Musical Instruments in Christ's church

[defenderofthefaith]

Are you being deliberately misleading?

If we can't trust you in what you say when quoting Thayer, can we trust you in quoting anyone else??

Which lexicon did you use that you call Thayer's?
The one I've used is Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament published by Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1962. - See page 675.

The Greek lexicon of Thayer which, now seems to occupy the very highest place in the field of New Testament lexicography, although specially devoted to New Testament Greek, his lexicons often give the classical meaning of words. Accordingly, in harmony with the classical lexicons (such as Strongs), as we have already seen, he says the word psallo meant "to pluck or pull, as the hair; to twang the bowstring; to touch the chords of a musical instrument", (and hence to play instrumental music) but, in citing authorities in confirmation of these meanings, it is a significant fact that he is compelled, with the other lexicographers, to go back to the same periods of the language prior to New Testament times to which they appealed for the same purpose, and he cites some of the same authorities cited by Liddell and Scott; but when Thayers comes to the New Testament period, he omits all of these earlier meanings concerning instruments, and limits it to touching the chords of the human heart, saying that it means "in the New Testament to sing a hymn, celebrate the praises of God in song."

Again, see page 675.

Does that matter to me? A secular Greek? Unsaved? Perhaps studying classical Greek instead of Koine Greek, the Greek of the NT? I have already shown you the defintions of the word, as others have. You simply refuse to believe the Bible. Words have meanings. Playing a musical instrument is one of the meanings of the word psallo. You need to accept facts, not deny them.

The Greek lexicon of Sophocles, himself a native Greek and for thirty-eight years Professor of the Greek Language in Harvard University, covers all of the Roman period and the Byzantine period down to the end of the eleventh century, in all more than twelve hundred years' history of the language from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100.
As the basis of his monumental work, Sophocles examined (as we have found by actual count) 146 secular and 77 ecclesiastical authors of the Roman period, and 109 secular and 262 ecclesiastical, modern Greek, and scholastic authors of the Byzantine period - a grand total of 594 authors and covering a period of more than twelve hundred years!
After all this he declares that there is not a single example of psallo (ψαλλω) throughout this long period involving or implying the use of an instrument, but says that it meant always and everywhere "to chant, sing religious hymns."

Want to read it straight from the page?
Read M.C. Kurfees's book Instrumental Music in the Worship published in Nashville, TN by the Gospel Advocate, 1999 reprint (originally printed in 1991) page 47

We are not speaking of a changing English language, a KJV Bible that is 400 years old with obsolete words, and the KJV still being used today. You are comparing apples to oranges here. There is no comparison. A modern day Greek is not able to speak the Greek of the time of Christ, Koine Greek. But the Greek definitions we have both from Strong's and Thayer are precisely those from the Koine Greek. You argue against yourself, and defeat yourself in your own argument.

Quoting myself -
"When one wishes to know the definition of a word from times past, he must inquire as to how the word was used at any particular time in history. For example, when one reads the word “prevent” in the King James Version (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15), he must understand that this word does not mean the same thing it did when this version was first produced in 1611. Then, it meant “to go before; to precede.” Today, it means “to keep from happening; to impede.” The word “idiot” was used in the seventeenth century in reference to one “in a private station, as distinguished from one holding public office.” Today, it is used to speak of “an unlearned, or ignorant person.” "

See the BOLD. It is an EXAMPLE of how languages do change and evolve and gain/lose different meanings over the passage of time.
Again, an example, this supports my argument of the changing of the word psallo and this does not "argue against myself" as you'd like to suppose.

You are either misunderstanding what he wrote or deliberately misusing the information that he gave. The fact is that the word always meant "to play with an instrument." That is one of the meanings of the word, and it always has been. It may or may not have been used that way in the NT. Kurfees may be right in saying that psallo is not used in the NT to mean "play with an instrument," but that doesn't deny that it has that meaning. There is a big difference between the two statements. The meaning did not disappear, as is quite apparent from Strong's and Thayer's lexicons.

I will quote directly from his book Instrumental Music in the Worship (1991) the introduction to Chapter 5 entitled Psallo as Affected by the Law of Evolution with More from the Lexicons.
He writes....

"We have seen that the philological principles presented in preceding chapters are characteristic alike of all living languages, and hence that the Greek language is no exception to the rule. In further confirmation of this fact, we now propose to show, from the highest lexical authority, that these principles are particularly exemplified in the word psallo (ψαλλω)."

I am certainly not "misunderstanding what he wrote or deliberately misusing the information that he gave"! :thumbs:

An honest look at the material points to a defintion of the word psallo that has a possible defintion of playing with an instrument. Perhaps "making melody" could have been done with an instrument as well as with voice. It doesn't seem to be an airtight case, does it?

Yes, at one time it DID have that meaning! We've all agreed and understood that. But the way it was used in the time of Christ leads us to understand that that particular meaning no longer applied to the word and was not intended to be taken with that definition.

