Untie the tangled threads of destiny that bind us, as we release others from the entanglement of past :mistakes.

Do not let us be seduced by that which would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the :opportunities of the present moment.

For you are the ground and the fruitful vision, the birth-power and fulfillment, as all is gathered :and made whole once again.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlotoxl (talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 May 2004

---

added a new transcription of a scots-gaelic version from a scan @ http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-scottish.html, "The Lord's Prayer in the Principal Languages, Dialects and Versions of the World, printed in Type and Vernaculars of the Different Nations, compiled and published by G.F. Bergholtz", Chicago, Illinois, 1884. Badanedwa 02:31, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

---

Interesting, somebody verify and add to page: In the US, the RCs deviate from the Douay Bible's version "debts...debtors" to use the "trespasses...trespass" of the 1928 Episcopal Book of common Prayer, but the latest Episcopal version uses "debts...debtors". Is this a case of RC assimilation followed later by Episcopal ecumenicism? I don't know, that's why this is here and not in the article. Maybe a religious person can follow up? orthogonal 03:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

"the most well-known" This phrase is a symptom of terminal tone-deafness among writers of mediocre English who are not listening to what they say... Wetman 02:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yet you didn't correct it? I have changed the phrase to "best-known", in response to your complaint. Lesgles 17:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

French "tu" and "vous"

I have edited the French form to put the informal "tu" form throughout (the previous version had a mix of both), qualifying at the top that some people use the formal "vous". The phrase "notre père qui es aux cieux" gets more hits in Google than "notre père qui êtes aux cieux", and it is the form used on the web site of the Catholic Church is France [[1]]. It is also the closest translation to the Latin, which did not have a formal "vous" form. Someone might know better which version is most common today, but, in any case, I think we should be consistent. Lesgles (talk)

The informal form is more common in French and Spanish, and historically, English (thee/thou/thy is the informal form).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.33.99 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 December 2005

Wikisource

all these versions should be moved to Wikisource:! dab 10:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. — Matt 11:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Need some help

I need some help with this OE line:

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg. I know from other languages that it should mean "our daily bread give us this day"; this is usually divided into two lines:

Our daily bread

Give us this day.

How to do that with the OE line? Which words mean "our daily bread" and "give us this day"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.138.241 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 December 2004

This is a rough literal translation, based on the much old english language I know. "Our y-dai-whom-ly(Seems to be the most common OE word for "daily") bread give us to day". Hlaf is actually the same word as modern english "Loaf", and the OE word "Bread" seems to be meaning cooked food, morsel, going back to an old germanic word originally meaning possibly "piece of food"/"cooked food". All modern germanic languages use words akin to "bread" for "bread", though. The word "Syle" seems to be a cognate to moden english "Sell" which in older germanic usually meant something like "give"/"hand over"/"deliver". Hope this is helpful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.113.85 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 January 2005

Greek transliteration

The previous transliteration attempted to capture the polytonic accents, which I admire, but its use of the roman circumflex for both long vowels (to distinguish ε/η and ο/ω] and for the Greek circumflex/περισπωμένη was confusing, and the use of apostrophes to indicate smooth breathing/ψιλή even more so (since the characters in question appeared as 'straight quotes' rather than ‘smart quotes’ on my display). Since i'm not aware of an elegant way to "stack" diacritical marks, I decided that a standardized letter/letter correspondence was more important than preserving the pitch accents. Comments? -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikisource

Several times on this talk page someone has suggested that the prayers need to be moved to Wikisource. No one has disagreed, some people have agreed, but no one has done it. I'm going to start doing it. The only versions I'll leave here are the original Greek, and one or two English translations. For the other languages, see [2]. --Angr/_comhrá 14:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I can name someone who has disagreed:

"They're there, like the versions in archaic languages, for purposes of comparison, and so should stay. orthogonal 03:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

Meursault2004 16:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I read it, he was objecting to moving the other languages to each language's own Wikipedia page, which would indeed make comparison difficult. Having them all at Wikisource, however, makes comparison easy. --Angr/_comhrá 20:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished the move. The Lord's Prayer is now given in 72 languages at [Wikisource:Relgious texts]. --Angr/_comhrá 11:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay you've done it. What's done is done. But why did you also move the Latin text? I think you didn't have to move the Pater Noster as it is still an important part of the Catholic mass. Should we put it back? Meursault2004 12:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Latin text is there at Wikisource, as is the English version used at the Roman Catholic Mass. I think for an English-language encyclopedia article about the Lord's Prayer, it's sufficient to have the Greek original and the best-known English translation. The Latin text is also at the Latin Wikipedia (just click on "Latina" under "other languages" on the left-hand side of the page). --Angr/_comhrá 13:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, I think that the Latin Pater Noster is of sufficient historical importance that it should be here too. After all, the Pater Noster page just gives a link to this page. --User:chrisjwmartin|chrisjwmartin]] 05:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just visited Wikisource and I have to admit that you did a good job there. It looks nice and neat. Well I guess we have to do the comparison by hand now :-) Meursault2004 14:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like it! --Angr/_comhrá 16:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latin first???

Why is the latin translation before the English translation? Wouldn't it be more correct to have the Lord's Prayer appear in English first, and then the other translations? Having Latin before English also makes this article differ from the NPOV as only a Catholic would bother with a Latin translation - when was the last time you heard a Pentecostal recite part of the Bible in Latin? MyNameIsNotBob June 30, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Nonsense. The reason they are in that order is in terms of age. So there is the Greek version. Then the Latin one. Then the English ones, old and new, because the English is a translation of the Latin, which was a translation of the Greek. BTW Catholics don't say the prayer in Latin and haven't for generations. And protestants did at the start say the prayer in Latin. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)

Evangelicals and "Debts"?

I'm wondering what the source was/is for this statement:

"Most Evangelical churches associate the use of 'trespasses' with Catholic traditions and prefer the use of 'debts' and 'debtors' instead."

Do you have numbers to back this up, or is this anecdotal information? The fact that Southern Baptists, who comprise the largest Evangelical group in the U.S. (by far) use "trespasses", makes this statement misleading at best.

I am a Presbyterian minister who grew up in various Evangelical or fundamentalist churches (including a 2-year stint as a Southern Baptist). I had never heard the use of "debts" and "debtors" until we started going to the Presbyterian Church. As a pastor now, I have found the same to be true of those who visit our church or who join from other churches. The only ones who have ever said "debts" and "debtors" are those who have grown up in the Presbyterian Church or other churches in the Reformed tradition (such as the Reformed Church in America or the Christian Reformed Church). All the others, whether Baptist, Methodist, non-denomination, or whatever, have grown up saying "trespasses."

I don't have the numbers on this (which is why I didn't edit the page), but again even if the Southern Baptists were the only Evangelical group to say "trespasses" (and they are decidedly not), that alone is enough to make the above statement false.

A truer statement would probably be, "Apart from the Presbyterians and other groups in the Reformed tradition, the majority of Christians in the U.S. use 'trespasses' rather than 'debts.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevJATB (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 November 2005

I've been told that "debts" and "debtors" is usual in the Church of Scotland, so it makes sense that it's used in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. as well. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like an extension of the statement that the use of "debts" creates different interpretations, ones that connect with property and usury, and whether that seems to have been intended or included in the original. Or perhaps a citation to a separate discussion of that issue. That's what I came here looking for, to know the significance of the difference, not just that there is a difference. 68.100.208.180 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Kent Myers

daily bread

May be someone knows the exact source. From what I read, the real phrasing is not daily bread, but our future bread, give us now our future bread, meaning bring paradise on this earth within us, makes us wholy.

