Jump to content

Talk:Doxology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misleading use of textual criticism

[edit]

Regarding the doxology after the Paternoster in Matthew, we are told that:

According to Scrivener's "Supplement to the Authorized English version of New Testament", it is omitted by eight out of 500 or so manuscripts

Without context, this makes it seem like the omission is a very rare occurence, but forgets to mention what those eight manuscripts are, or that many of the 500 are families of copies of one another. The mere number of manuscripts means very little - most scholars will stand with Sinaiticus and Vaticanum where they agree, against all the rest. This could be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.27.204.77 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled

[edit]

I was going to change the first sentence to read (usually the Trinity) because that was my first thought, but held back in case I was wrong (I was wrong once in 1982). Any other opinions on this? Quill 22:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Christo doxology

[edit]

Ealva recently removed the Iglesia ni Cristo doxology. This section formerly read:

The English version of Iglesia ni Cristo's doxology goes as follows:
All Glory to the Father's name
Exhault the Lord His only Son
And to the Holy Spirit praise
On Earth and Heaven Everyone
Amen
The Filipino version of the doxology goes as follows:
Purihin natin ang Ama
Mabuhay sa pag-ibig ng Anak
Taglayin ang Espiritung Banal
Ang Diyos ay lagi nating sambahin
Amen.

the updated version [English]
Praise God our Father up above
Proclaim the love of His beloved Son
Recieve the Holy Spirit's Gift
Forever worship our Almighty God

Amen

The reasons he stated were that it is "incorrect and possibly copyrighted." A question, and an observation.

  • Apart from misspelling exalt, how is it wrong?
  • This is four lines of verse from a church service followed by amen. This is fair use if anything can ever be; reproducing the words to this hymn isn't going to cut into anybody's market.]
I don't think copyright laws are based on the chance of profit. Someone needs to find out the limits of intellectual property laws. Is 4 lines fair game in a non-profit scholarly work like WP, even if 4 lines is the entirety of a song? Does the fact that hymnals are only used internally and are not sold to nonmembers make a difference? Does the fact that they have always sold them to members who need a copy make a difference? As for as I know, we have the right to publish a scholarly article that quotes the INC doxology with complete bibiliographical info and discusses it, whether they like it or not, just like how we can write a paper discussing a band that inludes lines of lyrics. Guava wrench 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's wrong, let us know where it's wrong, so we can fix it. Otherwise, it should just be restored. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to agree with this, but the lyrics really should have a citation, even if it is the date, time and congregation where someone heard it recited. But if someone is already in an INC worship service, you might as well copy bibliographic info from the hymnal. Guava wrench 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The doxology is totally different. I do not believe it falls into fair use, as the hymnal itself says it's copyrighted. You can probably ask somebody else to post the correct one for you, but I would not do it. Ealva 18:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of clarification, posting the doxology as a fair use would in fact recognize and not violate the hymnal's copyright. At least in the USA, fair use talks about whether a large portion of a copyrighted work is being used, whether the portion used operates as a substitute for the copyrighted work, and most importantly, whether or not the use interferes with the market of the copyrighted work.
Since 1./ we are talking about lyrics of a hymn sung in a church service, 2./ the market for Iglesia ni Cristo hymnals is more or less defined by the number of churches, and the number of church members who want or need to buy one for their own, and 3./ posting the lyrics here is not going to ever be an adequate substitute for 1. or 2., and it is only four lines of verse I feel as sure as I can be that any such copying of the lyrics to the doxology would be fair use.
Hoping that this copyright business is all a misunderstanding, please don't take this wrong, but I would point out that using copyright claims to remove truthful information about a religious faith's teachings from a public website does nothing to help the reputation of that religion. By removing without a substitute this allegedly inaccurate doxology, you have definitely made me curious about what the doxology really says. If I can't get it "from the horse's mouth," I will definitely be looking for it elsewhere. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And, FWIW, a Tagalog hymnal containing the texts of many hymns, including the doxology, is online here. These Tagalog hymns would appear to have been uploaded by a church member, and they are apparently complete. If worse comes to worse, we can always go with the Tagalog version and its English translation. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an INC hymnal. Those are hymns of the INC's archrival, Ang Dating Daan.Guava wrench 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are going to post it at all, post the correct one. Apparently, the person who posted this did not check his facts before doing so. If I believe that this falls into fair use, I would have posted (or corrected) it myself. Ealva 05:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that you are not associating the site you mentioned to the Iglesia ni Cristo, and that this translation thing is a misunderstanding. The hymns belong to an organization whose name is pretty obvious from the headings. Ealva 05:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it's certainly the wrong one. But it can't be that difficult to find the right one, given the amount of communication with INC officers goes on around here. See Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#Posting INC's Doxology lyrics on this issue in general. I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that the copyright argument doesn't wash. It's well within fair use. 86.139.226.200 12:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to find out the correct lyrics. Attend a worship service and copy what is printed in their hymnals. Get copyright info too (year published since there are different editions and the doxology lyrics were recently changed. Guava wrench 16:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Patri is the most common Doxology?

[edit]

Is that correct? I would think that the "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow" doxology would be much more prevalent. BigDT 15:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's correct. Only Protestants use "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow". InfernoXV 04:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist Doxology

[edit]

The United Methodist site says:

"The doxology most familiar to United Methodists is the hymn "Old 100th" with the opening line, "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow." In many United Methodist churches, this is listed in worship bulletins as "The Doxology" and is sung by the congregation as the offering is brought forward." http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=258&GID=121&GMOD=VWD&GCAT=D

Why does the other doxology say: "used by Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants including Anglicans and Methodists"?

I've been to several Methodist churches in the US and UK. Some use the Gloria Patri, but most use the Ken text. The way the article is phrased does not imply that all Methodists use the Gloria Patri, but perhaps it should be reworded. --W0lfie 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation

[edit]

I have been told that the term "doxology" in fact means "100th" and derives from the tune "Old 100th." Is that not correct?

It's wrong. InfernoXV 04:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An early Orthodox form of the "Glory Be"

[edit]

I made a research on the history of the article. I believe that it was Frjwoolley who, with his revision of 21:33, 27 May 2005, introduced the following paragraph:

This doxology, as well as praising God, has been regarded as a short declaration of faith in the co-equality of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Another early form ("Glory be to the Father, with the Son, through the Holy Spirit") was originally used by the Orthodox along with the more familiar wording, but came to be used exclusively by Arians and others who denied the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit.

The present form of the paragraph (which is at the beginning of the section Other doxologies), is:

Doxologies do not all refer to a co-equal Trinity, and some do not refer to the Trinity at all. An early variation on the Gloria Patri ("Glory be to the Father, with the Son, through the Holy Spirit") was originally used by the Orthodox along with the more familiar wording, but this came to be used exclusively by the Arians and others who denied the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit

As I could not find the source for the information in this paragraph, I have appended to it a [citation needed] warning.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow" section quoted verbatim?

[edit]

The third paragraph of this section is word-for-word identical to http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/w/awakemys.htm Which copied which? Does it matter? What should be done?--Bruce Hall (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Doxology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doxology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doxology&oldid=1207027680"