Who do you think is the most important musician in human history?

On a social media site, I recently asked a question that elicited an interesting variety of responses:
 

Who do you think is the most important musician in human history?

What do you think?
 

 

 

Satan
40% (4 votes)
Jubal
0% (0 votes)
King David
20% (2 votes)
Johann Sebastian Bach
20% (2 votes)
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
0% (0 votes)
Ludwig van Beethoven
0% (0 votes)
Other: please specify below in a comment
20% (2 votes)
Unsure
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 10
1438 reads

There are 49 Comments

RajeshG's picture

To select more than one choice, please choose "other" in the poll and name your choices in a comment.

josh p's picture

I picked David just because God inscripturated so many of his songs. Other than that I would probably pick Bach. Louis Armstrong or Bach are of course the best musicians of all time but that wasn’t the question.

Kevin Miller's picture

I marked "other" since my choice is God. Psalm 40:3 tells us "he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD." Also, Psalm 32:7 tells us that God surrounds us with songs of deliverance.

Ron Bean's picture

Consider that "music" is the sound (not lyrics) created by musicians and consider that no one has any idea what the music produced by three of the choices sounded like. 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

RajeshG's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

Consider that "music" is the sound (not lyrics) created by musicians and consider that no one has any idea what the music produced by three of the choices sounded like. 

Many musicians write both the instrumental aspects of their music and the lyrics. Some or even perhaps many sing the lyrics as they are writing some or all of the words to their songs. Do you believe that they are only musicians when they are writing/playing the instrumental aspects of their music, but they are not musicians when they write/sing their lyrics?

Ron Bean's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Ron Bean wrote:

 

Consider that "music" is the sound (not lyrics) created by musicians and consider that no one has any idea what the music produced by three of the choices sounded like. 

 

 

Many musicians write both the instrumental aspects of their music and the lyrics. Some or even perhaps many sing the lyrics as they are writing some or all of the words to their songs. Do you believe that they are only musicians when they are writing/playing the instrumental aspects of their music, but they are not musicians when they write/sing their lyrics?

 

I'm not going to answer your questions lest they get us off topic. The fact is that we do not have any idea what the music produced by the parties in question sounded like.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Mark_Smith's picture

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God's "new song" is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

RajeshG's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God's "new song" is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

Wrong. Singing a song without knowing anything musically about what the notes are is still music.

No, neither God's "new song" nor God's singing over us are metaphors just because you say they are. You are welcome to show that they are, but merely asserting that they are does not establish anything.

Kevin Miller's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God's "new song" is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

Well, I'll still put God as my choice, since without God's creative activities, the morning stars would not have been singing together in Job 38:7. God surrounds himself with angelic choirs in Rev. 14:2-3. Those angels are singing a "new song," and while there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song, I do believe there is also an actual musical element to the sound produced by the angels that God surrounds Himself with. I don't think we have to have actual knowledge of what the music is sounding like to know that God is an important musician (the most important, I say).

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Mark_Smith wrote:

 

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God's "new song" is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

 

Well, I'll still put God as my choice, since without God's creative activities, the morning stars would not have been singing together in Job 38:7. God surrounds himself with angelic choirs in Rev. 14:2-3. Those angels are singing a "new song," and while there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song, I do believe there is also an actual musical element to the sound produced by the angels that God surrounds Himself with. I don't think we have to have actual knowledge of what the music is sounding like to know that God is an important musician (the most important, I say).

Where do you get the notion that "there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song"?

Mark_Smith's picture

It is metaphor. Have you heard God singing? The point is, God may be singing in heaven, but you aren't hearing it. So you cannot evaluate what it sounds like in any way, nor compare it to any earthly song.

Mark_Smith's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Wrong. Singing a song without knowing anything musically about what the notes are is still music.

Uhhh... ok. If you sang someone else's lyrics (as in words that did not have music set to them originally) it is music, but you made the music. Your music does not reflect anything the writer may or may not have meant.

