Is this the best argument we got for "silence"?

[blituri]

If God had told us to sing a capella in the assembly, you'd almost have a point there. 

Why should he?  A cappella belongs to a late century when the pope in exile got overwhelmed by the castrated opra singers.  They sang "organum" which was a type of harmony.  Prior to that, consistent with all religious singers, the Jews and the Catholics used those skilled at falsetto.  As late as the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia it was unlawful to use an instrument in the Sistine where the only OFFICIAL mass by the pope was held.  Even in some of the major cathedral towns where the organ was imposed it was NOT used as part of the MASS.  And never with congregational sing.

You see, even with David, the clergy had to be MALE but they performed the FEMALE'S PART.

The falsettos (CCM) could not compete with the a cappellas.  When, in the 17th century I believe, castrating the Worship Team became illegal, composers began to write Trouser's Songs for the falsettos who were not ready for prime time.  You remember Faranelli?

Cappella was a SHE-GOAT and a scapegoat after the stopped human sacrifices (they didn't in the proof text for imposing instruments by Atchley etal.). "She" was also a constellation. The "tragedy" was a GOAT SONG.  The Sistine Chapel or capel was named after a general's goat skin CAPER used as a chapel.  The fuzzy word ACappella is a devious word to say that congregational singing is really the same as a Musical Worship Team.

Actually, the COMMAND was to SPEAK that which is written to Teach, admonis and comfort ONE ANOTHER: this would be group reciting rhymically the BIBLICAL TEXT as a way to educate one another. The two present participles (?) SingING and makING melody are in the PLACE of the human heart and directed TO GOD and not an audience.

The word SPEAK as in the LOGOS is defined as the opposite of poetry or music. Therefore, since you cannot SPEAK and SING tunefully at the same time ONE of them has to go.  Music does not TEACH and in fact goes directly to the emotional (feminine) hemisphere while BLOCKING the Left or masculine or rational meaning spiritual hemisphere.

No one was so uninformed as to add SINGING as an ACT until a Syrian bishop imposed it in the year 373 to--GUESS WHAT?--to sing his OWN songs naturally.  That's why I can be dogmatically certain that there is no TUNEFUL content to the SPEAKING THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN.

[zoonance]

http://home.att.net/~jackthompson/page294.htm

              THE SILENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES

Introduction:
   1. Often when men are asked as to why they practice certain
      things in religion, the answer is, "THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY
      NOT TO DO IT."
   2. The practice in question is not specifically prohibited by
      the scriptures.
   3. Therefore, men presume to know that God approves of those
      things which He did not specifically prohibit.
   4. Actually, this reasoning presumes to know the mind of God.
   5. Such reasoning is faulty at its very best.
   6. Let us examine this question: Are we at liberty to do
      anything we desire, just so the Bible does not comdemn it?
      Just so long as the Bible does not say not to do it?

BODY:
  I. THERE ARE TWO ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SILENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES:
     1. Where the Bible is silent, that is, God has said nothing on
        the subject, one is at liberty to act.
     2. Where the Bible is silent, man must act accordingly and be
        silent. In other words, we are at liberty to do only what
        is authorized by the Scriptures.

 II. THESE TWO ATTITUDES HAVE BEEN PRESENT THROUGH THE AGES:
     1. The Reformation: Martin Luther claimed liberty to do
        whatever the Bible said nothing about. He was opposed by
        others who believed men could do only what was authorized.
     2. The Restoration: Denominationalist claimed freedom to do
        what was not forbidden by the scriptures. They were opposed
        by those who contended we must be silent. Thomas Campbell
        in 1809 said, "We speak where the Bible speaks and are
        silent where the Bible is silent."
     3. Divisions over Missionary Societies and Instrumental music.
        Those favoring these contended, "Silence is freedom to act
        if desired." Those opposing said, "Silence does not
        authorize."
     4. During the past 50 years both attitudes have been
        expressed:
        (1) Brethren who content that the silence of the scripture
            gives them liberty and freedom to have things without
            authority, calling them "good works" and arguing, "the
            end justifies the means." Look how much good we are
            doing. These often played to emotions saying, "Rather
            do it wrong than not do it at all." And, they often
            charged those opposing them with "Making laws where God
            has not made them."
        (2) Opposition has come because of the attitude that says:
            "Silence does not authorize;" "Good works" must be
            authorized. The plea has been, "Teach and practice only
            what the Scriptures authorize," giving book, chapter,
            and verse for all that is done.
     5. History will repeat itself if we are not careful. We need
        to remember the past and be forewarned.

