EP: Can you actually prove it from SCRIPTURE???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark, so you're EP then but you chant Psalms or are awaiting until a proper metrical translation is produced?

First you argue that to be consistent we must sing in Hebrew. Then when shown that this view would devastate confidence in prose translations you fall back on that old repose that our Metrical versions aren't good enough. Another logical fallacy. If there are no accurate psalters then it does not follow that EP is false.

As for the bare assertion that the metrical versions are paraphrases and not translations I deny it. First, you haven't even given a precise definition of what qualifies as translation or paraphrase.
 
Originally posted by Peter
As for the bare assertion that the metrical versions are paraphrases and not translations I deny it. First, you haven't even given a precise definition of what qualifies as translation or paraphrase.

The bottom line is that you can make a more accurate translation WITHOUT making it metrical, than you can WITH making it metrical.

Take a look at the weaknesses of a metrical Psalm. Why are those weaknesses there? In the MAJORITY of cases, it would have been very simple to make the translation more technically accurate. However, the more accurate translation wouldn't have been metrical, or wouldn't have rhymed, so the person had to INTENTIONALLY make a poorer translation, just to crank out something that would fit a tune.

Whatever you call it, this should NOT be acceptable to anyone who values the inerrancy of Scripture (if your goal is a bona-fide "translation").

The LXX had is weaknesses too, but not *intentionally*, because of people trying to *force* the translation into some artificial format.



By the way, I love singing Psalms. But acting like they are on a par with non-metrical translations of the Psalms does seem pretty silly and illogical to me.

I like singing hymns like "Nothing but the blood of Jesus", too. And it conveys the Gospel truth even more clearly than ANY Psalm I know.

"What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus!
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus!
Oh, precious is the flow
that makes me white as snow!
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus!"


I think we should sing Psalms AND hymns. And of course the hymns must be Scripture-based.




[Edited on 1-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 
Peter, look into the difference between a literal translation, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase, and then get back to me.

A translation can be loose, or strict, which covers the first two.

I find it ironic that I know a few EP people who will slam the NIV and then sing something like this:

1 Why did the Gentiles tumults raise?
What rage was in their brain?
Why do the people still contrive
a thing that is but vain?
2 The kings and rulers of the earth
conspire and are all bent
Against the Lord, and Christ his Son,
whom he among us sent.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Originally posted by Augusta
The song was meant for to remind them of their unfaithfulness down the road. I guess we can sing it to modern day Jews who are still unfaithful. I wouldn't sing it in corporate worship, no.

Are you a dispensationalist ? ?

We are Israel, and we are still unfaithful.

Yes, we are Israel now. We are grafted in. That particular song was to the particular group whose carcases fell in the wilderness. We are admonished not to follow their example in Hebrews 3.

What is it with pulling out the D-word for people you don't agree with. :um:

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Augusta]
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Peter
As for the bare assertion that the metrical versions are paraphrases and not translations I deny it. First, you haven't even given a precise definition of what qualifies as translation or paraphrase.

The bottom line is that you can make a more accurate translation WITHOUT making it metrical, than you can WITH making it metrical.

Take a look at the weaknesses of a metrical Psalm. Why are those weaknesses there? In the MAJORITY of cases, it would have been very simple to make the translation more technically accurate. However, the more accurate translation wouldn't have been metrical, or wouldn't have rhymed, so the person had to INTENTIONALLY make a poorer translation, just to crank out something that would fit a tune.

This is true. Yet it is not necessarily inconsistent with making a psalm metrical and as accurate as possible. Even still, our command is to sing the psalms so I believe that in translating them for song singability must also be a consideration weighed upon. And in a translation for singing we must employ the conventions of the people and the period, just the same with a prose translation.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Peter]
 
Originally posted by Augusta

Yes, we are Israel now. We are grafted in. That particular song was to the particular group whose carcases fell in the wilderness. We are admonished not to follow their example in Hebrews 3.

What is it with pulling out the D-word for people you don't agree with. :um:

First, I apologize for the sarcasm and the dispensational remark.

Secondly, would you also not sing Psalm 78 (and others) for the same reason ? ? It calls to remembrance the wilderness. Egypt and the Exodus are spiritual themes in our lives as well. I moan and groan in the midst of God's deliverance and mercy because I do not choose to see his hand in it. Sin causes us to be malcontent in our sufferings, but also amidst God's great blessings. Are we better than those who died in the wilderness ? I think not.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Peter, look into the difference between a literal translation, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase, and then get back to me.