Consider this. Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner as a poem. Later it was set to music. Does the music mean Key was a musician?

Or, My Country Tis of Thee is the same notes as God Save the King/Queen. When an American sings My Country Tis of Thee is he really honoring the Queen of England?

RajeshG's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

It is metaphor. Have you heard God singing? The point is, God may be singing in heaven, but you aren't hearing it. So you cannot evaluate what it sounds like in any way, nor compare it to any earthly song.

Whether I have heard God singing or not is irrelevant to the question of this post. I do not have to evaluate what it sounds like in any way to believe that it is a song. There also is no necessity of comparing it to any earthly song to believe that it is a song.

RajeshG's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Wrong. Singing a song without knowing anything musically about what the notes are is still music.

 

 

Uhhh... ok. If you sang someone else's lyrics (as in words that did not have music set to them originally) it is music, but you made the music. Your music does not reflect anything the writer may or may not have meant.

Consider this. Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner as a poem. Later it was set to music. Does the music mean Key was a musician?

Or, My Country Tis of Thee is the same notes as God Save the King/Queen. When an American sings My Country Tis of Thee is he really honoring the Queen of England?

When a person composes his own song by singing various combinations of words with various pitches to see what sounds good to him but does not know anything about what the notes are musically, he is still producing music when he does so.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Where do you get the notion that "there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song"?

Because the Bible uses a lot of metaphors for salvation and there is often a fuzzy line between what is metaphor and what is reality. For example, Ezekiel 36:26 says "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you;" Now, the new spirit is definitely reality, since God puts the Holy Spirit into believers of the New Covenant, but we don't get a new physical heart. The "new heart" is more of a metaphor describing salvation. The "new birth" is also a metaphor that describes the reality of our entering into God's family, but it is not a new physical birth. It's either a metaphor with a realistic sense or a reality in a metaphorical sense.

Ron Bean's picture

To help us respond intelligently to your original post, perhaps you could answer this question: What did the music produced by Satan, Jubal, and/or David sound like? Words like Godly, evil, demonic, or heavenly aren't helpful without concrete examples. Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart I know.....the others I don't. 

 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

RajeshG's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

To help us respond intelligently to your original post, perhaps you could answer this question: What did the music produced by Satan, Jubal, and/or David sound like? Words like Godly, evil, demonic, or heavenly aren't helpful without concrete examples. Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart I know.....the others I don't. 

 

Answering your question is not necessary to make a response to my original post. I do not have the information that you want about what it sounded like. Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.

The question is who do you think is the most important musician in human history, but I am not specifying by what criteria such an assessment is to be made. Each person who chooses to respond will do so based on whatever considerations he thinks are valid.

 

Ron Bean's picture

Rajesh said:  Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.

We don't even know for certain whether these three composed music. They may have borrowed music from others.Satan MAY HAVE used God's tunes. Jubal MAY HAVE only invented musical instruments, And, according to the Wiki article you posted, David MAY HAVE borrowed tunes from the Canaanites . We don't know for certain they were musicians unless we have examples of their music.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

RajeshG's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

Rajesh said:  Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.

We don't even know for certain whether these three composed music. They may have borrowed music from others.Satan MAY HAVE used God's tunes. Jubal MAY HAVE only invented musical instruments, And, according to the Wiki article you posted, David MAY HAVE borrowed tunes from the Canaanites . We don't know for certain they were musicians unless we have examples of their music.

Ok, so I have a simple solution for you. Choose one of the other choices or do not participate in this poll and do not discuss it any further. Problem solved.

Those who do not think that it is necessary to know what it sounded like can choose from one of those three or from any of the other choices, however they wish to.

 

RajeshG's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

Rajesh said:  Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.

We don't even know for certain whether these three composed music. They may have borrowed music from others.Satan MAY HAVE used God's tunes. Jubal MAY HAVE only invented musical instruments, And, according to the Wiki article you posted, David MAY HAVE borrowed tunes from the Canaanites . We don't know for certain they were musicians unless we have examples of their music.

