What does Genesis 4:21 teach us about music?

Having finished reading the Bible yesterday, I began reading it again today and read Genesis 1-4. Genesis 4:21 is the earliest recorded instance of human musical activity on the earth:

Genesis 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

What truths does this verse teach us about music?

7775 reads
RajeshG's picture

God promised that there would be enmity between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed and that ultimately the woman's seed would crush the head of the serpent's seed (Gen. 3:15).

Cain was of the devil (1 John 3:12), and the devil influenced/energized him to kill Abel (cf. John 8:44, where the devil is said to be a murderer from the beginning). Cain is the first human being who was so influenced of the devil to attack the woman's seed. Cain was the first human in the line of the serpent's seed.

Lamech, a descendant of Cain, was a polygamist (Gen. 4:19) and a double murderer who boasted of his murders (Gen. 4:23-24). As such, he represents an intensifying of the wickedness of Cain.

Lamech was the father of Jubal; Jubal thus was born in the household of a very wicked man who was in the line of the serpent's seed. Based on what we know of Cain and Lamech, we do not have any reason to think that Jubal would have been significantly different from them.

Jay's picture

Based on what we know of Cain and Lamech, we do not have any reason to think that Jubal would have been significantly different from them.

There's....an awful lot of personal speculation here.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

@Ramesh...

Just like Manasseh was evil, Amon was evil, and Josiah...  Hmmm.

You could claim that if we had no information about Josiah  "we would have no reason to think he was much different from" Manasseh and Amon. But this is not sound reasoning.

See argument from silence, above.

Without information, it's true we have no reason to think A. We also have no reason to think anything else.

 

RajeshG's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

@Ramesh...

Just like Manasseh was evil, Amon was evil, and Josiah...  Hmmm.

You could claim that if we had no information about Josiah  "we would have no reason to think he was much different from" Manasseh and Amon. But this is not sound reasoning.

See argument from silence, above.

Without information, it's true we have no reason to think A. We also have no reason to think anything else.

Aaron, please note that my name is Rajesh, not Ramesh.

There are major difference that you are not accounting for: Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and established his own city and line, etc. We have no indication that there was any true knowledge of God among any of his descendants. We also have explicit biblical statement that "he was of the devil."

Josiah, on the other hand, was born and grew up among a people where there were those who were still godly and had knowledge of the true God even though his father was a wicked man. Moreover, his grandfather, Manasseh, truly repented late in his life and sought God fervently.

We have no such information about any of the forefathers of Jubal: from Cain to his grandfather Methusael to his father Lamech.

As wicked as they were, we never have the Bible telling us that Manasseh and Amon were of the devil.

These are key differences that you are not accounting for in the comparison that you are making.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Cain was of the devil (1 John 3:12), and the devil influenced/energized him to kill Abel (cf. John 8:44, where the devil is said to be a murderer from the beginning). Cain is the first human being who was so influenced of the devil to attack the woman's seed. Cain was the first human in the line of the serpent's seed.

I was looking at I John 3. Verse 8 tells us, "He that committeth sin is of the devil." Since Adam and Eve committed the first sin, wouldn't they be the first people who were "of the devil"?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Rajesh (sorry about my previous typo... it's especially frequent when I'm using my phone!)

You're making way too much of "of the devil." Some additional info to factor in...

  • We're all of the devil until we're transferred to the Lordship of Jesus Christ  Col. 1:13, 2 Cor. 4.4
  • Many are more closely linked with the Evil One's agenda than others: John 8:44
  • It does not follow that descendants of someone who is "of the devil" in some special sense must also be "of the devil" in that sense. 

In my example above, Josiah is the grandson of Manasseh who may well have practiced some form of child sacrifice (there's some disagreement as to what that very brief statement about him means).

