NASB Interlinear
Comments
-
I was watching this post and I just realized that we have been misunderstanding what Jefferson said and implied.
I have been seriously struggling with what he (Jefferson) said and he drives home the point that God has said "the how, the who, the where, the when and the what" of singing in worship to Him. I find it difficult to argue against this simple common sense approach.
We (including myself) have missed the simplicity of what Jefferson said.
I have been reading a lot of skirting around in this post on what he had said. He touched my nerve, but I was forced to investigate what he said.
No one has adequately and definitively refuted what he has said (other than to use snide remarks as a counter weight). I myself have found it extremely difficult to do as well.
He has not stated anything technical at all. He has tested our hearts
I have NOW changed my position on this issue and recognize that it is better to abide in what Christ said and is doing in our worship, and not what I desire. Jefferson has been quite logical and truer to the text than most of us, including myself.
I took the time to breakdown what Jefferson said into the following:
Christ is in our midst (Matt 16:19), and sings with us (Heb 2:12). We cannot be sure to use instruments because we know for sure what Christ does. So we should not use them.
Worship is a spiritual exercise (John 4:24).
Since Christ authorizes singing and sings with us, then we cannot categorically play instruments because Christ is not doing so in our worship (Rom 15:10-11). We will be hard pressed to prove it, and if Christ is the the author and perfecter of faith (Heb 12:2) then we are most miserably wrong.
Since what has already been bound in heaven is to be bound on earth, it stands to reason that we cannot use musical instruments.
The critique of symbolic (figurative) vs literal and his exegesis for the revelation texts were invalid arguments if WE all are to be fair and honest.
I asked myself, "What am I to sing and to sing "with" to God (1 Cor 14:15; Heb 13:15)." This is what really got my attention. It was there all the time, but I never saw it.
Humans sing, instruments play. God expects us to sing. He made it that simple.
Jefferson really got me to question my beliefs.
It was extremely difficult to find a crack or a hole in this thought process.
I will honestly concede that we are in error to use musical instruments in praise to God.
Love from across the pond.
0 -
Jules lamond said:
I took the time to breakdown what Jefferson said into the following:
Christ is in our midst (Matt 16:19), and sings with us (Heb 2:12). We cannot be sure to use instruments because we know for sure what Christ does. So we should not use them.
Worship is a spiritual exercise (John 4:24).
Since Christ authorizes singing and sings with us, then we cannot categorically play instruments because Christ is not doing so in our worship (Rom 15:10-11). We will be hard pressed to prove it, and if Christ is the the author and perfecter of faith (Heb 12:2) then we are most miserably wrong.
Since what has already been bound in heaven is to be bound on earth, it stands to reason that we cannot use musical instruments.
And yet, it is precisely in heaven, right in front of the throne that they are playing instruments. He says this is symbolic. Symbolic of what? Instruments perhaps? May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Play on !
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Context, context context.
It seems that you have not grasped the Revelation text.
Let me explain, since no one else is volunteering a proper exegesis.
The harp here in Rev 5:6-10 is purely symbolical, not of mechanical instruments of music, but of singing, an action in which the heavenly host immediately engaged.
the vision emphasized that Christ was seen "with seven horns" (symbol of strength, Deut. 33:17; 1 Kings 22:11) "and with seven eyes", in turn interpreted as the seven spirits of God sent out into all the world and symbol of national or kingly might (Zech. 1:18-20; Dan. 7:7ff). In the Revelation generally, horns symbolize the might of the persecuting power (Rev. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3ff). Though he is a Lamb sacrificed, Jesus is seen in his heavenly position exercising power over all flesh (Matt. 28:18; John 17:1; Eph. 1:21). The Lamb's all-seeing vision is emphasized by his having "seven eyes". The Old Testament counterpart of this is Zechariah's vision of the seven lamps which are said to be the seven eyes of the Lord, "which range through the whole earth" (Zech. 4:2,10). These are now further explained as "the seven spirits sent out into all the earth" (note Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5, indicating the Spirit's worldwide mission).
The action which is to carry forward the drama begins when the Lamb "took the scroll from the right hand" of God, at which point the living creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb. In their hands these heavenly inhabitants held a harp (symbol of praise) and "golden bowls full of incense". The incense is a symbol of "the prayers of the saints" (cf. Ps. 141:2; Rev. 8:3). The prayers of the saints on earth are mighty before God (James 5:16). These heavenly inhabitants thus represent the saints on earth who have prayed for the coming of the events now to be worked out and who add their praise and prayer for the accomplishment of God's purpose.
The action which is to carry forward the drama begins when the Lamb "took the scroll from the right hand" of God, at which point the living creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb. In their hands these heavenly inhabitants held a harp (symbol of praise) and "golden bowls full of incense".
The incense is a symbol of "the prayers of the saints" (cf. Ps. 141:2; Rev. 8:3). The prayers of the saints on earth are mighty before God (James 5:16). These heavenly inhabitants thus represent the saints on earth who have prayed for the coming of the events now to be worked out and who add their praise and prayer for the accomplishment of God's purpose.
