That's a foolproof answer imikhail thanks. I'd have probably answered the first hos question in contemplation not facts as you gave... thanks again... Oujai
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145136#msg145136 date=1316910806] I appreciate your diligence in trying to justify the addition of Daniel in Ecmou epshoyce of the third canticle. I am not trying to justify the addition of Daniel but rather the entire process of actually considering some chanters actions and decisions. We'll get into the arguemnt of who knows better but that is a problem cause almost every egyption out there thinks he or she knows EVERYTHING........
However, in your justification you have assumed that hymns are different than the scriptures and therefore we are at liberty to modify what the scriptures say just because it is a hymn. No my friend, this should not be so. Hymns are based on the scriptures and should not deviate in their texts from the scriptures.
you just said it: "hymns are based on the scripture" but they are NOT scripture. huge difference...
The Pauline and the the psalm--all the Church readings, in their structure right now, when they are chanted they are hymns...but than they are READ--explained to those who do not understand coptic (even thoo we never say the entire coptic text). the reading and the hymn are 2 different.
The readings and the hymns are not different. When we chant the Pauline or the Catholic epistles or the Braxis, we do not change or modify the words. We pray with the same text that is read but we use the Coptic language. If you compare the Coptic Katamaras to the English or the Arabic ones, you will find out they are the same text. No addition .. no modification to the chanted words.
they are different entities...i think different incidents makes more sense. I am not considering the text but the fact that there is a hymn and there is a reading. The readings in the liturgy (especially the Gospel which MUST be chanted rather than read) are unique...but that is definitely not the same to tasbeha hymns
In the second hoos, it is from the Bible--it is psalm 136 (135 in coptic). i sent you the link. do you see 'alleluia' any where in that text?
The ending of any psalm is Alleluia. This Tradition comes from the Old Testament and the Church kept that Tradition. So, whenever a psalm is read or part of a psalm is read Alleluia is the default ending. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleluia]
was the alleluia put in the end of the paragraph?! no but right in the middle of it. The constructor of the hymn manipulated the structure of the reading to fit the hymn. He didn't change the meaning and changed it's structure to fit into the way he wanted.
As Reminkimi pointed out, it was Daniel that is commanding the three Children to praise. So, by adding Daniel to the verse, the meaning, the occasion and the verse itself has changed.
From the Deuterocanonical Books - Daniel 3:24-51 The prayer of Azariah from the book of Daniel the prophet in the deuterocanonical books, may his holy blessings be with us. Amen. Then Azariah stood still in the fire and prayed aloud: “Blessed are You, O Lord ... But the Angel of the Lord came down into the furnace to be with Azariah and his companions, and drove the fiery flame out of the furnace, and made the inside of the furnace as though a moist wind were whistling through it. The fire did not touch them at all and caused them no pain or distress. Then the three with one voice praised and glorified and blessed God in the midst of the furnace, saying: The Third Hoos: From the Deuterocanonical Books - Daniel 3:52-90 Blessed are You O Lord God of our fathers, and exceedingly to be blessed and exalted above all forever.
Daniel was NOT commending them. They were forced by their own love to God, being in the presence of the Son of God (the Angel), to praise. How in the world would Daniel command them to sing while they are IN THE FURNACE?! ya3ny give some way this is possible....
in the first hoos--it is taken straight from Exodus. The last part in the hoos (the one rit before the lobsh), is not in the Bible reading. get an psalmody that has references and get the exact reference of the entire hoos and go search for it in the Bible....the last part will not be there in that order.
The verse you mention is: "+ The horse and its rider, He has thrown into the sea. “Let us sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously.” This is exactly like the Coptic translation of verse Eexodus 15:21. Again EXACTLY. The verse 15:21 has been split into the phrases of the last two sections of the first canticle prior to the Lobsh. I understand that the English translations are different for they rely on the Masoretic text of the Old Testament. Our praises are taken from the Coptic translation that is based on the Septuagint. I can provide an image of the text if someone tells me how to insert images in this forum. So you see, the Church in its praises keep the scripture text intact without addition nor modification.
show me "Let us sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously” after verse 21 in the bible (which is not in the orthodox study bible by the way but who knows....you might have another Septuagint out there)
"hymns are based on the scripture" but they are NOT scripture. huge difference...