But this is, once again, mostly a matter of sound reasoning, not theology. People/things do not necessarily have characteristic X because they came from someone/some group with characteristic X. Article on genetic fallacy is somewhat helpful.

pvawter's picture

The issue here, it seems to me, is a hermeneutic that reads later revelation back into earlier revelation. While it is true that sometimes additional revelation gives us greater insight into an earlier passage, it is not true that we should read a late NT phrase back into the text of Genesis 4-5 as some form of a decoder key. What exactly does John saying that Cain is "of the devil" tell us about him that Genesis 4 does not? Moses is pretty clear on the nature and source of Cain's wickedness. And, as has already been pointed out, whatever is said of Cain is not necessarily applied to Jubal.

RajeshG's picture

pvawter wrote:

The issue here, it seems to me, is a hermeneutic that reads later revelation back into earlier revelation. While it is true that sometimes additional revelation gives us greater insight into an earlier passage, it is not true that we should read a late NT phrase back into the text of Genesis 4-5 as some form of a decoder key. What exactly does John saying that Cain is "of the devil" tell us about him that Genesis 4 does not? Moses is pretty clear on the nature and source of Cain's wickedness. And, as has already been pointed out, whatever is said of Cain is not necessarily applied to Jubal.

Really? If you did not have 1 John 3:12, you would not be able to assert definitively that demonic influence/energizing played a role in Cain's murdering Abel. Moses does not provide any indication of supernatural influence on Cain that influenced him for evil.

pvawter's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Really? If you did not have 1 John 3:12, you would not be able to assert definitively that demonic influence/energizing played a role in Cain's murdering Abel. Moses does not provide any indication of supernatural influence on Cain that influenced him for evil.

Of course you can. Genesis 4 cannot be separated from Genesis 3 both because it follows immediately in context and because Moses uses linguistic and thematic keys to tie the passages together.

Gen. 3:15 includes the promise of that woman's seed crushing the serpent's head, and Eve refers to it when she names Cain. Clearly she expected her firstborn to conquer the serpent, setting the stage for a great spiritual battle.

Then in 4:7 Yahweh pointed Cain back to the consequences of the fall when he used the same words for desire and rule that he used in the curse of his mother in 3:17. 

These are not obscure references but clear connections that Moses intended his readers to get. They demonstrate that Cain's murder of Abel was more than a mere fit of rage but the next round in Satan's war to dethrone God. Not only do we not need John to tell us that Satan was involved, we have every reason to believe that John was picking up on the cues Moses left when he said Cain was of the devil.

RajeshG's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Rajesh (sorry about my previous typo... it's especially frequent when I'm using my phone!)

You're making way too much of "of the devil." Some additional info to factor in...

  • We're all of the devil until we're transferred to the Lordship of Jesus Christ  Col. 1:13, 2 Cor. 4.4
  • Many are more closely linked with the Evil One's agenda than others: John 8:44
  • It does not follow that descendants of someone who is "of the devil" in some special sense must also be "of the devil" in that sense. 

In my example above, Josiah is the grandson of Manasseh who may well have practiced some form of child sacrifice (there's some disagreement as to what that very brief statement about him means).

But this is, once again, mostly a matter of sound reasoning, not theology. People/things do not necessarily have characteristic X because they came from someone/some group with characteristic X. Article on genetic fallacy is somewhat helpful.

We are not talking about a characteristic of a group as if it were something internal to that group. We are talking about supernatural evil influence on human beings in the line of a man who blatantly rejected personal divine ministry to him and was specifically cursed by God (Gen. 4:11).

As I pointed out earlier, Josiah had people around him who knew the true God and influenced him to know and seek the true God. We do not have any evidence that any of the people in Cain's line ever knew the true God.

Moreover, flowing out of Genesis 3 and the God-ordained conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, we have two distinct lines of people in Genesis 4 and 5. The evil line of Cain, for whom we have no evidence that any of them escaped demonic influence on them. The godly line of Seth in which we know with certainty that there were those who knew the true God (Enoch, Noah).

I believe that arguing based on considerations concerning the "genetic fallacy" that we have to be agnostic about the spiritual state of everyone in Cain's line other than Cain and Lamech is faulty reasoning when it comes to matters of supernatural influences on human beings. Unless we have explicit evidence of divine deliverance being provided to them, we are to hold that they, like Cain, were evil people who were in bondage to the evil one.
 