(Eph 5:19) Then you will recite to one another psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. You will sing and make music to the Lord with your hearts. (ISV)

I personally like ESV -
Ephesians 5:19
"addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,"

Of course, both translations work because it is understood that the making of this music/melody is with your heart.

 

[defenderofthefaith]

You are wrong.

You so badly want me to be.

Here is what Jesus said about the Bible:
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The three divisions of the OT that both the Jews and Jesus made were this:
1. The Books of Moses--the Pentateuch or the first five books.
2. The Psalms (writings), which included all of the Poetical books.
3. The Prophets, which included the historical books as well.

I do not deny this verse, but how can we understand a balance between what Jesus said when quoting Psalms and calling it the law (John 10:34; Psalms 82:6) and him then apparently seperating it in Luke 24:44.

Your assertion is absolutely false. Interesting, isn't it?

Really? How do you assume that? By saying this is false you could be implying that Christ didn't know what he was talking about when quoting Psalms, but I certainly don't think you'd be so bold to say that! Mind adding in why you think my "assertion is absolutely false" and then I might find it interesting!

John 10:34
"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?"

Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6!
"I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;"

Jesus quoted Psalms and referred to Psalms as the law, you haven't been able to explain what Christ meant in this verse!
Its so clear and obvious what he said!

Your argument is baseless. The Scripture gives no authority for having a song leader either. For that matter I don't remember the NT giving any authority for choirs, trios, duets, special congregational singing, church buildings, wearing shoes, and a whole lot of other things.
Why do you go outside the Bible? Why do you go outside the will of God in all of these things?

Having someone who is simply the first to start out the song and start out each verse is in now way going outside the command to "sing".
Having a certain group or just a certain person who is playing and making music with an instrument and not just their heart is (Eph. 5:19) and adding to the singing is going outside the command to "sing".
We do not have choirs, trios, duets, or "special congregational singing" at all. Just the congregation sings in worship - period.
Church buildings, wearing shoes "and a whole lot of other things" does not going outside the simple command to "sing".

 

[defenderofthefaith]

You missed the first question. Here it is again....

In light of your basic argument, which is God's NT word does not give instructions to use instruments with singing in worship (as a tool or anything else) and therefore it is so obviously prohibited, why is it you find the use of "male" song leaders in worship ok with God's word since this also is not commanded in God's word concerning the singing of worship songs unto the Lord?

Ah, I see, I put to much emphasis on the "male" part that I became confused about the question.
First of all, when singing a song with a large group (like the congregation) to have a song leader is inevitable because with such a group someone has to start out the song first or atleast let the entire congregation know when to start out the song - because if no one ever did...the song would never get started.
Second of all, having a song leader in no way goes beyond or effects the simple command to "sing" (Colossians 3:16) but when you add in a musical instrument and "make music" with it and not just your heart (Ephesians 5:19) then that is going beyond the command to sing.

"Invasion" was not your argument from scripture. Your argument was music was not cammanded by God for worship. Your argument rest solely on the premise that if something is not commanded then it is not permitted lest you sin. If this is the measure of your doctrines then answer this....

It is not command by God for worship yes, but when people want to bring in certain things that were also not commanded by God for worship we must find the distinct line between what invades and affects worship and what simply happens to be there during worship (i.e. shoes)

Also, my congregation does not nor has it ever used a pitch pipe but I have seen other churches use it, but again, it does not affect the singing at all.

Bowing your head and closing your eyes are not commanded for prayer. Do you practice these in your prayer time??

We do bow our head and close our eyes out of reverence and to avoid distractions while praying to God but these things are not "taught" as doctrine nor enforced at all.

 

[defenderofthefaith]

Hey, Bud: I resent the insinuation that I was lying.

True, I was implying that you had lied and for that I apologize, it was out of line.
I still would like for you to back up what you claim about the churches of Christ (even just some of them) and what we teach and where you get this information.

 

[Darron Steele]

True, I was implying that you had lied and for that I apologize, it was out of line.
I still would like for you to back up what you claim about the churches of Christ (even just some of them) and what we teach and where you get this information.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

I remember seeing it in a series of worksheets called "Open Bible Study" -- I think that was the name of it.

This was the first time I had ever seen it. I was very surprised. I think I remember seeing it again, but do not remember where.

My suspicion is that this view of the Ten Commandments being no longer in effect is a minority view of the Churches of Christ. However, I really do not know how prevalent it is among radical "Churches of Christ" because the outright nastiness with which those people talk about "denominational people" within their walls is so toxic I usually stay away from those buildings. Maybe this view is more common than I think; I do not know, but I hope not.

From your challenge, I suspect not all militantly vocal-only Church of Christ congregations have this view. I know that there are vocal-only Church of Christ congregations that do not have this view. I also know that there are Churches of Christ which use a few musical instruments which do not have this view.