A translation can be loose, or strict, which covers the first two.

I find it ironic that I know a few EP people who will slam the NIV and then sing something like this:

1 Why did the Gentiles tumults raise?
What rage was in their brain?
Why do the people still contrive
a thing that is but vain?
2 The kings and rulers of the earth
conspire and are all bent
Against the Lord, and Christ his Son,
whom he among us sent.

I dont know the difference and unless it can be demonstrated to me that that the metrical psalms are not faithful translations my judgment will be with the Hebrew scholars who translated them.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
My EP church uses the NIV. :p

Paraphraser. :p

Actually, the NIV is a dynamic equivalent, not a paraphrase.

"dynamic-equivalence" = (thought-for-thought)
"essentially literal"= (word-for-word).
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Originally posted by Augusta

Yes, we are Israel now. We are grafted in. That particular song was to the particular group whose carcases fell in the wilderness. We are admonished not to follow their example in Hebrews 3.

What is it with pulling out the D-word for people you don't agree with. :um:

First, I apologize for the sarcasm and the dispensational remark.

Secondly, would you also not sing Psalm 78 (and others) for the same reason ? ? It calls to remembrance the wilderness. Egypt and the Exodus are spiritual themes in our lives as well. I moan and groan in the midst of God's deliverance and mercy because I do not choose to see his hand in it. Sin causes us to be malcontent in our sufferings, but also amidst God's great blessings. Are we better than those who died in the wilderness ? I think not.

I agree that we are not better than they were. As I said earlier we are justified the same way, through the blood of Christ.

I would not sing anything that is not in the psalter. I see the commands to sing the psalms, to sing the words of David and Asaph etc. in my opinion the psalter is clearly a collection of songs of praise for singing. Combine that with the fact that we cannot worship in truth in my opinion without inspired psalms because every man is a liar and we taint everything we touch. We must be given everything because we have nothing worthy to give.
 
Thank you for the thread link Jeff.

Kevin Easterday epresses my concern perfectly:

Originally posted by kceaster
So this is not a paraphrase?

That man hath perfect blessedness,
who walketh not astray
In counsel of ungodly men,
nor stands in sinners' way,

In the Hebrew text, blessed or happy is an adverb. The man is happy or blessed. As John Brown translated it, he makes two errors: First, he turns an adverbial use into a nominative use (direct object.) The psalmist is not saying that the man has blessedness, rather the man is in the state of being blessed or happy. Secondly, where is perfect coming from? The lexicons I use do not even convey the concept of perfection in happiness. Blessedness and bliss are used as synonyms, but perfection is not mentioned. Further on the use of perfect, we cannot have perfection in any way shape or form here on earth. The WSC talks about the believer being perfectly blessed, but only in the eschaton. So, he has turned the phrase into a completely different concept by translating it like this.

I don't believe that we can say that a man has perfect blessedness because he does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly. There are many who would be considered godly who would give us the wrong advice. I don't believe the legalist to be ungodly in all they do, but I certainly don't believe I am perfectly blessed because I take their counsel.

The better rendering is to leave the adverb alone and not put another modifier in there. If John Brown is right, then we can have perfect blessedness as long as we do not walk astray, so that the operation of blessing is based upon our walking. However, I think it is much more accurate to say that God puts me in a blessed state so that I have no desire to walk in the counsel of the ungodly.

I think his paraphrase is not conveying the correct concept.

If this is just the first line of the first psalm, think about how many more ways the words have been changed to fit the metre.

In Christ,

KC
 
Mark,

You do realize that even if your concerns are valid (which I not being a hebrew scholar cannot comment on), that it is absolutely no argument against EP?

It is a straw man. If there are problems with the Psalter, it should be fixed, not thrown out with the bath water.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Mark,

You do realize that even if your concerns are valid (which I not being a hebrew scholar cannot comment on), that it is absolutely no argument against EP?

It is a straw man. If there are problems with the Psalter, it should be fixed, not thrown out with the bath water.

I agree. It should be fixed if EP is correct. But since they have not fixed it, EPers are possibly offering just as much strange fire as non-inspired hymn singers.
 
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm
Summary: the Force of the Objection

So we are back to the question of the logical force of the objection. If the objection has force with respect to the singing of the Psalms it has the same force with respect to the reading of the Scripture. What is that force? It is an admission that our translations are not as perfect as we would like. We should always be ready to submit our translations to further revision. The Authorized Version of the Bible has not been revised since 1769. Even it could use some work: there are a number of archaic words.