RajeshG's picture

pvawter wrote:

Of course you can. Genesis 4 cannot be separated from Genesis 3 both because it follows immediately in context and because Moses uses linguistic and thematic keys to tie the passages together.

Gen. 3:15 includes the promise of that woman's seed crushing the serpent's head, and Eve refers to it when she names Cain. Clearly she expected her firstborn to conquer the serpent, setting the stage for a great spiritual battle.

Then in 4:7 Yahweh pointed Cain back to the consequences of the fall when he used the same words for desire and rule that he used in the curse of his mother in 3:17. 

These are not obscure references but clear connections that Moses intended his readers to get. They demonstrate that Cain's murder of Abel was more than a mere fit of rage but the next round in Satan's war to dethrone God. Not only do we not need John to tell us that Satan was involved, we have every reason to believe that John was picking up on the cues Moses left when he said Cain was of the devil.

"Curse on his mother in 3:17"? I do not see anything in 3:17 that says that Eve was cursed. God said that the ground was cursed, not Eve. Earlier, He said that the serpent was cursed, but He never says explicitly that either Adam or Eve were cursed. 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

"Curse on his mother in 3:17"? I do not see anything in 3:17 that says that Eve was cursed. God said that the ground was cursed, not Eve. Earlier, He said that the serpent was cursed, but He never says explicitly that either Adam or Eve were cursed. 

So is it just the semantic use of the word "cursed" that you disagree with from pvawter's statement? Would it be more appropriate to say "punished" instead of "cursed"?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Unless we have explicit evidence of divine deliverance being provided to them, we are to hold that they, like Cain, were evil people who were in bondage to the evil one.
 

Doesn't this apply equally to both lines? After all, at the time of Noah, there was only one family that was provided deliverance. Everyone else, from both lines, was in rebellion to God, and thus was in bondage to the evil one.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

"Curse on his mother in 3:17"? I do not see anything in 3:17 that says that Eve was cursed. God said that the ground was cursed, not Eve. Earlier, He said that the serpent was cursed, but He never says explicitly that either Adam or Eve were cursed. 

 

So is it just the semantic use of the word "cursed" that you disagree with from pvawter's statement? Would it be more appropriate to say "punished" instead of "cursed"?

The Spirit chose not to use the word "cursed" when speaking of Adam and Eve, but He did use it for the serpent, the ground, and Cain. I think that difference is significant. Adam and Eve were judged by God for what they did; saying that they were punished also seems appropriate to me.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Unless we have explicit evidence of divine deliverance being provided to them, we are to hold that they, like Cain, were evil people who were in bondage to the evil one.

Doesn't this apply equally to both lines? After all, at the time of Noah, there was only one family that was provided deliverance. Everyone else, from both lines, was in rebellion to God, and thus was in bondage to the evil one.

No, I do not think so. Cain's line began with someone who openly rejected God and went out from His presence, but it seems that people in Seth's line had access to the knowledge of the true God all along. In the middle of Seth's line, we find Enoch who walked with God for 300 years! We do not read of anyone in Cain's line who ever knew the true God.

By the time of Noah, however, it is true that Seth's line had apparently also so turned from God that only Noah and his family found grace in the sight of God. Genesis 6 relates that something (interpreters disagree what 6:1-2 signifies) happened at some point that brought great defilement to Seth's line. Based on the information that is available to us, we have reason to think that Cain's line was perverse throughout their history.

pvawter's picture

RajeshG wrote:

The Spirit chose not to use the word "cursed" when speaking of Adam and Eve, but He did use it for the serpent, the ground, and Cain. I think that difference is significant. Adam and Eve were judged by God for what they did; saying that they were punished also seems appropriate to me.

Rajesh, I believe this technique is called "deflection." Whether you call it "judgment" or "punishment" or "the course of sin" is irrelevant to the fact that Moses clearly established the Satanic influence on Cain to which the apostle John refers.

RajeshG's picture

pvawter wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

The Spirit chose not to use the word "cursed" when speaking of Adam and Eve, but He did use it for the serpent, the ground, and Cain. I think that difference is significant. Adam and Eve were judged by God for what they did; saying that they were punished also seems appropriate to me.

 

 

Rajesh, I believe this technique is called "deflection." Whether you call it "judgment" or "punishment" or "the course of sin" is irrelevant to the fact that Moses clearly established the Satanic influence on Cain to which the apostle John refers.

Wrong. There is no "deflection" here. Had we not had 1 John 3:12, many people would be screaming "eisegesis," "speculation," etc. had someone asserted specifically that the devil influenced Cain to murder Abel.

I disagree with your assertion about what Moses "clearly established" and the analysis that you offer to support that he did so. I have never heard anyone else make such a claim about what Moses wrote in Genesis 3-4, etc. It will be interesting to see how many exegetical commentaries, if any, back up your assertion about what Moses "clearly established."

 

Jay's picture

Whether you call it "judgment" or "punishment" or "the course of sin" is irrelevant to the fact that Moses clearly established the Satanic influence on Cain to which the apostle John refers.

Rajesh still haven't definitely proven that Satan's influence on Cain has anything to do with Jubal's music in 4:21.  Furthermore, Jubal is at least six generations away from Cain himself and may not have even known him at all:

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.

So Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech > Jabal and Jubal.  I should also note that we're still a ways off from the Noahic flood in Genesis 6.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

pvawter's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Wrong. There is no "deflection" here. Had we not had 1 John 3:12, many people would be screaming "eisegesis," "speculation," etc. had someone asserted specifically that the devil influenced Cain to murder Abel.

I disagree with your assertion about what Moses "clearly established" and the analysis that you offer to support that he did so. I have never heard anyone else make such a claim about what Moses wrote in Genesis 3-4, etc. It will be interesting to see how many exegetical commentaries, if any, back up your assertion about what Moses "clearly established."

 

So your response is "I've never heard it before" and "we need to see if the commentaries back it up"? That's neither an argument, nor a refutation.

All I did was connect the dots that Moses wrote in the context of Genesis 3-4 without appealing to the NT. Anyone could do that, and that was Moses' intent. We don't need 1 John to tell us what Moses meant. If we did, then there would be no way for anyone to properly understand Genesis until some 1400 years after the fact. John was connecting to what was already there, not adding something new and novel. Again, the issue here is hermeneutics.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

Doesn't this apply equally to both lines? After all, at the time of Noah, there was only one family that was provided deliverance. Everyone else, from both lines, was in rebellion to God, and thus was in bondage to the evil one.

 

 

No, I do not think so. Cain's line began with someone who openly rejected God and went out from His presence, but it seems that people in Seth's line had access to the knowledge of the true God all along. In the middle of Seth's line, we find Enoch who walked with God for 300 years! We do not read of anyone in Cain's line who ever knew the true God.

BOTH Cain's line and Seth's line began with someone who openly disobeyed God and went out from His presence. Adam was the first sinner after all. Isn't it significant that in Seth's line, as recorded in Genesis 5, there is only one person who is specifically described as following God?

Let's back to Jubal. Let's assume that he was 10 times more wicked than Cain. Would knowing how wicked he was tell us anything about music? We have the information that he was the father of those who play certain instruments, but does that information become significant in some way by the knowledge that Jubal was wicked?

 

RajeshG's picture

pvawter wrote:

All I did was connect the dots that Moses wrote in the context of Genesis 3-4 without appealing to the NT. Anyone could do that, and that was Moses' intent. We don't need 1 John to tell us what Moses meant. If we did, then there would be no way for anyone to properly understand Genesis until some 1400 years after the fact. John was connecting to what was already there, not adding something new and novel. Again, the issue here is hermeneutics.

The NT has many instances where it illumines what was revealed in the OT by providing information that no one reading just the OT would have known. If that does not fit in your approach to hermeneutics, your approach to interpreting the Bible is flawed.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

BOTH Cain's line and Seth's line began with someone who openly disobeyed God and went out from His presence. Adam was the first sinner after all. Isn't it significant that in Seth's line, as recorded in Genesis 5, there is only one person who is specifically described as following God?