What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting we change the Scripture through chanting hymns? Because that is what adding the word "Daniel" does.
I am not considering the text but the fact that there is a hymn and there is a reading. The readings in the liturgy (especially the Gospel which MUST be chanted rather than read) are unique...but that is definitely not the same to tasbeha hymns
You are the one who brought the gospel, Pauline, chanting in the mix.
Tasbeha is no different when it says that the first canticle is Exodus 15:1-21. The the text has to be verbatim and it is as I indicated that the text of the tasbeha is verbatim from the Coptic text.
was the alleluia put in the end of the paragraph?! no but right in the middle of it. The constructor of the hymn manipulated the structure of the reading to fit the hymn. He didn't change the meaning and changed it's structure to fit into the way he wanted.
That may be true but adding Alleluia did not change the meaning of the verse, the occasion of the verse nor the spirit of the verse. Contrast this with adding the word Daniel that changed the text, the occasion and the spirit of the hymn.
Daniel was NOT commending them. They were forced by their own love to God, being in the presence of the Son of God (the Angel), to praise. How in the world would Daniel command them to sing while they are IN THE FURNACE?! ya3ny give some way this is possible....
So if Daniel was not in the furnace, why mention him? Why change the verse?
show me "Let us sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously” after verse 21 in the bible (which is not in the orthodox study bible by the way but who knows....you might have another Septuagint out there)
I did not mention the Orthodox Bible. What I said is the last two verses are verbatim from verse 21 in the Coptic Old Testament. In fact, the whole canticle is verbatim from the Coptic Old Testament.
I will gladly post an image of the Coptic text if you tell me how.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145175#msg145175 date=1316988550] What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting we change the Scripture through chanting hymns? Because that is what adding the word "Daniel" does.
no. I am pressing the fact of the difference between both. apparently we don't see that thin line....kollo salata.
That may be true but adding Alleluia did not change the meaning of the verse, the occasion of the verse nor the spirit of the verse.
but it is not what is said in the scripture..................[b]it's funny how slowly you are coming to my side of the argument when you dig more into this and without realizing. :-)
Contrast this with adding the word Daniel that changed the text, the occasion and the spirit of the hymn.
how adding Daniel changes the spirit of the hymn?! he was once oppressed like them.
So if Daniel was not in the furnace, why mention him? Why change the verse?
a note: Most of the cantors of the Church and the Higher Institute of Coptic Studies include Daniel the Prophet in this part because this is the revelation that he had seen concerning the three saintly children.
I did not mention the Orthodox Bible. What I said is the last two verses are verbatim from verse 21 in the Coptic Old Testament. In fact, the whole canticle is verbatim from the Coptic Old Testament.
but you mentioned the Septuagint...
I will gladly post an image of the Coptic text if you tell me how.
Is it me or this text different from what we say in the hoos? like forget the extra "owwoh" but there are many extra parts in the midst of the text. for example the "marenhoos epshois je khen oo-o-oo ghara afitchii-o-oo" part. it s repeated many times....unlike what we have in the hoos..
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145182#msg145182 date=1316991182] Is it me or this text different from what we say in the hoos? like forget the extra "owwoh" but there are many extra parts in the midst of the text. for example the "marenhoos epshois je khen oo-o-oo ghara afitchii-o-oo" part. it s repeated many times....unlike what we have in the hoos..
I do not know what you are referring to. I think it is you because you cannot accept facts.
Here is the text from tasbeha site that has your name on it:
Acerhytc de qajwou `nje Mariam ecjw `mmoc@ je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Ou`h;o nem ou[aci`h;o@ aferbwrou `e`viom. Je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145184#msg145184 date=1316991525] [quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145182#msg145182 date=1316991182] Is it me or this text different from what we say in the hoos? like forget the extra "owwoh" but there are many extra parts in the midst of the text. for example the "marenhoos epshois je khen oo-o-oo ghara afitchii-o-oo" part. it s repeated many times....unlike what we have in the hoos..
I do not know what you are referring to. I think it is you because you cannot accept facts.
