You've GOT to watch this - please

where???



BTW, aaron also said,

Let me translate: "Well, actually, Rbell was right to say that Hebrew music was very rhythmic in nature. He's supported by experts. But since that would hurt my argument, I'm going to manufacture a convoluted explanation that in the end supports my claims...even though it doesn't."

So show me, from scripture, where certain "rhythms" are evil in and of themselves. You cannot do it.

 

I said in post #117, "It's good that you look at dancing. Now, what KIND of dancing was it? That is good evidence for the KIND of rhythm it was."

On the contrary, it shows very well how personal bias enters into discussions of music in the Bible. Here's the full paragraph from the encyclopedia article:

In other words, the rhythm is there, but its so complex that you really have to study it to find it. It's just another way of saying, as Idelsohn said, it's unrhythmical.

The reason it sounds unrhythmical is because in ancient Jewish liturgical music, the words of the text determine the meter. It's impossible to chant a prosodic passage of the Scriptures in anything like regularly recurring meters, because prose doesn't follow regularly recurring meters. Now calling that "freely and richly rhythmical" is just like saying all the posts in this thread are freely and richly rhythmical. Well, duh! All language is metrical, but it isn't "regularly recurring meters," and we certainly don't call it "very heavily rhythmic", not if we're honest about it anyway.

You said I didn't have to have an explicit Scripture. You said, and I quote, "There is some 'CCM' that is junk. And there is some amazing modern music out there. Not everything in the 'christian' genre is appropriate for worship. Not everything in the 'christian' genre tells the entire Easter story, front to back.

"So we use this little thing called wisdom."

If you don't have to have a Scripture, why do you demand one from me?

 

Because you are arguing a prohibitive, and I am not. It's "sinful" in your book. We don't create "sins" out of thin air...they have scriptural precedents.

You mean in 123 posts, that's the best you can do?

Going back to said post, you make this claim:

So, it is your assertion that a "backbeat with bass and drums" is evil? Or that if a "certain" beat is stressed, then it is evil?

It took us 123 posts to reach this...

Your "backbeat with bass and drums" is without scriptural precedent.
I'm at a loss to know when I'm sinning, because you haven't told me yet which beat, if stressed, will cause me to fall into Satan's grip. That's kind of important...please let me know. Is it the first beat? Second? What if it's a 6/8 song? Do I count it in one or two to determine "satan's beat?" And 5/4...well, now, that's just a mess...it's hard to find the beat in that one anyway...

And so we come to the logical result of extra-biblical regulations...your "rule book" just keeps getting bigger...and bigger...and bigger...

By the way, our choir did an arrangement of Larnelle Harris's "How Excellent Is Thy Name, O Lord" and not one teenager got pregnant during the worship service. It's a miracle!

 

Hey Gekko, if you don't get one, look at it this way....when you get old you will want to be called a little boy!


Someone reminded me of this tonight...
When someone teases you and calls you names, or insults you, my brother in Christ, they are doing it to Jesus...

And if Aaron feels comfortable spewing forth his hate towards his Brothers and sisters, then he has more problems than trying to redefine scripture to fit his limited view of God.

Plain and simple, it is not a sin to listen to CCM... If it were, God would have warned us. Unless there is a book of Aaron.

 

OK, so I meant rhythm-oriented music. Defined by you as having even accented beats, instead of odd accented beats;and it's only the percussion that is like that in most rock and other styles. The chords are actually odd accented.
So still, you have not proven that even accented drum beats are "leaven" (as if that was even addressed in the Bible!)

Regardless; he still doesn't understand the things of the spirit. To him it is impure because he wants to use it for an impure lifestyle. We do not build our doctrine based on what some non-christians says.

"Still"? You've necer even addressed this verse, so it's not like you have ever shown me anything on it, and I "still don't understand it".

But we're not arguing about what wa sused in the Temple. That is an argument from your side. The argument is on what music is accepatable to God PERIOD! Even if it wasn;t used int he Temple; if it was allowed elsewhere, then your position is clearly false.