Besides, Simone de beauvoir (french philosopher) has commentated on debts. Her comment is that to be release from debts is especially to be realeased from the past and future, from the belief that we have a self detached from god.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.78.122 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 March 2006

UH OH I meant Simone Weil, not de Beauvoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs) 13:09, 12 June 2007

The exact meaning of "daily bread" is unclear, because epiousios isn't used in Greek apart from the Lord's Prayer, so it's not entirely clear what it was supposed to mean. See the article Epiousios. As for Simone de Beauvoir, her interpretation of "forgive us our debts/trespasses" is interesting but perhaps not entirely relevant to this article. Angr/talk 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I got those versions from a motor that compares the different bibles - - Give us today our daily bread. (WEB) - - Give us this day our daily bread. (ASV) - - Give us this day bread for our needs. (BBE) - - give us to-day our needed bread, (DBY) - - Give us this day our daily bread. (KJV) - - Give us this day our daily bread. (WBS) - - give us to-day our bread for the day; (WEY) - - Our appointed bread give us to-day. (YLT) - - bread for our needs, our need bread and appointed bread can mean the kingdom of heaven in the way I've described.

For simone de beauvoir I was just pointing that this was another reason not to use trespasses. Ok about the article on daily bread, I did not follow the link. I think may be some text could signal that there's debate on the traduction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.78.122 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 March 2006

From Trev: Is it true that one of the problems faced by the early Greek translators from the 1st c. Aramaic was to understand an idiomatic expression ("tomorrow bread" literally), because there was no equivalent meaning in Greek. When one looks at the poetic and familiar style of Jesus' sayings, either from the canonical or the gnostic sources (Gospel of Thomas for example) Jesus might have been using an idiom very familiar in a household family context. Perhaps if a child had been especially good that day, the child might ask his parents for the "tomorrow bread", because at bed-time the sun had gone down, and in a Jewish household that would already be "tomorrow", and fresh bread would already be baking in a hot oven, a real treat for someone who had been good. 212.36.52.18 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added some references in a note. The translation of epiousios is obviously crucial for an understanding of the Lord's Prayer, so I think it's ok to tackle it here, if not in the main text, then in the footnotes. The article epiousios may provide a broader treatement, but I would argue that it has no relevance without the Lord's Prayer. L'omo del batocio (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me explain the issue with epi and separation. The point is that epi may sometimes mean over, but it never implies separation, that is, the the idea of interaction, of contact with the object is always there. That may be relevant when it comes to assessing the adequacy of "supersubstantial" as a translation. L'omo del batocio (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies again for my obtusity. Who suggests that either "epi" or "superstantialem" implies separation, and of what from what? There would be no purpose in denying a non-existent claim. That is my problem. Sorry for troubling you with it. Lima (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. My previous remarks may indeed be cryptic. Anyways, in his Commentary, Jerome writes next "Possumus supersubstantialem panem et aliter intelligere, qui super omnes substantias sit, et universas superet creaturas.". Now, his sentence might be interpreted as indicating a separation, epiousios bread being "above" everything else. I accepted this possibility (as a possibility), but then I realized that such interpretation would be erroneous, since epi is never used to convey separation, ex-cellence or ex-orbitance. I think that some etymology about epiousios is useful (remarks about ousia actually predate my edits) and may lead the interested reader a bit deeper into the issue. L'omo del batocio (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again. I have spent some time thinking about the matter, but still do not see separation, but only distinction, in "super omnes substantias" and "super(ans) universas creaturas". Similarly, I see distinction but not separation with "ἐπί" in the phrases "ἐπὶ πύργου ἔστη" (he stood on a tower - Iliad 16:700); "ἧντ' ἐπὶ πύργῳ" (they sat on a tower - Iliad 3:153); and, perhaps a better comparison, "τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων" (those in charge of (public) affairs). In any case these phrases of Jerome are not in the article.

In the article you put the phrase "It may be noted, however, that epi does not indicate separation". The "however" indicates contradiction or opposition. Opposition to what? The immediately preceding statement is "It (i.e. ἐπιούσιος) is translated as supersubstantialem in the Vulgate". That is a fact. It is also a fact that έπί does not indicate separation. But I see no contradiction between these two statements. Perhaps you can make me understand. Lima (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but what is apparently obvious for you was not obvious right away for me. The Jerome passage led me to regard epiousios as possibly meaning something like "beyond substance" (imo a fair reading for supersubstantialis, but not for epiousios),"transcendent". It was only after mulling it over that realised that epi never entails separation, that it actually always implies proximity, contact. Again imo the Jerome quote above is contextually quite relevant and I wouldn't mind adding it in a further footnote, where my cautionary words about epi might find their locus proprius. Otherwise, if my remark is really cryptic and useless for everyone except for me, then it may well be deleted. L'omo del batocio (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for patiently discussing the matter. I see now how you understood "supersubstantialis". I think that, if I wanted to speak of "beyond" in the sense of separation, not in the sense of just being above with an implication of closeness rather than distance, I would use "ultra", not "super". The "super" form appears in some English placenames, such as "Weston-super-Mere" and "St. George-super-Ely", while "ultra" has given French "outre-mer", Italian "oltremare" etc. Lima (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds wise, but I have never heard of ultrasubstantialis. On the other hand, Eriugena and Thomas render Pseudo-Dionysius' ὑπερούσιος as supersubstantialis, although ὑπέρ does generally indicate separation and may be translated as "above, beyond". L'omo del batocio (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add an OR remark here, which obviously shouldn't go into the article. I wonder whether Jerome's mahar doesn't actually refer to another Aramaic word, i.e. this one, whose spelling differs only in the vowels. Interpreting it as "given over as promised" is vaguely tempting. L'omo del batocio (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless my eyes deceive me, there is a difference also in a consonant: ה/ח. Lima (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. L'omo del batocio (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Greek?

I don't see how its POV to say the Greek text is the original. Of course Jesus himself spoke Aramaic to his disciples, but his Aramaic words were not preserved. The oldest recorded version of the Lord's Prayer is written in Greek; everything else has been translated from that, or translated from an intermediate translation (Latin, English, etc.). This is just an NPOV fact, isn't it? Angr (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See Aramaic primacy; this has to be accounted for, and the current article doesn't do a very good job at it. Bob A 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, changing "all" to "most" as if Aramaic primacy were accepted fact, and not even discussing Aramaic primacy itself, is certainly not the way forward here. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All texts of the Lord's Prayer are derived from the Greek. The Peshitta translation shows sufficient signs of being translated from the Greek to be included here. The use of most instead of all is a subtle misrepresentation of the facts. It would be better if a further sentence were added stating that a minority believe that the Peshitta and Old Syriac texts preserve an older, Aramaic tradition, but that the majority see them as early translations from Greek, comparable with the Old Latin texts. — Gareth Hughes 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to remove all of the parenthetical text since the opening paragraph seems to say it better anyway. Gareth, it would be good if you could add those signs to the aramaic primacy article. By the way, most aramaic primacists think the "old syriac" is a translation from greek. Bob A 19:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For thine is the kingdom...

On what basis is it claimed that this is a later addition? It's in Matthew, isn't it? Who omits it? john k 15:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Backwards

Surely we should make mention of the legend that playing a recording of the Lord's Prayer backwards summons the devil/does something evil? It seems to be quite widespread. (Note: I've tried playing it backwards, and it just sounds creepy, nothing more. Damn I hate religious fanatics.) PianoSpleen 06:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source for the legend? Angr (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Does God lead us into tempation?

In my time with God tonight I felt led to really dig into how Jesus taught us to pray. In both versions of His prayer in the King James Bible (Matthew 6:9–13 and Luke 11:2-4,) He tells us to ask God not to "lead us" into temptatation. Why would we ask God this? In my understanding of God, I don't imagine He would "lead" us into temptation. Why didn't Jesus say; "Don't allow Satan to lead us into temptation?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocker4God (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your understanding of God is different from Jesus's. At any rate, this page is the place to discuss how to improve this article, not the place for exegesis. Angr (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in exegesis see ChristianWiki (the website that that article discusses, rather than the article). Please don't do exegesis within wikipedia itself. Clinkophonist 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your problem is that you are trying to answer a question about a work of fiction by asking your imaginary friend who resides in a delusion of yours? 86.148.250.183 (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Gothic language article

At the end of the external links (viewing in my browser, Firefox 1.0.7), there's a line starting "[[got:" followed by some funny symbols. I've managed to work out that it's intended to be a link to the article in the Gothic Wikipedia. However, I've no idea how to fix it. Can anyone else help? --A bit iffy 19:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Angr (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"...by Jesus himself..."

for the sake of historic accuracy, wouldn't it make more sense to say "given in the bible by Matthew and Luke"?

By all means correct me if I am mistaken, but i thought that the bible was written by many different people, not Jesus himself.

--questioning Nov. 15 2006 16:12:00

Matthew and Luke purport to be reporting Jesus's giving of the prayer to his disciples.SHJohnson 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hallowed be," subjunctive?

The second paragraph of the "Analysis" section says that "Hallowed" is passive voice and future tense. Can someone explain that to me? It seems to me that it is a subjunctive phrase, much like the phrase "Bless you" is short for "May God bless you," the word "bless" being in the subjunctive mood. Similarly, "Hallowed be thy name" could be seen another way of saying "May thy name be hallowed," which to me, makes this phrase perfectly sensible. Any thoughts? --Chane 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it is subjunctive passive, and not future passive, in the Latin. Rwflammang 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I think that this lead paragraph could/should be simplified with some of the complex theory moved elsewhere in the article.

Even as a knowledgeable Christian I became thoroughly confused (with Q theory and the like), so someone with no knowledge would be even worse.

Please take this constructively as comments to improve the article.

Best,

Mdcollins1984 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Name

Why is "Pater Imon" before "Paternoster"? Does anyone actually call it the Pater Imon? As far as I can tell, this is the Greek name for it, and thus saying "Pater Imon" is not English, but Greek. Paternoster, on the hand, has entered the English lanuage, and gained its own Anglicized pronunciation, and is a relatively prevalent and historical English term for the prayer. I am altering the opening to reflect this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.41.42 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 March 2007

From Trev - Concerning "tomorrow bread"

Reading some years ago that there was no obvious translation from the old Aramaic expression "tomorrow bread", I gave it a lot of thought, then forgot about it. Later I started thinking about when "tomorrow" would actually begin in the times when Jesus lived, and how that might be related to "bread". I believe the next day started when the sun went down (and still does in some cultures). At this time young children (a synonym Jesus often used to imply God's children, us) would be going to bed. The oven would still be hot, and perhaps the bread to be used the following day was being baked. Perhaps Jesus is asking "Daddy" to reward us for being good, by giving us a rare treat: to taste a morsel of the bread freshly baked for the following day. This could have been a very powerful family iconic message in that time, even perhaps a common expression denoting "You have been really good". Trev.

Trev, aside from "I believe," "I thought," "could have been," and "perhaps," is there any first-century source for such an interpretation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Canonical versions of the text

The first canonical translation (other than the existing hebrew, greek and latin versions) of the New Testament texts is the Old Slavonic one (blame St. Cyril and pope Adrian II for that, they both have been dead for over eleven hundred years now). Therefore I think that the Old Slavonic version of the text should be on all Wiki pages concerning the Lord's prayer. In this sense the Old Slavonic version should be indistinguishable from the other canonical versions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chervarium (talk • contribs)

By "canonical", I presume Chervarium means "liturgical". The versions in Syriac and Ge'ez precede that in Old Slavonic by several centuries. I doubt if it would be useful to include these in this particular table in the English Wikipedia. Lima 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Greek is for most purposes the original, the Latin is still used within the Roman Catholic Church (and was the only version used, within living memory). The BCP translation is widely known due to the influence of Anglicanism via the British Empire, and there is a clear need for a modern English translation. Most readers will not even be able to read the Old Slavonic, either because they don't know the alphabet and/or becuase their broswer does not render it properly (the same could also be said for the Greek I suppose), so for the vast majority of readers it adds no useful information to the article, and having 5 columns of text begins to affect the readability and on-screen presentation of the article. We have to draw a line somewhere as clearly the article cannot contain every existing translation, so the four we have seems like a reasonable place to start. David Underdown 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the readability issues, but it would be nice to have further versions, such as the Vulgata, Syriac, Ge'ez, Slavonic, available through a wikilink on a separate page, or perhaps in an extended note. They may not be of interest for the "vast majority of readers" but they are nevertheless culturally and historically significant. L'omo del batocio (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in 'Roman Catholic prayers' category

Added this article to the 'Roman Catholic prayers' category. -- 201.50.126.150 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. It's already in Category:Christian prayer and is not exclusive to Roman Catholics, if it goes in one denominational category, it would have to go in all, so it's better just to leave it in the top level category. David Underdown 12:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It doesn't work that way. It stays in the Roman Catholic category... it's the responsiblity of everyone else to add it to different denominations. And anyway, it was us Roman Catholics who bound, published, and made it available before all. garzj019 20070724PST2155

spiritual interpretation

I have to object that the spiritual interpretation given by Mary Baker Eddy was removed, yet someone else, editors perhaps, felt free to give their own interpretation line by line. Her interpretation has been around, and respected for over 100 years. And was also used at the first Parliment of Religions held in Chicago 9-11-1898. Where do we go from here. Is there a different heading it could go under? Simplywater 17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, and suggested that perhaps a link to an article on it would be appropriate. Linking to Christian Science is also inappropriate, as then every group that uses the prayer could also be linked. I've, just now, linked the relevant section of that article — Christian Science#Lord's Prayer with Spiritual Interpretation. — Gareth Hughes 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Peshitta & Aramaic Lord's Prayer

Lima, the Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac to bring the text closer to the Greek tradition. The Old Syriac, itself, is believed to be a revision of the Diatessaron, which is a Gospel harmony taken from believed Greek sources and composed in Syriac, but to this day it only survives in Arabic. In short, we don't know what versions, oral traditions, languages, or textual types that were borrowed from in the first place, all we know is what it was revised towards and that it is certainly not in the original language. As such, there's no need to state that the Peshitta is a translation (that would be incorrect, what it is is too nebulous). Obviously there is no "original Our Father." :-) אמר Steve Caruso 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it is inappropriate in this article to enter into the process of formation of the Peshitto text. I think it is enough to indicate clearly that all the other versions now in existence, including the Peshitto, are derived from the Greek text. Of course, I don't mean that they are all translated directly from the Greek. Not only the Peshitto text, but also the Old Syriac text and Tatian's Diatessaron and the earlier translation into Syriac from which some think Tatian may have drawn were all derived directly or indirectly from the Greek text. Modern-language translations of the Bible too are often derived from the original languages only indirectly, for instance, through English or French, or as revisions of existing translations in the same language (take Revised Standard Version, New King James Version, etc.); but, as I understand the word "translation", they are indeed translations of the Bible. However, the word "translation" can easily be replaced by another. Lima 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates for Versions

1662 BCP but no dates for the Greek, Latin, or ELLC?? This is inconsistent! Please arrange the names of the versions beside the titles.--Dwarf Kirlston 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it gladly, if Dwarf Kirlston will please let me know when exactly in the first century Matthew's Gospel was written and when exactly (first or second century?) the Latin translation was made. Lima 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The only reason a date has to be given for the BCP version is that there are (and have been) many Books of Common Prayer, which usually have subtly different wordings, hence the repeated "corrections" of the particular version given in this article. David Underdown 09:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Music

Musical settings should be discussed including loose Siouxsie version. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Various and sundry

OK. Would it be possible to reference the following things, either in this article or similar articles: 1. Alternate translations of the Lord's Prayer (For example, a Dr. Thornton translated a version sometime in the late 1700's-early 1800's. Of course his version is best known for William Blake's sarcastic annotations to it....) 2. Notable interpretations of the Lord's Prayer (Such as Buckminster Fuller's "Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer") 3. The significance of the Lord's prayer in various forms of the Christian liturgy. 4. Notable uses of the Lord's Prayer in unusual contexts (Such as Emperor Norton's recitation of the prayer to calm an angry mob or Todd Beamer's recitation of the Lord's Prayer on United Flight 93). 5. Notable parodies of the Lord's Prayer. (For example, Russian Communists wrote several anti-Christian or anti-Capitalist parodies of the Lord's Prayer. Eulogy and Light would count as a parody as well.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orville Eastland (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Something could also be said about the recitation of the prayer as a pre-industrial rough chronometrization of tasks like cooking, with recipes requiring several Lord's Prayers in the pot to get ready. --Error (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Embolism

In the so-called Novus Ordo Roman Rite the Lords Prayer (ORATIONIEM DOMINICAM) is part of the introductory sections of the Communion Rite. Following the Orationem Dominicam, the priest says the "Embolism", meaning insertion, which is the "Deliver us LORD from every evil..." part. It is inserted after the phrase "Deliver us from evil" (LIBERA NOS A MALO). Thus the Embolism is called the ACCLAMATIO POST LIBERA NOS. There is also a name for the Embolism, that is LIBERA NOS, because the first phrase of the prayer starts with those two words as well. The Response to the Embolism is the completion of the Lord's Prayer, "For the kingdom, power, glory are yours...".

I'm surprised the term Embolism is not used in the article!

In the old Tridentine Latin liturgies, the Pater Noster also follows the Kanon doxology, and is followed by the Agnus Dei. Most of the Pater Noster is chanted by the Priest alone, with the ministers or choir only responding on the final phrase, "Sed libera nos a malo.", that is "But deliver us from evil." Then, the prayers which have become our current Embolism are heard, and contain praise to the Trinity, Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary, thus making it a true Doxology. In the "Novus Ordo" rite, you hear the new Embolism, and then complete the Lord's Prayer, however the term 'doxology' has been retained in descriptions for this part following the Lord's Prayer. The term 'doxology' was not used in any Roman missal for the Pater Noster, rather, The Final Doxology of the Kanon is and was heard during the Minor Elevation ("Through him, with him..." etc). Benitoite (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Corruption of the Our Father.

I note that the prayer has been somewhat corrupted.

Our Father who art in heaven. to Our Father which art in heaven as in. Our Father witch art in heaven.

Any discussion ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where you want to go with that, as I've never seen any version with "witch" in the Lord's Prayer. Regardless of having the same sound, the two words, "which" and "witch", are extremely different words.

What I happen to find fascinating is the common usage of "who" instead of the biblical "which". I don't ever remember a time when I've heard anybody actually say, "Our Father, which art in Heaven, . . ." however that is the way I've always read it in the Bible. People appear to like to personify God, to think of God as a "he/him", or sometimes a "she/her", rather than as an "it" or a "thing" that's implied by "which". And yet the Bible refers to God as a Spirit that is not actually human, and therefore assumably has no gender. I've wondered about this since I was a little kid. And back then when I asked anybody about it, they just looked at me funny (as if I was crazy or stupid to even mention it). The last time it came to mind was while I watched the inauguration of President Obama. As always, the clergyman recited the Lord's Prayer using "who" instead of "which". And I cannot help but wonder about what John wrote in the book of Revelations... you remember?... the part at the very end about adding or subtracting from the Bible? So I ask once again for the gazillionth time: Isn't taking away the "which" and adding the "who" a very, very bad thing?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The "who" comes from the Book of Common Prayer, so that's the version traditionally used in church services. —Angr 05:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it seems that it falls under that age-old problem of what is correct and what is wrong? In other words, how is someone supposed to know if John was talking about the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer? If the BoCP "takes away" from the words of the Bible (the word which), and "adds" the who "unto these words", isn't that supposed to be asking for trouble? along the lines of "God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" and "God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"? (Ref.: Revelation 22:18-19)  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The King James Version is not the Bible, which already existed while there was as yet no King James Version. And the Our Father itself, which already existed before there was any English translation whatever of the Our Father, has neither "which" nor "who". Lima (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, when John wrote Revelation, the Bible consisted solely of the Old Testament. —Angr 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The "who" version dates only from 1928 when proposals to revise the 1662 BCP were made, but ultimately not accepted by the British Parliament. However, 1 or 2 things "stuck", this being one of them in later revisions to Anglican liturgical works. Some places do still insist on using the "which" form though, such as Winchester Cathedral where I was at the weekend. David Underdown (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Douay-Rheims Bible and the American Standard Version both use "who" in Matthew 6:9,[3],(ref) so it's older than 1928. "Who" is also used in English-language Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox liturgy. —Angr 11:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The original Douay-Rheims had "which" (and the King James Version, of a quarter of a century later, may have copied it), but what is generally understood nowadays by the Douay-Rheims Bible is Challoner's revision of it, which does have "who" (Matthew 6:9 link). So "who" in the Our Father in English dates back at least as far as 1749. Lima (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see too that the Book of Common Prayer (of 1662) does not have "who". So perhaps there is no record in print of "Our Father who" earlier than 1749, 260 years ago. Lima (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have specified taht I was really thinking about liturgical usage. David Underdown (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How confounding is this activity called "religion"! On one hand a sacred text says not to add or subtract from it, and on the other hand there have been many, many additions and subtractions down through the ages. It seems impossible to find true purity of faith. If one's faith and trust relies upon such morphing sacred texts, then how can one's faith be well-placed? Which hand can one trust to hold the truth?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The verb: "es"

The verb in this phrase does not make sense to me, as a beginning Latin student: "qui es in caelis" Should not it be "qui est in caelis", because "es" is second person and "est" is third person? Can anybody answer this?

Jkarandikar42 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's second person because the prayer is addressed to Our Father: Pater noster is in the vocative, not the nominative. The idea is: "(O) our father, (you) who are in Heaven...". Notice how even in modern English we say "you who are in Heaven", not "you who is in Heaven". +Angr 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice explanation. Jkarandikar42 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagalog

How is tagalog text relevant to English Wikipedia and how can it be verified? Please also see talk on Angelus. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin- cotidianum?

