Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    296
    I'm glad you find it interested and helpful. Your website invites to put this info online.

    The names I remembered 'by head'. Le'ts look them up. One source is the book "The names in the Bible". This is A Dutch book with the meaning of names and concordeance and gematria value that I bought and is written by several writers and took about two years to write.

    Saul - asked; borrowed. So it means both according to my information. The Biblical asked; borrowed was annointed by God, this makes asked/borrowed special. Beloved was annointed too. Beloved knew not to kill the annointed one of God. Whoever does that can reckon on the wrath of God he must have thought.

    Philistines come from Philistea. Philistea means "revolving, wallowing / rolling oneself (in the dust)". I don't know why the translators added "in the dust", do you have a clue?

    Delilah and moon - ah it's Delilah and night I meant (women are in fact all connected with the moon though, and the moon shows that there is a way; light, more light, etc.). And it's not written that Delilah came from the Philistines also as I wrote before, see the source Etymology. In the book "The names in the Bible" is the translation "slow, listless". 'My prof' writes: "'Delilah' comes from the word 'night'. 'From the night' it means". Shimshon loved her and she didn't conceil that she wanted to betray him all the time. It's a story of 1000 and 1 night.
    The woman 'from the night' and hair:
    In our hair is something important present. In our life, there were we meet hair on our body, but also in our dreams and fantasies about hair, is hair something. But what? The word for hair in Hebrew is written with shin-ayin-resh (300-70-200) and this is in full word value 360+130+510 exactly 1000. And 1000, eleph, is in language identical to aleph, 1. It shows, that in this what includes the 1000, there is a unity, oneness, present. And the cutting of the hair means the breaking of that unity*. There is more to tell about hair, but hereby the story of 1000 and 1 (from the) night ends.

    Bathsheba - Daughter of the rest/certainty/the seven/the oath.
    Yeah Bath means Daughter of course, I wrote my text too fast.


    I like it to explore the word of The Word, not with having a sudden twist-given conclusion that a word is symbolic to "The Church", that's too religious for me and I don't think that way. No, I like to connect the word of The Word with everyday things by translating a name as we see here above, and with matter as in my contributions here. I am used to it, learned much from 'my professor' too. It's to learn about God's creation in us and around us, I like that, that info is like nice music to my ears.

    * It doesn't mean that in the physical world one has to let his hair grow or starts to do a haircut when one is asleep or has to do other unusual things with hair.


    An altered version of the song Hallelujah:

    Well I heard there was a secret chord
    That David played before the Lord
    Think it's not a kind of song you like now, do ya?
    Well it goes like this
    The fourth, the fifth
    The minor fall the major lift
    A king who is composing Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah

    The sun the moon the stars above
    All joining with the Lord of Love
    But you don't really want someone to sue ya
    The Sunny and Delilah came
    The Philistines and who’s to blame
    And all of them they met for Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah

    And David saw Bathsheba bath
    He was aroused and in his heart
    He planned a thing a king can only do jah
    Uriah who did loose his life
    And Bath now has become his wife
    Lord thought it was bad but I sing Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah

    Gematria I know a bit
    And how some Bible systems fit
    To the creation we are seeing here jah
    Maybe I’m gonna learn some more
    Before I sweep my kitchen floor
    But now I like to sing more Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah

    Well sure there is a God above
    And sure there flies a dove of love
    But I think about influencing you jah
    It’s not that I don’t want to see
    The sweet things of a honey bee
    It's just that I like to sing oft Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    oh Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Hallelujah
    Halleluuuuojaaah
    Last edited by NumberX; 09-18-2010 at 02:46 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    283

    Book on a New Theory of Music

    Hello Everybody,
    After giving up on presenting a decent case against the use of instrumental music, recently I decided to do some more reading on the topic of musical research and found a book that might interest some here. It was written about five years ago by a guy named Philip Dorrel,and it has a new take on the topic of what music "is". His thesis looks at music from an evolutionary standpoint and explores why music has been so pervasive throughout human history with that aspect in mind. He argues that music is a "super-stimulus" that has been adopted to increase our ability to process and judge the speech of those we hear talking to us. The resulting increase in ability to judge the content and emotional state of those who speak to us supposedly gives one an advantage in surviving, finding a mate and reproducing over the long term. You can download this rather long, technical book here - http://whatismusic.info/download.html