Here is what the objectors are seemingly trying to say. "œYou folks are not really singing the words of God. You are just singing the words of man as they understand the words of God to be. And that is the same thing we are doing. When we sing John Wesley or Fanny Crosby or Isaac Watts, we are just singing their interpretation of the word of God. That is all we are doing and that is all you folks are doing when you sing a paraphrase."

But the objection breaks down. Even if I were reading the New International Version of the Bible, you would still recognize it as a poor translation of the Word of God. But if I were to stand in the pulpit and read Matthew Henry´s commentary on the same passage, no one would understand that to mean that I was reading the Word of God. That is the difference between singing Isaac Watts and singing even the poorest translation of the Psalms.



http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/crampton.htm
PARAPHRASES, VERSIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS
There is no question in this reviewer's mind that there are many poor and even "loose" paraphrases of the Psalms available today. Nor would I maintain that the rules of translation are identical for a translation intended for word study, reading, and singing. Some of the worst metrical versions of the Psalms happen also to be some of the most recent. Some are little more than "ditties." Yet, to say that a translation should be accurate is not to say that word order must be followed in the target language as it appears in the source language. Most of our readers are familiar with Psalm 23:1-2. . .

Authorized Version:
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside the still waters.

New International Version:
The Lord is my shepherd. I shall not be in want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside still waters,

The Psalms of David in Metre:
The Lord's my shepherd, I'll not want.
He makes me down to lie
In pastures green: He leadeth me
The quiet waters by.

Wooden literal following Hebrew word order:
Psalm of David. Jehovah shepherd mine.
Not I shall want. In pastures green He causes to lie me;
by rests He leads me.

As it turns out, none of the three (AV, NIV or metrical Psalter) follows the Hebrew word order perfectly. At one point (pastures green) the metrical psalm alone follows the Hebrew word order. We have no reason from the word order to assert that the metrical version is a paraphrase as opposed to the other two versions. Beyond the genuine concern for accurate translations, metrical or otherwise, I am still at a loss to discern the force of this argument. It is an excellent reason to use only good "tight" metrical Psalms, but is it set forth as a reason not to sing Psalms or does it follow from this that we may sing the hymns of Isaac Watts?

I do not believe the translators of the Authorized Version were "inspired." But I do maintain that they gave us a generally accurate translation of inspired originals. More than that, it is suitable for reading. We should ask no more of a Psalter. It should be as accurate as humanly possible and should be suitable for singing. ... I do not believe this is any less consistent than reading from the Authorized Version and saying, "thus saith the Lord."

thanks to Chris Coldwell for these quotes and links
 
Thank you Peter for admitting the fallibility of singing Psalms in english metre.

This proves my point.

If you fear offering strange fire so much, why not simply sing the Psalms in hebrew to be extra safe and as close to what God requires in His holy scriptures as possible ? ? After all, the hebrew word order is inspired as well.

Again, it does not disprove EP alone, but it does reveal the inherent inconsistency within the view.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Thank you Peter for admitting the fallibility of singing Psalms in english metre.

This proves my point.

If you fear offering strange fire so much, why not simply sing the Psalms in hebrew to be extra safe and as close to what God requires in His holy scriptures as possible ? ?

Again, it does not disprove EP alone, but it does reveal the inherent inconsistency within the view.

Just as reading the bible in english is falliable. Or even reading it in the orginial languages as there is a risk the mss differs from the autographs.
 
Originally posted by Peter

Just as reading the bible in english is falliable. Or even reading it in the orginial languages as there is a risk the mss differs from the autographs.

Sure, to a certain extent, no translation is perfect right ? ?

Why does every elder I know have shelves full of hebrew and greek lexicons and study aids ? ?

But, when I read the bible at home, it is not corporate worship, so I am not breaking the RPW or EP if I read the NIV. (Another arbitrary distinction the EP makes between corporate/private worship)

My entire point in even bothering to argue this is that we need to have some balance, and use wisdom in what hymns/psalms/spiritual songs we sing. If you feel convicted to sing only from the Psalter then do not violate your conscience.

God will certainly accept our worship if it is indeed in spirit and truth. And all the words of scripture are truth.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]
 
My point was to show that EP is not inconsistent (in that respect anyway) and that actually your reductio ad absurdum was inconsistent.