We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23)  and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

Ron Bean's picture

Rajesh said: We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23)  and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

True. Now tell me what it sounded like or have the nerve to simply say that you don't know.

 

Rajesh also responded:

"OK, so I have a simple solution for you. Choose one of the other choices or do not participate in this poll and do not discuss it any further. Problem solved."

Those who do not think that it is necessary to know what it sounded like can choose from one of those three or from any of the other choices, however they wish to.

 

[/quote]

If the following hurts your feelings.......get a thicker skin! Nearly 50 years ago I asked honest and sincere questions of Frank Garlock and his followers regarding their claims about music. When they couldn't or wouldn't answer questions, they would either accuse me of being a rebel or tell me to go somewhere else. Something you do with great regularity. This tells me that you are either not confident enough in your position to defend it or you're just a lousy teacher, which may explain why no institution of higher learning has seen fit to employ you and your PHD as a full-time faculty member. It may also explain why your blog has so few comments from the spectators. There was a time when I thought that the mission of Frank Garlock and company to make people fearful of imaginary enemies that they would never positively indentify  (that demon influenced CCM whose existence you imply) would fade, but you have picked up the banner. I'll see you in heaven. Look for me over in the place where they're singing Getty and Kauflin hymns. SMILE

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Kevin Miller's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

Rajesh said: We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23)  and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

True. Now tell me what it sounded like or have the nerve to simply say that you don't know.

Rajesh already wrote "I do not have the information that you want about what it sounded like."

Ron, do you deny the fact that the Bible describes David as playing musical instruments? Do you really have to know what tunes he was playing to believe that the Bible says he played musical instruments? Are you insisting that he couldn't have been a musician unless we know the specific sounds of his tunes? That doesn't seem logical.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Where do you get the notion that "there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song"?

 

Because the Bible uses a lot of metaphors for salvation and there is often a fuzzy line between what is metaphor and what is reality. For example, Ezekiel 36:26 says "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you;" Now, the new spirit is definitely reality, since God puts the Holy Spirit into believers of the New Covenant, but we don't get a new physical heart. The "new heart" is more of a metaphor describing salvation. The "new birth" is also a metaphor that describes the reality of our entering into God's family, but it is not a new physical birth. It's either a metaphor with a realistic sense or a reality in a metaphorical sense.

The new spirit and the new heart that God creates in a human being at salvation are not metaphors; they speak of actual metaphysical/spiritual realities that God creates in the inner man. The Bible never teaches that the heart of man resides in his physical heart so saying that we do not get a new physical heart does not mean God does not create a new heart within a person at salvation.

As for the new birth, it is true that it is not a new physical birth, but that does not mean that it is not an actual birth (cf. 1 John 3:9 and many other passages).

Ron Bean's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Ron Bean wrote:

 

Rajesh said: We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23)  and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

True. Now tell me what it sounded like or have the nerve to simply say that you don't know.

 

Rajesh already wrote "I do not have the information that you want about what it sounded like."

 

Ron, do you deny the fact that the Bible describes David as playing musical instruments? Do you really have to know what tunes he was playing to believe that the Bible says he played musical instruments? Are you insisting that he couldn't have been a musician unless we know the specific sounds of his tunes? That doesn't seem logical.

No, I'm not denying that David played musical instruments. I am insisting that to make any personal conclusions about the value of his musicianship we would need to know what it sounded like. 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

The new spirit and the new heart that God creates in a human being at salvation are not metaphors; they speak of actual metaphysical/spiritual realities that God creates in the inner man.

But Rajesh, that is WHAT a metaphor is. It is a picture that speaks of something. When God speaks of turning the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, God is using the picture of stone to represent the hardness of heart that an individual starts out with spiritually. The old heart isn't actually stone. That's just a metaphor. The new heart of flesh is a metaphor for the new spiritual reality.

