Hip hop church

I guess now we know where the Charlie Daniels Band got that song!

Straight out of some 'hip-hop' church. :rolleyes:


BTW, seriously, Satan was, as Lucifer, the heavenly Choir director, prior to his pride and fall.

Ed

 

I believe NASB actually renders the word as "every", not as "ever".

Signed, Language Cop

 

Jesus did not use a version? Uh, have you read the various gospel accounts? Here's some, for size. It's from Luke 4.

He referenced three diferent Scripture verses, (Deut. 8:3; 6:13; 6:16) in His dialogue with the Devil (Satan), at the temptation, by noting that they were written down, and read from Isaiah, in the synagogue (Isa. 61:1-2a). And I am fairly sure that the Nazareth synagogue did not have the autographs of Isaiah, but a copy or version, whether in Hebrew or the LXX, and as it is not the exact same text the Lord read from that is found in Isaiah 61:1-2a, in the version I use, I assume it was itself a version. And the three verses the Lord quoted to Satan, are not identical, either, to what is found in my Bible, and I'm fairly sure the KJV, as well show some differences in what Jesus quoted as 'written' and what appears in the OT where it is written.

I do not see that Jesus here said, "I am the Word, Satan, so here it is, on MY authority!"

Rather He said, "It is written!"

Ed

 

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...

When Jesus said, 'It is written...', He was just affirming that which He had told the prophets to write down.

 

And the Word He spoke was not identical to the KJV, which should tell you that the KJV is not the same thing as the Word. ;)

 

FTR, there was no such thing as a viol, violin, viola, cello, or 'bass' when the OT was written. There were such things as lutes, lyres, and harps, however.

Ed

 

And the Word He spoke was not identical to the NIV, the NASB, the HCSB, the ERV, the ESV, etc....

 

CCK, what exactly is your point? If Jesus did not use any of the modern versions, KJV included, what is the problem?

 

There were instruments that were forerunners of the violin from before Christ. They resembled the violin somewhat.

 

Uh, for those of us not in on the lingo, what exactly is "RW"? :confused:

Real Water?? Red Wine?? Railing Women?? Why not RM for "railing men?"

Ed

 

I have no problem, FP. It is those who continue to try to justify the lust of the eyes, flesh and heart who have the problem.

It is those who insist that God is pleased with any kind of music as long as it has Christian lyrics that have the problem.

 

RW is in reference to Rick Warren

 

No, it is an acknowledgement of what I already said … that good music can be used wrongly.

Which wasn’t the point. The point is about the type of music you hear there.

Tthat’s a misuse of the line about the pure. The fact that you don’t see it says more about your sight, it seems to me.

That is morality. I can’t help but think you don’t even understand what the issues are here. Morality means that music has meaning. It is not morally neutral.

 

I live in a middle size town and city that used to be called the Queen city.It is now a town were anything goes and a murder is committed almost every other month.There are over 78 churches and we are over loaded with drugs and other crimes.Our school system was rated as one of the highest and now is at the bottom of the list.Just what we need a "hip hop church"

 

Immoral music is music that means something immoral. The meaning is in the music itself, the way it is constructed. Read Copland or Bernstein, or a host of others.

They generally do, but that's not really the issue.

 

They aren't. I daresay that no nightclub is using symphony orchestras as their music of choice. I think you know that. Remember, the issue is not the tune. It is the style of music.

 

And with good reason. Chords and melodies are not moral. It is the construction of the music, in the relationship of melody, harmony, and rhythm.

I think much of this discussion is going astray by this kind of mistake.

 

Yes, we should know what words we are using.

 

Are they? How do you konw? And is God pleased with it?

Perhaps you are the one full of righteous indignation. You seem to be attacking those who disagree personally. Why? Why can't someone disagree with you without you attacking them?

There is something wordly about it. The question is, Is that bad? I can't speak for their love for the Lord, but we can certainly speak to their methodology. What does it say about our belief about the power of hte gospel when we feel it necessary to couch it in a medium that is so antiChristian? I think form matters.

I think it is sad when people can't disagree about ideas without attacking people like you have. Callign those with concerns "full of righteous indignation" should have never been said. If you like, contribute some ideas. Don't attack people. Realize that some of us are concerned about God's commands and God's holiness.

 

:laugh: Okay CCK whatever you say, although you will be hard pressed to prove that Christian rap and/or hip hop seeks to justify lust of the flesh, eyes, and heart.