 

[DHK]

I do not deny this verse, but how can we understand a balance between what Jesus said when quoting Psalms and calling it the law (John 10:34; Psalms 82:6) and him then apparently seperating it in Luke 24:44.

You seem to be denying it. Jesus gives a three-fold division of the Bible. Only five books are referred to as "the Law." Why do you deny this fact, these very words of Jesus?

Really? How do you assume that? By saying this is false you could be implying that Christ didn't know what he was talking about when quoting Psalms, but I certainly don't think you'd be so bold to say that! Mind adding in why you think my "assertion is absolutely false" and then I might find it interesting!

Your assertion is false because you fail to define words according to their context and therefore remain ignorant as to their meanings. Context defines meaning.

John 10:34
"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?"

Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6!
"I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;"

Jesus quoted Psalms and referred to Psalms as the law, you haven't been able to explain what Christ meant in this verse!
Its so clear and obvious what he said!

Only to you, for you think you know what he is saying.
However the word "nomos" has reference to many variations of law. What law was Jesus referring to? In this passage he was referring to the entire OT, as commentary after commentary will attest to.
The Law--The Torah--pentateuch, books of Moses, first five books.
The Law--The Ten Commandments.
The Law--God's Moral Law--written on the hearts of every man (Rom.2:14,15)
The Law--The Ceremonial--done away with at the cross.
The Law--The Jewish Civil Law which today is the basis of our Judicial system.
The Law--The entire OT.
The Law--the dispensation or the time period that the Jews were under.

You cannot limit just one of the above definitions to the word law. To do so is foolishness. The context defines the word "law." Look how many definitions there are! The Book of Psalms falls into the OT, sometimes referred to as the Law.

Having someone who is simply the first start out the song and start out each verse is in now way going outside the command to "sing".

Singing is only one part of worship. Instruments are another. And the song leader is still another. Your contention is that instruments are not authorized by the Bible; neither are song leaders. It is a randomly pick and choose what is authorized and what is not--not Biblical at all.

Having a certain group or just a certain person who is playing and making music with an instrument and not just their heart is (Eph. 5:19) and adding to the singing is going outside the command to "sing".
We do not have choirs, trios, duets, or "special congregational singing" at all. Just the congregational sings period.
Church buildings, wearing shoes "and a whole lot of other things" does not going outside the simple command to "sing".

There are more commands in the Bible than "to sing."
The C of C states that they don't go beyond that which is authorized by the Bible. That ought to include the assembling together in church buildings (unauthorized), the wearing of shoes in the churches (unauthorized), and many other things that are not directly addressed as to give you authority to do so. If it is not directly addressed you do not have permission. The Bible does not authorize you. It is all argument from silence. And that is how you argue the use of instruments--arguments from silence.
You are not consistent in your hermeneutic.

 

[steaver]

We do bow our head and close our eyes out of reverence and to avoid distractions while praying to God but these things are not "taught" as doctrine nor enforced at all.

We do not teach one must sing with music as doctrine either nor do we enforce it at all. In fact, many times we sing without any instruments.

Thank you for answering the question and with honesty. Your answer reveals the error in your argument.

Your argument is that music is not commanded for worship so therefore one must not do it.

You then violate your own standard of interpretation when it deals with a different area of worship...prayer. You bow your head and close your eyes to pray. This God did not command to be done while in prayer. Yet you do it anyways.

You have lost this debate brother unless you can show where in scripture God commanded us to bow our heads and close our eyes for prayer.

DOF: My friends, I beg you to see reason - the scripture gives no authority for using musical instruments. It is not found in the will of God - why go outside the will of God!?

Niether is the bowing of heads and closing of eyes for prayer.



My work is finished here. :wavey:

 

[TCGreek]

Ah, I see, I put to much emphasis on the "male" part that I became confused about the question.
First of all, when singing a song with a large group (like the congregation) to have a song leader is inevitable because with such a group someone has to start out the song first or atleast let the entire congregation know when to start out the song - because if no one ever did...the song would never get started.
Second of all, having a song leader in no way goes beyond or effects the simple command to "sing" (Colossians 3:16) but when you add in a musical instrument and "make music" with it and not just your heart (Ephesians 5:19) then that is going beyond the command to sing.
.

It seems like you're the one adding to Scripture. When does the command to sing means no instruments.

Paul's command to sing in no way means the exclusion of instruments in the life of the church. Can you prove that?

 

[DHK]

Which lexicon did you use that you call Thayer's?
The one I've used is Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament published by Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1962. - See page 675.