Kevin Miller's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

No, I'm not denying that David played musical instruments. I am insisting that to make any personal conclusions about the value of his musicianship we would need to know what it sounded like. 

So your point is mainly about the word "important" in the original question. Correct? Do you believe that the only "important" musicians are the ones who have had valued musicianship? Couldn't importance also be gauged by one's leadership within a musical sphere even if we haven't personally heard the music performed by that leader? The fact that Jubal is the "father' of certain music players would seem to indicate a level of importance to Jubal within that sphere, though I wouldn't consider him to be the most important musician in history.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

The new spirit and the new heart that God creates in a human being at salvation are not metaphors; they speak of actual metaphysical/spiritual realities that God creates in the inner man.

 

But Rajesh, that is WHAT a metaphor is. It is a picture that speaks of something. When God speaks of turning the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, God is using the picture of stone to represent the hardness of heart that an individual starts out with spiritually. The old heart isn't actually stone. That's just a metaphor. The new heart of flesh is a metaphor for the new spiritual reality.

There is no place in the Bible that I know of where "the new song" is a picture of salvation.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

There is no place in the Bible that I know of where "the new song" is a picture of salvation.

Well, I'm not going to argue the "picture" point too strongly since I was the one who brought up the "new song" in reference to God being the greatest musician. I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn't give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The "new song" speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn't give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The "new song" speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.


 

You are making a claim that the "new song" speaks of the new attitude, etc., but you are not showing where the Bible teaches what you are claiming here about this new attitude and what it is.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn't give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The "new song" speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.

 

 

 

You are making a claim that the "new song" speaks of the new attitude, etc., but you are not showing where the Bible teaches what you are claiming here about this new attitude and what it is.

Are you saying the Bible teaches that the "new song" is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune that God gives to each believer?

I think the parallelism of Psalm 96:1-2 makes quite a clear connection between the new song and an attitude of praise to God. "Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth. Sing to the Lord, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day."

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn't give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The "new song" speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.

 

 

 

You are making a claim that the "new song" speaks of the new attitude, etc., but you are not showing where the Bible teaches what you are claiming here about this new attitude and what it is.

 

Are you saying the Bible teaches that the "new song" is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune that God gives to each believer?

 

I think the parallelism of Psalm 96:1-2 makes quite a clear connection between the new song and an attitude of praise to God. "Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth. Sing to the Lord, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day."

I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

 

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

To clarify, I would say the following: I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about merely having an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

In other words, these are commands to actually engage in these actions.

These comments are especially in response to your earlier comment: 

"This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing."

My position is that Ps. 96:1-2 does not teach that actual singing is merely something that "can certainly result" from a new attitude. God commands that actual singing be done.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

To clarify, I would say the following: I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about merely having an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

In other words, these are commands to actually engage in these actions.

I never denied that they are commands. I'm simply saying that God's expectation is that we do not merely keep God's commands to praise Him, but we do so with a proper attitude of praise.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

These comments are especially in response to your earlier comment: 

"This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing."

My position is that Ps. 96:1-2 does not teach that actual singing is merely something that "can certainly result" from a new attitude. God commands that actual singing be done.

But this is where sanctification comes in. A new believer doesn't always know all of the things that God commands him to do, but with the "new song" foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer, a person can keep learn God's commands step by step through life and joyfully obey them with praise.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

To clarify, I would say the following: I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about merely having an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

In other words, these are commands to actually engage in these actions.

 

I never denied that they are commands. I'm simply saying that God's expectation is that we do not merely keep God's commands to praise Him, but we do so with a proper attitude of praise.

I do not believe that in Ps. 96:1-2, "new song" equals or means a "new attitude" of praise. Although we are to worship God with a proper attitude, I do not believe that truth is what "new song" denotes.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

These comments are especially in response to your earlier comment: 

"This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing."

My position is that Ps. 96:1-2 does not teach that actual singing is merely something that "can certainly result" from a new attitude. God commands that actual singing be done.