I agree, that distinction (corperate/private) is arbitrary Mark.
 
FYI, I've heard that there are many Anglicans (by no means believing in RPW) that are EP simply b/c it was the ancient practice of the Church and of the Church of England from the Reformation until the late 19th century.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
My entire point in even bothering to argue this is that we need to have some balance, and use wisdom in what hymns/psalms/spiritual songs we sing. If you feel convicted to sing only from the Psalter then do not violate your conscience.

God will certainly accept our worship if it is indeed in spirit and truth. And all the words of scripture are truth.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]

thanks for this charitable remark, as you know, my convictions will not permit me to similiarly condone what is your practice but I do believe it is more important for you to have a conscience void of offense towards God. Also, seeing as all worship, even true worship that has been commanded by God, is preformed by fallen men and needs to be perfumed by the merits of Jesus, in some way I know God will accept yours too.
 
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by puritansailor
To me, (I won't bind your conscience with mine), to sing in praise in corporate worship is a clear command. The content of the song (though I hold to EP) is not clear, at least not clear enough to bind anothers conscience with. So I can sing hymns in my non-EP church in good conscience knowing that God has it all figured out, and will guide His church into greater clarity on the issue. The worship of God is bigger than my conscience, so I have no problem deferring to the elders on this issue and worshipping with my brethren, just as I would for the other issues regarding required elements of worship are carried out (i.e. what kind of bread or wine to use, preaching style, fixed or extemporaneous prayer, time and place of worship, etc.).

But I will no longer side-track the thread. Kevin wanted scriptural arguments for EP.

As Peter noted, the Psalms were divinely inspired and provided for the purpose of worship. They certainly perform other roles too, but that was their cheif intent. This much we know. Of course now we have to get to the nitty gritty of congregational worship before the NT, and we have little to go on. We know there was synagogue worship. But when was that instituted by God along with it's elements? We know the psalms were sung in the temple and feasts for ceremonial worship, but that ceremonial worship has been abolished. We also know that several psalms (like the psalms of ascent) were sung, not in public worship, but enroute to worship.
So what remains for the NT? The psalms remained. The RPW remained. And we have some clear commands in the NT as to required elements of worship. What did the early church draw on? The narratives in Acts don't help much. Corinth helps some, but it only gives us a picture of a Church struggling the abuse of some elements of worship. The early church knew how to worship God in the OT. To me it seems clear that the psalms provided not only an immediate hymn book for the Jewish christians, now knowing their full Christological meaning, but also they could identify more fully with the experiences of the psalms as they wrestled through persecution, betrayal, and sanctification, and sing them from the heart. In order to understand Paul to be commanding further composition, you would first have to somehow show where Paul (or the NT) shows a defficiency or incompleteness in the psalms for worship, or to provide more specific directions about songs in corporate worship to accomadate the new covenant worship. Othewise, the practice must continue as before. But again, these are all arguments by implication. We don't know for certain that the Jews didn't use other hymns in synagogue worship (i.e. what were the hymns of Hezekiah, the song of Miriam, Deborah, etc. ?). We don't know what parts of synagogue worship are divinely ordained or culturally bound "traditions of men" which Jesus so often rebuked them for. Perhaps the Jews refered to these other hymns as well when they said "psalms" in their everyday talk. The OT has very little to go on. And the early church began diverging in their liturgical traditions rather early on as I understand it. We have references to some early church fathers using the term "psalms" but do we really know whether that term referred to just the book of Psalsm, or as a generic word for worship music? Again, it's based upon implication.....
:2cents:

Good points, Patrick, and the sort of things that I was hoping to see.

The one thing I would point out: you mentioned it would be necessary to demonstrate a deficiency in the Psalms. I understand your question and hope those who read will understand my reply:

[Disclaimer: the following is not intended to in anyway imply a low view of the inspiration of or sufficiency of the Scriptures!]

The Psalms are, in my opinion insufficent for worship in that they are not, in themselves, a complete revelation of Christ, the Holy Sprit, the New Covenant, or redemption. I cannot...no WILL NOT...accept the notion that singing a song of praise to Christ is in anyway sinful, but that is the inescapable conclusion of EP.