Now, I realize that quotidianum and cotidianum are interchangeable, but most versions I've seen of the Pater Noster use quotidianum, not cotidianum. Does anybody else think this should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.159.185 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The cited source has "cotidianum", not "quotidianum". So does the Roman Missal, ever since the 1962 typical edition. There is no need whatever to change to the late-medieval non-classical spelling that appeared in the Roman Missal up to and including the 1920 edition, the last typical edition before 1962. Lima (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late for the conversation, but my Catholic bible, which was mass-published when Paul was pope, has quotidianum, as does, here, here, here, and here. Additionally, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia discusses whether or not quotidianum should be supersubstantialem, due to discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. Thank you. --15lsoucy ^{salve.opus.nomen} 13:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

These absolutely non-authoritative websites are in no way official. The Roman Missal is official and authoritative; since 1962 it has the "cotidianum" spelling. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is official and authoritative, and its « Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie » Latin text has "cotidianum". On "suupersubstantialem" see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2837.Esoglou (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint view

The section 'Latter-day Saint view' indeed begins with the view of the Latter-day Saints on the Lord's Prayer (now that I've cleaned up some misstatements, anyway). It then mentions that the Book of Mormon version of the prayer includes the doxological ending, a fact which may not be part of an LDS view about the prayer, but is still part of the LDS tradition of the prayer and is still totally relevant. Next comes a section whose content is a discussion of the doxology's history and whose rhetorical thrust is that its presence weighs against an non-ancient origin for the Book of Mormon. The content is accurate enough, but it's just a subset of the actual section of the article that treats the doxology; the direction of the argument is tangential to an article about the Lord's Prayer and flat-out deceptive if placed under the heading 'Latter-day Saint view'. So I'm going to replace it with a link to the section on the doxology and its history, and if anyone wants to discuss evidences against the Book of Mormon in an article about evidences against the Book of Mormon, here is the removed text for salvage.

eritain (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This anachronistic phraseology in the Book of Mormon was not noted when it was first published in 1830. It has since been brought into the spotlight by the discovery of the Didache manuscript in the late 19th century, and by the realization that this concluding phrase was not to be found in the oldest manuscripts of Matthew and Luke. Instead it appeared in manuscripts post-dating the Didache, along with signs of further harmonization between the Gospels.

Replaced “Central America” with “Western Hemisphere”. The text of the Book of Mormon does not contain any references to “Central America” as the location of the sermon. Although Central America is a popular conclusion among proponents of reconstructing a physical geography of the Book of Mormon narrative, thus far, no official statement has been made by Latter-day Saint ecclesiastical leaders on the location of the sermon. The smallest geographical claim is that is post-resurrection sermon took place in an unknown area somewhere in the “Americas.” Matthew R. Lee 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrlee (talk • contribs)

References

Latin pronunciation

The proper pronunciation of Latin is disputed. There are those who insist on the "Restored Classical" pronunciation, and those who, in Roman Catholic prayers, insist on the "Italianate" pronunciation. An example of the first group is the editor who in the past posted a text with macrons to indicate the long vowels, a distinction observed in the Restored Classical pronunciation, but not in the Italianate. I think that Wikipedia cannot favour either pronunciation by describing a sound recording in it simply as "Latin" - as if the other pronunciation was not really Latin. Lima (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still no reason to note the accent as "American". As I believe I mentioned before, there are hundreds of different American accents in the US alone. Then you have Canadian-American, Mexican-American, Brazilian-American and so on. So even if the reader makes the assumption that US American is meant, precisely which US American accent is meant? And as it stands now, "read by an American", how precisely do you know this for certain? I've heard many Canadians, Irish, French and even Africans who have mastered and talk with the very same accent. So how can one say for certain the prayer is being read by an "American"?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, it's either Latin or it's not, the reader is either reading the prayer in Latin or he's reading it in gobbley-gook. A language is a language, the pronunciation or accent doesn't change that. Just label the file as someone reading Latin and leave it at that. The nationality and accent of the reader is totally irrelevant (at least it is to everyone other than the most pedantic of language scholars). --WebHamster 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "Knowter Peer qui eats awx sighyoux" French? And yet that is how "Notre Père qui êtes aux cieux" might be read by an English speaker who knew nothing of French. So too the written text is Latin, but is the text as read Latin? Lima (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If one is reading Latin then it doesn't just magically transmogrify into another language simply because the pronunciation is a little off. Remember this article is about the prayer, it's not about the intricacies of the Latin language. If the reader is reading a Latin text then it's Latin he is speaking regardless of how badly he/she does it. The fact that it's an American reading it is totally inconsequential, similarly if it was an Italian reading it it doesn't automatically make it an Italiante pronunciation. Anway, as I mentioned earlier, it's all surplus to requirements as all that is needed is for the reader to know that it's the Lord's Prayer being read in Latin. We don't need to say it's an Italian-American from Hoboken reading it in his underpants wearing a purple boa and an athletic support. --WebHamster 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "little" off. That's softly put. It just sounds BAD read like this. As a linguist, I could go on and on about what's wrong with the pronunciation. WebHamster, the article may be about prayer, but Pater Noster is in Ecclesiastical Latin, and that is a language. Nothing should stop things from being read they are meant to be read, don't you agree? It's like letting a non-English speaker with a heavy accent read the English version of Our Father. Overall, I think that it is imperative that the text is pronounced correctly. If no one wants to do it, I'll do the recording, just to get the previous recording off. Kloiten (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the reader in the audio file, and how I pronounced it is indeed "Italianate," but to me it's Ecclesiastical Latin, even if I do have an American accent.--Geremia (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that WebHamster hasn't answered the question whether "Knowter Peer qui eats auks sighyooks" is French. It is a particular pronunciation of French words, but is it French? The reader is reading a French text, but is it French he is speaking? I don't think any Frenchman or woman would say that it is. Lima (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we please get a proper Pater Noster in Latin as pronounced in Ecclesial Latin! Someone who doesn't garble the sounds by a heavy English accent. I have a hard time standing the English so called IPA pronunciation of the astronomical constellations in Latin, babbling with some guy that doesn't think the proper Latin pronunciation is "natural" and that all Latin shall be garbled to unrecognizability by the Great Vowel Shift before it becomes "natural" — so that it sounds quite horrible to all non-English speakers. Don't copy this attitude to foreing languages like Latin please. The current sound file should not be used in this article since it is desinformation. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 20:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Research in the section Analysis

This section has been tagged as original research for 3 years now. As a large chunk of personal thoughts with very little referencing, is it now time to delete the entire section "Analysis"? Matthewcgirling (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the views of historic and contemporary theologians are directly quoted? (such as the various Church Fathers, Reformers, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.131.18.75 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Doxology

Hi there. I have added two specify tags in the section on the doxology. Can anybody offer sources for these statements? Mcmarturano (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing of doxology-less manuscripts etc.

