Thread: A cultural issue

Since we are to reach others...

There are languages in which the psalms are not yet translated, have not been translated (with no apparent intent to do so), or not readily available (aka, I can find a Tsalgi NT easily, but the last time the entire scriptures was printed in Tsalagi is about 100yrs ago).

EPers: would you imply that these groups simply are not permitted to sing in worship whatsoever?

I find EPers to simply presume that everyone has the psalms, since all else is banned in their minds.



(As much as I love the psalms, agree with singing the psalter, I find myself not quite as convinced as I once was)

How is this an argument against EP? If anything, it is an argument to stop translating hymns into their language, and translate the Psalter!

If EP is weakened by the necessity of the people waiting to sing until the Psalter is translated, is sola scriptura weakened by the inability of preaching or reading of the word to take place until the whole bible is translated?

Originally Posted by Davidius

If EP is weakened by the necessity of the people waiting to sing until the Psalter is translated, is sola scriptura weakened by the inability of preaching or reading of the word to take place until the whole bible is translated?

There is sharing the Word, which does not require every word immediately translated for understanding. However, with the EP position, one would be preventing an entire culture or ethnicity from singing as a form of worship, even though singing as a form of worship is commanded.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Originally Posted by Davidius

If EP is weakened by the necessity of the people waiting to sing until the Psalter is translated, is sola scriptura weakened by the inability of preaching or reading of the word to take place until the whole bible is translated?

There is sharing the Word, which does not require every word immediately translated for understanding. However, with the EP position, one would be preventing an entire culture or ethnicity from singing as a form of worship, even though singing as a form of worship is commanded.

LadyFlynt,

With all due respect, I don't think this is a particularly strong argument against exclusive psalmody. Translating a few psalms into the language of the people and setting them to music isn't a great obstacle--it probably wouldn't even take as long as composing new songs. The work done translating existing (non-Psalm) hymns could just as easily be put into translating Psalms.

And what are they going to sing while they wait for a song to be composed/translated?

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Originally Posted by Davidius

If EP is weakened by the necessity of the people waiting to sing until the Psalter is translated, is sola scriptura weakened by the inability of preaching or reading of the word to take place until the whole bible is translated?

There is sharing the Word, which does not require every word immediately translated for understanding. However, with the EP position, one would be preventing an entire culture or ethnicity from singing as a form of worship, even though singing as a form of worship is commanded.

LadyFlynt,

With all due respect, I don't think this is a particularly strong argument against exclusive psalmody. Translating a few psalms into the language of the people and setting them to music isn't a great obstacle--it probably wouldn't even take as long as composing new songs. The work done translating existing (non-Psalm) hymns could just as easily be put into translating Psalms.

And what are they going to sing while they wait for a song to be composed/translated?

Well goodness, Skyler, I guess they would sing praises to our heavenly Father just as every other church does Translation is not near as simple as you make it sound. There are Psalms that would be extremely difficult to translate into Tsalagi, when it's a language that has no words or phrases that English has. You can say, "thank you" in Tsalagi, but you cannot say, "your welcome". You cannot say, "love" in Tsalagi, but you can say that you are, "jealous for them" or "hold them tight". You cannot say, "goodbye", you can only say, "till we meet/see each other again". There are many negative, "hateful" things mentioned in the Psalms...Tsalagi does not have words to say, "He shall bash their teeth". Can it be contrived? Possibly, in a manner. But no, Tsalagi is one of the many languages that there is no "word for word" translations as that is not how the language works. Difficult to understand, but it's not like translating from English into German.

If you look at my signature: A we n' de Ya, ho. "A" does not mean anything...but it can mean many things or be part of many things. All depends on what it is grouped with. "ho" means nothing, and yet it means something here because of what it is grouped with. Group it with the wrong set of sounds and it again means nothing. You cannot say, "drown him". There are no words you can group together that say that.