 

But this is where sanctification comes in. A new believer doesn't always know all of the things that God commands him to do, but with the "new song" foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer, a person can keep learn God's commands step by step through life and joyfully obey them with praise.


 

Where does the Bible teach this idea of "the new song foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer"?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

I do not believe that in Ps. 96:1-2, "new song" equals or means a "new attitude" of praise. Although we are to worship God with a proper attitude, I do not believe that truth is what "new song" denotes.

I said that Ps 96 shows a "clear connection," not an absolute equality of terms. That's why I spoke of it as a metaphor. A metaphor is more of an analogy rather than an absolute equality.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Where does the Bible teach this idea of "the new song foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer"?

Wow. Have you not looked at any of the verses in Psalms that mention the "new song"? The specific connection to praise is striking.

Psalm 40:3 He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God; 

Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song to You, O God; Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

Then there's Isaiah 42:10 Sing to the LORD a new song, Sing His praise from the end of the earth! 

 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Where does the Bible teach this idea of "the new song foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer"?

 

Wow. Have you not looked at any of the verses in Psalms that mention the "new song"? The specific connection to praise is striking.

 

Psalm 40:3 He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God; 

Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song to You, O God; Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

Then there's Isaiah 42:10 Sing to the LORD a new song, Sing His praise from the end of the earth! 

Of course, I have looked at all of these passages many times. I have been probing to determine exactly how you were coming up with your views. Many people mistakenly believe that Psalm 40:1-3 is a salvation testimony. The "new song" in Ps. 40 is not a record of how God put a "new attitude" of praise into the heart of someone who went from being an unbeliever to being a believer.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Of course, I have looked at all of these passages many times. I have been probing to determine exactly how you were coming up with your views. Many people mistakenly believe that Psalm 40:1-3 is a salvation testimony. The "new song" in Ps. 40 is not a record of how God put a "new attitude" of praise into the heart of someone who went from being an unbeliever to being a believer.

Well, unbelievers certainly wouldn't be having the attitude of praise, now would they? The connection between the "new song" and praise would only apply to believers.

I guess I need to ask you this question again which you haven't specifically answered yet - "Are you saying the Bible teaches that the 'new song' is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune that God gives to each believer?" If not, then there is a metaphorical aspect to it. Even though God commands singing, He is not giving each person a specific new song.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Of course, I have looked at all of these passages many times. I have been probing to determine exactly how you were coming up with your views. Many people mistakenly believe that Psalm 40:1-3 is a salvation testimony. The "new song" in Ps. 40 is not a record of how God put a "new attitude" of praise into the heart of someone who went from being an unbeliever to being a believer.

 

Well, unbelievers certainly wouldn't be having the attitude of praise, now would they? The connection between the "new song" and praise would only apply to believers.

I guess I need to ask you this question again which you haven't specifically answered yet - "Are you saying the Bible teaches that the 'new song' is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune that God gives to each believer?" If not, then there is a metaphorical aspect to it. Even though God commands singing, He is not giving each person a specific new song.

You may have misunderstood my statement. Many misread Psalm 40:1-3 as a testimony of how someone who got saved was given a new song in his heart as a result of his salvation. Psalm 40:1-3 is not a testimony of how an unbeliever was saved and thereby given a new song in his heart at the time that he was saved; it is the testimony of a believer (David) who was delivered from a historical circumstance . . .

It's instructive to me how a thread that was not intended to elicit discussion has turned into yet another intense discussion and into an occasion for more personal attacks (not by you) against me. A full examination of what the Bible teaches about the "new song" is not something that I have recently studied. It is also something at this time that I am not interested in doing or in spending the time to do the intensive study that I would need to do to keep answering numerous specific questions that you perhaps likely will keep on asking about the subject, of which many things the Bible may not reveal the specific answers to such questions.