III. HOW CAN WE DETERMINE WHAT JEHOVAH WANTS OF US??

     1. 1 Cor. 2:9-12,16. The only way to know what is truth, and
        what pleases God, is to find out what He says on any given
        subject.
     2. What color am I thinking of?  I probably would receive as
        many answers as people I ask.
     3. John 8:31-32 -- "If you continue in my word, then are ye my
            disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth and the
            truth shall make you free."
     4. Rom. 11:33-36 -- the Scriptures tell us that no man can know
            the mind of God, unless He reveals it to man.
     5. Eph. 3:1-5 -- God has revealed His will through the apostles
            and inspired men of the first century.
     6. Matt. 7:21 -- He that doeth the will of my Father....
 
IV. OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES:
     1. Jer. 10:23 -- Not in man that walketh to direct own steps
     2. Prov. 14:12 -- Way which seems right....end ways of death
     3. Leb. 10:1-2 -- Nadab and Abihu. They acted without divine
           authority. "God did not say NOT to use this fire. But,
           told them where to obtain the fire.

  V. NEW TESTAMENT:
     1. Heb. 7:11-14 -- Take Priest from tribe of Levi.
     2. Did not need to say, "Not Benjamin, not Dan, not Simeon, not
          Reuben, etc."
     3. Sufficient for the Lord to speak, man needs to listen.

Conclusion:
     1. The Bible is God's revelation.
     2. What is truth and what pleases God is found in His Word.
     3. And in no other place.
     4. Col. 3:17 -- Do all by authority of Christ, in His name.
     5. I cannot enter Heaven of my own will, bukt only through the
           will of the Father.
     6. May we never say, "Well, the Bible doesn't say not to do it."




*  As if we all view "silence" as a license to do whatever we want to.  What a rediculous assertion.  Note who also uses reasoning that presumes to know the mind of God!

Lively:  I applaud this post... well done whether it was your own work or anothers...  well, after looking again at your post, I seen the link... but glad to see you post it... +1 manna...

I find it embarrasing.  I ask again, is this the best argument we have?  This guy presumes to speak for God as much as he condemns another human being for attempting to do the same.  The fact is the scriptures are silent on some things - leaving only principles behind.  I get the best sense of the mind of God by reading everything He passed down.

Lively:  Well God had said that Levi was to be priests...  yet He spoke nothing about any other tribe giving attendance at the altar... were the other tribes forbidden to give attendance at the altar?   God also said to take fire from off the altar and use it to burn the incense... he spoke nothing about getting fire from any other place, does that mean its ok to get fire from another source to burn incense before him at the temple?  What of the verses that state, whatsoever we do, do all in the name of Jesus Christ... by his authority?  Does such give us freedom to do other things he is not authorizing?   It was said in the OT an eye for an eye...  will you also be taking another's eye?  The OT taught one was to stone to death an adulterer... do you stone adulterers to death today?  Truth is,  you only want to keep that which is pleasing to you... and not what is authorized.

What truth are you spewing?  (assuming you are talking to me again)  What is it that I only want to keep that is pleasing to me... and not what is authorized?  Make a list of these items based on what you know about me.

[Livelysword]

Lively:  Well God had said that Levi was to be priests...  yet He spoke nothing about any other tribe giving attendance at the altar... were the other tribes forbidden to give attendance at the altar?   God also said to take fire from off the altar and use it to burn the incense... he spoke nothing about getting fire from any other place, does that mean its ok to get fire from another source to burn incense before him at the temple?  What of the verses that state, whatsoever we do, do all in the name of Jesus Christ... by his authority?  Does such give us freedom to do other things he is not authorizing?   It was said in the OT an eye for an eye...  will you also be taking another's eye?  The OT taught one was to stone to death an adulterer... do you stone adulterers to death today?  Truth is,  you only want to keep that which is pleasing to you... and not what is authorized.

Using the same reasoning principle, why were descendants of Moab allowed to worship before the Lord (i.e tabernacle or temple) before the 10th generation?

Deut. 23: 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Yet Ruth was a Moabite (Read Ruth 1), grandmother of King David.  Boaz in affect was introducing "strange fire" to his lineage was he not?

Lively:  I went back and read through all of Ruth, and I do not have an answer for you...  but I do have a thought...  she was not just a Moabitess, but married into Israel.... and when her husband died, Naomi decided to come back to Israel, and Ruth made choice to come back with her and worship the God of Israel.  Then she married again to raise seed up that the name of her husband not be lost in Israel... and scripture states God did bless her and give her a child.  So its not that Ruth was a Moabitess apart from marriage...  I think her marriage to an Israelite made a difference...  Just a thought...  but we do know God did accept her... and I do not see the Israelites making a fuse about her not being able to worship either.  Surely they understood the law and understood what which was spoken about the Moabites.  This was actually one of the better questions I have seen on this board...  Hopefully what I have stated here makes some sense to you...

[Barabbas]

Lively:  Well God had said that Levi was to be priests...  yet He spoke nothing about any other tribe giving attendance at the altar... were the other tribes forbidden to give attendance at the altar?   God also said to take fire from off the altar and use it to burn the incense... he spoke nothing about getting fire from any other place, does that mean its ok to get fire from another source to burn incense before him at the temple?  What of the verses that state, whatsoever we do, do all in the name of Jesus Christ... by his authority?  Does such give us freedom to do other things he is not authorizing?   It was said in the OT an eye for an eye...  will you also be taking another's eye?  The OT taught one was to stone to death an adulterer... do you stone adulterers to death today?  Truth is,  you only want to keep that which is pleasing to you... and not what is authorized.

Using the same reasoning principle, why were descendants of Moab allowed to worship before the Lord (i.e tabernacle or temple) before the 10th generation?

Deut. 23: 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Yet Ruth was a Moabite (Read Ruth 1), grandmother of King David.  Boaz in affect was introducing "strange fire" to his lineage was he not?

Lively:  I went back and read through all of Ruth, and I do not have an answer for you...  but I do have a thought...  she was not just a Moabitess, but married into Israel.... and when her husband died, Naomi decided to come back to Israel, and Ruth made choice to come back with her and worship the God of Israel.  Then she married again to raise seed up that the name of her husband not be lost in Israel... and scripture states God did bless her and give her a child.  So its not that Ruth was a Moabitess apart from marriage...  I think her marriage to an Israelite made a difference...  Just a thought...  but we do know God did accept her... and I do not see the Israelites making a fuse about her not being able to worship either.  Surely they understood the law and understood what which was spoken about the Moabites.  This was actually one of the better questions I have seen on this board...  Hopefully what I have stated here makes some sense to you...

Thanks for your response.  Maybe Ruth was a special case   

Check out Ezra 9

1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

Was the whole lineage of David a mistake?

[zoonance]

http://home.att.net/~jackthompson/page294.htm

              THE SILENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES

Introduction:
   1. Often when men are asked as to why they practice certain
      things in religion, the answer is, "THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY
      NOT TO DO IT."
   2. The practice in question is not specifically prohibited by
      the scriptures.
   3. Therefore, men presume to know that God approves of those
      things which He did not specifically prohibit.
   4. Actually, this reasoning presumes to know the mind of God.
   5. Such reasoning is faulty at its very best.
   6. Let us examine this question: Are we at liberty to do
      anything we desire, just so the Bible does not comdemn it?
      Just so long as the Bible does not say not to do it?

