Church music...

[Joshua Rhodes]

I like to think the songs that I wrote and posted in this thread were inspired by my love for God.

They do line up with Scripture, so how can Japheth say they are not of God?

I was kinda thinking the same thing, sfiC.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

I did not write out the entire Psalm only the first couple of stanzas.....

But you are also not reading the literal since was written in hebrew which is different then the english language.... What I typed was a Translation of the hebrew psalm 32.... The grammar and word order is different in hebrew and so is word translations..... What I typed out was from the RPCNA's "Book of Psalm for Singing" which is always being revised for the best translation out of hebrew into english.. Otherwise I if you think it must be wooden literal then I hope your bible is not in english but in hebrew and greek.... We must read with understanding and we must sing with understanding.

There is a HUGE difference between a translation and a paraphrase i.e. Isaac Watts.

Sorry Japheth... You can't just say "We sing the Psalms only" and then allow the rewrite and poetic license to "make them fit rhythmically to a tune." Unless you're singing them in Hebrew to the original tunes (which you do not have) you are guilty of the same heresy you're accusing others of.

 

[rbell]

Here is some historical support for you if you do not believe me....

In the first 300 years of the church there is not evidence of one hymn that was ever written.

Wrong.

"Hail Gladdening light" (Phos Hilaron) was considered an "old hymn" by the 3rd century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phos_Hilaron

"Of the Father's Love Begotten" probably falls inside your 300 year window, though not by as much as Phos Hilaron.

 

[Timsings]

. . . Not until Isaac Watts did the Psalms start to be replaced. Watts knew how to slowly boil the frog… He first published the imitation of the psalms in the Christian language. After that took off and contention grew in many church he published His Hymnal. He called the Psalms unfit for Christians and rejected them as scripture. His own theology deems him a heretic because he was Unitarian and not Trinitarian. . . .

Old Business: Isaac Watts published his Hymns and Spiritual Songs in 1707-1709, and he published The Psalms of David Imitated in the Language of the New Testament in 1719. Your incorrect chronology throws doubt on your contention about Watts' views of scripture. In earlier posts you've essentially said that the English translations of Psalms that you cite are better than other translations and/or paraphrases (e. g., Watts et al.). Also, you've said that "Translating is not adding to the Word of God." I contend that translating both adds to and takes away from the original text.

New Business: I have to wonder who you're channeling because you obviously have not checked your sources because of the number of inaccuracies you 've posted. Also, I am going to walk away from this discussion because I do not see any benefit for continuing it. You have everything wrapped up in a nice little package with a bow on it. You are espousing what I have heard called elsewhere "God-in-a-box" theology. You have hedged God around with your doctrine of "Solas" so that God cannot be attacked. Unfortunately, this also keeps God hedged in from being able to act. I see it as a dead theology that has more in common with that of the Pharisees than with the OT prophets and Jesus.

This thread has been sort of hijacked, and I have to take some responsibility for that. But I'm going to make another post soon to try to address the OP.

Tim Reynolds