The Greek lexicon of Thayer which, now seems to occupy the very highest place in the field of New Testament lexicography, although specially devoted to New Testament Greek, his lexicons often give the classical meaning of words. Accordingly, in harmony with the classical lexicons (such as Strongs), as we have already seen, he says the word psallo meant "to pluck or pull, as the hair; to twang the bowstring; to touch the chords of a musical instrument", (and hence to play instrumental music) but, in citing authorities in confirmation of these meanings, it is a significant fact that he is compelled, with the other lexicographers, to go back to the same periods of the language prior to New Testament times to which they appealed for the same purpose, and he cites some of the same authorities cited by Liddell and Scott; but when Thayers comes to the New Testament period, he omits all of these earlier meanings concerning instruments, and limits it to touching the chords of the human heart, saying that it means "in the New Testament to sing a hymn, celebrate the praises of God in song."

Thayer can be found almost everywhere, on the WEB, on various sites, on plenty of software programs. He is virtually ubiquitous, as is Strong. Both give the definition of "playing with an instrument." Where you are getting confused is between Classical Greek and Koine Greek. What may have been true for Classical Greek was not necessarily true for Koine Greek. The definitions that we have quoted you still hold for Koine Greek and cannot be denied.
Liddell and Scott, for example, is used primarily for Classical Greek meanings.
Thus your use of his work is not very useful.

Again, see page 675.

I don't need to.

The Greek lexicon of Sophocles, himself a native Greek and for thirty-eight years Professor of the Greek Language in Harvard University, covers all of the Roman period and the Byzantine period down to the end of the eleventh century, in all more than twelve hundred years' history of the language from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100.
As the basis of his monumental work, Sophocles examined (as we have found by actual count) 146 secular and 77 ecclesiastical authors of the Roman period, and 109 secular and 262 ecclesiastical, modern Greek, and scholastic authors of the Byzantine period - a grand total of 594 authors and covering a period of more than twelve hundred years!
After all this he declares that there is not a single example of psallo (ψαλλω) throughout this long period involving or implying the use of an instrument, but says that it meant always and everywhere "to chant, sing religious hymns."

Was he examining Classical or Koine Greek? Probably Classical, and thus the failure in his work.

Want to read it straight from the page?
Read M.C. Kurfees's book Instrumental Music in the Worship published in Nashville, TN by the Gospel Advocate, 1999 reprint (originally printed in 1991) page 47

Not particularly.

Quoting myself -
"When one wishes to know the definition of a word from times past, he must inquire as to how the word was used at any particular time in history. For example, when one reads the word “prevent” in the King James Version (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15), he must understand that this word does not mean the same thing it did when this version was first produced in 1611. Then, it meant “to go before; to precede.” Today, it means “to keep from happening; to impede.” The word “idiot” was used in the seventeenth century in reference to one “in a private station, as distinguished from one holding public office.” Today, it is used to speak of “an unlearned, or ignorant person.” "

See the BOLD. It is an EXAMPLE of how languages do change and evolve and gain/lose different meanings over the passage of time.
Again, an example, this supports my argument of the changing of the word psallo and this does not "argue against myself" as you'd like to suppose.

But you do argue against yourself. The English of the King James has evolved. It has changed as we all know. Of course we know that is true of the Greek as well to the extent that a Grecian of today cannot speak the Koine Greek of the time of Christ. However, the Koine Greek taught in seminaries, reprinted in the NT that we translate the Scriptures from, is static. It remains the same. It doesn't change. It doesn't evolve. God's Word does not change. It remains the same--forever the same. Its words, and the meanings thereof will never change.

I will quote directly from his book Instrumental Music in the Worship (1991) the introduction to Chapter 5 entitled Psallo as Affected by the Law of Evolution with More from the Lexicons.
He writes....

"We have seen that the philological principles presented in preceding chapters are characteristic alike of all living languages, and hence that the Greek language is no exception to the rule. In further confirmation of this fact, we now propose to show, from the highest lexical authority, that these principles are particularly exemplified in the word psallo (ψαλλω)."

I am certainly not "misunderstanding what he wrote or deliberately misusing the information that he gave"!

Your authority is this one man who may not even be saved. I am referring to the Bible, a living book written by the Almighty Creator. The definitions of words can be ascertained by scholars who are saved and have spent their lives studying the Scriptures. I have already given you quotes concerning them.

If you choose to believe a man who may have drawn wrong conclusions based on wrong information, not discerning between: Classical, Modern, and Koine Greek, then it is you that has the problem.

Yes, at one time it DID have that meaning! We've all agreed and understood that. But the way it was used in the time of Christ leads us to understand that that particular meaning no longer applied to the word and was not intended to be taken with that definition.

Koine Greek doesn't change. It still has that meaning. You need to check some other more reliable references. Let me give you a couple:

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

"making melody"--Greek, "playing and singing with an instrument." (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)

"And making melody." Melody is an agreeable succession of sounds; a succession so regulated and
modulated as to please the ear. It differs from harmony, inasmuch as melody is an agreeable
succession of sounds by a single voice; harmony consists in the accordance of different sounds. It is
not certain, however, that the apostle here had reference to what is properly called melody. The word
which he uses--qallw means to touch, twitch, pluck as the hair, the beard; and then to twitch a
string--to twang it --as the string of a bow, and then the string of an instrument of music. It is most
frequently used in the sense of touching or playing a lyre, or a harp; and then it denotes to make music
in general, to sing--perhaps usually with the idea of being accompanied with a lyre or harp.

It is quite evident that the word psallo can mean "to play with an instrument."
You need to use more Godly sources in your research, and less secular sources.

I personally like ESV -
Ephesians 5:19
"addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,"

Of course, both translations work because it is understood that the making of this music/melody is with your heart.

The "with your heart" or "in your heart" is somewhat irrelevant to the meaning of the word that we are trying to ascertain. The Bible tells us over and over again that we are to everything to the glory of God, everything with our heart--"whatsoever you do, do it with all your heart." We are to do all things with all our hearts, whether it is singing, witnessing, loving the Lord, loving our neighbor, even cleaning the church, etc.

 

[defenderofthefaith]

We do not teach one must sing with music as doctrine either nor do we enforce it at all. In fact, many times we sing without any instruments.

Thank you for answering the question and with honesty. Your answer reveals the error in your argument.

Your argument is that music is not commanded for worship so therefore one must not do it.

You then violate your own standard of interpretation when it deals with a different area of worship...prayer. You bow your head and close your eyes to pray. This God did not command to be done while in prayer. Yet you do it anyways.

You have lost this debate brother unless you can show where in scripture God commanded us to bow our heads and close our eyes for prayer.

Niether is the bowing of heads and closing of eyes for prayer.

My work is finished here. :wavey:

Ah, very nice. :applause:
But, there is a distinct difference between closing your eyes in prayer and using musical instruments in a congregational worship service.

First of all, closing your eyes is a personal choice, act, and preference.
Musical instruments is not a personal choice, may be an act (if you play for your church) and not always a personal preference.

An individual can choose to close their eyes in prayer, or an individual can choose to leave them open.
An individual cannot choose to not have the musical instruments playing, nor can they choose to have them playing.
Whether the instruments are played or not is not based on each individual's preference or decision. For example: If say a congregation of 200 have every Sunday the usual playing of the piano with each song in the service but one Sunday 5 people would rather have no piano played but the other 195 people want/don't care the normal piano playing - is the piano going to be played or not?

Secondly, closing your eyes affects only you, on a personal level, and depending on the type of person you are - can or cannot affect your prayer.
Musical instruments affects the entire congregation, on a group level, and it affects you depending on the type of person you are (more emotional, helps singing, better concentration, whatever).

 

[Darron Steele]

DefenderoftheFaith: Steaver's point stands.

You basically assert that musical instruments are banned because
a) the New Testament never explicitly mentions their involvement in assembled worship, or
b) when it does, the passage does not apply.

Now, the underlying premise is that `Non-mention in the Scriptures = banned.'

If so, then closing of the eyes in prayer with folded downward hands should be banned. Scripture mentions no such prayer practices.

Now, unlike prayer practices which Scripture is silent about but which you would allow anyway, Scripture does mention musical instruments in worship -- and shows God's approval thereof.

If you would allow these prayer practices despite Scripture's non-mention of them, then you ought to accept that there is no merit to bans against musical instruments.

Now, I have no doubt you will not accept that. However, reasonable people without a blinding loyalty to the militantly non-vocal portions of the Churches of Christ will see that. Steaver's point would be accepted by those people.

No one that I know of is trying to get you to implement musical instruments at your congregation. If your congregation's elders do not want them, they should not be introduced in your congregation.

However, for you to come on this board and tell us that no one else should use musical instruments, well, you are advocating a ban which Scripture does not authorize and which discords with what Scripture actually says about musical instruments in worship. You will not be successful.

 

[defenderofthefaith]

Thayer can be found almost everywhere, on the WEB, on various sites, on plenty of software programs. He is virtually ubiquitous, as is Strong. Both give the definition of "playing with an instrument."

You argue saying classical greek is different from Koine Greek therefore my argument is worthless, but as I've said before - Thayer's lexicons are specially devoted to New Testament Greek (Koine Greek), but his lexicons often stray into and give the classical meaning of words.
Concerning the word "psallo" Thayer's lexion in harmony with the classical lexicons (not Koine greek lexicons), says the word psallo meant "to pluck or pull, as the hair; to twang the bowstring; to touch the chords of a musical instrument", (and hence to play instrumental music).
Again, it is a significant fact that Thayer is compelled, with the other lexicographers (such as Liddell and Scott which you said yourself, is classical greek) to go back to the same periods of the language prior to New Testament times to which they appealed for the same purpose, and he cites some of the same authorities cited by Liddell and Scott (the ones who use classical greek).
We see that for the definition of the word "psallo" Thayers, Liddell, and Scott all had to go back to the same period of the language BEFORE the New Testament in order to get their definition of "psallo".

I don't need to.