BODY:
  I. THERE ARE TWO ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SILENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES:
     1. Where the Bible is silent, that is, God has said nothing on
        the subject, one is at liberty to act.
     2. Where the Bible is silent, man must act accordingly and be
        silent. In other words, we are at liberty to do only what
        is authorized by the Scriptures.

 II. THESE TWO ATTITUDES HAVE BEEN PRESENT THROUGH THE AGES:
     1. The Reformation: Martin Luther claimed liberty to do
        whatever the Bible said nothing about. He was opposed by
        others who believed men could do only what was authorized.
     2. The Restoration: Denominationalist claimed freedom to do
        what was not forbidden by the scriptures. They were opposed
        by those who contended we must be silent. Thomas Campbell
        in 1809 said, "We speak where the Bible speaks and are
        silent where the Bible is silent."
     3. Divisions over Missionary Societies and Instrumental music.
        Those favoring these contended, "Silence is freedom to act
        if desired." Those opposing said, "Silence does not
        authorize."
     4. During the past 50 years both attitudes have been
        expressed:
        (1) Brethren who content that the silence of the scripture
            gives them liberty and freedom to have things without
            authority, calling them "good works" and arguing, "the
            end justifies the means." Look how much good we are
            doing. These often played to emotions saying, "Rather
            do it wrong than not do it at all." And, they often
            charged those opposing them with "Making laws where God
            has not made them."
        (2) Opposition has come because of the attitude that says:
            "Silence does not authorize;" "Good works" must be
            authorized. The plea has been, "Teach and practice only
            what the Scriptures authorize," giving book, chapter,
            and verse for all that is done.
     5. History will repeat itself if we are not careful. We need
        to remember the past and be forewarned.

III. HOW CAN WE DETERMINE WHAT JEHOVAH WANTS OF US??

     1. 1 Cor. 2:9-12,16. The only way to know what is truth, and
        what pleases God, is to find out what He says on any given
        subject.
     2. What color am I thinking of?  I probably would receive as
        many answers as people I ask.
     3. John 8:31-32 -- "If you continue in my word, then are ye my
            disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth and the
            truth shall make you free."
     4. Rom. 11:33-36 -- the Scriptures tell us that no man can know
            the mind of God, unless He reveals it to man.
     5. Eph. 3:1-5 -- God has revealed His will through the apostles
            and inspired men of the first century.
     6. Matt. 7:21 -- He that doeth the will of my Father....
 
IV. OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES:
     1. Jer. 10:23 -- Not in man that walketh to direct own steps
     2. Prov. 14:12 -- Way which seems right....end ways of death
     3. Leb. 10:1-2 -- Nadab and Abihu. They acted without divine
           authority. "God did not say NOT to use this fire. But,
           told them where to obtain the fire.

  V. NEW TESTAMENT:
     1. Heb. 7:11-14 -- Take Priest from tribe of Levi.
     2. Did not need to say, "Not Benjamin, not Dan, not Simeon, not
          Reuben, etc."
     3. Sufficient for the Lord to speak, man needs to listen.

Conclusion:
     1. The Bible is God's revelation.
     2. What is truth and what pleases God is found in His Word.
     3. And in no other place.
     4. Col. 3:17 -- Do all by authority of Christ, in His name.
     5. I cannot enter Heaven of my own will, bukt only through the
           will of the Father.
     6. May we never say, "Well, the Bible doesn't say not to do it."




*  As if we all view "silence" as a license to do whatever we want to.  What a rediculous assertion.  Note who also uses reasoning that presumes to know the mind of God!

Lively:  I applaud this post... well done whether it was your own work or anothers...  well, after looking again at your post, I seen the link... but glad to see you post it... +1 manna...