After offering the praise and prayers of the saints to God, the living creatures and the elders begin their own song of praise. It is called "a new song", a phrase frequently used in the Old Testament (Ps. 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1-9; 149:1; Isa. 42:10) for any new or recently composed hymn, but especially for a composition in honor of a special occasion. In most of the passages the occasion is the celebration of God's coming in judgment and worldwide victory.
The "new song", repeating the former declaration of the worthiness of the Lamb to open the scroll, now states the reason for that worthiness. As he had formerly been seen as a Lamb slaughtered, so now his position as one who can open the seals and bring about the anticipated events is directly connected with his sacrifice on the cross: "for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men". Christians firmly believed that the sacrificial death of Jesus, in which he vicariously gave his lifeblood for the sins of men, served as the ransom price for men from the slavery of sin (1 Pet. 1:18ff; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20). The former slaves to sin were thus purchased (see the metaphor used in 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Gal. 4:5; Rev. 14:3; 2 Pet. 2:1). This ransoming was for God, in that they are now destined for his service.
I am not a defender for anyone, but you make the point for Jefferson that you do not understand the text for which you confidently assert so much knowledge about (1 Tim 1:7).
If he reads this post, he must me praying that you be swift to hear and slow to speak (James 1:19)
Instead of trying to belittle, examine truthfully what he said. As a matter-of-fact, examine what I have said before so being quick to respond.
Cheers
0 -
George Somsel said:Jules lamond said:
I took the time to breakdown what Jefferson said into the following:
Christ is in our midst (Matt 16:19), and sings with us (Heb 2:12). We cannot be sure to use instruments because we know for sure what Christ does. So we should not use them.
Worship is a spiritual exercise (John 4:24).
Since Christ authorizes singing and sings with us, then we cannot categorically play instruments because Christ is not doing so in our worship (Rom 15:10-11). We will be hard pressed to prove it, and if Christ is the the author and perfecter of faith (Heb 12:2) then we are most miserably wrong.
Since what has already been bound in heaven is to be bound on earth, it stands to reason that we cannot use musical instruments.
And yet, it is precisely in heaven, right in front of the throne that they are playing instruments. He says this is symbolic. Symbolic of what? Instruments perhaps? May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Play on !
I come from a very strict Christian background originally. On one hand I fully respect that, in a sense, clear-cut way of approaching the Scriptures, however I have seen on the other hand, unfruitful and divisive tendencies in the Body of Christ, when that approach is applied, also in many other matters. It is not only a matter of instruments, but many other things like head coverings etc. It touches IMHO whole way of how we do our hermeneutics. IMHO we would have to define clearly what we understand with the term of "worship". Is it that time in our services we use or not use our voices and instruments? Is it also my everyday attitude of obedience to God? Is it done with my physical voice or "in Spirit and Truth"? Can we, or even should we, apply also such scriptures as Rom 14:5 and 22? How can we fulfill the commands from verses like the following: 2 Tim 4:13? Literally? By making a pilgrimage? Or by trying to understand the spirit of the scripture in more complex way? Is really our singing and praising of the Lord so much different from what David did? Why God would so much change his attitude to the instruments? Isn't it similar matter to our approach to buildings? In the OT the Temple was a building, in our case buildings are just a "roof over the heads of the real Temple of the Holy Spirit" as I believe Bible defines our church buildings today. But it does not mean we are not allowed to use buildings in a proper understanding of their role. IMHO, I believe we can have the same approach to the instruments. If they help us to just sing from the bottom of our hearts in all sincerity and humility and honor and understanding that it is not our pleasure, what is the goal, but God who is the receiver of our praises, what wrong it could be? But again, I respect the other way of seeing the thing and I am open to change my understanding if I see the message of the Scripture showing that direction. IMHO all the arguments given here so far (and all of them I have heard from other sources on the subject) have not convinced me so, but, let us stay Brothers.
6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since she gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For tnone of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, uwhether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.
Bohuslav
0 -
Jules lamond said:
be swift to hear and slow to speak (James 1:19)
Well, I understand why it is safer not to allow any off-topic discussions. Why so quickly attack motives and attitudes of the discussing person? Why not just to speak about the matter itself, respecting the other person and the limits of our ability to know exactly his/her attitudes?
Bohuslav
0 -
Jules lamond said:
Since Christ authorizes singing and sings with us, then we cannot categorically play instruments because Christ is not doing so in our worship (Rom 15:10-11). We will be hard pressed to prove it, and if Christ is the the author and perfecter of faith (Heb 12:2) then we are most miserably wrong.
Since what has already been bound in heaven is to be bound on earth, it stands to reason that we cannot use musical instruments.
This form of argument/exegesis is circular and no different to what Jefferson used i.e. what else is Christ not doing. Has the heavenly pattern changed since Ps 33:1-3 and Ps 150:3-5?
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Jules lamond said:
I was watching this post and I just realized that we have been misunderstanding what Jefferson said and implied.
