How to refute the paraphrase argument which is against Exclusive Psalmody

Status
Not open for further replies.

monoergon

Puritan Board Freshman
Recently, I began studying about Exclusive Psalmody and I have become inclined towards it. I have found great refutations against popular non-EP arguments.


However, there is one argument to which I didn’t find a refutation:

Psalm-singers don’t really sing the Psalms the exact way the Psalm verses are read from the Bible. Rather, Psalm singers paraphrase or modify the Psalms when such is sung”.


How can we refute that non-EP argument?

Can you recommend free articles which refute this argument in particular?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
This has been discussed a number of times over the years, as recently as last fall. See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/an-argument-against-exclusive-psalmody.93045/
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/bad-arguments-against-ep.93258/
Those two threads address this specifically I think, but you will need to craft a number of searches to find discussion on it within the many other threads on EP. Paraphrase, paraphrases, translation, would be some of the terms to use. But those two threads likely encapsulate what can be said.
 

RPEphesian

Puritan Board Junior
Doesn’t argue against the practice of EP itself; if anything, just that we need better translations.

Some people, when pressed, will admit they think that not only can we sing the Psalms, but we should. So, if anyone believes we are commanded to sing the Psalms, even though not exclusively, they have an interest in the accuracy of the Psalter as well.
 
Last edited:

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Even the most literal Bible translations use paraphrasing now and then (it's just the nature of the beast). And that's considered to be legitimate. With the psalms, paraphrasing has to be used so the psalm will fit a pre-existing tune (again, it's just the nature of the beast). This should be considered totally acceptable.
 

brendanchatt

Puritan Board Freshman
How can we refute that non-EP argument?

I always like to remind people that it's not an argument. It concerns practical follow-through of EP. The "argument" really just claims that Exclusive Psalmodists aren't really EP.

I understand that it's helpful to assess a doctrine with a circumspect attitude respecting its proponents, but everyone should want to sing better Psalms (translations). This is really an opportunity for us all to work together.
 

monoergon

Puritan Board Freshman
This has been discussed a number of times over the years, as recently as last fall. See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/an-argument-against-exclusive-psalmody.93045/
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/bad-arguments-against-ep.93258/
Those two threads address this specifically I think, but you will need to craft a number of searches to find discussion on it within the many other threads on EP. Paraphrase, paraphrases, translation, would be some of the terms to use. But those two threads likely encapsulate what can be said.
Thank you. I will read them.
 

monoergon

Puritan Board Freshman
I want to buy Songs of Zion, by Michael Bushell, but I don't know which edition is the latest.

At the Lulu website (link), it has 329 pages and is the 4th edition.
At Crown&Covenant (link), it has 317 pages and is the 4th edition.

Which is one the latest edition?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I'm guessing but Crown and Covenant likely gets their supply as print on demand from Mike; so I would go direct as that is his lulu page and likely the most up to date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top