I think I wasn't clear on who had to prove the deficiency of the psalms. My point was (assuming that the pslams alone were used for worship before the NT) that Paul or the apostles in the NT would have to demonstrate a deficiency or inadequacy in the psalms for new covenant worship, not you or the non-EP advocates. We don't see the apostles indicating that the psalms needed to be supplimented in light of the new revelation of Christ. We have several places, especially in Hebrews, explaining the deficiency and shadow nature of OT worship in light of the new revelation of Christ. But the psalms are never placed in that category of insufficient worship for the new covenant people of God. In essence the argument rests upon the continuity of worship, much like infant inclusion in the covenant. Infant inclusion remains though the initiatory right has changed. Praising God with the psalms alone remains, and since no command or explaination is given to change this practice, or to augment worship with new songs, then the practice continues. But again, this is based on the assumption that the psalms alone were sung in worship before the NT, thus providing the grounds to understand Paul to be refering to the Psalms alone in Eph/Col. Of course, the evidence to back up this assumption is sketchy, but so is any evidence to back up the assumption that hymns outside the psalter were used regularly in OT worship. It's an argument from relative silence for either side.
 
Originally posted by Peter
Originally posted by Saiph
Thank you Peter for admitting the fallibility of singing Psalms in english metre.

This proves my point.

If you fear offering strange fire so much, why not simply sing the Psalms in hebrew to be extra safe and as close to what God requires in His holy scriptures as possible ? ?

Again, it does not disprove EP alone, but it does reveal the inherent inconsistency within the view.

Just as reading the bible in english is falliable. Or even reading it in the orginial languages as there is a risk the mss differs from the autographs.

I think we also need to keep in mind that the idea that the RPW logically requires us to speak or sing in the original languages is a straw man. We are commanded in 1 Cor. 14 (and thus by the RPW) to translate into the common tongue for everyone to participate with full understanding. This applied not only to prophecy/tongues, but also prayer and psalms.
 
I think we also need to keep in mind that the idea that the RPW logically requires us to speak or sing in the original languages is a straw man. We are commanded in 1 Cor. 14 (and thus by the RPW) to translate into the common tongue for everyone to participate with full understanding. This applied not only to prophecy/tongues, but also prayer and psalms.

I never said it was logically consistent, I said it was "the safest" using Scotts terminology. And the art of accurate translation demands we take the word seriously, and try to get every nuiance out of the original thought and definition into the target language as possible.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
So where's the command...?

Kevin,

Even you would admit that we are commanded to sing Psalms. The question I believe that you are getting at here is "Where are we commanded to sing Psalms only?"

According to the Regulative Principle, an element needs scriptural justification to be performed in worship. We can justify Psalms (it is a clear command). What the EP argues, is the hymns cannot be justifyied (i.e. it is by no means clear, in fact the evidence seems to point the other way).

The EPer doesn't claim to have a verse that says "Thou shalt only sing Psalms." But the EPer DOES say is that

1) We have a clear command to sing Psalms
2) There is no clear command to make up our own songs
3) The arguments for the use of made-up songs are not convincing, and do not justify a "command" via the Regulative Principle

If you think that God has clearly commanded you to sing hymns, then we agree on the regulative principle, but differ on the application. The way I have explained the EP position above is because looking at it this way, was how I was convinced of the position.

We must earnestly look for scriptural warrant to include hymns, and I think all of the arguments to include them, do not constitute a "command" of God.

Just my :2cents:

Excellent reply, Jeff. I think you nailed it on where I am struggling. I think it all hinges on the question posed earlier on whether or not "hymns and spiritual songs" refers to the Psalms. If it does, then EP is correct. If it does not, then EP is wrong.
 
Originally posted by joshuaFurthermore, I wouldn't take it as rankling, seeing as how you're the one responsible for my first taste of Miller Genuine Draft...which is now my beer of choice. Being that I'm not a beer snob, but a broke man.

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Originally posted by Peter
The assertion that the Book of Psalms is a hymnal is not at all a "reach", infact even to suggests that it was not I consider to be a tremendous reach and, respectfully, I think a sign of desparation on the part of some UH advocates. Many of the Psalms are entitled songs or some other musical term and have musical instructions, there are hundreds of musical allusions in the Psalms themselves, and they are all collected into a single book which is called "The Psalms" a name Christ himself used.

Many, not all. The fact that some have musical instruction and others do not would suggest this. Some are designed for reponsive reading (c.f. Ps. 136). Some are just poems. Others use mnemonic devices that aid in memorization, presumably for private mdeitiation. I think it would be more accurate to call the Psalms a book of worship than to call it a hymnal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top