Here is the text from tasbeha site that has your name on it:
Acerhytc de qajwou `nje Mariam ecjw `mmoc@ je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Ou`h;o nem ou[aci`h;o@ aferbwrou `e`viom. Je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
i couldn't see that part because the pic lookes really small on the forum that i can't read it.....BUT DESPITE THAT, look the beginning of the hoos on the first page you posted and compare to this: http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/103
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145185#msg145185 date=1316991804] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145184#msg145184 date=1316991525] [quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145182#msg145182 date=1316991182] Is it me or this text different from what we say in the hoos? like forget the extra "owwoh" but there are many extra parts in the midst of the text. for example the "marenhoos epshois je khen oo-o-oo ghara afitchii-o-oo" part. it s repeated many times....unlike what we have in the hoos..
I do not know what you are referring to. I think it is you because you cannot accept facts.
Here is the text from tasbeha site that has your name on it:
Acerhytc de qajwou `nje Mariam ecjw `mmoc@ je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Ou`h;o nem ou[aci`h;o@ aferbwrou `e`viom. Je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
i couldn't see that part because the pic lookes really small on the forum that i can't read it.....BUT DESPITE THAT, look the beginning of the hoos on the first page you posted and compare to this: http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/103
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145187#msg145187 date=1316993136] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145186#msg145186 date=1316992318] Here is the direct link
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145188#msg145188 date=1316993250] Before I do go on a different topic. Are you satitisfied with the order of the last two sections (that they agree with Scripture text)?
ohh.....i havn't left this topic.....you just strengthened my argument by showing us the rest of the text. so yes i am satisfied with the last 2 parts but now the rest of the hoos has much differences than what we have in psalmodies (giving that this is a trusted source).
didn't i say that the more we dig into this the more you come to my side of the equation.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145189#msg145189 date=1316993645] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145188#msg145188 date=1316993250] Before I do go on a different topic. Are you satitisfied with the order of the last two sections (that they agree with Scripture text)?
ohh.....i havn't left this topic.....you just strengthened my argument by showing us the rest of the text. so yes i am satisfied with the last 2 parts but now the rest of the hoos has much differences than what we have in psalmodies (giving that this is a trusted source).
didn't i say that the more we dig into this the more you come to my side of the equation.
Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha text and that the Coptic scripture text is the one that we should be referring to in our comparative studies.
Now, let's address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145190#msg145190 date=1316993939] Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha.
Now, let address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
there are a lot of extra "marenhoos" sentences in the midst of the hoos. why were they taken out and are not found in the hoos...yet they are found in the text you provided...
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145191#msg145191 date=1316994146] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145190#msg145190 date=1316993939] Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha.
Now, let address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
there are a lot of extra "marenhoos" sentences in the midst of the hoos. why were they taken out and are not found in the hoos...yet they are found in the text you provided...
Can you please be specific? May be site the verse number or the tasbeha verse? Thx.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145192#msg145192 date=1316994974] [quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145191#msg145191 date=1316994146] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145190#msg145190 date=1316993939] Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha.
Now, let address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
there are a lot of extra "marenhoos" sentences in the midst of the hoos. why were they taken out and are not found in the hoos...yet they are found in the text you provided...
Can you please be specific? May be site the verse number or the tasbeha verse? Thx.
you are fluent in coptic......read what's on tasbeha part by part and read what's in the text part by part........
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145136#msg145136 date=1316910806] As Reminkimi pointed out, it was Daniel that is commanding the three Children to praise. So, by adding Daniel to the verse, the meaning, the occasion and the verse itself has changed. Umm...I never said this. Are we talking about another reminkimi?
Regarding the extra "marenhoos", there is more than one Coptic version of the Pentateuch. The "semi-standard" version is Paul Legrade's version. However, there are many versions. And many prophecies from the Pentateuch that we recite in various rites (like Lakan, Lent, Pascha) are different than Legrade's. This version imikhail is interesting since the scribe decided to add "marenhoos" to venerate the Lord's triumph at the end of nearly every verse. But this is not found in any other version.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12385.msg145195#msg145195 date=1316995683] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145136#msg145136 date=1316910806] As Reminkimi pointed out, it was Daniel that is commanding the three Children to praise. So, by adding Daniel to the verse, the meaning, the occasion and the verse itself has changed. Umm...I never said this. Are we talking about another reminkimi?
