advindicate

Open full view…

David danced

Mon, 03 Mar 2014 04:48:16 GMT

Shane Hilde
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:28:08 GMT

I agree.

Doug Yowell
Sat, 08 Mar 2014 15:35:33 GMT

I have often expressed the belief that one should be able to understand the meaning of the Bible without the extra curriculars of arguing about the accuracy of the translator's use of a particular word. I'm not trying to eliminate the need for scholarship ( and no disrespect to Brent) but do we need to know NT Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic (it's my understanding that even modern Greek is no longer recognizable as ancient Greek) in order to understand what the Holy Spirit intended through the Scriptures? One can find Scriptures to support just about anything they want in violation of what Scripture actually intends to convey. Modern dancing as an expression of contemporary worship during a 21st century corporate gathering seems just somewhat out of character to the gist of Scriptural revelation,no?

George Evans
Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:37:30 GMT

Doug, are you saying we have no reason to dance in this century?

doug matacio
Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:41:49 GMT

It depends on what you mean by "modern dancing," Doug.

Bob McAlpine
Sat, 08 Mar 2014 21:22:32 GMT

Haha... You guys aren't in favor of twerking in church??

Doug Yowell
Sat, 08 Mar 2014 23:39:21 GMT

George Evans@ "Doug, are you saying we have no reason to dance in this century?" No, a little dance after scoring a touchdown with your team 40 points behind is quite appropriate. doug matacio@ "It depends on what you mean by “modern dancing,” What options are open for discussion? 1) Line 2)Ballet 3)Modern 4)Break 5)Samba 6)Waltz 7)Disco 8)Slow 9)Hula 10)Other (No Bob, no twerking..........yet!)

George Evans
Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:42:21 GMT

Doug Yowell wrote, >No, a little dance after scoring a touchdown with your team 40 points behind is quite appropriate. This seems to you like more of a reason to dance than God's victory over His accuser?

doug matacio
Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:51:15 GMT

@Doug Yowell Doug, there is a Doug Yowell on the internet who plays drums in a rock band. Are you any relation to him?

bshakespeare
Sun, 09 Mar 2014 23:57:20 GMT

TLDr- There is no strawman here. As I have mentioned before, I only follow the evidence where it leads. I haven’t defined “dancing” in this article, because the Hebrew words I looked at don’t mean “dance”. There are others that do, but time and space doesn’t permit me to review the other 5 Hebrew words that can mean “dance.” Please look at the Dictionaries from EG White’s day, and you will see that she is in harmony with the meaning- “dance.” It had at least 3 different meanings, and one of them is to skip and jump (not necessarily to music). Bob- You comment of “bunk” is an ad hominem statement. Please refrain from these in the future, or your comments will be blocked. You are either misinformed or uninformed on the issue of “David danced.” This is one of the key supports for CCM. I can show you at least 50+ statements from pastors, thought-leaders, etc. who use this passage to support the use of drums and CCM in worship. Please check your sources- - like I have on this. I have used Lexicographers from the 1700s and 1800s for my research. This (in the opinion of some s cholars) keeps us from being overtly influenced by the results of the Counter-Reformation’s effects on theology and doctrine. You are comparing apples and oranges regarding Herodius’ dancing and David’s skipping. The Greek meaning is far apart from the meaning of what David did. George- I still consider you a friend, although we have never met. You feel “sorry” for me, and wish I “danced”. Well, I have never stated that I thought “dancing” is wrong. Please don’t read into my articles what is not there. Also, please don’t feel that my worship is static and non-kinesthetic. If you can show from the weight of the majority of Lexicographers that this word means to “dance,” I will reconsider. I used 12-15 Lexicons for this article- “in the mouth of two or three witnesses the thing is established.” David did not “get down”. I’m sorry. David skipped and leaped much like my girls do, when they are excited about going on vacation, that Xmas is here, or any other joyful event. Finally, you state that I “am trying so hard” to prove something- when this is just not so. I only followed the evidence where it lead, and it lead to the conclusion that hundreds of others have come to. Blessings George. This will, as usual, be my only comment on this article. I usually give everyone 1 week to “vent,” then reply. In the future, please keep your comments to the point, and avoid personal thrusts and sarcasm. By God’s grace, I have tried to do this, blessings, Brent

doug matacio
Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:18:09 GMT

Brent, Why all the strict rules and regulations? Lighten up! :)

bshakespeare
Mon, 10 Mar 2014 01:31:36 GMT

PS- One last comment. If you missed my introduction, I need to re-state an important point that Protestants historically have supported . William Miller and the early Adventists sought to understand doctrine with the use of a Concordance (Crudens mainly) and contemporary lexicons. EG White has stated- “Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted.” {RH, November 25, 1884 par. 23} Miller didn’t use the Septuagint as a primary source for doctrine, rather, he relied on the Masoretic text, as did most Protestants. If we feel that these are inadequate for finding and confirming the meaning of words in Scripture- then we will inevitably ascribe to a 1) Papalism of theologians or 2) Theological existentialism- truth based upon what I want or feel the text should say. I appreciate the focus and kind responses that DrTL, Doug and George have given for the last few articles on music. Although you disagree with my findings- and its okay to strongly disagree- – I feel you are friends. I am s urely not an authority on Hebrew or music. Although I have a degree in music and have spent the better part of 40+ years studying and playing music, I still realize that I have “feet of clay,” and am on a journey. Thanks for your comments- in general, they haves helped me clarify my findings. My comment “vent” was a poor choice of words- I apologize for it. Your responses are usually well thought out and not knee-jerk. Blessings, Brent