I find it embarrasing.  I ask again, is this the best argument we have?  This guy presumes to speak for God as much as he condemns another human being for attempting to do the same.  The fact is the scriptures are silent on some things - leaving only principles behind.  I get the best sense of the mind of God by reading everything He passed down.

Lively:  Well God had said that Levi was to be priests...  yet He spoke nothing about any other tribe giving attendance at the altar... were the other tribes forbidden to give attendance at the altar?   God also said to take fire from off the altar and use it to burn the incense... he spoke nothing about getting fire from any other place, does that mean its ok to get fire from another source to burn incense before him at the temple?  What of the verses that state, whatsoever we do, do all in the name of Jesus Christ... by his authority?  Does such give us freedom to do other things he is not authorizing?   It was said in the OT an eye for an eye...  will you also be taking another's eye?  The OT taught one was to stone to death an adulterer... do you stone adulterers to death today?  Truth is,  you only want to keep that which is pleasing to you... and not what is authorized.

What truth are you spewing?  (assuming you are talking to me again)  What is it that I only want to keep that is pleasing to me... and not what is authorized?  Make a list of these items based on what you know about me.

Please make the list based on your intimate familiarity with me.  You could just make one up based on your prejudice but God would know who is being honest and who wasn't - or does that really matter anymore?

[walker starr]

    Zoonance You post was long and my time is short but relative to number one on the list whether or not a thing is mentioned in the bible makes ir good or wrong isn't necessarily the best criteria.  What the HOLY SPIRIT tells you should always be the guide.
Some times it's a wee small voice sometimes it's like a roaring lion but its always there.  GOD Bless.

[Livelysword]

Lively:  Well God had said that Levi was to be priests...  yet He spoke nothing about any other tribe giving attendance at the altar... were the other tribes forbidden to give attendance at the altar?   God also said to take fire from off the altar and use it to burn the incense... he spoke nothing about getting fire from any other place, does that mean its ok to get fire from another source to burn incense before him at the temple?  What of the verses that state, whatsoever we do, do all in the name of Jesus Christ... by his authority?  Does such give us freedom to do other things he is not authorizing?   It was said in the OT an eye for an eye...  will you also be taking another's eye?  The OT taught one was to stone to death an adulterer... do you stone adulterers to death today?  Truth is,  you only want to keep that which is pleasing to you... and not what is authorized.

Using the same reasoning principle, why were descendants of Moab allowed to worship before the Lord (i.e tabernacle or temple) before the 10th generation?

Deut. 23: 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Yet Ruth was a Moabite (Read Ruth 1), grandmother of King David.  Boaz in affect was introducing "strange fire" to his lineage was he not?

Lively:  I went back and read through all of Ruth, and I do not have an answer for you...  but I do have a thought...  she was not just a Moabitess, but married into Israel.... and when her husband died, Naomi decided to come back to Israel, and Ruth made choice to come back with her and worship the God of Israel.  Then she married again to raise seed up that the name of her husband not be lost in Israel... and scripture states God did bless her and give her a child.  So its not that Ruth was a Moabitess apart from marriage...  I think her marriage to an Israelite made a difference...  Just a thought...  but we do know God did accept her... and I do not see the Israelites making a fuse about her not being able to worship either.  Surely they understood the law and understood what which was spoken about the Moabites.  This was actually one of the better questions I have seen on this board...  Hopefully what I have stated here makes some sense to you...

Thanks for your response.  Maybe Ruth was a special case   

Check out Ezra 9

1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

Was the whole lineage of David a mistake?

Lively:  No, it was no mistake...  Rachab and Ruth were both women of faith in the Lord.  God from the beginning has always wanted all people to come unto him for salvation...  The Isrealites were a speical people unto him because of faithful Abraham and the promises God made unto him because of his faithfulness to him.  Rachab and her family were spared from Jericho when all the rest were killed... she was saved alive... and she is also of the lineage of David...  you can find that in Matthew 1...  God had no problem with a Gentile coming unto him... they were called proselytes...  the Israelites were all to be made priests unto him, but when made the calf, that changed and Levites were made the priests...  at least this is my understanding of it...

