# ?Difference in Psalters



## LadyFlynt (Jan 10, 2007)

Question:

What is the argumentation for one psalter being acceptable and another not? Both are the psalms. The reason I ask is that I met a young gent this past Lord's Day that holds to this, but we didn't get a chance to discuss it. The two psalters in question are the Scottish Metrical Psalter over the Psalms for Singing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 10, 2007)

Other than preference, it usually boils down to a difference over which is a better translation and more faithful to the original language. When my church was deciding on what psalter to go with that was the primary concern and we finally decided the old 1650 Scottish psalter had not been sufficiently improved upon to go with something newer.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 10, 2007)

Of consideration when evaluating different psalters: 

1) faithfulness to the scriptures
2) metrical versification
3) appropriate tunes for congregational praise

I like the Book of Psalms for Singing. But it has a few flaws, in my opinion. I have a collection that includes a number of other versions which I have compared. But personally I -- and I think the Presbyterian Reformed Church, which uses the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter -- am in agreement with the divines (I have attempted, btw, to provide brief biographical sketches of almost all of them in the Church History forum) who penned the 1673 Preface:



> A Puritan Preface to the Scottish Metrical Psalter
> 
> Below is the text (with some modernisation of spelling and punctuation etc.) of a letter to the reader affixed to an edition of the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter printed for the Company of Stationers at London in 1673. The title page bears the words: *“The Psalms of David In Meeter. Newly Translated and diligently compared with the Original Text, and former Translations: More plain, smooth and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore.”*
> 
> ...


----------



## Casey (Jan 10, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Other than preference, it usually boils down to a difference over which is a better translation and more faithful to the original language. When my church was deciding on what psalter to go with that was the primary concern and we finally decided the old 1650 Scottish psalter had not been sufficiently improved upon to go with something newer.


Does your church use the KJV, too?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 10, 2007)

Yes. We're on our second set of pew KJV bibles. For a pew psalter, we produced our own version of the 1650 Psalter which we call _The Comprehensive Psalter._ It is the text of the 1650 but not a split leaf psalter, which we simply found was to expensive and fragile to hold up as a pew psalter. We also assigned one tune to each setting, which is divided up to easily sing through the psalms every year in public worship, which is our practice.


StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Does your church use the KJV, too?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 10, 2007)

Chris, could you link me to that (pew psalter)?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 10, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Chris, could you link me to that (pew psalter)?


I think I did in the note above but here is the full link:
http://www.fpcr.org/catalog/catalog-online.htm#Books & Tracts


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 10, 2007)

Thank you.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 10, 2007)

There are several churches now that have chosen it for a pew psalter (some Baptists; some Presbyterian). We printed around 2200 and I think we have maybe 500 left; maybe more, maybe less.


----------



## Casey (Jan 10, 2007)

Your congregation sure does publish a lot of stuff, Chris. LOL


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 10, 2007)

Well, we've always acted like a bigger church than we are; think big, do big.


StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Your congregation sure does publish a lot of stuff, Chris. LOL


----------



## Augusta (Jan 10, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Yes. We're on our second set of pew KJV bibles. For a pew psalter, we produced our own version of the 1650 Psalter which we call _The Comprehensive Psalter._ It is the text of the 1650 but not a split leaf psalter, which we simply found was to expensive and fragile to hold up as a pew psalter. We also assigned one tune to each setting, which is divided up to easily sing through the psalms every year in public worship, which is our practice.



That is so cool!


----------



## Casey (Jan 10, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Well, we've always acted like a bigger church than we are; think big, do big.


 

"The OPC, since its founding, has been characterized—by friend and foe—as 'the little church with the big mouth.'" (quoted here)

_Sorry, back to your regularly programmed thread-cast . . ._


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Jan 11, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> For a pew psalter, we produced our own version of the 1650 Psalter which we call _The Comprehensive Psalter._ It is the text of the 1650 but not a split leaf psalter, which we simply found was to expensive and fragile to hold up as a pew psalter. We also assigned one tune to each setting, which is divided up to easily sing through the psalms every year in public worship, which is our practice.



I have a copy - LOVE it, I have been meaning to buy a couple of more copies for family worship.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 11, 2007)

pilgrim3970 said:


> I have a copy - LOVE it, I have been meaning to buy a couple of more copies for family worship.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 12, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Question:
> 
> What is the argumentation for one psalter being acceptable and another not? Both are the psalms.



I suppose it is the same argument as KJV over NASB or ESV, etc.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Jan 13, 2007)

Since this is a discussion about diffrerences betwen Psalters, Is anyone here familiar with the Psalter sold by Reformation Heritage Books?


----------



## ADKing (Jan 13, 2007)

pilgrim3970 said:


> Since this is a discussion about diffrerences betwen Psalters, Is anyone here familiar with the Psalter sold by Reformation Heritage Books?



Yes. It is used by the Free Reformed, Heritage Reformed and Netherlands Reformed Churches. It contains in addition to the Psalms some Scripture songs and a select few other songs. It also has the Three Forms of Unity and the forms employed by some of these churches. The music is written out with the words like the Book of Psalms for Singing.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Jan 13, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Yes. It is used by the Free Reformed, Heritage Reformed and Netherlands Reformed Churches. It contains in addition to the Psalms some Scripture songs and a select few other songs. It also has the Three Forms of Unity and the forms employed by some of these churches. The music is written out with the words like the Book of Psalms for Singing.



Pastor King,

Thanks for the response. That being the case, I'm guessing it is safe to assume that they contain many tunes that would be unfamiliar to many in the U.S.?


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 13, 2007)

pilgrim3970 said:


> Since this is a discussion about diffrerences betwen Psalters, Is anyone here familiar with the Psalter sold by Reformation Heritage Books?



I believe its the old United Presbyterian psalter.


----------