Listing of manuscripts, ancient versions and patristic quotations that do not include in Mt 6:13 a doxology seems inappropriate. The list given is obviously copied from an uncited critical edition of the Greek Testament, and is only partial: it mentions Origen but not the several other early Christian writers listed in the critical editions (including Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian, and Cyprian). If the sources that do not include a doxology are to be listed, it would be logical to list also those that do include the familiar doxology: manuscripts L W Δ Θ 0233 family f¹³ 29 33 19- 565 580 508 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1424 1505 and the Byzantine family of manuscripts, and also the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions that do include it. Indeed it would be logical to list also, as the critical editions do, the manuscripts that include variant unfamiliar forms of the doxology. Listing manuscripts in this way gives the appearance of Original Research. Surely it is sufficient to cite some of the secondary sources that speak of the question. Not only sufficient, but better. Esoglou (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge from History of the Lord's Prayer in English

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggested merging History of the Lord's Prayer in English here because, while I know very little about the subject(s), I think it might have content worth keeping but isn't really an article (rather, it's a collection of texts) and doesn't really deserve one. If there's a good reason not to merge it here, or if no one indicates interest in a week or so, I'll try to remember to prod it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it would be excessive to insert into an article on the Lord's Prayer in general the texts of a millennium's worth of different translations produced in the English language, not only present-day English but also an earlier form that is now less intelligible for non-specialized English speakers than a text in present-day German or Dutch. I think the article History of the Lord's Prayer in English, which contains some but not all of the more important versions, should be deleted as not worth keeping. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Definitely too much to put in this article. As for that article, I would like to take down the OR research tag--the sources are clearly there. I would prefer to keep that article, as it is interesting and a quick, easy way to compare translations. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Information overload and not worth keeping ---172.162.126.72 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As above, hypertext was invented so not everything has to be on one huge page. It can all be "one click away" elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There seems to be consensus for No Merge above. As for the other page, it looks like something that needs to be moved to WikiSource, and maybe expanded there. —Telpardec  TALK  22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that copying to Wikisource is probably the best way forward, as a part of their existing page on The Lord's Prayer, and will tag the other article as such. Thanks everyone! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English versions

This article compares the King James versions of the Lord's Prayer found in Matthew and Luke. However, the King James version in Luke changed the prayer so it was more similar to the version in Matthew. The NIV translation of the Lukan version is "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." Notice that the Lukan version is shorter and does not contain "Our...in heaven...Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven...but rescue us from evil" (in the NIV translation). I suggest two changes: (1) Use a translation other than the King James version to show the differences between Matthew and Luke, and (2) Point out that the King James version changed Luke to make it more similar to Matthew and explain why the King James translators did this. (I don't know why they did it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and its editors should NOT have an agenda as to which Bible version is 'better'. There should be several different Bible versions included in this English article: King James Version (KJV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New American Bible (NAB [Catholic]), New International Version (NIV), and one that refers to 'heavens' inplace of 'heaven'. Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Relation to Egyptian Prayer from The Coming Into Day (Book of the Dead)

Parallels in the Lord's Prayer can be found in Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

This subject has been covered in quite a few texts - please look at what I wish to put forth as an edit and comment on what else it needs.

There are similarities between the Lord's Prayer and The Judgement of the Dead (Ch.125) in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Similarities in the full text are highlighted and phrases are repeated. The full text is available from here

Janzen, W. "Old Testament Ethics" 1994 Westminster/John Knox Press

Address to the gods of the underworld

Hail, gods, who dwell in the house of the Two Truths.

I know you and I know your names.

Let me not fall under your slaughter-knives,

And do not bring my wickedness to Osiris, the god you serve.

Let no evil come to me from you.

Declare me right and true in the presence of Osiris,

Because I have done what is right and true in Egypt.

I have not cursed a god.

I have not suffered evil through the king who ruled my day.

Hail , gods who dwell in the Hall of the Two Truths,

Who have no evil in your bodies, who live upon maat ,

Who feed upon maat in the presence of Horus

Who lives within his divine disk. 14

Deliver me from the god Baba,

Who lives on the entrails of the mighty ones on the day of the great judgement.

Grant that I may come to you,

For I have committed no faults,

I have not sinned,

I have not done evil,

I have not lied,

Therefore let nothing evil happen to me.

I live on maat , and I feed on maat,

I have performed the commandments of me and the things pleasing to the gods,

I have made the god to be at peace with me,

I have acted according to his will.

I have given bread to the hungry man, and water to the thirsty man,

And clothes to the naked man, and a boat to the boatless.

I have made holy offerings to the gods,

and meals for the dead.

Deliver me, protect me, accuse me not in the presence of Osiris.

I am pure of mouth and pure of hands,

Therefore, let all who see me welcome me,

For I have heard the mighty word which the spiritual bodies spoke to the Cat,

In the House of Hapt-Re, the Open-Mouthed;

I gave testimony before the god Hra-f-ha-f, the Backwards-Face,

I have the branching out of the ished-tree in Re-stau. 15

I have offered prayers to the gods and I know their persons.

I have come and I have advanced to declare maat,

And to set the balance upon what supports it in the Underworld.

Hail, you who are exalted upon your standard, Lord of the Atefu crown,

Who name is "God of Breath", deliver me from your divine messengers,

Who cause fearful deeds, and calamities,

Who are without coverings for their faces,

For I have done maat for the Lord of maat.

I have purified myself and my breast, my lower parts, with the things which make clean.

My inner parts have been in the Pool of maat.

I have been purified in the Pool of the south,

And I have rested in the northern city which is in the Field of the Grasshoppers,

Where the sacred sailors of Ra bathe at the second hour of the night and third hour of the day.

And the hearts of the gods are pleased after they have passed through it,

Whether by day or by night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luappy13 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming a connection between this prayer and the Lord's Prayer seems to be original research. If there are published, reliable sources that are not fringe theories and that discuss a similarity, that can be mentioned, but otherwise it does not belong. —Angr 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are published books which cite parallels in the 10 commandments and other elements of Spell 125 of the book of the Dead. Does this qualify? Though they are not as far as I know specifically stating the link they are implicitly stating 'paralells'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luappy13 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would need to specifically mention the Lord's Prayer, and qualify under Wikiepdia's definition of a realiable source. David Underdown (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Luappy13: Thanks for posting Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I believe you've made a BIG discovery here! If there aren't any 'reliable sources' that you or I can find, then I recommend you put this connection on a website/forum and list the sources you have that connect Spell 125 with the 10 Commandments, etc. I will then write it into the article and list your site as the reliable source. This will now NOT be 'original research'. You're welcome to write it on http://7seals.yuku.com and/or http://RevelationRevealed.proboards.com . Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you replied to a thread that has been dormant for three years. Likewise, Luappy13 was a single-purpose account who hasn't edited in three years since creating an account and posting here. Finally, any posts to forums are not considered reliable sources and your attempt to make an end-run around Wikipedia policy by using them is not appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Heavens" (sky, space) replaces "Heaven" (ideal frame of mind)

The question of whether to use 'heaven' or 'heavens' is HUGE! The addition of that Simple Symbol/Sign S - the hieroglyph/pictograph of the Snake/Serpent that Slithers and S+in=Sin, S+he=She - makes a GIGANTIC difference!! The definition of 'heavens' is "the Sky, clouds, low-Earth-orbit, this solar system, deep-space", whereas, 'heaven' is definied as "an ideal place and time where one is very close to GOD and loved ones and experiences a feeling of being in paradise'. These two words often get confused in English, yet they shouldn't be. Let's look at some English Bible translations/versions. Genesis 1:1 King James Version 1611: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth". Revised Standard Version 1971, New International Version 1988, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible 1999 (English): "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The New American Bible 1987 (Catholic): "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth". International Children's Bible 2003: "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth". Stone Edition Torah 2004: "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth". Sacred geometry/gematria's main mantra was/is "As above so below". We can now clearly see that this is incorporated in the following 'heavens' version of The Lord's Prayer...

"Our Father who art in the heavens, hallowed be thy name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in the heavens. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen."

Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not know which translation of the Bible you used for this quotation. But here at Wikipedia we rely on published, notable Bible translations which are considered reliable sources for the text of this prayer. This article provides several of those translations as well as versions in current and historical liturgical use. If you wish to introduce another translation, it should be notable and in widely accepted use as compared to the other ones used here. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Subsection titled "Greek and Latin Versions"

Treatment of the Greek version(s) of the Lord's prayer suffers in several respects. To begin with, the supplied reference, Matthew 6:9-19, lists many versions of the Lord's prayer, but only audio versions in Greek.