First, I understood him to say he wants a NASB Interlinear. Secondly, He doesn't want instruments in worship.
Christ is my High Priest and my Advocate with the Father. He fulfills what no other can. Being the Author and Finisher of our faith, Christ has pleased the Father and that righteousness has been imputed to my account. (My "righteousness" is as filthy rags). My heart sings praises to God for His wonderful grace He has given. If God wants me to worship without instruments, I trust He will show me. If I am unknowingly sinning by using instruments, then the blood of Christ has dealt with that also. I go through my day trying to please my God in everything I do. I know I fail often but His grace is sufficient.
All I can say is love God with all your heart, soul, mind & strength. Do what you know is right and don't violate your conscience. But do understand the freedom everyone has in Christ just might have your Christian brothers using instruments in worship.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Jules lamond said:
It seems that you have not grasped the Revelation text.
Let me explain, since no one else is volunteering a proper exegesis.
The harp here in Rev 5:6-10 is purely symbolical, not of mechanical instruments of music, but of singing, an action in which the heavenly host immediately engaged.
WRONG !
8 When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 They sing a new song:
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Re 5:7-9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.The notice that they are holding harps is supplemented by the notice that they sing. If the harps had symbolized singing then it would not be stated that they sang. Your "exegesis" if faulty.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Jules lamond said:
It seems that you have not grasped the Revelation text.
Let me explain, since no one else is volunteering a proper exegesis.
The harp here in Rev 5:6-10 is purely symbolical, not of mechanical instruments of music, but of singing, an action in which the heavenly host immediately engaged.
WRONG !
8 When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 They sing a new song:
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Re 5:7-9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.The notice that they are holding harps is supplemented by the notice that they sing. If the harps had symbolized singing then it would not be stated that they sang. Your "exegesis" if faulty.
I think if you read her in context where she explains in the body of her exegesis her meaning.She means that the" harp" = "praise" see below. Some say it refers to worship, praise or to prophesy.QUESTION—What does a κιθάρα ‘harp’ symbolize?
A harp is a symbol of the worship of God [EC, Wal]. In Revelation it is always associated with the praise of God [TNTC]. In Psalm 33:2 the harp is associated with praise [Ld, NIC]Trail, R. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Revelation 1-11 (2nd ed.) (140). Dallas, TX: SIL International"The action which is to carry forward the drama begins when the Lamb "took the scroll from the right hand" of God, at which point the living creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb. In their hands these heavenly inhabitants held a harp (symbol of praise) and "golden bowls full of incense". Jules lamond
"The action which is to carry forward the drama begins when the Lamb "took the scroll from the right hand" of God, at which point the living creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb. In their hands these heavenly inhabitants held a harp (symbol of praise) and "golden bowls full of incense".Jules lamond
Sir T.
.Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Jules lamond said:
I am not a defender for anyone, but you make the point for Jefferson that you do not understand the text for which you confidently assert so much knowledge about (1 Tim 1:7).
If he reads this post, he must me praying that you be swift to hear and slow to speak (James 1:19)
Instead of trying to belittle, examine truthfully what he said. As a matter-of-fact, examine what I have said before so being quick to respond.
Cheers
Brilliant exegesis i could not fault it, it was well argued & logically put together, much appreciated. However i think you should have allowed your exegesis to do the talking for you. What was objectionable was your above quote, it was not necessary your exegesis made the point, your point well.
Your in Christ
Sir T.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Jules lamond said:
I was watching this post and I just realized that we have been misunderstanding what Jefferson said and implied.
I have been seriously struggling with what he (Jefferson) said and he drives home the point that God has said "the how, the who, the where, the when and the what" of singing in worship to Him. I find it difficult to argue against this simple common sense approach.
Jules lamond said:I will honestly concede that we are in error to use musical instruments in praise to God.
I must say that I am very impressed. In just a few days you have developed a theological viewpoint that would take, most people, years of catechism in the Church of Christ denomination to develop. Very impressive indeed...
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
A request -
This thread has moved far afield from the request for a NASB interlinear Bible - the theological discussion and such is not about LOGOS but about individual concerns and concerns. Can I ask all participants to refrain from needing to make "one more comment". Much has been said. It is time to stop if we are to going to ask others to adhere to the forum policies of being about the Libronix and Logos tools.
Perhaps we need a separate forum to which we can move these kinds of discussions. Those that want to participate in theology, exegesis, etc., can subscribe, those who want to discuss Libronix/Logos can ignore it.
Blessings,
Floyd
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
Jules lamond said:we are in error to use musical instruments in praise to God
This is not a command from God, or Christ. Take Spurgeon for example, he spoke about that he loved the simplicity of a capella, and he believed that simplicity was a sign of maturity. But one thing he loved more was freedom in Christ, as in his words about musical instruments:"We do not need them, they would hinder than help our praise but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty?"
To look at it inductively, Scripture never says not to use instruments, on the contrary, God's specifically states, in several places, in his Holy Words, to use instruments, or that instruments are being used. To try and infer otherwise by proof texting, is reading theology into the text.