    It is not far fetched to associate hearing music with hearing speech, since speech has many attributes in common with music, like tempo and rhythm, tone inflection, volume changes, etc, so it seems there is something to Mr. Dorrel's theory. The bible also mentions music in relation to hearing God and other people, and history has many references to the similarities between music and speech. But as to whether the use of music as a "super-stimulus" to improve one's ability to process and judge another's motivations and emotions through their speech is a long-term benefit, I have my doubts. It is interesting that Mr. Dorrel has no problem acknowledging the deceiving power that music has through it's ability to manipulate the emotions, but he excuses this by saying that the effects are temporary and go away after you quit listening. This may or may not be true. A good portion of people are more affected than others. And he doesn't address the pervasiveness of music in our culture as a possible obstacle to getting free from the ability of music to decieve and sway people. He even talks about his efforts to come up with a "music generating algorithim" that will produce a constant stream of new, "high quality" music that he also readily admits will result in many people becoming "junkies", quitting their jobs, and ignoring everything but music as much as possible. History is full of examples testifying to the ability of music to do this. Rose I know you see music as a something that requires the church to accomodate various preferences, but is not a stumbling block. I don't see how it cannot be one for a good portion of the people. Worship junkies who talk a lot about how they have to be careful not to "worship 'worship' " rather than the Lord. Most of the churches I have been to have several. I meant to address this issue as the thread went on but I started feeling so foolish about my inability to defend what I was discussing with Richard, that I gave up on trying to expand into another area,particularly one that is not the subject of explicit biblical testimony.

    I also think I sold myself short when I failed to come up with a "quick and easy" defense for my "boiled down, pivotal" question. I guess I was thinking in terms of concentrating on what I thought was one of the stronger points in my thesis, that being the negative nature of most of the things associated with music and musical terms in the bible. Compared to the amount of other aspects of music that could be tackled, I thought that was boiled down. But like Richard pointed out, most of what I presented was not explicit in nature and relied on inferences. What I was concentrating on was the large number of musical terms and references that can be used to draw inferences. Maybe I can be accused of being prejudiced by looking for patterns and then making a big deal of of it when I find what I am looking for. In being as objective as I can, I don't think this is the case, and particularly not when dealing with looking at music in a negative light. I did not start out having an axe to grind. On the contrary, I was looking for evidence about how foundational music is to everything. And I have been none too eager to go through the hassles of presenting negative things about something that people love so much. With music, like a lot of other topics, the bible seems to have contradictions in the way it speaks of certain people, places and things. It is kind of like a sermon I heard years ago when I first became a Christian about how poor Solomon gets a few compliments in the old testament, but later also gets a lot of slights tacked on, particularly in the new testament. What are we to make of this, if anything? How should we view Solomon and his reign? I don't know.

    The same thing happens when you look at the references to the temple. There seems to be conflicting viewpoints presented. I was not forced to see the tabernacle or the temple as something bad because the word o'hel was first mentioned in connection with the line of Cain. I just noticed that the Israelites went for quite a while before the need for a tabernacle was brought up. And then how the temple was the last thing Stephen mentioned before he finished telling the Jewish leaders that they had always resisted the Holy Spirit. He even implies that Solomon went beyond what David had envisioned for the temple by using a different word in reference to each of them. A few weeks after my last previous post, I was reading on the "Sevenfold Bible Canon here and found a post by Victor noting the possibility that Solomon's temple was connected in some way to the second day of Genesis when the waters were divided. He mentioned the five huge lavers on either side of it that contained water as being a possible type of the dividing of the waters by a raquiya. This day is the only day of creating that is not spoken of as being "good". Neither is it labelled "bad". The only reason that comes to mind as to why it is not called "good" is because it involves a seperation between like and like. God divided light from darkness, day from night, etc. , which things are different from each other. The distinction made between the waters that were divided seems only in relation to whether they were under or over the raquiya. The tabernacle, and later on, the temple, both involved "dividing" and "raquiyas". The courtyard and roof/walls of the tabernacle/temple divided it from the camp.
    It was divided itself into three parts. It also involved taking the tribe of Levi, whose name means "attached" and "seperating" him from the rest of Israel. The burden of building the second temple divided Israel. There was also a lot of "raqah" involved in hammering out the metals used to cover the ark, the poles, the walls, and appurtenances of each, which is the root word for raquiya. It doesn't seem too far fetched to see a lot of conceptual ties between the temple and the second day.

    I hope you all don't mind that I am always popping in and out of sight and have not been able to consistently continue discussions on the threads I post on. I appreciate the ability to do this as I take forever to put a post together and I shouldn't be spending so much time. Maybe someday I will have the time to do some uninterrupted study, sharpen my thinking and writing skills, and join in more. Until then I still stop in to read posts from a few threads once in a while.

    God Bless All,
    Chris

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    283
    I have a facebook friend who has been trying to open the zipped file with my paper on music in the scriptures but to no avail, so I am going to try to attach a pdf copy here to see if that works.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #34
    I have just read it all, it is really interesting actually..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •