Dearly Bought
Puritan Board Junior
On another thread which excludes EP responses according to the OP, the following argument was stated:
I would like to challenge this common assumption. I've taken the texts of Psalm 1 in the Authorized Version, the Scottish Metrical Version, and the New Living Translation and laid them alongside each other. Is the Scottish Metrical Version truly a paraphrase comparable to the New Living Translation?
View attachment 1970
Here are two particular observations from my brief comparison:
One of these things is not like the others...
One of the practical difficulties of the EP position (stated previously as"The Psalms are inspired, infallible, inerrant and God's only Heaven-sent Praise Book") is that the Psalms that are sung are effectively paraphrases of the Hebrew Psalms - ie to put them in a metrical / rhyming form to sing with Western tonal scales requires the text to be altered. I dearly love the Scottish Metrical Psalms but I am not blind to the fact that they paraphrases (and therefore not to be treated directly as 'infallible and inerrant' as they would be closer to an NLT than an ESV ! ).
I would like to challenge this common assumption. I've taken the texts of Psalm 1 in the Authorized Version, the Scottish Metrical Version, and the New Living Translation and laid them alongside each other. Is the Scottish Metrical Version truly a paraphrase comparable to the New Living Translation?
View attachment 1970
Here are two particular observations from my brief comparison:
- Contrary to both the KJV and the SMV, the NLT completely obfuscates the ultimate reference of this Psalm to Christ by changing every reference to a gender-neutral plural.
- Contrary to both the KJV and the SMV, the NLT eliminates the reference to the "assembly" or "congregation" of the righteous.
One of these things is not like the others...