Galatians 3:23-25 (NIV)
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Floyd Johnson said:
This thread has moved far afield from the request for a NASB interlinear Bible
My apologies to all, I have gotten carried away.
In Christ,
Paul
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Wouldn't a interlinear be more useful for a popular translation that isn't quite as literal (ie. NIV, HCSB, NLT, etc)?
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Paul Golder said:
Wouldn't a interlinear be more useful for a popular translation that isn't quite as literal (ie. NIV, HCSB, NLT, etc)?
Good, safe landing in the original subject [:)]
Bohuslav
0 -
Bohuslav Wojnar said:
I come from a very strict Christian background originally. On one hand I fully respect that, in a sense, clear-cut way of approaching the Scriptures, however I have seen on the other hand, unfruitful and divisive tendencies in the Body of Christ, when that approach is applied, also in many other matters. It is not only a matter of instruments, but many other things like head coverings etc. It touches IMHO whole way of how we do our hermeneutics. IMHO we would have to define clearly what we understand with the term of "worship". Is it that time in our services we use or not use our voices and instruments? Is it also my everyday attitude of obedience to God? Is it done with my physical voice or "in Spirit and Truth"? Can we, or even should we, apply also such scriptures as Rom 14:5 and 22? How can we fulfill the commands from verses like the following: 2 Tim 4:13? Literally? By making a pilgrimage? Or by trying to understand the spirit of the scripture in more complex way? Is really our singing and praising of the Lord so much different from what David did? Why God would so much change his attitude to the instruments? Isn't it similar matter to our approach to buildings? In the OT the Temple was a building, in our case buildings are just a "roof over the heads of the real Temple of the Holy Spirit" as I believe Bible defines our church buildings today. But it does not mean we are not allowed to use buildings in a proper understanding of their role. IMHO, I believe we can have the same approach to the instruments. If they help us to just sing from the bottom of our hearts in all sincerity and humility and honor and understanding that it is not our pleasure, what is the goal, but God who is the receiver of our praises, what wrong it could be? But again, I respect the other way of seeing the thing and I am open to change my understanding if I see the message of the Scripture showing that direction. IMHO all the arguments given here so far (and all of them I have heard from other sources on the subject) have not convinced me so, but, let us stay Brothers.
6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since she gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For tnone of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, uwhether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.
... amen ..... What he said ........
Now if I only had a NASB Reverse Interlinear in Logos I could possibly determine if the harps in heaven are more or less symbolic than the tree of life.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Ted Hans said:I think if you read her in context where she explains in the body of her exegesis her meaning.She means that the" harp" = "praise" see below. Some say it refers to worship, praise or to prophesy.
QUESTION—What does a κιθάρα ‘harp’ symbolize?
A harp is a symbol of the worship of God [EC, Wal]. In Revelation it is always associated with the praise of God [TNTC]. In Psalm 33:2 the harp is associated with praise [Ld, NIC]Trail, R. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Revelation 1-11 (2nd ed.) (140). Dallas, TX: SIL InternationalI've long thought there was something fundamentally wrong with SIL. This proves the point. He's way off base. My statement still stands.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Ted Hans said:I think if you read her in context where she explains in the body of her exegesis her meaning.She means that the" harp" = "praise" see below. Some say it refers to worship, praise or to prophesy.
QUESTION—What does a κιθάρα ‘harp’ symbolize?
A harp is a symbol of the worship of God [EC, Wal]. In Revelation it is always associated with the praise of God [TNTC]. In Psalm 33:2 the harp is associated with praise [Ld, NIC]Trail, R. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Revelation 1-11 (2nd ed.) (140). Dallas, TX: SIL InternationalI've long thought there was something fundamentally wrong with SIL. This proves the point. He's way off base. My statement still stands.
George,
slow down
A better familiarly with the resource quoted would have avoided an unnecessary criticism of a very helpful tool
the Exegetical Summary series as its name indicates merely summarizes exegetical conclusions from various commentaries and grammars
if you have a problem, it is not will SIL, it is with Morris' TNTC, Mounce's NICNT, Ladd's Revelation, Thomas' WEC, and Walwoord's commentary
True, those esteemed scholars from various theological traditions could be all wrong and you the only one seeing the light, but SIL cannot be blamed for it
as to the exegetical point, people might need more convincing that a mere George said so
Alain
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
A better familiarly with the resource quoted would have avoided an unnecessary criticism of a very helpful tool
the Exegetical Summary series as its name indicates merely summarizes exegetical conclusions from various commentaries and grammars
if you have a problem, it is not will SIL, it is with Morris' TNTC, Mounce's NICNT, Ladd's Revelation, Thomas' WEC, and Walwoord's commentary
True, those esteemed scholars from various theological traditions could be all wrong and you the only one seeing the light, but SIL cannot be blamed for it
as to the exegetical point, people might need more convincing that a mere George said so
Alain
A reading of the text cited will reveal that the cithers were used in the act of worship. They were not symbols for worship just as the singing is not a symbol of worship but constitutes a part of the very act of worship. The cithers are thus real instruments (in the scene) . If you wish to talk of symbolism, then you might talk of Re 14.2
καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς φωνὴν ὑδάτων πολλῶν καὶ ὡς φωνὴν βροντῆς μεγάλης, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς κιθαρῳδῶν κιθαριζόντων ἐν ταῖς κιθάραις αὐτῶν.