[zoonance]

    Zoonance You post was long and my time is short but relative to number one on the list whether or not a thing is mentioned in the bible makes ir good or wrong isn't necessarily the best criteria.  What the HOLY SPIRIT tells you should always be the guide.
Some times it's a wee small voice sometimes it's like a roaring lion but its always there.  GOD Bless.

Thanks, but I fear you misread my post.  I was responding to lively's public acknowledgement that I only keep the parts of the OT that pleases me and simply asked for him to list the things that I keep that pleases me since he stated that is what I do.

[Barabbas]

Lively:  Well God had said that Levi was to be priests...  yet He spoke nothing about any other tribe giving attendance at the altar... were the other tribes forbidden to give attendance at the altar?   God also said to take fire from off the altar and use it to burn the incense... he spoke nothing about getting fire from any other place, does that mean its ok to get fire from another source to burn incense before him at the temple?  What of the verses that state, whatsoever we do, do all in the name of Jesus Christ... by his authority?  Does such give us freedom to do other things he is not authorizing?   It was said in the OT an eye for an eye...  will you also be taking another's eye?  The OT taught one was to stone to death an adulterer... do you stone adulterers to death today?  Truth is,  you only want to keep that which is pleasing to you... and not what is authorized.

Using the same reasoning principle, why were descendants of Moab allowed to worship before the Lord (i.e tabernacle or temple) before the 10th generation?

Deut. 23: 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Yet Ruth was a Moabite (Read Ruth 1), grandmother of King David.  Boaz in affect was introducing "strange fire" to his lineage was he not?

Lively:  I went back and read through all of Ruth, and I do not have an answer for you...  but I do have a thought...  she was not just a Moabitess, but married into Israel.... and when her husband died, Naomi decided to come back to Israel, and Ruth made choice to come back with her and worship the God of Israel.  Then she married again to raise seed up that the name of her husband not be lost in Israel... and scripture states God did bless her and give her a child.  So its not that Ruth was a Moabitess apart from marriage...  I think her marriage to an Israelite made a difference...  Just a thought...  but we do know God did accept her... and I do not see the Israelites making a fuse about her not being able to worship either.  Surely they understood the law and understood what which was spoken about the Moabites.  This was actually one of the better questions I have seen on this board...  Hopefully what I have stated here makes some sense to you...

Thanks for your response.  Maybe Ruth was a special case   

Check out Ezra 9

1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

Was the whole lineage of David a mistake?

Lively:  No, it was no mistake...  Rachab and Ruth were both women of faith in the Lord.  God from the beginning has always wanted all people to come unto him for salvation...  The Isrealites were a speical people unto him because of faithful Abraham and the promises God made unto him because of his faithfulness to him.  Rachab and her family were spared from Jericho when all the rest were killed... she was saved alive... and she is also of the lineage of David...  you can find that in Matthew 1...  God had no problem with a Gentile coming unto him... they were called proselytes...  the Israelites were all to be made priests unto him, but when made the calf, that changed and Levites were made the priests...  at least this is my understanding of it...

Seems to me a true proselyte would follow the law ... and the law explicitly says no descendant of the Moabites until the 10th generation could worship in the tabernacle or temple.  Worship in the congregation was reserved for the Jews only (however... if you were of Egyptian descent you could wait until the 3rd generation  )

Strange fire indeed.

Ezra 9:10 "But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have disregarded the commands 11 you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: 'The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.'

How confusing.  You talk in terms of authorization ... yet one of the hero's of the faith (David) seems to follow only the laws pleasing to him ... and not what was authorized.

[blituri]

How confusing.  You talk in terms of authorization ... yet one of the hero's of the faith (David) seems to follow only the laws pleasing to him ... and not what was authorized

It was because of musical idolatry that God turned them over to worship the starry host: read the Bible or the Jewish Encyclopedia and you will find that the not commanded HOUSE was devoted to the worship of the starry host (acts 7 etal).

Then and there the lost the Covenant of Grace and were sentenced to return to beyond babylon.

When the elders fired God and demanded a human "pastor" God knew that they wanted ot worship like the NATIONS (Babylon etal)

God warned that the kings would rob, steal and carry out the captivity and death sentence imposed BECAUSE of musical idolatry.

The NEW STYLE WORSHIP organized by David was carrying out God's TERMINATION sentence and God thorugh Samuel warned that they were beyond redemption and He would not stop the kings from destroying them and leading them into captivity and death.

So, David was God's instrument but not a pattern for worship: Christ ordained the Church of Christ in the wilderness.  It was inclusive of Rest, Reading and Rehearsing the Word.  It was exclusive of vocal or instrumental rejoicing. That defined a school of the Bible and never changed.

So, it's important to use the PATTERNISM of the SPIRITUAL Church or synagogue and NOT that of the Civil-Military-Clergy thread abandoned to worship the starry host.

[Livelysword]

Lively:  Well God had said that Levi was to be priests...  yet He spoke nothing about any other tribe giving attendance at the altar... were the other tribes forbidden to give attendance at the altar?   God also said to take fire from off the altar and use it to burn the incense... he spoke nothing about getting fire from any other place, does that mean its ok to get fire from another source to burn incense before him at the temple?  What of the verses that state, whatsoever we do, do all in the name of Jesus Christ... by his authority?  Does such give us freedom to do other things he is not authorizing?   It was said in the OT an eye for an eye...  will you also be taking another's eye?  The OT taught one was to stone to death an adulterer... do you stone adulterers to death today?  Truth is,  you only want to keep that which is pleasing to you... and not what is authorized.

Using the same reasoning principle, why were descendants of Moab allowed to worship before the Lord (i.e tabernacle or temple) before the 10th generation?

Deut. 23: 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Yet Ruth was a Moabite (Read Ruth 1), grandmother of King David.  Boaz in affect was introducing "strange fire" to his lineage was he not?

Lively:  I went back and read through all of Ruth, and I do not have an answer for you...  but I do have a thought...  she was not just a Moabitess, but married into Israel.... and when her husband died, Naomi decided to come back to Israel, and Ruth made choice to come back with her and worship the God of Israel.  Then she married again to raise seed up that the name of her husband not be lost in Israel... and scripture states God did bless her and give her a child.  So its not that Ruth was a Moabitess apart from marriage...  I think her marriage to an Israelite made a difference...  Just a thought...  but we do know God did accept her... and I do not see the Israelites making a fuse about her not being able to worship either.  Surely they understood the law and understood what which was spoken about the Moabites.  This was actually one of the better questions I have seen on this board...  Hopefully what I have stated here makes some sense to you...

Thanks for your response.  Maybe Ruth was a special case  

Check out Ezra 9

1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

Was the whole lineage of David a mistake?

Lively:  No, it was no mistake...  Rachab and Ruth were both women of faith in the Lord.  God from the beginning has always wanted all people to come unto him for salvation...  The Isrealites were a speical people unto him because of faithful Abraham and the promises God made unto him because of his faithfulness to him.  Rachab and her family were spared from Jericho when all the rest were killed... she was saved alive... and she is also of the lineage of David...  you can find that in Matthew 1...  God had no problem with a Gentile coming unto him... they were called proselytes...  the Israelites were all to be made priests unto him, but when made the calf, that changed and Levites were made the priests...  at least this is my understanding of it...

Seems to me a true proselyte would follow the law ... and the law explicitly says no descendant of the Moabites until the 10th generation could worship in the tabernacle or temple.  Worship in the congregation was reserved for the Jews only (however... if you were of Egyptian descent you could wait until the 3rd generation  )

Strange fire indeed.

Ezra 9:10 "But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have disregarded the commands 11 you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: 'The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.'

