A
Adams son
Guest
Note the difference in these two translations:
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.
They say completely different things. In the former God is a would be "temptee" and in the latter God is a would be "temptor."
Looking at the Greek, the latter translation seems to be more viable and seems to say literally that "God is apart from temptations of evils" asserting the notion that God is not involved with tempting us with evil. And it also seems to make a lot more sense in the context of the passage itself. After all how does the former translation even make sense? What would God's own tempatability have to do with we ourselves being tempted? Notice how the latter translation makes complete sense.
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.
They say completely different things. In the former God is a would be "temptee" and in the latter God is a would be "temptor."
Looking at the Greek, the latter translation seems to be more viable and seems to say literally that "God is apart from temptations of evils" asserting the notion that God is not involved with tempting us with evil. And it also seems to make a lot more sense in the context of the passage itself. After all how does the former translation even make sense? What would God's own tempatability have to do with we ourselves being tempted? Notice how the latter translation makes complete sense.