Bob McAlpine
Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:54:43 GMT

> @bshakespeare > I haven’t defined “dancing” in this article, because the Hebrew words I looked at don’t mean “dance”. There are others that do, but time and space doesn’t permit me to review the other 5 Hebrew words that can mean “dance.” Please look at the Dictionaries from EG White’s day, and you will see that she is in harmony with the meaning- “dance.” It had at least 3 different meanings, and one of them is to skip and jump (not necessarily to music). So, the definition of dancing that EGW used matches what David did but the Bible translators were wrong to translate the Hebrew "raqad" into the English "dance." EGW is right to call what David did dancing, but the Bible translators are not. Since Brent won't be responding, will _someone_ explain how that makes sense?? > @bshakespeare > You are either misinformed or uninformed on the issue of “David danced.” This is one of the key supports for CCM. I can show you at least 50+ statements from pastors, thought-leaders, etc. who use this passage to support the use of drums and CCM in worship. This could very wel l be the case. However. In the first article Brent published on the subject of CCM/W (http://advindicate.com/articles/2013/9/17/the-voice-of-melody) he provided a link and a number of quotes to demonstrate the positions that he was addressing. In the first (scribd) article looking at the OT lexography of "dance" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/194301368/Shall-We-Dance) Brent provided *118* footnotes. Not a single one of them took the time to cite the position he was attempting to refute. Now we come to this article and there is no evidence at all that "David danced" is an argument made to justify the use of CCM/W. It's fine to say "There is no strawman here." It's fine to say "I can show you at least 50+ statements from pastors, thought-leaders, etc. who use this passage to support the use of drums and CCM in worship." Why not just show us? The author doth protest too much, methinks. Finally: > @bshakespeare > Miller didn’t use the Septuagint as a primary source for doctrine, rather, he relied on the Masoretic text, as did most Protestants. If we feel that these are inadequate for finding and confirming the meaning of words in Scripture- then we will inevitably ascribe to a 1) Papalism of theologians or 2) Theological existentialism- truth based upon what I want or feel the text should say. Miller may not have used the LXX but it is apparent that the writers of the New Testament did (http://www.amazon.com/The-Use-Septuagint-Testament-Research/dp/0802860915). If I'm being forced to choose between William Miller and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc., I'm going to go with the authors of the NT. Of course, I would also call that a false choice....

Glenn Hansen
Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:41:28 GMT

Miller's use of Cruden's led him into some serious errors, specifically regarding the interpretation of the "daily" in Daniel 8:11-13. For many SDA, context and responsible interpretation mean nothing when "Sr. White says" such and such but I find Miller's misunderstanding of the immediate context of the 2300 day prophecy unfortunate, if not alarming. Miller didn't rely on the Masoretic text or the LXX, he relied on the KJV of the Bible. Strong's numbers didn't exist then either. Its unlikely that Miller was capable of working with any of the existing OL lexicons, if he could have gotten his hands on one. I stand ready to be instructed to the contrary if anyone has evidence that WM worked in the OL at all. The MT is quite useless for determining word meanings in the NT since the two languages don't correspond; however, the LXX allows one to work in a single language through the length and breadth of Scripture. Vis a vis this topic, the LXX clearly demonstrates that the word translated as "dance" in the description of David's actions referred to the activities of H erodias or frolicking children in the NT, as evinced by a previous post on this topic. It seems utterly fantastic that people would expect the worship style of a polygamous Semitic warrior king living centuries before Christ to correspond to Ellen White's worship style in the 1800s.

George Evans
Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:05:43 GMT

Brent wrote, >David did not “get down”. I’m sorry. David skipped and leaped much like my girls do, when they are excited about going on vacation, that Xmas is here, or any other joyful event. My phrase "get down" is based on the biblical description of what angered David's wife about his behavior. Specifically, look at what she says to him when he gets home, >How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself! It seems that she was upset because David was acting like common men would--dancing with or for the ladies. She seems to be more concerned that he was not acting like a king should. I think this could explain why we get the idea he was undressed, for a king at least. I think David got down with the common people while his wife stayed home and sneered. Brent also said, >I only followed the evidence where it lead... But I noticed you dropped all ideas of spinning or twirling which seemed to be a major component of the lexicon meanings of the various words, and took only the idea of skipping and jumping.