Actually you do, because then you'll see that when Thayers comes to the New Testament period (and not a period prior to NT - as he did before), he omits all of the earlier meanings concerning instruments, and limits it to touching the chords of the human heart, saying that it means "in the New Testament to sing a hymn, celebrate the praises of God in song."
This evidence from Thayers is undeniable.

Was he examining Classical or Koine Greek? Probably Classical, and thus the failure in his work.

Koine Greek was particulary used in c.300 BC – AD 300.
As I said, Sophocles coverd 594 authors and their writings that covered a period of time over twelve hundred years; writings from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100. Now clearly, he examined the writings of the near 600 authors and the mass amount of them was Koine Greek based from the time period they were all written.
Not classical greek, my friend. Not classical greek.

But you do argue against yourself. The English of the King James has evolved. It has changed as we all know. Of course we know that is true of the Greek as well to the extent that a Grecian of today cannot speak the Koine Greek of the time of Christ. However, the Koine Greek taught in seminaries, reprinted in the NT that we translate the Scriptures from, is static. It remains the same. It doesn't change. It doesn't evolve.

Obviously it doesn't change now - its a dead language! But what I've said is that in the time that it was commonly used (and before that) the words changed and evolved - because it was still spoken, taught, and spread across nations.
Now referring to the King James english - well it clearly does/has change[d] because it has evolved over time to become the english we know today. English is still being used - Koine Greek isn't.
You say Koine Greek "is static" and yes it is - now. Before - it wasn't!

I am referring to the Bible, a living book written by the Almighty Creator.

No, you have referred to Thayer's lexicon and Strongs lexicon to back up your argument.

If you choose to believe a man who may have drawn wrong conclusions based on wrong information, not discerning between: Classical, Modern, and Koine Greek, then it is you that has the problem.

Such as Thayer's Greek lexicon?

Koine Greek doesn't change.

As I said before, yes, it no longer changes. But it once did, and to deny that would be foolishness.

"And making melody." Melody is an agreeable succession of sounds; a succession so regulated and
modulated as to please the ear. It differs from harmony, inasmuch as melody is an agreeable
succession of sounds by a single voice; harmony consists in the accordance of different sounds. It is
not certain, however, that the apostle here had reference to what is properly called melody. The word
which he uses--qallw means to touch, twitch, pluck as the hair, the beard; and then to twitch a
string--to twang it --as the string of a bow, and then the string of an instrument of music. It is most
frequently used in the sense of touching or playing a lyre, or a harp; and then it denotes to make music
in general, to sing--perhaps usually with the idea of being accompanied with a lyre or harp.

What source do you get this from? Who wrote this?
"The word which he uses--qallw"
qallw? What?

The Blue Letter Bible (which uses Strongs) has Ephesians 5:19 -
λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ

Transliterated:
laleō heautou psalmos kai hymnos kai pneumatikos ōdē adō kai psallō en hymōn kardia kyrios

I don't see any "qallw"

Also, its interesting to see Strongs (the Blue Letter Bible) says "making melody" is the word "psallo" and the definition for that is found here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5567&t=KJV)

Of course, you'd like to see that this definition supports your argument....until you get down to the last definition of the word psallo.
And I quote -
- to pluck off, pull out
- to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang
- to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate
- to play on a stringed instrument, to play, the harp, etc.
- to sing to the music of the harp
- in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song

And here is the Strongs number if you want to read it right off the page: Strong's G5567 - psallō

The evidence is undeniable! Thayer's Lexicon, Strong's Lexicon (Blue Letter Bible), and Sophocles and his massive work all support my argument that the New Testament Koine Greek meaning of the word psallo did not in any way hold the definition of playing a musical instrument in the New Testament time period.

 

[Darron Steele]

DHK: it is common for militant vocal-only Church of Christ posters to see "sing" in Scripture as `sing without musical instruments.'

Revelation 5:8-14 reports John present with “elders” = congregation leaders “each holding a harp” (ESV) as they “sing” (ASV) to the Lord. It is unrealistic to think “sing” means the harps were not used for their purpose.

I do not know much about the weird reference works based on another dialect of Greek than what is in the New Testament. I do think that when Scripture gives light on the meaning of a word, it ought to be accepted.

 

[defenderofthefaith]

This argument can very easily appear to be a solid and firm argument - but it is not.

You basically assert that musical instruments are banned because
a) the New Testament never explicitly mentions their involvement in assembled worship, or
b) when it does, the passage does not apply.

I basically assert that musical instruments are not authorized in worship because the New Testament never in any way, shape, form, or definition of any word authorizes their involvement in assembled worship.

Now, the underlying premise is that `Non-mention in the Scriptures = banned.'

The underlying premise is that 'No authorization from Scripture means we must not go beyond what have been written and authorized and confirmed (1 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 3:17; Galatians 3:15 [Hebrews 2:3])

Now, unlike prayer practices which Scripture is silent about but which you would allow anyway, Scripture does mention musical instruments in worship -- and shows God's approval thereof.

