Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
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 ;)