I heard a sound from heaven like the sound of a multitude of waters and like mighty thunder. The sound I heard was like cither-players cithering on their cithers. Even here, however, the symbolism is not simply that of worship. It is the heaven's great "Amen" to the fulfillment of the number of the 144,000 as they suffered martydom.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
the Exegetical Summary series as its name indicates merely summarizes exegetical conclusions from various commentaries and grammars
if you have a problem, it is not will SIL, it is with Morris' TNTC, Mounce's NICNT, Ladd's Revelation, Thomas' WEC, and Walwoord's commentary
Great to hear from you i was just wondering i have not seen Alain's post lately & i get this. I trust you are well, do take care.
Every Blessings
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
After reading all of the fascinating responses and trying to understand how people develop doctrine; I am astounded at what is determined by what the Bible does not say, verses what it actually says.
For example; Revelation has several songs song by different groups of people and most of the time the heavenly beings sing the choirs only, they do have a song they sing in Revelation 14 that only the 144,000 Jews can learn.
Back to the song that the 24 elders sing; the verses give a hint of who they are, just like the rest of the songs that are sung in Revelation, it is a fascinating study if you are so inclined. For this discussion I will only highlight Revelation 5:9, 10; we know they were ransomed by with the blood of the lamb from every tribe, language and nation and they were made kings and priests.
I do not believe we can call these folks heavenly beings in the sense of angles because they come from the nations and are ransomed with the blood of the lamb; note, there are only three kings and priests in the entire Bible, Melchizedek king of Salem, Jesus Christ and the Body of Christ.
Notice that the heavenly beings only sing the choirs in Revelation 5:11-12 and then in Revelation 5:13-14 every creature in heaven and on earth and under the sea join in for the last part of the song.
As far as the harp goes; according to the Greek, it is a harp!
0 -
KenAvery said:
For example; Revelation has several songs song by different groups of people and most of the time the heavenly beings sing the choirs only, they do have a song they sing in Revelation 14 that only the 144,000 Jews can learn.
This is off topic - thank you for refraining from furthering this discussion.
Blessings,
Floyd
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
KenAvery said:
Back to the song that the 24 elders sing; the verses give a hint of who they are
My personal opinion in light of the rest of the Apocalypse is that they are the combined Patriarchs of Israel and the Apostles from the Church.
KenAvery said:I do not believe we can call these folks heavenly beings in the sense of angles because they come from the nations and are ransomed with the blood of the lamb; note, there are only three kings and priests in the entire Bible, Melchizedek king of Salem, Jesus Christ and the Body of Christ.
No, they're not Angles, they're Saxons. [:P] You forgot David.
KenAvery said:As far as the harp goes; according to the Greek, it is a harp!
Actually, it is not a harp but a cither which is the forerunner of the guitar. Did you know they found an old composition written around 300 BC which I have heard on the radio which uses a cither? Interesting.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:No, they're not Angles, they're Saxons. You forgot David.
I am pretty sure King David is from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi [;)]
0 -
Oh yeah, keeping with the thread; I would rather have an Interlinear Greek-English with the various Greek texts; most people forget that some of us still use the KJV and are still up in the air about whether or not the 1,000 received text NT should be overridden by basically three older texts (including one found with Gnostic writings).
0 -
George Somsel said:
Actually, it is not a harp but a cither which is the forerunner of the guitar. Did you know they found an old composition written around 300 BC which I have heard on the radio which uses a cither? Interesting.
I once heard Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" played on a guitar. It was wonderful. Much better than listening to it played on an organ (an experience that has been ruined by Hollywood horror movies). Now I want to hear it played on a cither. Maybe it needs to be a cither duet. How many strings does a cither have?
Also "Classical Gas", unplugged of course. I wonder if Mason Williams owns a cither. I'll bet Neil Young does. Maybe we can get Neil to lend his to Mason.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
KenAvery said:
George Somsel said:
No, they're not Angles, they're Saxons. You forgot David.
I am pretty sure King David is from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi
But he wore the Ephod which was a priestly garment.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
KenAvery said:
Oh yeah, keeping with the thread; I would rather have an Interlinear Greek-English with the various Greek texts; most people forget that some of us still use the KJV and are still up in the air about whether or not the 1,000 received text NT should be overridden by basically three older texts (including one found with Gnostic writings).
You could use "Compare Parallel Bible Versions" to have the texts side by side. Of course, this wouldn't be an interlinear with the English in there, but I say "So much the better." As to the number of Byz Maj texts compared to the main witnesses used in the Critical Text, one does not simply count heads. One must weigh the evidence. You should note that
1. The "Big 3" texts are older than the Byz Maj texts (not always determinative, but something to consider).
2. The "Big 3" and related texts are found all over whereas the Byz Maj are limited to one geographical area (Copied form one basic text?)