A more serious defect is ignorance of the reason people might be interested in Greek versions, namely the desire to know what Jesus actually said. For this purpose, the best Greek version is probably the version from The New Testament in the Original Greek.

Readers may well be interested to know significant differences between the original Greek version and modern versions. I have documented them in Origins of the Lord's Prayer.

Page Notes (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the reference given for the Greek text is to the latest edition of Nestle-Aland. Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"What Jesus actually said" would not have been in Greek, though, but Aramaic. All Bibles - even the originals - are translations of what was said.109.154.254.206 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The furthest back we can go is to what Matthew and Luke reported as what Jesus said. Any Aramaic reconstruction of what Jesus actually said would be based on their reporting, which was in Greek. Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Person

I am concerned that the first version, in English, was not correct. There is a sharp distinction between the second person singular and the second person plural/polite. The desire to show politeness by speaking in a false/synthetic voice overwhelmed the personal way of speaking in English, but it still exists. Mennonite and Amish still know and use "thou" or "thee" quite often when speaking to people that they know. While many believe that it is important to show respect for God, it is more important to realize that the relationship one has with God is personal and should not be mitigated by speaking in a deliberately odd way. When you say "you" you are actually saying "you all" as the French use "vous" and the Scottish Gaels "sibh." Germans show politeness by using the third person plural, saying "sie" (they), as in "Wie gehen sie heute?" ("how goes they today" when speaking to one person). In short, "thou" is how one speaks to a lover, friend, relative, or one's child. Therefore, the first translation is not accurate in the least. It's quite an odd way to begin an important article. As an aside, I've notice that the Roman Catholic Church in Canada and the U.S. shifts voice within the very same prayer, so they say, "...hollowed be Thy name...for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are Yours (not Thine) for ever and ever." With this in mind, it's easy to understand the new pope's concern over the lack of education as displayed by some priests. He should be just as concerned about the education of his bishops and cardinals. –––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.49.166 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The first version is a correct rendition of the ESV translation. Which translation would you rather use in place of it? Also, the grammatical terminology "voice" does not apply because we are not speaking of active or passive here. It is grammatical person. The Roman Missal uses a translation approved and promulgated by the Holy See, and has not changed since 1970. However, that is immaterial to improving this article, and this talk page is not a forum for general discussion. The Roman Missal still includes thee/thou for consistency with the old texts, but modern translations tend to use modern English, and nobody uses thee/thou in conversation or writing anymore, so these forms are obsolete. Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to choose another English version as basic text for this article

There continue to be good-faith changes, which I continue to revert, from the "Our Father which art in heaven" version (hitherto treated as the basic English version here) to the "Our Father who art in heaven" version. I wonder would it be better to make the latter version the article's basic version. I have no strong feelings on this question, but in order to learn what is the predominant view of Wikipedians interested in this article, I am hereby formally proposing that quotations be generally from the "Our Father who art in heaven" version.

The "Our Father which art in heaven" version is favoured, I would say, only by its antiquity. I am convinced that the "Our Father who art in heaven" version is in far greater use today. Even after the forthcoming revision of their prayers at Mass (see Ordinary of the Mass, 124), Catholics, who constitute a very high proportion of English-speaking Christians, will continue to use this version, which is probably more common now among other Christians also than the "Our Father which art in heaven" version. The third version in the article (the "Our Father in heaven" version) is far less familiar for most people than the other two; besides, there are several different variations of it in actual use.

Please indicate by Support or Oppose your view on the proposal that the version for the article to use (when not speaking of a specific version) should be the "Our Father who art in heaven" one. Esoglou (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I've never heard "which" in the opening line. In 30 years, it's always been "Our Father who art in heaven," and i've never heard it any other way before visiting this page. 69.60.237.4 (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose My view may be a little coloured by the fact that I say "Our Father which art in heaven" myself, but this is still by far the longest-lasting text. Once we change it to a supposedly "modern English" version, there will never be agreement on which one to use. Indeed, the argument already rages over whether to say "Our Father", "Our Parent" or "Our Father-Mother". Better not to go there. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose As per Moonraker2's comments, which from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer seems like a plausible NPOV choice for subheads. Johnh (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose As per Moonraker2, there isn't an obvious version which would be the single replacement for the traditional English version. For instance in Scotland, it's traditional to say "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors". The "which art" version may not be ideal for comprehensibility, but I think that most readers will have had the meanings of the words explained to them at some stage, and it is at least familiar.Scottwh (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Epiousios controversy

One of the references (currently ref 24) is to "A rabbinic commentary on the New Testament" which raises a suggestion that the original meaning was "sufficient for what we lack", and that the meaning was changed by the accidental omission of a single Hebrew character. It is an interesting idea, but to be relevant here it seems that there should be some possibility that the Lord's Prayer was at some stage transmitted through Hebrew. Since Aramaic had been the spoken tongue of the region for several hundred years, this is not obvious. Can anyone comment (preferably in the article) on whether this was likely? Scottwh (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede paragraph discussion

Per WP:BRD, I am encouraging Rsquire3 (talk · contribs) to discuss his edits since they have been reverted already. The discussion points are as follows. Latin is notable and worthy to be mentioned in the lede as the prayer has been known for over a thousand years by its Latin name. The prayer is recorded in many, many other places besides the New Testament. For example, the Mass (liturgy) of the Catholic Church, the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, for starters. The primary language of the Catholic Mass is Latin, providing one link to why its Latin name bears mentioning as early as possible. Now, "specially venerated ... as taught by Jesus" is clear enough to me, but I would support changing this language to "specially venerated in Christianity in the form taught by Jesus to his disciples." Is that clear enough? Elizium23 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Section for Cultural Significance Of The Lords Prayer and use in music and literature (the arts)

The Lords prayer is so enshrined into western culture that it has had many references to it in the arts.

For example American Composer Christopher Tin adapted the Swahili version of the Lords Prayer, 'Baba Yetu' into a musical score. I see that it's linked in the article but I think a seperate section with uses in the arts and culture would be useful. There will have been numerous other references to it in literature as well. I think this would be a valuable section to add into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.178.45 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, how come there isn't a section referring to "The lord's prayer in media"? Shouldn't there be? I know there is a million movies that reference it, Spider-Man_(2002_film) off the top of my head. There is a section like that on Psalm 23, (the valley of the shadow of death), so I'm surprised there isn't one here... Spartythespart (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lords/Lord's

My very minor edit has been reverted. I am about to restore the edit, and will explain here why I have done so.

The section "Use as a language comparison tool" contains an image captioned, at the moment, "Lords Prayer in Chinese". This is incorrect. It should (and shortly will) read, "Lord's Prayer in Chinese". There are not multiple "Lords"; there is one "Lord", and the prayer is his, hence, "Lord's". I can't believe I am writing this. Please do not revert this edit without explaining in detail how you can possibly think it should read "Lords Prayer". If this summary is confusing, simply scroll to the top of the page and carefully examine the title.

Regulov (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Please disregard, and forgive my tone. I have been an idiot, and a noisy one.

Regulov (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

History and origins of the prayer - There is no mention of relation to Ancient Greek pre-Christian Hymnology

here's a striking example:

ὦ Ζεῦ͵ πάτερ Ζεῦ O Zeus, father Zeus,

σὸν μὲν οὐρανοῦ κράτος͵ Yours is the Kingdom of Heaven,

σὺ δ΄ ἔργ΄ ἐπ΄ ἀνθρώπων ὁρᾶις and you watch over men's deeds,

λεωργὰ καὶ θεμιστά both the crafty and the just,

σοὶ δὲ θηρίων ὕβρις τε καὶ δίκη μέλει. and You are who intently sets mortal beasts' hubris and justice.