faithfan
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:00:02 GMT

I truly appreciate the amount of details, effort and time that Brent had put in this article on “David danced” and all his previous articles on music and dance. The knowledge and evidences that the writer shared have opened my eyes and helped me to have a better understanding on these bible texts. I also appreciate that he used biblical resources to support his findings. He did not make his conclusion based on his own opinion or assumption. I just want to express my utmost thanks to Brent for his tremendous hard work in helping others to understand the Bible better and ultimately will draw them closer to God. I do find that some of the comments are quite distracting and disturbing at times. I understand that we are different individuals and I am not implying that everyone has to agree with everything that the writer expressed in his articles. But I do feel that even when we disagree, we can do it in a more constructive and positive way. Just remember that w e all are brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us not be a stumbling block but rather follow what the Bible instructs us to do “…encourage one another and build each other up…” ( 1 Thessalonians 5:11)

Glenn Hansen
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:19:53 GMT

Brent, Although you say the Hebrew word for dance is not included in this study, the LXX translators disagree as do the NT writers. Below is an exhaustive list of all the appearances of this word translated as "dance" [ορχεομαι] in the LXX and the NT. True there are others but this one refers to David and michal when the ark was returned to Jerusalem. The word is used to describe the dancing of Herodias as well as the frolicking of children reacting to music. How you can say that is not "dancing" absolutely escapes me. 2 Sam 6:16 [David] 2 Sam 6:20 [David] 2 Sam 6:21 x2 [David] 1 Chronicles 15:29 [David] Isaiah 13:21 [refers to devils/goats/goat-demons] Ecclesiastes 3:4 [a time to dance] All the passages above use the number "3738" some form of "ορχεομαι" as do the NT passages below. I'm no linguist myself but I understand the Greek alphabet and know how to compare Scripture with Scripture Mt 11:17 and say, ‘we played the flute for you, and you did not dance <3738>; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ Mt 14:6 but when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Her odias danced <3738> before them and pleased Herod, Mr 6:22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced <3738>, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests; and the king said to the girl, "ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you." Lu 7:32 "they are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, ‘we played the flute for you, and you did not dance <3738>; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’

Richard Thomas
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:07:06 GMT

The author reasoned, "A study of “worship” is beyond the scope of this short article, briefly however, “worship” (shachach- pronounced shaw-khakh) means: bow/bow down, stooped, prostrate- as testimony of respect/reverence , depressed- made low, incline/bend down, brought low/humbled, sink down/obeisance. The meaning of this word is obvious- it is a physical or spiritual bowing, depressing, humbling of someone to someone else- in most cases, God. This was not a worship or praise “service," The author explained the meaning of worship adequately but failed to explain the meaning of praise. However, he determines this procession was not a praise service based on the definition of worship not on the definition of praise. Very disappointing at the least.

Glenn Hansen
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:47:50 GMT

ED, The following comments below make absolutely no sense [to me]. If the writer refuses to be held accountable for his article, maybe you or someone else could explain what he is talking about. This article displays an incredible lack of knowledge, misleading innuendo, and erroneous assertions, well beyond the topic of CCM and dance. Gesenius didn't publish his Hebrew lexicon until well into the 1800s and it was in either Hebrew/German or Hebrew/Latin. Does Brent understand Hebrew, German or Latin well enough to have used any Hebrew Lexicon written prior to 1900? Since the Counter Reformation ended in 1680, how does the use of lexicographers from the 17 and 18 hundreds prevent its influence in the field of lexicography, and just what influence did the Counter Reformation have on that field? "I have used Lexicographers from the 1700s and 1800s for my research. This (in the opinion of some scholars) keeps us from being overtly influenced by the results of the Counter-Reformation’s effects on theology and doctrine." "Miller didn’t use the Septuagint as a primary sou rce for doctrine, rather, he relied on the Masoretic text, as did most Protestants. If we feel that these are inadequate for finding and confirming the meaning of words in Scripture- then we will inevitably ascribe to a 1) Papalism of theologians or 2) Theological existentialism- truth based upon what I want or feel the text should say."

Glenn Hansen
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:37:04 GMT

Incidentally, Jesus quoted from the LXX, as did the writers of the NT. Hebrews quotes extensively from the LXX verbatim Ps 8:2 "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast established strength because of thine enemies..." KJV, based on the MT Mt 21:16 "And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" KJV NT quote from LXX Psalms Ps 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger. LXX Brenton's English Papalism of theologians or theological existentialism?

Bob McAlpine
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:08:40 GMT

> @bshakespeare > Bob- You comment of “bunk” is an ad hominem statement. Please refrain from these in the future, or your comments will be blocked. So....it's been nearly two months and this comment is still really bothering me. Sorry to bring up old issues and all that, but I've needed the time to gain some distance and make sure I responded appropriately instead of angrily. A quick perusal of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) will explain ad hominem statements and reveal that my "comment of 'bunk'" was in no way ad hominem. Here's the entire comment in case anyone is wondering: > @bobmcalpine > Are there no more comments forthcoming on this article? If that's the case, can we applaud Brent for his research while acknowledging that the consensus in the comments is that his conclusions are bunk? My comment is that Brent's conclusions in this article are bunk, and I stand by that. Since "bunk" modifies "conclusions" there is no rejection "on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." My rejection is based on the poor reasoning behind the conclusions. Whew. Feels good to get that off my chest.

next
last page