This post was simply intended to see how people would answer the original poll question. Thanks for answering that question. I am going to discontinue engaging in discussion in this thread on other subjects.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You may have misunderstood my statement. Many misread Psalm 40:1-3 as a testimony of how someone who got saved was given a new song in his heart as a result of his salvation. Psalm 40:1-3 is not a testimony of how an unbeliever was saved and thereby given a new song in his heart at the time that he was saved; it is the testimony of a believer (David) who was delivered from a historical circumstance . . .

I'm trying not to misunderstand you. Are you saying that there was an actual historical circumstance in which David was in an actual pit, stuck in the actual mud, and God pulled him out and set his feet upon an actual rock and then God gave David an actual song to sing with lyrics and a tune?

Quote:
It's instructive to me how a thread that was not intended to elicit discussion has turned into yet another intense discussion and into an occasion for more personal attacks (not by you) against me. A full examination of what the Bible teaches about the "new song" is not something that I have recently studied. It is also something at this time that I am not interested in doing or in spending the time to do the intensive study that I would need to do to keep answering numerous specific questions that you perhaps likely will keep on asking about the subject, of which many things the Bible may not reveal the specific answers to such questions.

This post was simply intended to see how people would answer the original poll question. Thanks for answering that question. I am going to discontinue engaging in discussion in this thread on other subjects.

It's instructive to me how you run from conversations when specific questions are asked about your position. Is it really that hard to answer whether you think the "new song" is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune? Is it really going to take you "intensive study" to determine that?

You're doing the same thing here that you've done on other threads. You make declarative statements, and then refuse to answer questions about those statements by claiming "That's not the subject of the thread" or "I haven't studied that recently" or "the Bible doesn't reveal the specific answer." Yet you're still willing to make the declarative assertions. It's like you're playing some sort of game, trying to proclaim your viewpoint as the truth without being willing to discuss the foundations of your view.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

You may have misunderstood my statement. Many misread Psalm 40:1-3 as a testimony of how someone who got saved was given a new song in his heart as a result of his salvation. Psalm 40:1-3 is not a testimony of how an unbeliever was saved and thereby given a new song in his heart at the time that he was saved; it is the testimony of a believer (David) who was delivered from a historical circumstance . . .

I'm trying not to misunderstand you. Are you saying that there was an actual historical circumstance in which David was in an actual pit, stuck in the actual mud, and God pulled him out and set his feet upon an actual rock and then God gave David an actual song to sing with lyrics and a tune?

 

 

Quote:
It's instructive to me how a thread that was not intended to elicit discussion has turned into yet another intense discussion and into an occasion for more personal attacks (not by you) against me. A full examination of what the Bible teaches about the "new song" is not something that I have recently studied. It is also something at this time that I am not interested in doing or in spending the time to do the intensive study that I would need to do to keep answering numerous specific questions that you perhaps likely will keep on asking about the subject, of which many things the Bible may not reveal the specific answers to such questions.

 

This post was simply intended to see how people would answer the original poll question. Thanks for answering that question. I am going to discontinue engaging in discussion in this thread on other subjects.

 

It's instructive to me how you run from conversations when specific questions are asked about your position. Is it really that hard to answer whether you think the "new song" is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune? Is it really going to take you "intensive study" to determine that?

 

You're doing the same thing here that you've done on other threads. You make declarative statements, and then refuse to answer questions about those statements by claiming "That's not the subject of the thread" or "I haven't studied that recently" or "the Bible doesn't reveal the specific answer." Yet you're still willing to make the declarative assertions. It's like you're playing some sort of game, trying to proclaim your viewpoint as the truth without being willing to discuss the foundations of your view.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that when the Bible does not give specifics, making demands for specific answers is illegitimate because it seeks specifics that the Bible does not provide? If you believe that Psalm 40 is not a record of a historical situation in David's life, you are welcome to prove your view. Otherwise, you can choose to continue to hold whatever your present views may be, and I will hold mine.