Regarding the extra "marenhoos", there is more than one Coptic version of the Pentateuch. The "semi-standard" version is Paul Legrade's version. However, there are many versions. And many prophecies from the Pentateuch that we recite in various rites (like Lakan, Lent, Pascha) are different than Legrade's. This version imikhail is interesting since the scribe decided to add "marenhoos" to venerate the Lord's triumph at the end of nearly every verse. But this is not found in any other version.
this is funny......now the scripture in itself is a problem. ::)
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145197#msg145197 date=1316996025] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12385.msg145195#msg145195 date=1316995683] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145136#msg145136 date=1316910806] As Reminkimi pointed out, it was Daniel that is commanding the three Children to praise. So, by adding Daniel to the verse, the meaning, the occasion and the verse itself has changed. Umm...I never said this. Are we talking about another reminkimi?
Regarding the extra "marenhoos", there is more than one Coptic version of the Pentateuch. The "semi-standard" version is Paul Legrade's version. However, there are many versions. And many prophecies from the Pentateuch that we recite in various rites (like Lakan, Lent, Pascha) are different than Legrade's. This version imikhail is interesting since the scribe decided to add "marenhoos" to venerate the Lord's triumph at the end of nearly every verse. But this is not found in any other version.
this is funny......now the scripture in itself is a problem. ::)
No they are not. As Reminkimi rightly pointed out there are different versions of the Coptic translation. The main point we have to be careful about is that the meaning is intact.
This whole discussion arose because you suggested that the tasbeha text is different than the scripture text and therefore it is ok to add Daniel to the third Canticle.
Additions that disturb the meaning and the spirit of the verse are not ok.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145199#msg145199 date=1316996390] No they are not. As Reminkimi rightly pointed out there are different versions of the Coptic translation. The main point we have to be careful about is that the meaning is intact.
This whole discussion arose because you suggested that the tasbeha text is different than the scripture text and therefore it is ok to add Daniel to the third Canticle.
read through what i wrote again (all the posts and not only the one i did answering fady).......
what i am saying is that the hymns is BASED on scripture.....it is NOT scripture.....additions and can be made and restructuring of words can be done to fit a specific way of chanting (with limits to not pervert the Word of God--the Bible). IT IS THE HYMN that is a priority and in it the scripture is hidden.
Adding Daniel does NOT change the meeting.....it simply gives credit to him (on earth and not HIM who is in heaven) who by the Holy Spirit brought us the story.
And finally, you are half way on my side.....going from hymn must be equal to the scripture to hymn can be like the scripture in meaning.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145200#msg145200 date=1316997068] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145199#msg145199 date=1316996390] No they are not. As Reminkimi rightly pointed out there are different versions of the Coptic translation. The main point we have to be careful about is that the meaning is intact.
This whole discussion arose because you suggested that the tasbeha text is different than the scripture text and therefore it is ok to add Daniel to the third Canticle.
read through what i wrote again (all the posts and not only the one i did answering fady).......
what i am saying is that the hymns is BASED on scripture.....it is NOT scripture.....additions and can be made and restructuring of words can be done to fit a specific way of chanting (with limits to not pervert the Word of God--the Bible). IT IS THE HYMN that is a priority and in it the scripture is hidden.
Adding Daniel does NOT change the meeting.....it simply gives credit to him (on earth and not HIM who is in heaven) who by the Holy Spirit brought us the story.
And finally, you are half way on my side.....going from hymn must be equal to the scripture to hymn can be like the scripture in meaning.
Hymns are a mean to explain the Scripture. Yes, I do agree that adding the word "Daniel" is not a dogmatic issue. However, since we say that the third canticle is the verses of chapter 3, then there should be no modification to the scriptural text.
I think the missing point is that you treat the third canticle as a hymn while it is, like the other canticles, chanted scriptural texts. There are other hymns that we can dedicate for Daniel but not in the third canticle for, again, it is scriptural.
The other problem I see is our responsibility to follow the text of the praises, or any hymn for that matter. It is not up to the chanters to change the wording however they see fit.
Comments
Oujai
I appreciate your diligence in trying to justify the addition of Daniel in Ecmou epshoyce of the third canticle.