A key difference between the two lines that you have not accounted for in what you say here is that God redeemed Adam and Eve after they fell. We see Abel, their son, offering righteous worship to God after the Fall.

By contrast, we do not see any repentance on Cain's part, and he rejected God's redemption that was so graciously offered to him. No successor of Cain is spoken of as godly and Lamech was openly and profoundly a wicked man.

Concerning Seth's line, there was not just "one person who is specifically described as following God": Enoch was a superlatively godly man and Noah was a godly man as well.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Concerning Seth's line, there was not just "one person who is specifically described as following God": Enoch was a superlatively godly man and Noah was a godly man as well.

If you look at my post again, you'll see I specifically said, "as recorded in Genesis 5." In that chapter, only one person is specifically described as following God. Chapter six starts the account of Noah's faithfulness, but it does seem significant to me that prior to Noah, only one person from Seth's line is mentioned as following God. In sure most of the others did, but the Spirit chose not to tell us.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Concerning Seth's line, there was not just "one person who is specifically described as following God": Enoch was a superlatively godly man and Noah was a godly man as well.

 

If you look at my post again, you'll see I specifically said, "as recorded in Genesis 5." In that chapter, only one person is specifically described as following God. Chapter six starts the account of Noah's faithfulness, but it does seem significant to me that prior to Noah, only one person from Seth's line is mentioned as following God. In sure most of the others did, but the Spirit chose not to tell us.

I see that now, but I think that your point is not valid for several reasons. First, it is very important to remember that chapter divisions were not inspired by God.

Second, even in chapter 5 itself, there is indication that one other person was a believer/follower of God. Lamech named his son Noah as an expression of his belief in something that was reported to him that the Lord did long before Lamech had ever existed:

 Genesis 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

Lamech expressed his faith that God was going to comfort them through the birth of Noah. The Spirit revealed how and why Lamech named his son Noah to profit us not just concerning who and what Noah would be but also to reveal something about the faith of Noah's father Lamech.

Third, Genesis 4 ends with crucial statements that directly affect how we must interpret both what precedes in Genesis 4 and what follows in all of Genesis 5:

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Eve displays her faith in God by naming her son Seth out of her belief that God had appointed another son for her instead of Abel.

Genesis 4:26 is of premier importance for a right interpretation of both the line of Cain and the line of Seth. Structurally, by the Spirit's placing 4:25-26 where He did, there is basis to say that what 4:26 speaks of did not apply to anyone in Cain's line, who were all spoken of prior to 4:25-26.

Furthermore, 4:26 plainly tells us that beginning at the time of Enos, people were getting saved by calling upon the name of the LORD! With 4:26 as the inspired context of the genealogy in Genesis 5, we have every reason to believe that Seth, Enosh, and the others named in Seth's line were people who called on the name of the Lord!

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Furthermore, 4:26 plainly tells us that beginning at the time of Enos, people were getting saved by calling upon the name of the LORD! With 4:26 as the inspired context of the genealogy in Genesis 5, we have every reason to believe that Seth, Enosh, and the others named in Seth's line were people who called on the name of the Lord!

My main point was that people needed to call upon the name of the Lord for their salvation because of Adam's sin. Both lines were affected by sinfulness. Some people stayed in rebellion to God (Cain's line) and some people saw their need of salvation (likely the ones named in Seth's line, but for some reason the Bible isn't specific about that). Certainly not all of Seth's line were believers or we wouldn't have the judgment of the flood later. Both lines were falling deeper and deeper into sinfulness until the flood, but does the knowledge of man's sinfulness tell us anything about music?

The title of this thread is "What does Genesis 4;21 teach us about music?" I can't see anything specific it teaches other than the plain words of the text, that say Jubal was the father of those who play the lyre and the pipe (according to the ESV, other translations differ on the names of the instruments). Your first post in the thread listed 5 things the verse does NOT teach us, but then your sixth point was "Genesis 4:21 is a record of people singing and playing musical instruments at the same time." Where do you get the idea that the verse is teaching us there was singing?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 Your first post in the thread listed 5 things the verse does NOT teach us, but then your sixth point was "Genesis 4:21 is a record of people singing and playing musical instruments at the same time." Where do you get the idea that the verse is teaching us there was singing?