Sometimes I believe certain parts of the church expect the rest of the world to run the "European Way" rather than by "Scriptural Principles". (kinda like when a mennonite minister told me that Mary wore a net, "coffee filter" kapp and that's why they/I wore them...yeah, imagine his utter shock when I informed him they were made of plastic and plastic was not invented till last century. It's along the same lines of presumption in my book)

Please note: I've been in a couple of EP churches; I know the arguments. My question is, are you then forbidding part of their worship.

(btw, A we n' de Ya, ho is sung, not spoken. It is giving worship to the One that Created us. It is proclaiming that we are created and we are His)

Greek has untranslatable particles, too, so we aren't being Indo-European-centric. If it's going to be hard to translate the Psalter, it's presumably going to be hard to translate the rest of the bible, as well, but that doesn't mean they don't need a bible as their only rule for faith and practice.

It doesn't mean they should refrain from practice either (in this case, singing to the Lord as a part of worship).

The problem I'm seeing with this, LadyFlynt, is that it could apply equally to translating the Psalms or the rest of the Bible. All of the arguments you've presented thus far can, I think, be reduced to absurdity by applying them to, say, the Gospels.

No, they cannot, Skyler. Preaching is permitted, even if it's not directly quoting Scripture the entire time. The congregation is not required to read Scripture for themselves during worship, thus a lack of Bibles is not an issue. Only one having, understanding, and sharing is necessary for preaching. However, the congregation is commanded to sing. To say they must sing something that has not been translated, thus leaving them to disobey the command to sing, is contradictory and counterproductive.

I've also been reading Pastor Greco's comments on the Greek and Hebrew understanding of words. I have to say, they lend much weight in the argument as well. It sounds more than like a preference being pushed as law.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

No, they cannot, Skyler. Preaching is permitted, even if it's not directly quoting Scripture the entire time. The congregation is not required to read Scripture for themselves during worship, thus a lack of Bibles is not an issue. Only one having, understanding, and sharing is necessary for preaching. However, the congregation is commanded to sing. To say they must sing something that has not been translated, thus leaving them to disobey the command to sing, is contradictory and counterproductive.

Reading the word is an element of worship...

Originally Posted by Davidius

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

No, they cannot, Skyler. Preaching is permitted, even if it's not directly quoting Scripture the entire time. The congregation is not required to read Scripture for themselves during worship, thus a lack of Bibles is not an issue. Only one having, understanding, and sharing is necessary for preaching. However, the congregation is commanded to sing. To say they must sing something that has not been translated, thus leaving them to disobey the command to sing, is contradictory and counterproductive.

Reading the word is an element of worship...

Oh well, poor people will just have to not be permitted to worship...they must just sit quietly as the Quakers then. (as I stated, ONE person may have the Scriptures and translate ORALLY to the best of their ability...but to expect an entire congregation to sing something that they have not/cannot read is ridiculous. Nowhere is the reading of the Scriptures commanded as participation of the ENTIRE congregation, otherwise the illiterate are in sin for their lack)

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

No, they cannot, Skyler. Preaching is permitted, even if it's not directly quoting Scripture the entire time. The congregation is not required to read Scripture for themselves during worship, thus a lack of Bibles is not an issue. Only one having, understanding, and sharing is necessary for preaching. However, the congregation is commanded to sing. To say they must sing something that has not been translated, thus leaving them to disobey the command to sing, is contradictory and counterproductive.

I've also been reading Pastor Greco's comments on the Greek and Hebrew understanding of words. I have to say, they lend much weight in the argument as well. It sounds more than like a preference being pushed as law.

Forget about singing....
How is the Preacher going to read the Scriptures to the folks if they can't understand it? Romans 10

He may translate portions ORALLY to the best of his ability. Again, this is different than the command that is given to a GROUP of people that do not hold these scriptures in their hands, in their language. So they should forego this aspect of worship until and IF someone takes the time to do so?

In your scenario, I don't see why the Preacher could not have a Psalm ready to sing just as he has the Word to give. As you said, to the best of his ability.