3. In many cases the readings of the Byz Maj text can be seen to be an effort to smooth out the grammar or even theological problems of the text and are therefore suspect.I suggest you take a course in Textual Criticism [the process of establishing the best text].
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
John McComb said:George Somsel said:
Actually, it is not a harp but a cither which is the forerunner of the guitar. Did you know they found an old composition written around 300 BC which I have heard on the radio which uses a cither? Interesting.
I once heard Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" played on a guitar. It was wonderful. Much better than listening to it played on an organ (an experience that has been ruined by Hollywood horror movies). Now I want to hear it played on a cither. Maybe it needs to be a cither duet. How many strings does a cither have?
Also "Classical Gas", unplugged of course. I wonder if Mason Williams owns a cither. I'll bet Neil Young does. Maybe we can get Neil to lend his to Mason.
Yours in Christ
John
I like Bach in almost any form (excepting played on a saxophone -- yikes!. That having been said, I am in hog heaven when I'm alone and can dig out my Complete Bach Organ Works, crank up the volume and let it rip! As the poet said, "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and Bach . . . Ah wilderness were Paradise enow."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
JeffersonMarshall said:
The NASB accurately rules out the false use of mechanical instruments in worship
I know I shouldn't, I know I shouldn't ... I think that was the trains refrain. But I can't resist asking what is the true use of mechanical instruments in worship? [6]
For those who may not know it, I've adapted the phrase from the children's book "The Little Engine that Could", I'm in trouble for leading the forum off topic AND I'm a stickler for logic - requiring both halves of the true/false dichotomy ... 3 strikes earns the devil emoticon.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
KenAvery said:
Oh yeah, keeping with the thread; I would rather have an Interlinear Greek-English with the various Greek texts; most people forget that some of us still use the KJV and are still up in the air about whether or not the 1,000 received text NT should be overridden by basically three older texts (including one found with Gnostic writings).
Really good point Ken. It would probably be more effective in showing the divergences each translation has from the original. Still I wish for a NASB RI first.
George Somsel said:One must weigh the evidence. You should note that
1. The "Big 3" texts are older than the Byz Maj texts (not always determinative, but something to consider).
2.
The "Big 3" and related texts are found all over whereas the Byz Maj
are limited to one geographical area (Copied form one basic text?)
3.
In many cases the readings of the Byz Maj text can be seen to be an
effort to smooth out the grammar or even theological problems of the
text and are therefore suspect.I suggest you take a course in Textual Criticism [the process of establishing the best text].
I know you won't agree George, but this is precisely why I would like to have a NASB reverse interlinear among others. It is the same reason I want The Samaritan Pentateuch, Babylonian Talmud and the LXX. The more, the better. I promise, I won't go running to the kitchen to mix up a consensus Bible in the cookie batter bowl.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
George Somsel said:
I suggest you take a course in Textual Criticism [the process of establishing the best text].
Thank you for the suggestion; though, I am very comfortable with my current position.
As far as interlinears go; I would prefer the original texts that were used to produce the various translations, I am not convinced this is possible with the KJV.
0 -
KenAvery said:
George Somsel said:
I suggest you take a course in Textual Criticism [the process of establishing the best text].
Thank you for the suggestion; though, I am very comfortable with my current position.
As far as interlinears go; I would prefer the original texts that were used to produce the various translations, I am not convinced this is possible with the KJV.
Of course, the question isn't regarding your comfort level, but regarding which is correct.
If you want the text behind the AV [KJV] then you want the Stephens text [stephens.lbxlls] on the ftp site. This is probably the worst possible text you could use since it even has "back translations" from the Vulgate rather than being based on any Greek text; for understanding what King Jimmy's boys were doing, however, that is it.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
KenAvery said:
George Somsel said: I suggest you take a course in Textual Criticism [the process of establishing the best text].
Thank you for the suggestion; though, I am very comfortable with my current position.
As far as interlinears go; I would prefer the original texts that were used to produce the various translations, I am not convinced this is possible with the KJV.
Of course, the question isn't regarding your comfort level, but regarding which is correct.
If you want the text behind the AV [KJV] then you want the Stephens text [stephens.lbxlls] on the ftp site. This is probably the worst possible text you could use since it even has "back translations" from the Vulgate rather than being based on any Greek text; for understanding what King Jimmy's boys were doing, however, that is it.
Again, I am comfortable with my position and the all the errors in the KJV (approximately 98); your suggestion still does not get to a KJV interlinear and I am still not convinced that we have all of the texts to complete a KJV interlinear.
I find it interesting that you are uncomfortable with the Vulgate considering that one of the "Big 3" come from the Vatican [;)]
0 -
George Somsel said:
I like Bach in almost any form (excepting played on a saxophone -- yikes!. That having been said, I am in hog heaven when I'm alone and can dig out my Complete Bach Organ Works, crank up the volume and let it rip! As the poet said, "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and Bach . . . Ah wilderness were Paradise enow."