If you would allow these prayer practices despite Scripture's non-mention of them, then you ought to accept that there is no merit to bans against musical instruments.

There is a difference between using musical instruments in worship and closing your eyes during a prayer.

There are differences in the commands to "pray" and the commands to "sing".
First we must understand there are two different types of commands found in the NT (and I guess, in everyday life!) they are specific and generic. For instance: "Make thee an ark of gopher wood" (Gen. 6:14) is a specific command. God specified the type of wood and he specified what to make out of that word - that was the end of the matter concerning the ark's type of wood. God didn't say "thou shalt use no other kind of wood"; but the very fact that God limited the wood to gopher wood forbade the use of any other kind of wood. It would be totally different if God said "Make thee an ark of wood" (generic command) Noah could of used any type of wood he liked.
So if the New Testament said "Make music" (generic command) we could have complied with the requirement by making either vocal or instrumental music. But God did not say that. He said "sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" and this specific command is to sing and what to sing.

Now, the New Testament simply tells us to pray and whom to pray to.
On the other hand, the New Testament us to sing, what to sing, whom to sing to, and how to sing.

Its clear that the command to "pray" is a generic command; but the command to sing is very specified; therefore we can conclude that when we add to the specific command to sing (by playing musical instruments) it is much different from closing or opening your eyes during a prayer.

 

[Darron Steele]

This argument can very easily appear to be a solid and firm argument - but it is not...

It would "not" be to any person adamant in defending a ban against something Scripture approves. To persons such as yourself, there is no true "solid and firm argument" against what you are adamantly pre-determined to believe.

Thank you for the compliment. To unprejudiced readers, it would "very easily appear to be a solid and firm argument" because it is.

I do not deserve any special recognition. Most arguments against your ban on what Scripture approves are "solid and firm."

 

[defenderofthefaith]

DHK: it is common for militant vocal-only Church of Christ posters to see "sing" in Scripture as `sing without musical instruments.'

Darron Steele: it is common for militant baptist posters to see "sing" in scripture as 'sing with or without musical instruments; you decide'.

The scripture says "sing" and that is that - SING.
Its interesting to see that the definition of the greek word "sing"[ing] means
- to the praise of anyone, to sing
And thats that.

Revelation 5:8-14 reports John present with “elders” = congregation leaders “each holding a harp” (ESV) as they “sing” (ASV) to the Lord. It is unrealistic to think “sing” means the harps were not used for their purpose.

Why are you resorting to a past argument that clearly ended having no support of musical instruments in worship - or would you like to start that one up again?

 

[defenderofthefaith]

It would "not" be to any person adamant in defending a ban against something Scripture approves. To persons such as yourself, there is no true "solid and firm argument" against what you are adamantly pre-determined to believe.

Thank you for the compliment. To unprejudiced readers, it would "very easily appear to be a solid and firm argument" because it is.

I do not deserve any special recognition. Most arguments against your ban on what Scripture approves are "solid and firm."

Are you not going to address my argument that there is a distinct difference in commands of singing and praying?

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron Steele: it is common for militant baptist posters to see "sing" in scripture as 'sing with or without musical instruments; you decide'.

The scripture says "sing" and that is that - SING.
Its interesting to see that the definition of the greek word "sing"[ing] means
- to the praise of anyone, to sing
And thats that.

Actually, I am not Baptist. I am not militant in promoting Baptist precepts either.

I use "militant vocal-only" to protect other vocal-only Churches of Christ and other Churches of Christ from being perceived as also guilty of the folly being pushed by you. There are a lot of people in the Churches of Christ who have better sense than to believe a ban on musical instruments is Scripturally sound. I do not believe you are an idiot, but a lot of what you are posting would make you appear to be. I do not want people in other portions of the Churches of Christ to be wrongly perceived in a way they do not deserve.

Now, most English-reading Christians, and most literate English-readers, know that a "singer" is "singing" if s/he is simultaneously playing a musical instrument.

So, your idea that "sing" in Scripture means `sing without instruments' is a notion you would normally know better than to even take seriously. Your argument based on that notion is very weak. It is among your weakest yet.

Revelation 5:8-14 reports John present with “elders” = congregation leaders “each holding a harp” (ESV) as they “sing” (ASV) to the Lord. It is unrealistic to think “sing” means the harps were not used for their purpose.

Why are you resorting to a past argument that clearly ended having no support of musical instruments in worship - or would you like to start that one up again?

Actually, that is an argument you seem to have run away from. It showed that God approved of worship with musical instruments, and that John had no problem with them. You basically indicated that what Scripture said at this point should not be believed -- a proposition others did not accept. After it was pointed out that you had done this, you abruptly dropped it. I let it go.

At this point, we are discussing what does "sing" in Scripture mean. This passage clearly shows that "sing" in Scripture does not exclude use of musical instruments.