I am not trying to justify the addition of Daniel but rather the entire process of actually considering some chanters actions and decisions. We'll get into the arguemnt of who knows better but that is a problem cause almost every egyption out there thinks he or she knows EVERYTHING........ you just said it: "hymns are based on the scripture" but they are NOT scripture. huge difference... they are different entities...i think different incidents makes more sense. I am not considering the text but the fact that there is a hymn and there is a reading. The readings in the liturgy (especially the Gospel which MUST be chanted rather than read) are unique...but that is definitely not the same to tasbeha hymns was the alleluia put in the end of the paragraph?! no but right in the middle of it. The constructor of the hymn manipulated the structure of the reading to fit the hymn. He didn't change the meaning and changed it's structure to fit into the way he wanted. From the Deuterocanonical Books - Daniel 3:24-51
The prayer of Azariah from the book of Daniel the prophet in the deuterocanonical books, may his holy blessings be with us. Amen.
Then Azariah stood still in the fire and prayed aloud: “Blessed are You, O Lord ... But the Angel of the Lord came down into the furnace to be with Azariah and his companions, and drove the fiery flame out of the furnace, and made the inside of the furnace as though a moist wind were whistling through it. The fire did not touch them at all and caused them no pain or distress. Then the three with one voice praised and glorified and blessed God in the midst of the furnace, saying:
The Third Hoos:
From the Deuterocanonical Books - Daniel 3:52-90
Blessed are You O Lord God of our fathers, and exceedingly to be blessed and exalted above all forever.
Daniel was NOT commending them. They were forced by their own love to God, being in the presence of the Son of God (the Angel), to praise. How in the world would Daniel command them to sing while they are IN THE FURNACE?! ya3ny give some way this is possible.... show me "Let us sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously” after verse 21 in the bible (which is not in the orthodox study bible by the way but who knows....you might have another Septuagint out there)
Tasbeha is no different when it says that the first canticle is Exodus 15:1-21. The the text has to be verbatim and it is as I indicated that the text of the tasbeha is verbatim from the Coptic text. That may be true but adding Alleluia did not change the meaning of the verse, the occasion of the verse nor the spirit of the verse. Contrast this with adding the word Daniel that changed the text, the occasion and the spirit of the hymn. So if Daniel was not in the furnace, why mention him? Why change the verse? I did not mention the Orthodox Bible. What I said is the last two verses are verbatim from verse 21 in the Coptic Old Testament. In fact, the whole canticle is verbatim from the Coptic Old Testament.
I will gladly post an image of the Coptic text if you tell me how.
image upload
image upload
What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting we change the Scripture through chanting hymns? Because that is what adding the word "Daniel" does.
no. I am pressing the fact of the difference between both. apparently we don't see that thin line....kollo salata. but it is not what is said in the scripture..................[b]it's funny how slowly you are coming to my side of the argument when you dig more into this and without realizing. :-) how adding Daniel changes the spirit of the hymn?! he was once oppressed like them. a note:
Most of the cantors of the Church and the Higher Institute of Coptic Studies include Daniel the Prophet in this part because this is the revelation that he had seen concerning the three saintly children. but you mentioned the Septuagint... please do so.
image upload
Hopefully, now you see that both the text of the tasbeha and the text of the scriptures are identical.
Is it me or this text different from what we say in the hoos? like forget the extra "owwoh" but there are many extra parts in the midst of the text. for example the "marenhoos epshois je khen oo-o-oo ghara afitchii-o-oo" part. it s repeated many times....unlike what we have in the hoos..
I do not know what you are referring to. I think it is you because you cannot accept facts.
Here is the text from tasbeha site that has your name on it:
Acerhytc de qajwou `nje Mariam ecjw `mmoc@ je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Ou`h;o nem ou[aci`h;o@ aferbwrou `e`viom. Je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Here is the link
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/103
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145182#msg145182 date=1316991182]
Is it me or this text different from what we say in the hoos? like forget the extra "owwoh" but there are many extra parts in the midst of the text. for example the "marenhoos epshois je khen oo-o-oo ghara afitchii-o-oo" part. it s repeated many times....unlike what we have in the hoos..
I do not know what you are referring to. I think it is you because you cannot accept facts.
Here is the text from tasbeha site that has your name on it:
Acerhytc de qajwou `nje Mariam ecjw `mmoc@ je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Ou`h;o nem ou[aci`h;o@ aferbwrou `e`viom. Je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Here is the link
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/103
i couldn't see that part because the pic lookes really small on the forum that i can't read it.....BUT DESPITE THAT, look the beginning of the hoos on the first page you posted and compare to this: http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/103
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145184#msg145184 date=1316991525]
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145182#msg145182 date=1316991182]
Is it me or this text different from what we say in the hoos? like forget the extra "owwoh" but there are many extra parts in the midst of the text. for example the "marenhoos epshois je khen oo-o-oo ghara afitchii-o-oo" part. it s repeated many times....unlike what we have in the hoos..