So rhythm equals no rhythm! Anyway, now, we have strayed way off of the point, as if we were trying to prove that it was the modern 4/4 backbeat that was played back then, and you have just proven it wasn't so. But the point is, that whatever the music exactly was like, it certainly did not fit the narrow definition of "good music" offered by conservative critics. If there was a church playing it today, it would be condemned as "worldly", "sensual" and "devilish", because "all good music" is supposed to sound like traditional hymns or classical!
Again, previously, you had accepted the premise that the music was rhythmic, but argued against it based on the notion that their worship was "carnal", and only "allowed" by God until the true spiritual worship was introduced in the New Covenant. as several Church fathers claimed). Now you have gone back on this, and are trying to deny it was really rhytmic altogether. But even that has backfired, because the issue is not whether it sounds like our music today, but whether it meets the criteria of conservative music critics who seem to think only what they call hymns are good.

The Kind David Danced to. It obviously wasn't Waltz or the marching style, or mellow symphonic "orchestra" sound that characterizes the rest of "conservative" style hymns.

 

It all boils down to pride...
The anti CCM crowd believes it is their way or it is wrong...

I am so glad I got out of that bondage!

 

It's basically a combination culture and preference argument with all the other stuff thrown on top to try to give it weight.

 

If it isn't explicitly prohibited it's hallowed? On what Scriptural principle do you base that criterion?

We learn both good and evil from the Scriptures. If I have to have an explicit Scripture to call something evil, I must also have one to call something good.

Well let's see...I've revealed your synthesis of archaeological data to be fallacious due to your arbitrary assumptions and erroneous notions of music and music history, I've exposed the disingenuous overstatement of the rhythms of ancient Hebrew music and the double standard you use in your rules of evidence, and I've given you a strong criterion upon which to judge sensual rhythms. I've actually left you on less sure footing than Rufus is on.

This was my goal in this thread. Pretty darned good.

My assertion was that this is what folks usually think of when they think of "heavily rhythmic" music, and Semitic music is nothing like it. Intellectual honesty would force you to revise your adjectives.

*snip* remainder of your post, being, as it was, negated by the rebuttal of your conclusions.

Now, if you want to discuss specific kinds of music, and the Scriptures which come to bear on them, I'm happy to do so in another thread.

 

Ridiculous. You've given nothing but personal preference, salted with a few uncalled-for statements and insults. The longer this thread goes, the less sense you make.

that's funny. I'll be sure and pass that on to several of the Ph.D's I quoted. I'm sure they'll be impressed. I'll take their word over av1611.org. And speaking of disingenuous and overstatement, wasn't it you who stated that percussion isn't rhythm? And that just because a music is heavily rhythmic, it doesn't mean it has rhythm? Just depends on what your definition of "is" is, I guess...

After reading some of his posts, I don't believe that to be possible.

Hence the problem you will come to. I'll say something like, "How about Larnelle Harris?" And you'll say. "Backbeat. Bass. Drums. Sensual. Bad." And there we will have the Gospel According to Aaron, which doesn't do us a whole lot of good...unless you're Aaron.

It's a-boiling down to your preference vs. mine. I'm fine with you following your tastes. But that's all it is.

 

Quoted? Who did you quote? You didn't quote anyone.

Not once.

You gave a short list of works, but no quotes. Not even a paraphrase. You say all those PhD's said Hebrew music was "heavily rhythmic"? Post their words. That's what it means to quote.

What we will find is that, if they commented on style, they will all say that Semitic music has no regular meter, and speculate that ancient Hebrew music was the same.

Actually, it's boiling down to you making false statements.

 

Important lexical aid for deciphering Aaron:

False statements-- "You have given me info with which I disagree; thus I'll make this claim. I cannot refute it, and it clashes with my extra-biblical regulations...so therefore, it must be false."

Here you go:

Francisco, p. 45: "Hebrew music, a heavily rhythmic medium, was created by a rich variety of instruments...":thumbsup:

Good thing it's raining here. Your strawmen are highly flammable. :tongue3:

 

I ask for quotes of experts, and out of 4 previously listed citations and at least 16 others to which you alluded, you post only one, and that from one did not study ancient music. In fact, I'd be interested in knowing where he got his information.