 

[Darron Steele]

Are you not going to address my argument that there is a distinct difference in commands of singing and praying?

I already did address that difference -- post #271. It was not the difference you wanted: it was a difference not based upon your opinion, but on Scripture's content about them.

 

[DHK]

You argue saying classical greek is different from Koine Greek therefore my argument is worthless, but as I've said before - Thayer's lexicons are specially devoted to New Testament Greek (Koine Greek), but his lexicons often stray into and give the classical meaning of words.

Yes, probably for comparison sake. That doesn't change the fact that the NT was written in Koine Greek (common Greek).

Concerning the word "psallo" Thayer's lexion in harmony with the classical lexicons (not Koine greek lexicons), says the word psallo meant "to pluck or pull, as the hair; to twang the bowstring; to touch the chords of a musical instrument", (and hence to play instrumental music).

It is in harmony with "Biblical or NT Greek" which is Koine Greek, as you have demonstrated in this post.

Again, it is a significant fact that Thayer is compelled, with the other lexicographers (such as Liddell and Scott which you said yourself, is classical greek) to go back to the same periods of the language prior to New Testament times to which they appealed for the same purpose, and he cites some of the same authorities cited by Liddell and Scott (the ones who use classical greek).
We see that for the definition of the word "psallo" Thayers, Liddell, and Scott all had to go back to the same period of the language BEFORE the New Testament in order to get their definition of "psallo".

You are confused. Thayer doesn't attest to such.

Actually you do, because then you'll see that when Thayers comes to the New Testament period (and not a period prior to NT - as he did before), he omits all of the earlier meanings concerning instruments, and limits it to touching the chords of the human heart, saying that it means "in the New Testament to sing a hymn, celebrate the praises of God in song."
This evidence from Thayers is undeniable.

I haven't taken the time to look at what you are saying, but I don't believe Thayer contradicts himself. You are contradicting Thayer even in this post.

Koine Greek was particulary used in c.300 BC – AD 300.
As I said, Sophocles coverd 594 authors and their writings that covered a period of time over twelve hundred years; writings from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100. Now clearly, he examined the writings of the near 600 authors and the mass amount of them was Koine Greek based from the time period they were all written.
Not classical greek, my friend. Not classical greek.

So?

What source do you get this from? Who wrote this?
"The word which he uses--qallw"
qallw? What?

I neglected to put the author of the source in by mistake. That was Albert Barnes. Greek does not easily copy and paste from some programs to this site. The word is psallo. That is just the way it came out when pasted as Greek. Don't go in a tail spin because of it.

The Blue Letter Bible (which uses Strongs) has Ephesians 5:19 -
λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ

Transliterated:
laleō heautou psalmos kai hymnos kai pneumatikos ōdē adō kai psallō en hymōn kardia kyrios

I don't see any "qallw"

The word is psallo. The next time you see it, you can correct it yourself. Not every program is perfect.

Also, its interesting to see Strongs (the Blue Letter Bible) says "making melody" is the word "psallo" and the definition for that is found here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5567&t=KJV)

Look a little below Strong's defintion and you will find Thayer's definition, complete as it is. Just like Strong, he gives no evidence that the meaning of the word has changed but plenty of evidence that the word means "to play with an instrument." Thus in this very post you have defeated your own argument. You are making Thayer contradict himself and telling me the opposite of what he says in the URL above. Thayer doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth, as far as I know. He diddn't write one book for the C of C, and another book for the rest of Christendom.

Of course, you'd like to see that this definition supports your argument....until you get down to the last definition of the word psallo.
And I quote -
- to pluck off, pull out
- to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang
- to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate
- to play on a stringed instrument, to play, the harp, etc.
- to sing to the music of the harp
- in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song

And here is the Strongs number if you want to read it right off the page: Strong's G5567 - psallō

As in any dictionary, primary meanings are always listed first, and the secondary or lesser meanings listed last. Take your clue from there.

The evidence is undeniable! Thayer's Lexicon, Strong's Lexicon (Blue Letter Bible), and Sophocles and his massive work all support my argument that the New Testament Koine Greek meaning of the word psallo did not in any way hold the definition of playing a musical instrument in the New Testament time period.

LOOK!!! Strong and Thayer say virtually the same thing (Thayer in more detail). They both list the primary meanings of psallo as:
- to pluck off, pull out
- to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang
- to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate

The last meaning, the lesser meaning is to sing. And then you conclude that "the evidence is undeniable." Do you know how foolish that looks?? Your position isn't supported at all. It has tumbled down like house of bricks: :tonofbricks:

Again: Look at what Albert Barnes says:
Look at what Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown says:

making melody--Greek, "playing and singing with an instrument."

Yes, the evidence is undeniable.

(Eph 5:19) Then you will recite to one another psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. You will sing and make music to the Lord with your hearts. (ISV)