I do not know what you are referring to. I think it is you because you cannot accept facts.
Here is the text from tasbeha site that has your name on it:
Acerhytc de qajwou `nje Mariam ecjw `mmoc@ je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Ou`h;o nem ou[aci`h;o@ aferbwrou `e`viom. Je marenhwc `e`P[oic@ je qen ou`wou gar af[i`wou.
Here is the link
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/103
i couldn't see that part because the pic lookes really small on the forum that i can't read it.....BUT DESPITE THAT, look the beginning of the hoos on the first page you posted and compare to this: http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/103
Here is the direct link
http://postimage.org/image/1qdx07z0k/
http://postimage.org/image/1qdynrbic/
http://postimage.org/image/1qe0bao04/
Here is the direct link
http://postimage.org/image/1qdx07z0k/
http://postimage.org/image/1qdynrbic/
http://postimage.org/image/1qe0bao04/
great...thank you. but read my comment in the last post.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145186#msg145186 date=1316992318]
Here is the direct link
http://postimage.org/image/1qdx07z0k/
http://postimage.org/image/1qdynrbic/
http://postimage.org/image/1qe0bao04/
great...thank you. but read my comment in the last post.
Before I do go on a different topic. Are you satitisfied with the order of the last two sections (that they agree with Scripture text)?
Before I do go on a different topic. Are you satitisfied with the order of the last two sections (that they agree with Scripture text)?
ohh.....i havn't left this topic.....you just strengthened my argument by showing us the rest of the text. so yes i am satisfied with the last 2 parts but now the rest of the hoos has much differences than what we have in psalmodies (giving that this is a trusted source).
didn't i say that the more we dig into this the more you come to my side of the equation.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145188#msg145188 date=1316993250]
Before I do go on a different topic. Are you satitisfied with the order of the last two sections (that they agree with Scripture text)?
ohh.....i havn't left this topic.....you just strengthened my argument by showing us the rest of the text. so yes i am satisfied with the last 2 parts but now the rest of the hoos has much differences than what we have in psalmodies (giving that this is a trusted source).
didn't i say that the more we dig into this the more you come to my side of the equation.
Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha text and that the Coptic scripture text is the one that we should be referring to in our comparative studies.
Now, let's address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha.
Now, let address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
there are a lot of extra "marenhoos" sentences in the midst of the hoos. why were they taken out and are not found in the hoos...yet they are found in the text you provided...
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145190#msg145190 date=1316993939]
Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha.
Now, let address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
there are a lot of extra "marenhoos" sentences in the midst of the hoos. why were they taken out and are not found in the hoos...yet they are found in the text you provided...
Can you please be specific? May be site the verse number or the tasbeha verse? Thx.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12385.msg145191#msg145191 date=1316994146]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145190#msg145190 date=1316993939]
Great. So the last two sections are ok and there is no addition to the tasbeha.
Now, let address your other concerns. Please, list the differences as you see them.
there are a lot of extra "marenhoos" sentences in the midst of the hoos. why were they taken out and are not found in the hoos...yet they are found in the text you provided...
Can you please be specific? May be site the verse number or the tasbeha verse? Thx.
you are fluent in coptic......read what's on tasbeha part by part and read what's in the text part by part........
As Reminkimi pointed out, it was Daniel that is commanding the three Children to praise. So, by adding Daniel to the verse, the meaning, the occasion and the verse itself has changed.
Umm...I never said this. Are we talking about another reminkimi?
Regarding the extra "marenhoos", there is more than one Coptic version of the Pentateuch. The "semi-standard" version is Paul Legrade's version. However, there are many versions. And many prophecies from the Pentateuch that we recite in various rites (like Lakan, Lent, Pascha) are different than Legrade's. This version imikhail is interesting since the scribe decided to add "marenhoos" to venerate the Lord's triumph at the end of nearly every verse. But this is not found in any other version.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145136#msg145136 date=1316910806]
As Reminkimi pointed out, it was Daniel that is commanding the three Children to praise. So, by adding Daniel to the verse, the meaning, the occasion and the verse itself has changed.
