You: I did no such thing. If that is what you got from that it was a misunderstanding on your part. It certainly was not what I wrote nor what I meant. Seems to be a trend.
My comment above was based upon what you said in post #910: Surely you read his post where he said OUR prayers. Why...the...comeback with what THE PSALMIST prayed? He didn’t say ALL prayers. He specifically said OUR prayers didn’t he? [CynicalBear]
In post 910, you made a clear distinction between...
..."OUR" prayers vs. prayers originating from "THE PSALMIST"
Our prayers are sometimes based upon prayers already in the Bible, right? There's a long temple dedicatory prayer in the OT; Paul has several; the Psalmists have many.
I simply referenced (in a round-about way) that if we were to pray thru the Psalms, that almost 10% of our prayers would include imprecatory ones. You then tried to make a distinction 'tween OUR prayers -- and that of the Psalmists -- as if we would ne'er pray thru the Psalms...
I interpreted that as an assumption.
As you know, prayers of the psalmists have often been turned into contemporary praise songs. Those are specific examples where "the Psalmists'" petitions become ours as we give them over to the Lord during worship.
OUR prayers as the Body of Christ thru generations have indeed been the Psalmist's prayers; likewise, the Lord's Prayer has have indeed been "OUR Prayer."
So, no, I wouldn't assume es, the Lord prayed it; we wouldn't assume that it didn't become "OUR" prayer, right?
So why raise this as some sort of distinction?
NO, I didn’t. I simply pointed out what he had posted. I made no distinction about prayer whatsoever. I simply was pointing out that it appeared to me you had made an assumption of what he was saying which, it seems to me, you have done on many of your posts of late.