How confusing.  You talk in terms of authorization ... yet one of the hero's of the faith (David) seems to follow only the laws pleasing to him ... and not what was authorized.

Lively:  bring the verse which states she worshiped in the tabernacle or temple...  where did other proselytes worship?  We know at the temple they had a court for the gentiles...  Where did Rachab worship?

[Barabbas]

Lively:  bring the verse which states she worshiped in the tabernacle or temple...  where did other proselytes worship?  We know at the temple they had a court for the gentiles...  Where did Rachab worship?

Perhaps if we discuss Rahab we should start a new thread since it is off the original subject.

Which was ....

Using the same reasoning principle, why were descendants of Moab allowed to worship before the Lord (i.e tabernacle or temple) before the 10th generation?

Deut. 23: 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Yet Ruth was a Moabite (Read Ruth 1), grandmother of King David.  Boaz in affect was introducing "strange fire" to his lineage was he not?

Jesus shows the same problem to the Pharasee's in Matthew 12 even though it was in a different context when he says ...

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

David was a 3rd generation descendant of a Moabite and yet broke the law since he was not after the 10th generation.  Using your example of strange fire I would think that the principle would apply to him and his lineage to the 10th generation ... yet he was not struck down.  In fact - no mention of his sin in this context is even recorded.

Just looking for some consistency in your point.   

Of course you could go the route of blituri and say that David was a musical idolator that was used as an instrument of a sort of vengence of God ... but it seems to me that the Assyrians and Babylonians were a lot better at that than David.

[zoonance]

according to blituri, david...did things... to and with musical instruments

[Livelysword]

Lively:  bring the verse which states she worshiped in the tabernacle or temple...  where did other proselytes worship?  We know at the temple they had a court for the gentiles...  Where did Rachab worship?

Perhaps if we discuss Rahab we should start a new thread since it is off the original subject.

Which was ....

Using the same reasoning principle, why were descendants of Moab allowed to worship before the Lord (i.e tabernacle or temple) before the 10th generation?

Deut. 23: 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Yet Ruth was a Moabite (Read Ruth 1), grandmother of King David.  Boaz in affect was introducing "strange fire" to his lineage was he not?

Jesus shows the same problem to the Pharasee's in Matthew 12 even though it was in a different context when he says ...

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

David was a 3rd generation descendant of a Moabite and yet broke the law since he was not after the 10th generation.  Using your example of strange fire I would think that the principle would apply to him and his lineage to the 10th generation ... yet he was not struck down.  In fact - no mention of his sin in this context is even recorded.

Just looking for some consistency in your point.  

Of course you could go the route of blituri and say that David was a musical idolator that was used as an instrument of a sort of vengence of God ... but it seems to me that the Assyrians and Babylonians were a lot better at that than David.

Lively:  While you specified Ruth, the discussion is of a woman who came into the camp of the Israelites from outside of the Israelites.  Both Ruth and Rachab were strangers to Israel, and both married an Israelite, therefore comparision of both is valid to any argument made for one.   Yet the fact is, you have not shown that Ruth worshipped in the tabernacle or temple.  Fact is, only the Levites were allowed in the tabernacle or temple...  The tabernacle was made in the wilderness and moved around from place to place, only the Levites were allowed to accomplish the service within it... everyone else remained outside it.  The temple was made in Israel, and only the Levites were allowed within where service was done...  Such as Zacharias, the husband of Elizabeth, the Husband and Wife of John the Baptist.  Note, everyone else had remained outside while Zacherias accomplished his service of incense...  There were courts made for Jews and Gentiles alike... that is where people went who were not Levites...


Luk 1:8  And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
Luk 1:9  According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
Luk 1:10  And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.


show us where Ruth ever went into the tabernacle or Temple to worship.  

[Barabbas]

show us where Ruth ever went into the tabernacle or Temple to worship. 

Why?  What does that have to do with my point?

Most people use Red Herrings with a little more subtlety ... you might want to work on that.