Note: OT expertise does not equal musical expertise.

Deciphering ancient music requires a high degree of musical expertise and a vast historical and archaeological knowledge, and those who have studied are agreed, ancient Hebrew music was not heavily rhythmic. I've already mentioned Abraham Zvi Idelsohn. Much of the Zondervan encyclopedia article I cited relied upon him. And the authors, though disagreeing with his term "unrhythmic," agreed that there was no regular meter.

A cursory Internet search will also bear this out.

• "The melodies used in the Temple liturgy appear to have been both tetrachordal (based on a scale series of four notes) and modal. The liturgical texts were chanted by the priests, and an orchestra of professional musicians accompanied the priests with ornamented versions of the chanted melodies. Congregational singing was also antiphonal: The priests or a trained choral ensemble chanted one part, and the congregation chanted the other. Rhythm usually followed the accents of the syllables of the words." http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?vendorId=FWNE.fw..je019800.a#FWNE.fw..je019800.a
• "In the development of the subject he (the cantor) is bound to no definite form, rhythm, manner, or point of detail, but may treat it quite freely according to his personal capacity, inclination, and sentiment, so long only as the conclusion of the passage and the short doxology closing it, if it ends in a benediction, are chanted to the snatch of melody forming the coda, usually distinctly fixed and so furnishing the modal motive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_music

And hundreds more...

Now, as evidence for your assertion that, contrary to all scholarly work on the subject, Hebrew music was "heavily rhythmic," you provided a list of instruments you assumed were commonly used by the Jews. You presented the percussion instruments as principal, and you forced a couple of the others (I dealt with that offense in a previous post.) But scholars tell us a different story:

• Josephus, who was virtually "there" described the principal instruments of the Jews. "The viol was an instrument of ten strings, it was played upon with a bow; the psaltery had twelve musical notes, and was played upon by the fingers; [NOT like a hammered dulcimer] the cymbals were were broad and large instruments, and were made of brass."
• (Lest you assume these cymbals were played upon like cymbals in a modern drumset) Alfred Edersheim states in The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, "The Rabbis enumerate thirty-six different instruments, of which only fifteen are mentioned in the bible, and of these five in the Pentateuch. As in early Jewish poetry there was neither definite and continued metre (in the modern sense), [heavily rhythmic?] nor regular and premeditated rhyme, so there was neither musical notation, nor yet any artificial harmony. The melody was simple, sweet, and sung in unison to the accompaniment of instrumental music. Only one pair of brass cymbals were allowed to be used. But this 'sounding brass' and 'tinkling cymbal' formed no part of the Temple music itself, and served only as the signal to begin that part of the service." Hmmm, percussion without rhythm...
• 1 Chronicles 25:1 "David...set apart some of the sons of Asaph...for the ministry of prophesying [in the Temple], accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals."

And there you have it; a microcosm of the scholarly work on ancient Hebrew music. This is the consensus of scholars. It—how did you say it?—obliterates your disingenous attempt to suggest that ancient Hebrew music was anything like the driving rhythms of today's "Christian" music. Unless you have some ancient source that actually describes it otherwise, any point you raise is moot (and either unlearned or dishonest).

 

Aaron, my Brother,

It ain't fair to bring up actual Historical characters to prove that rock style music isn't what was played in Bible times. You should know that. Those old fogeys didn't have an ear for music is the general consensus of todays feed the flesh crowd.

 

Wow tim! And all this time, I did not know Paul was a gnostic...

I do remember Paul saying in another passage, 'Follow me, even as I also follow Christ'.

In another passage, we read that we are not to walk in the flesh (Romans 8:1) Walk in the Spirit so as not to fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16)

If obeying the Word of God means I am a gnostic, then go ahead and call me a gnostic. False accusations mean nothing to me.

