Psalm 91:, RPCNA psalter translation

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Why did the RPCNA psalter 'whiff' on Psalm 91:13b.?

KJV:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
SMP (1650): Thy feet on dragons trample shall, and on the lions young.
RPCNA, The Book of Psalms of Singing (1973; 2009): "Tread on all your deadly foes."
That's hardly what one would expect from an EP denomination isn't it, that broad of a paraphrase? It is not that I've paid that close attention; are there more instances like this? I ask because we are starting a long review process to replace overly paraphrastic psalms that still made it into our Lakewood Presbyterian Church Psalter.
 
Last edited:
I think the Book of Psalms for Worship (RPCNA) renders it better in 91D. I‘m sure you have that copy though.
 
Yes, Book of Psalms for Worship: “The lion will become your prey, you’ll crush the cobra in your way; the lion and the serpent too you’ll crush and utterly subdue.”
 
That may be the problem; I assumed 2009 was the revision.
The 2017 reads thus for v13 on 91A (Includes all verses)

You will trample snakes and lions, Tread on all your deadly foes.

&

As an alternative 91B-91D (splitting up the verses) v.13:

The lion will become your prey, You’ll crush the cobra in your way; The lion and the serpent too You’lll crush and utterly subdue.
 
I don't understand if they knew it needed changing, why retain the former version? I mean, it's like reading the Psalm 91 in the KJV but at 13b switching to Matthew Henry or something. Just sort of or more than sort of surprised.
I think there are several places where the translation choices leave something to be desired.

Yes, unless my eyes fail me.

Yes, unless my eyes fail me. The singer has two options for singing psalm 91 in it’s entirety.....or maybe only 1 :cool:
 
This kind of paraphrase is very common in the 1912. We usually sing multiple Psalms out of the 1990 Trinity Hymnal and I encounter that a lot. They reduce multiple sentences to one with few words. It seems to me it's often done for the sake of meter.
 
It seems to me it's often done for the sake of meter.
I understand if someone is not committed to exclusive psalmody why this would be tolerable, but if one is committed to singing only the psalms out of conviction it is jarring to find it. My church's committee sort of trusted several psalters overmuch in the compilation of our psalter and in the revision we've flagged more than several to redo whenever we redo it. I like this setting a lot but this is the sort of thing we are looking for to replace a setting.
 
I think it has to do with what’s going on in denominations. Ones with a history of and a battle with moderates and even liberalism may find their psalter translations have been affected by it. Committees oversee it, and I don’t really know that it’s minister-led or driven. Just don’t know.

I observe that denominations that haven’t digressed as much historically from the WCF including the book of church order retain the use of the 1650. The reasoning being that God has not yet provided the time for a truly ecclesiastical update or overhaul of the Bible and the psalter the reformation has so far given us.
 
I observe that denominations that haven’t digressed as much historically from the WCF including the book of church order retain the use of the 1650. The reasoning being that God has not yet provided the time for a truly ecclesiastical update or overhaul of the Bible and the psalter the reformation has so far given us.

What denominations use the original WCF, original Form of Government, and the 1650 exclusively? I can only think of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Even the PRC uses a modified Form of Government.
 
Those were two I had in mind, as far as use of the 1650. I probably spoke too soon about what form of church government they hold to.
Wanted to add that there’s certainly a lot of good in the more modern psalter translations various denominations have recently done, and I’m thankful they’re in use.
 
I understand if someone is not committed to exclusive psalmody why this would be tolerable, but if one is committed to singing only the psalms out of conviction it is jarring to find it. My church's committee sort of trusted several psalters overmuch in the compilation of our psalter and in the revision we've flagged more than several to redo whenever we redo it. I like this setting a lot but this is the sort of thing we are looking for to replace a setting.

Why dont you just use the 1650?
 
Why dont you just use the 1650?
My choice would have been to go with an already produced psalter, and first choice personally would be the 1650. But that's not what the church was used to in learning psalms, having had copies of this and that stuck in the order of worship over many years and many simply would not understand the 1650.
 
My choice would have been to go with an already produced psalter, and first choice personally would be the 1650. But that's not what the church was used to in learning psalms, having had copies of this and that stuck in the order of worship over many years and many simply would not understand the 1650.

Fair enough. They probably would get used to it and understand it after a couple of months, but I'm sure it's very hard to introduce something like that to a congregation not used to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top