bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
One reason why paraphrasing is necessary sometimes in translation (even the KJV does it) is because Hebrew poetry engages in rhyming thoughts or ideas, not rhyming words, as in English poetry.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Scott,If one says, 'No. They are not mediately inspired', thats a big problem as then we are importing man made song into our worship and no better than those that sing hymns; If we say 'yes they are', that may be another can of worms as well as we are rearranging words, adding words, rearranging the bibles chronology of the psalms, cutting out a section of scripture and placing it in a single book like the Gideons do with their NT bibles.
I actually played around with chanting from the KJV (http://www.lettermen2.com/sppsalter.pdf) yesterday due to this discussion. It isn't as difficult as I thought it would, and the tunes can sound pretty if you point the text well and speak the words well (the KJV has a natural poetic feel to its words).If you insisted on chanting out of the KJV, you'd end up with (mostly) impossibly awkward tunes, or else a horrendous monotone.
There are also places where, due to needing to fill out more syllables, more of the detail of the Hebrew was drawn upon than the prose, e.g., our pastor noted 57:2 "perform most perfectly."I've been told that the 1650 psalter is more straightforward a translation than prose translations in that regard, in certain places. I'm no Hebrew scholar, so I can't judge.
The point about visitors is one of the biggest things. The churches need to sing in a unified way so that all can participate without struggle.I actually played around with chanting from the KJV (http://www.lettermen2.com/sppsalter.pdf) yesterday due to this discussion. It isn't as difficult as I thought it would, and the tunes can sound pretty if you point the text well and speak the words well (the KJV has a natural poetic feel to its words).
However, I can definitely see the difficulties of trying to get a congregation to chant together (unless you chanted the verses to just one note and maybe change the note for each verse; perhaps that's the pedagogical first step?). It definitely does not come natural, and as Jack noted, it isn't really culturally considered "singing." Even supposing one got a congregation to chant together, one would then have difficulties with newcomers not being able to join in song at once (whereas they can do that with meter if they know the tune). Maybe these are imagined difficulties though (aside from not viewing chanting as singing). I'm half-considering trying it out with members of my church just to see.
There are also places where, due to needing to fill out more syllables, more of the detail of the Hebrew was drawn upon than the prose, e.g., our pastor noted 57:2 "perform most perfectly."
I actually played around with chanting from the KJV (http://www.lettermen2.com/sppsalter.pdf) yesterday due to this discussion. It isn't as difficult as I thought it would, and the tunes can sound pretty if you point the text well and speak the words well (the KJV has a natural poetic feel to its words).
However, I can definitely see the difficulties of trying to get a congregation to chant together (unless you chanted the verses to just one note and maybe change the note for each verse; perhaps that's the pedagogical first step?). It definitely does not come natural, and as Jack noted, it isn't really culturally considered "singing." Even supposing one got a congregation to chant together, one would then have difficulties with newcomers not being able to join in song at once (whereas they can do that with meter if they know the tune). Maybe these are imagined difficulties though (aside from not viewing chanting as singing). I'm half-considering trying it out with members of my church just to see.
There are also places where, due to needing to fill out more syllables, more of the detail of the Hebrew was drawn upon than the prose, e.g., our pastor noted 57:2 "perform most perfectly."
Try this link for some of the best Anglican chant. All you need to sing along is your Coverdale’s Bible. No word order changes, no words added or subtracted, no rhyming, just singing unadulterated Psalms straight from the Bible.
Psalm 23
That's beautiful, but they're singing, not chanting.
Love your Augustine quote, by the way. Where did you find it?
The issue wasn't mode per se. It had to do with the transliteration of the written Psalter vs metered and rearranged Psalter for singing.
would we rather sing them or the ones put to meter/rhyme?
Both are mediately inspired.
As for the rest of your post, I alluded to such earlier and Ramon responded with, 'The meanest translation of God's word is still God's word'. Hence, it would seem to be a moot point.
Lest some try to turn this into an EP "problem", it is not. All are commanded to sing psalms (Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19).
Maybe our Reformed Churches are not doing it well and we can improve, but the command remains for both EP and non-EP. We are told to sing the Word of Christ.
Told to sing and not chant. I am thinking the chant maybe a recent invention in Christian thought borrowed from some type of false religion.
Scott,
I acknowledged that both are mediately inspired. That doesn't deal with my question. If the New World Translation suited my purposes for singing, is it an indifferent matter if I use it or not since "meanness" of translation is if little consequence?
How "mean" is too mean?
Should convenience or some other peripheral circumstance dictate the necessity of accuracy in translation?
EP advocates often warn about a slippery slope. This slope seems slippery to me.