Archilochos: "To His Soul": A fragment.

=

Think of this Hymn with the Christian " O Father who art in heaven" in mind... I think it deserves mentioning in this article regarding the history and origins of the prayer, of which there is no mention at all. This might be a start to consider.. (204.112.245.250 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Dimitrios M Papadakis)

We would obviously need reliable secondary sources making that connection and analysis. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Daily"

Regarding the καθ' ἡμέραν (kath hemeran)...i.e., 'daily'...topic, I've restored the cited reference for this, which is a primary source for this topic. But I also wanted to take a moment to show you the specific chapter & verse in the New Testament so that you can take a look for yourself -- as I'm sure you'd agree, there's nothing quite as satisfying.

Here are the bonafide, literal references in the New Testament to the word 'daily' (references include: BibleHub.com, GreekBible.com and this link at the Vatican):

Mat 20: 2 | with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into ~ ἡμέρα | {hay-mer'-ah} the day

Gosp, Luk 9: 23 | himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

Gosp, Act 6: 1 | were being neglected in the daily distribution. ~ καθημερινός | {kath-ay-mer-ee-nos'} daily

Gosp, Act 17: 11 | examined the scriptures daily to determine whether ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

Gosp, Act 17: 17 | with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with ~ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἡμέραν| kata pas hemeran about every day

Gosp, Act 19: 9 | with him and began to hold daily discussions in the ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

NTLet, 2Cor 11: 28 | these things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

NTLet, Heb 3: 13 | Encourage yourselves daily while it is still "today," ~ καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν| kath hekastos hemeran about each day

NTLet, Heb 10: 11 | Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

The above is a comment placed on my Talk page by a user on ISP 2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980|2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980, who has not logged in.

In "the daily distribution", "daily" is an adjective qualifying the noun "distribution". The usual Greek for the adjective "daily" is καθημερινός, as here.

The usual Greek for the adverb "daily" is the adverbial phrase καθ' ἡμέραν. "Daily" is an adverb in "take up his cross daily", modifying the verb "take up". It is not an adjective qualifying "cross". In "examined the scriptures daily", "daily" is an adverb modifying "examined", not an adjective qualifying "scriptures". In "Encourage yourselves daily", "daily" is an adverb modifying "encourage".

In "the usual daily wage", "daily" is an adjective qualifying "wage"; but the phrase is an English translation of the single Greek word δηνάριον (the denarius coin), and so the Greek text has neither the adjective not the adverb "daily". In "began to hold daily discussions", "daily" is an adjective qualifying "discussions"; but the phrase is an English translation of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν διαλεγόμενος, where καθ᾿ ἡμέραν is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb διαλεγόμενος.

In "our daily bread" is "daily" an adjective qualifying the noun "bread"? Or is it an adverb modifying some verb or other? Theodoxa (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My response: Point being, "our daily bread" is certainly not "daily" by direct translation, as all the other translations from the New Testament into English that result in "daily" reference ἡμέραν in some fashion. Translation of Epiousios is either very difficult, or quite straightforward...but I do not know of a responsible translator that sees "daily" in it. (I have attempted to delete the "special contributions" annotation here, but it keeps self-replicating and appending to my own comments for some reason.) --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want the "special contributions" indication of your Internet Service Provider to appear, log in to Wikipedia.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Building arguments on an English translation is futile, especially if it involves confusing different meanings of an English word such as "daily".

In Wikipedia, building arguments on anything is futile. That is original research. You can only cite statements already made by a reliable source. Read WP:OR.

You state that, in reference to the word "daily" in the context of "daily bread" (where it is an adjective), "The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, 1993, The United Bible Societies" makes the following statement: "While often substituted by the word 'daily,' the Greek term otherwise used throughout the New Testament for 'daily' is kath hemeran (καθ' ἡμέραν, 'according to the day')." I must ask you to quote the exact words in which that publication makes a statement so surprising in that context. I presume you are referring to the book of that name by Robert K. Brown and Philip Wesley Comfort published in 1993 by Tyndale House(ISBN 978-0842345644). Unfortunately, I do not have access to it. Quote the exact words used, as you are obliged by WP:V to do, if you want this statement of yours to remain in Wikipedia. Otherwise, what you insert will appear to be original research and will be deleted.

The statement that you attribute to the 1993 publication is contradicted by an example (Ac 6:1) that you yourself have given: ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθημερινῇ – feminine singular dative of the adjective καθημερινός, not the phrase καθ' ἡμέραν, which you say is the Greek term corresponding to the adjective "throughout the New Testament".

An extreme case of original research is to declare on one's own authority that all the many translators who have rendered τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον as "our daily bread" were and are irresponsible. Theodoxa (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My response: So much for 'good faith.' I retract my well-intended thanks. Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Then, since "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information" (see WP:FORUM), you must go elsewhere for that; edits that violate Wikipedia principles must be removed. Theodoxa (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive, so I've reverted them. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please behave responsibly, if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia. What is disruptive is the removal of well-sourced information and its replacement with original research. Theodoxa (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The finger that points, points both ways. You have removed cited material, and admit that you haven't even looked at the reference. Please edit responsibly. I'll not make similar threats to yours.

Similarly, I note also that your arguments are substantially built upon your own translations and understanding of Greek. I've added expert interlinear translations (not mine) as an aid as we Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed info

Could you explain why you removed this paragraph:

Each of these three meanings has the support of some scholars, and Eberhard Nestle listed 13 possible meanings, while others have gone even further. Jerome seems to have been uncertain about the meaning of the word: in Matthew he translated it as supersubstantialem[27] (super-essential) but as cotidianum (daily) in Luke,[28] and said that the corresponding Aramaic word in the Gospel of the Hebrews means crastinum (for tomorrow). Greek-speaking Origen held that the word was an invention of the evangelists.[29]

It is well cited, giving an overview of the different interpretations. Why do you think it should be removed? - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove citations re. "daily"...and then go on to claim, without foundation, that they were "original research," when you know full well that I am not sourcing from the primary source, but in fact multiple secondary sources? Pot...meet kettle. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:4D04:1FC3:8BE:7100 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The only sources in your material seem to be the Bible itself and the Vatican website, neither are very good sources. That is why I don't believe that content belongs. Could you explain why the above paragraph is problematic? - SimonP (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Again (and again) I quote secondary sources...not "the" Bible. You appear to lack a basic understanding of the Bible, even though I've made a sincere attempt to educate you on this topic...which you admit is not a strength of yours. You might want to try...try...listening in a quiet place. Here's the abbreviated summary: there is no single "Bible." This only exists in the imagination of people who have not studied the creation of today's New Testament, commonly from Novum Testamentum Graece as the "primary" source, which in the current era is comprised of over 5,800 manuscripts which are the actual, ultimate, primary sources. My cites for "the" Bible are for secondary, but nonetheless expert, sources. To dismiss the Vatican website as a "not very good source" is an outrageously uninformed and particularly diminutive POV, as the Vatican is ultimately a source of many of these manuscripts as well as Christianity itself today with all of its off-shoots. In turn, you are dismissed...but not without my sincere encouragement to Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:85D7:3570:8067:DC2F (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood, but could you please explain why you think the above paragraph should be removed? - SimonP (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)