Umm...I never said this. Are we talking about another reminkimi?
Regarding the extra "marenhoos", there is more than one Coptic version of the Pentateuch. The "semi-standard" version is Paul Legrade's version. However, there are many versions. And many prophecies from the Pentateuch that we recite in various rites (like Lakan, Lent, Pascha) are different than Legrade's. This version imikhail is interesting since the scribe decided to add "marenhoos" to venerate the Lord's triumph at the end of nearly every verse. But this is not found in any other version.
this is funny......now the scripture in itself is a problem. ::)
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12385.msg145195#msg145195 date=1316995683]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145136#msg145136 date=1316910806]
As Reminkimi pointed out, it was Daniel that is commanding the three Children to praise. So, by adding Daniel to the verse, the meaning, the occasion and the verse itself has changed.
Umm...I never said this. Are we talking about another reminkimi?
Regarding the extra "marenhoos", there is more than one Coptic version of the Pentateuch. The "semi-standard" version is Paul Legrade's version. However, there are many versions. And many prophecies from the Pentateuch that we recite in various rites (like Lakan, Lent, Pascha) are different than Legrade's. This version imikhail is interesting since the scribe decided to add "marenhoos" to venerate the Lord's triumph at the end of nearly every verse. But this is not found in any other version.
this is funny......now the scripture in itself is a problem. ::)
No they are not. As Reminkimi rightly pointed out there are different versions of the Coptic translation. The main point we have to be careful about is that the meaning is intact.
This whole discussion arose because you suggested that the tasbeha text is different than the scripture text and therefore it is ok to add Daniel to the third Canticle.
Additions that disturb the meaning and the spirit of the verse are not ok.
Reminkimi,
Sorry for misquoting you .. it is unintentional.
No they are not. As Reminkimi rightly pointed out there are different versions of the Coptic translation. The main point we have to be careful about is that the meaning is intact.
This whole discussion arose because you suggested that the tasbeha text is different than the scripture text and therefore it is ok to add Daniel to the third Canticle.
read through what i wrote again (all the posts and not only the one i did answering fady).......
what i am saying is that the hymns is BASED on scripture.....it is NOT scripture.....additions and can be made and restructuring of words can be done to fit a specific way of chanting (with limits to not pervert the Word of God--the Bible). IT IS THE HYMN that is a priority and in it the scripture is hidden.
Adding Daniel does NOT change the meeting.....it simply gives credit to him (on earth and not HIM who is in heaven) who by the Holy Spirit brought us the story.
And finally, you are half way on my side.....going from hymn must be equal to the scripture to hymn can be like the scripture in meaning.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12385.msg145199#msg145199 date=1316996390]
No they are not. As Reminkimi rightly pointed out there are different versions of the Coptic translation. The main point we have to be careful about is that the meaning is intact.
This whole discussion arose because you suggested that the tasbeha text is different than the scripture text and therefore it is ok to add Daniel to the third Canticle.
read through what i wrote again (all the posts and not only the one i did answering fady).......
what i am saying is that the hymns is BASED on scripture.....it is NOT scripture.....additions and can be made and restructuring of words can be done to fit a specific way of chanting (with limits to not pervert the Word of God--the Bible). IT IS THE HYMN that is a priority and in it the scripture is hidden.
Adding Daniel does NOT change the meeting.....it simply gives credit to him (on earth and not HIM who is in heaven) who by the Holy Spirit brought us the story.
And finally, you are half way on my side.....going from hymn must be equal to the scripture to hymn can be like the scripture in meaning.
Hymns are a mean to explain the Scripture. Yes, I do agree that adding the word "Daniel" is not a dogmatic issue. However, since we say that the third canticle is the verses of chapter 3, then there should be no modification to the scriptural text.
I think the missing point is that you treat the third canticle as a hymn while it is, like the other canticles, chanted scriptural texts. There are other hymns that we can dedicate for Daniel but not in the third canticle for, again, it is scriptural.
The other problem I see is our responsibility to follow the text of the praises, or any hymn for that matter. It is not up to the chanters to change the wording however they see fit.
I am gonna stop arguing for it will take us no where.
I was going to do the same .. you beat me to it ;)