Saxophone eh? Why not? I'd like to hear that. I love the sound of a sax.
I think I mentioned here before that I am a big fan of plainsong. Well, I have a music cd called "Officium" that is a calaboration by Jan Garabek and the Hilliard ensemble. It sounds like a jazz saxophonist wandered into a monastery church while a group of monks were singing vespers and decided to sit in a corner and play along. Wonderful stuff, very haunting.
Anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to Bach on the organ. Just Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. The toccata has been used as background music for so many spooky castle scenes that it's almost impossible to listen to it (on the organ) without it conjuring up images of Frankenstein's monster lurking in the shadows. Hardly a proper intro to the fugue which is a thing of astonishing beauty and completely un-gothic. Actually, truth be told, my favorite arrangement of that piece is symphony version done by Leopold Stokowski for the original Fantasia film.
Organ music? Eh, it's o.k. Not my favorite. When you grow up in Canada like I did organ music has a habit of reminding you of hockey games. If I'm going to listen to Bach keyboard music my preference is Glenn Gould on the piano. Magnificent!!!
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
KenAvery said:
Oh yeah, keeping with the thread; I would rather have an Interlinear Greek-English with the various Greek texts; most people forget that some of us still use the KJV and are still up in the air about whether or not the 1,000 received text NT should be overridden by basically three older texts (including one found with Gnostic writings).
Now that's a whole other debatable can of worms...
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
KenAvery said:
Oh yeah, keeping with the thread; I would rather have an Interlinear Greek-English with the various Greek texts; most people forget that some of us still use the KJV and are still up in the air about whether or not the 1,000 received text NT should be overridden by basically three older texts (including one found with Gnostic writings).
Really good point Ken. It would probably be more effective in showing the divergences each translation has from the original. Still I wish for a NASB RI first.
George Somsel said:
One must weigh the evidence. You should note that
1. The "Big 3" texts are older than the Byz Maj texts (not always determinative, but something to consider).
2. The "Big 3" and related texts are found all over whereas the Byz Maj are limited to one geographical area (Copied form one basic text?)
3. In many cases the readings of the Byz Maj text can be seen to be an effort to smooth out the grammar or even theological problems of the text and are therefore suspect.I suggest you take a course in Textual Criticism [the process of establishing the best text].
I know you won't agree George, but this is precisely why I would like to have a NASB reverse interlinear among others. It is the same reason I want The Samaritan Pentateuch, Babylonian Talmud and the LXX. The more, the better. I promise, I won't go running to the kitchen to mix up a consensus Bible in the cookie batter bowl.
Thank you, Matthew, it is obvious you get it; I would love to have all of the texts you mention. We tend to be at the mercy of translators and their particular doctrinal prejudices.
0 -
KenAvery said:
I find it interesting that you are uncomfortable with the Vulgate considering that one of the "Big 3" come from the Vatican
Well, both Regan and Obama are from Ilinois too, but there is a vast difference between them so what does their location in the Vatican have to do with the matter?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
John McComb said:
Organ music? Eh, it's o.k. Not my favorite. When you grow up in Canada like I did organ music has a habit of reminding you of hockey games. If I'm going to listen to Bach keyboard music my preference is Glenn Gould on the piano. Magnificent!!!
Oh no! Bach didn't write for the piano and he shouldn't be played on the piano. The advocates of playing Bach on the piano say that you can't get the dynamics on the harpsichord that you can get on the piano. The problem is that Bach was not a romantic composer and doesn't sound right when played as a romantic composer. I think any pianist who plays Bach outside of a practice room should have his head stuck in a piano case with a big strong guy playing John Cage over and over as loudly as he can.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
KenAvery said:
Thank you, Matthew, it is obvious you get it; I would love to have all of the texts you mention. We tend to be at the mercy of translators and their particular doctrinal prejudices.
Not if you really work at learning the original languages and have good tools.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
But George,
I remember you also want to buy the Samaritan Pentateuch. Probably for the same reason.
Bach should be listened to on harpsicord. That's why I buy from the Musical Heritage Society. They use period instruments. I must confess I do have the "complete" works of Bach with piano used....[:$]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
George,
I take it from your answer that you are comfortable with Codex Vaticanus and not the Vulgate?
To be completely honest the New Testament is not as interesting to me as the Tanakh; this was the Christian Bible for 200 years after Meshach made the ultimate sacrificed and sold everything he had for us. I consider the NT to be more of a Midrash on the Tanakh with the addition of the 8 mysteries that Sha’ul had the privilege of reveling and the view to the eternal kingdom that was revealed to Yochanan.
From my perspective, the Tanakh looking forward, the writers of the predominate texts got it right and all the new discoveries of documents found in garbage heaps in Egypt do not change my mind.
I would prefer to have interlinears using the original texts for the various translations, new and old translations, instead of interlinears where the only thing that changes is the English and not the original texts (NA27, MT). I want to know which texts are being used at what times to produce the given English inline with the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Latin … etc.