 

But don;t forget, the flipside of that from Paul: 1 Tim.4:8 "bodily exercise profiteth little." (as opposed to true "godliness"). "Exercise" (Strong #1129: "gumnasia") actually means "asceticism", which sometimes seems to be the logic of those opposing more lively worship as "of the flesh". Even if this is referring to more extreme treatment of the flesh, still the mind-set is the same. The Gnostics focused on the physical body as being the cause of sin, rather than the soul. If they just deny all physical pleasure, then they would get it under control. That's precisely what this insistence that any rhythm pleasant to the body must be avoided is saying. "Flesh" is used in scripture as a metaphor for our fallen nature, so what Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 9:25-27 is that the true "bodily exercise" is concerned with the mind/soul/spirit. The music critics emphasize this in their teachings, but think it always requires the total rejection of the physical body, which is not the case here.

Also, again, no one is saying the music of the Bible was rock. That is just a straw man you all throw up because there is no other answer for you. Still, the point is, it was not the music you listen to in your churches either, with the definitions (plainness, even accented marching rhythms etc.) you insist are necessary for music to be "acceptable". Especially if David could dance to it like that.

 

come on now SFIC, you're classier than that. I'm sure you'd be disappointed that no one had sex during our worship time tonight...but folks sang...and prayed...kinda like church. Go figure.

Who in the world is claiming "rock was played in Bible times?" Classical, Gospel Hymns, Southern Gospel, etc., were not played then either. If you want to start a "strawman thread," be my guest.

But more name-calling further re-iterates the point: the pharisee's viewpoint is always better made when they can find a "publican" to compare themselves to.

Like I've told you before...you wanna say, "I don't like that" then be my guest. Preference. But when you say, "That's not of God," then know this: Jesus described blasphemy as the ascribing of something of God to a work of Satan. I would suggest refraining from such behavior.

*********

Aaron...

You're still insisting that hebrew music was arhythmic. You wish to define percussion instruments as evil. It ain't working.

• Josephus describes percussive instruments in your quote. How does that prove anything I said wrong?
• I was describing the psaltery's appearance for those reading the thread as a hammered dulcimer. Sorry you are so offended about style of play.
• I've heard a nevel being played by an Israeli friend. It's been in his family for generations. They pluck the strings and tap the hide as well. And they don't even get pregnant doing it.
• If percussion instruments are evil, then why is the Toph listed among instruments played? It's a drum, for crying out loud?
• Cymbals were large and brass. Well my goodness...that's nothing like cymbals I've seen...cause they were, um, large and well, brass.
• If "Rhythm usually followed the accents of the syllables of the words," then, um...how does that prove it's "not rhythmic?"

I realize that you're suffering from severe constipation because my source doesn't back up your pre-judgements...so I'll use one of yours:

Here's where the rub is: I've not claimed that our Christian music was identical to Hebrew music. I claimed that Hebrew music was "heavily rhythmic." I showed examples, a quote, and then you took that information and twisted it to say, "RBell claims that Hebrew music is just like today's Christian music." Baloney. What I did was show that many of their instruments were percussive, showed the opinion of an expert in ancient Hebrew worship (where you got that he didn't study ancient music is beyond me), and numerous archaeological examples of these instruments. Of course, by your line of logic, we can assume that the Hebrews simply owned drums and cymbals. I'm quite sure they never played the accursed, devilish things. And certainly never danced to them.

I've claimed that if rhythm is evil, someone should have told the Hebrews that. What I'm saying is that musical styles evolve, and that is not evil...it is cultural. Your own expert admits...only 15 instruments were "biblical" yet 36 are used by Rabbis! If they were "really Godly, independent, secondarily separated" Rabbis they would only use those 15 "biblical" instruments.

It took me a while to figure out the sleight of hand you were pulling. You are trying to prove the point: Ancient OT music is not just like today's. Great! You win! But hold on before you do your victory dance (oh wait, I forgot...you'll sin if you do that)...it does not help to reinforce the superiority of eighteenth or nineteenth century music, because the same rule applies: Ancient OT music was not like theirs either.

By the way...thanks for insinuating I am dishonest. I've come to expect that kind of thing from you.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of precisely what rhythms are good, and which ones are evil.

Please respond quickly...I'm worried that we'll have several out of wedlock babies conceived the next time our choir sings Larnelle Harris' "How Excellent Is Thy Name."