I am not going to discuss this subject any further.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Is it really that hard for you to understand that when the Bible does not give specifics, making demands for specific answers is illegitimate because it seeks specifics that the Bible does not provide? If you believe that Psalm 40 is not a record of a historical situation in David's life, you are welcome to prove your view. Otherwise, you can choose to continue to hold whatever your present views may be, and I will hold mine.

I am not going to discuss this subject any further.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that making a declarative assertion about the existence of some "historical circumstance" is illegitimate if there are no specifics in the passage to support it. If there was some information in the passage to support your view, I'm sure you'd show me, but you admit you're unable to do so.

I'm not even sure why you jumped into the conversation between Mark Smith and myself about the "new song" if you haven't studied it enough to answer questions about what you think it means.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Is it really that hard for you to understand that when the Bible does not give specifics, making demands for specific answers is illegitimate because it seeks specifics that the Bible does not provide? If you believe that Psalm 40 is not a record of a historical situation in David's life, you are welcome to prove your view. Otherwise, you can choose to continue to hold whatever your present views may be, and I will hold mine.

I am not going to discuss this subject any further.

 

Is it really that hard for you to understand that making a declarative assertion about the existence of some "historical circumstance" is illegitimate if there are no specifics in the passage to support it. If there was some information in the passage to support your view, I'm sure you'd show me, but you admit you're unable to do so.

You are welcome to prove that "new song" in the passage is just figurative language and does not refer to an actual song that God gave David. Since you cannot do so, you admit that you are unable to do so.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

Is it really that hard for you to understand that making a declarative assertion about the existence of some "historical circumstance" is illegitimate if there are no specifics in the passage to support it. If there was some information in the passage to support your view, I'm sure you'd show me, but you admit you're unable to do so.

 

You are welcome to prove that "new song" in the passage is just figurative language and does not refer to an actual song that God gave David. Since you cannot do so, you admit that you are unable to do so.

I never said it is "just" figurative. I was the one who brought it up first as a real thing, so i don't know why you are arguing so strongly against my position. I even said earlier thar there is a fuzzy line between metaphor and reality. I believe it can be both, a real thing that also has a figurative connection. You are the one who is arguing quite adamantly that there is no figurative element to it, and that doesn't make sense considering the other times that "new song" is used in the Bible.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

Is it really that hard for you to understand that making a declarative assertion about the existence of some "historical circumstance" is illegitimate if there are no specifics in the passage to support it. If there was some information in the passage to support your view, I'm sure you'd show me, but you admit you're unable to do so.

 

You are welcome to prove that "new song" in the passage is just figurative language and does not refer to an actual song that God gave David. Since you cannot do so, you admit that you are unable to do so.

 

I never said it is "just" figurative. I was the one who brought it up first as a real thing, so i don't know why you are arguing so strongly against my position. I even said earlier thar there is a fuzzy line between metaphor and reality. I believe it can be both, a real thing that also has a figurative connection. You are the one who is arguing quite adamantly that there is no figurative element to it, and that doesn't make sense considering the other times that "new song" is used in the Bible.

I do not find any evidence that "new song" is a figure of speech in any passage. You have expressed your disagreement. If others are interested in continuing to discuss this subject with you, that's their choice. I am not interested in any further discussion. 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

I never said it is "just" figurative. I was the one who brought it up first as a real thing, so i don't know why you are arguing so strongly against my position. I even said earlier thar there is a fuzzy line between metaphor and reality. I believe it can be both, a real thing that also has a figurative connection. You are the one who is arguing quite adamantly that there is no figurative element to it, and that doesn't make sense considering the other times that "new song" is used in the Bible.

 

I do not find any evidence that "new song" is a figure of speech in any passage. You have expressed your disagreement. If others are interested in continuing to discuss this subject with you, that's their choice. I am not interested in any further discussion. 

Then I'm going to assume you think the "new song" is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune. I'd be curious as to whether you think Isaiah is commanding people to sing this same set of lyrics and same tune that was given to David, or whether you think each person's lyrics and tune are entirely different, but I know you no longer wish to respond (even though you said that earlier and kept responding anyway).