As far as the Vulgate goes; I do not believe we have the Greek text used for the NT, that does not make it unreliable.
0 -
George Somsel said:
KenAvery said:
Thank you, Matthew, it is obvious you get it; I would love to have all of the texts you mention. We tend to be at the mercy of translators and their particular doctrinal prejudices.
Not if you really work at learning the original languages and have good tools.
Now you are starting to get it; what is really interesting is to add in studying the history and learning where the different doctrines originate from; the translation decisions will make a lot more sense, why the translators made the particular translation decisions, in an effort to promote their own personal beliefs.
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
But George,
I remember you also want to buy the Samaritan Pentateuch. Probably for the same reason.
Bach should be listened to on harpsicord. That's why I buy from the Musical Heritage Society. They use period instruments. I must confess I do have the "complete" works of Bach with piano used....
What does wanting the Samaritan Pentateuch have to do with an interlinear?
BTW: There are texts found at Qumran with readings which are like those of the Samaritan Pentateuch (also LXX).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
What does wanting the Samaritan Pentateuch have to do with an interlinear?
BTW: There are texts found at Qumran with readings which are like those of the Samaritan Pentateuch (also LXX).
Tell me why you want the Samaritan Pentateuch and it is most likely the same reason I want interlinears. [:O]
I also like the Dead Sea scrolls [:P]
I also like reading posts by George.[^o)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Tell me why you want the Samaritan Pentateuch and it is most likely the same reason I want interlinears.
I also like the Dead Sea scrolls
I also like reading posts by George.
There is no relation between my wanting the Sam Pent and any interlinear. The Sam Pent provides a copy of the reading followed in the Samaritan community and also found in some places in the DSS. An interlinear only gives you the illusion that you are dealing with the original text whereas you are simply relying on a crutch. I say unto you, "Pick up your bed and walk."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Oh no! Bach didn't write for the piano and he shouldn't be played on the piano. The advocates of playing Bach on the piano say that you can't get the dynamics on the harpsichord that you can get on the piano. The problem is that Bach was not a romantic composer and doesn't sound right when played as a romantic composer. I think any pianist who plays Bach outside of a practice room should have his head stuck in a piano case with a big strong guy playing John Cage over and over as loudly as he can.
Ah, so that's a great big "No" vote for Glenn Gould, is it?
Didn't you say earlier that you liked Bach in any form except played on a saxophone? I gotta tell you, hearing you now say that pianos are also a no-no is a bit surprising. It kind of makes me wonder if we've really seen the end of the "exceptions" list. For instance, is it o.k. for Yo Yo Mah to play a Bach organ piece on his cello?
How many forms are included in "any form"? Are jug bands still o.k.? How about kazoos?
You are a funny guy George.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
George Somsel said:Matthew C Jones said:
Tell me why you want the Samaritan Pentateuch and it is most likely the same reason I want interlinears.
I also like the Dead Sea scrolls
I also like reading posts by George.
There is no relation between my wanting the Sam Pent and any interlinear. The Sam Pent provides a copy of the reading followed in the Samaritan community and also found in some places in the DSS. An interlinear only gives you the illusion that you are dealing with the original text whereas you are simply relying on a crutch. I say unto you, "Pick up your bed and walk."
That's funny George. ......I only have one leg. ....For real. [:D]
Anyhow, What I am saying is you are interested (curious a better word?) in reading it, discoveing what the others read, and said, and how it may have formed their lives. I believe interlinears do have something in them to be pondered. I am also interested in the lives of Wescott & Hort but NOT because I think they were Godly men. I'm just curious. Besides, my life expectancy is not long enough to master everything I woulld like to study.[O]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
John McComb said:
Ah, so that's a great big "No" vote for Glenn Gould, is it?
Didn't you say earlier that you liked Bach in any form except played on a saxophone? I gotta tell you, hearing you now say that pianos are also a no-no is a bit surprising. It kind of makes me wonder if we've really seen the end of the "exceptions" list. For instance, is it o.k. for Yo Yo Mah to play a Bach organ piece on his cello?
How many forms are included in "any form"? Are jug bands still o.k.? How about kazoos?
You are a funny guy George.
I used to be OK with Bach on the piano (while preferring the harpsichord), but they've begun playing Bach as though they were playing Beethoven or Rachmaninoff -- with dynamics and trying to be "expressive", but that isn't Bach. Actually, Glenn Gould is probably better than some of the current offerings such as Murray Parahia. Jug bands and kazoos would fall into the category of just fun. They aren't really performances. That's OK. It's also OK to practice Bach on the piano -- just keep it at practice. Another thing that has contributed to my dislike of Bach on the piano is that radio announcers have taken to referring to them as "keyboard concertos"; apparently they're trying to conceal the fact that it isn't being played on the proper instrument. Usually they will say something such as "XXX by Bach transcribed for guitar." Where's Wanda Landowska when you need her?
BTW: Say the secret word and win $100.00 [That's Groucho so it's supposed to be funny. Want me to wiggle my cigar too? I don't have one.].
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