No, point six was another thing that the verse does not teach. We do not have any explicit information about humans singing prior to the Flood. An assertion that this verse somehow is a record of people both playing instruments and singing is what I am rejecting with this point.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

No, point six was another thing that the verse does not teach. We do not have any explicit information about humans singing prior to the Flood. An assertion that this verse somehow is a record of people both playing instruments and singing is what I am rejecting with this point.

Ooops, my misreading mistake. Since you started point six with the verse reference, my mind must have thought you were making a summary point in conclusion regarding a positive teaching point from the verse. I can't figure out now why I assumed that since you clearly rejected "any of the following."

So ARE there actually any teaching points from the verse other than some historical info? Stating that "the verse does not teach something" is a valid starting point only if the subsequent discussion is about things that the verse does teach.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

So ARE there actually any teaching points from the verse other than some historical info? Stating that "the verse does not teach something" is a valid starting point only if the subsequent discussion is about things that the verse does teach.

Several things have already been mentioned earlier, including the obvious historical nature of the info. Establishing any other significance depends upon the treatment of issues concerning the larger context of the verse at various levels. We have discussed some of those, and I am studying some others. This is an open-ended discussion for those who are interested in continuing to discuss it and may or may not lead to any general agreement about other teaching points.

Dave White's picture

https://apeopleforhisname.org/2015/03/how-genesis-421-directly-applies-t...

We must not fail to note that the first information that the Spirit gives to us about human musical activity directly concerns not their singing but their playing musical instruments. Moreover, the Spirit does not frame His presentation of this revelation in such a way as to highlight God’s working in these people to produce and do what they did.

Instead, the Spirit says to us that Jubal was “the father” of all those who were playing these instruments. By framing this statement in that way, the Spirit is clearly emphasizing that Jubal was either the inventor of these instruments or the one who pioneered playing them in some way or both.

Regardless of which way we understand this statement, it is clearly not presenting God as the One who created the style or styles in which Jubal and the others mentioned here played these instruments. Rather, and in sharp contrast to the surrounding profound emphasis on divine creation, the Spirit is highlighting that fallen humans created these musical styles.

Christian supporters of the use of rock music and CCM rely heavily on an argument based on God as the Creator of all musical styles to support their views. They argue that God is the Creator of all musical styles, and therefore they are all inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship.4

Scripture, however, not only does not say anything about God as the One who created musical styles but also it directly emphasizes the opposite by saying that fallen humans originated the musical styles that are in view in the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments. For this reason, discussions of rock music and CCM that defend Christian use of these types of music by appealing to God’s creating them as inherently good and therefore necessarily fit for divine worship are seriously flawed because they do not account properly for how the Bible in Genesis 4:21 frames its first presentation of human musical activity.

When believers who hold to the propriety of Christian use of rock music and CCM seek to defend their views, they must not use an illegitimate argument from the supposed divine creation of these styles to justify their views. To defend their views properly, they must show from the Bible why they believe that these styles are fit for Christian use in spite of biblical evidence that shows that not even all the animals that God originally created as good were acceptable for offering to Him in worship even by the time of the Flood.

I suggest I was more than warm!

RajeshG's picture

Wrong again. You were not "more than warm!" I had no intent (and still do not have) to discuss any possible applications to rock music in this discussion. 

That article was written more than 4 years ago, and I stand by everything that I said in that article. That article is part of a series of articles that I wrote at that time based on my intensive studies of the subject back then.

My intent, in this discussion, however, was and still is not to steer the discussion in that direction but to explore other directions that are more closely related to the context of the verse at various levels.

Based on my recent rereading through Genesis (and now Exodus), God has redirected my thoughts to study this passage again to see what profit can be derived from it. That is what this discussion is about.

You can choose either to contribute to the discussion edifyingly or to behave in unedifying ways that do not contribute to the discussion. Either way, people like you and tactics like yours are not going to dissuade me in any way from seeking further to have edifying, in-depth discussions on SI on topics concerning the Bible and music.

Pages