Nate (post: 1355802) wrote:However, this changes when put in the hands of a worship team at a church who may be moderately talented, but our church uses an acoustic guitar, drums, a saxophone, and a keyboard, and sometimes a violin. Combine that with the average singing ability of 90% of the population, and a song like that becomes kind of hard to listen to.
ClosetOtaku (post: 1355791) wrote:While I do like some contemporary music as part of a worship service, I find most of the songs repetitive and shallow. This suits the M.O. of many modern church services -- where inspiring a mood is more important than delivering a message -- a trend that is being decried by an increasing chorus of concerned onlookers, evangelical and otherwise. Still, in their proper context, some contemporary songs can be as powerful and relevant as anything penned in the past.
Radical Dreamer wrote:That's where I think the rubber really meets the road when it comes to any worship service--is it about God, or is it about you?
uc wrote:most people who criticize one form do so simply because they don't respond emotionally to it, even though they are more likely to say that it is because of the lyrics
That Dude wrote:In biblical Hebrew any word that was repeated three times was the ultimate/perfect form of the word. If it was repeated 3 times there was nothing better than that...It was the perfect/unbeatable form of the word.
I guess in the end it comes down to us truely serving God and making church and worship (which isn't only music) about him and not us.
Nate (post: 1356005) wrote:Are you saying that, in Biblical Hebrew, if a word was repeated three times it was the ultimate/perfect form of that word? Because I'm not sure, but it sounds to me as if you are saying that if a word was repeated three times, then in Hebrew that was the perfect/unbeatable form of that word. I just want to make sure, because I don't want to spread any misinformation about a word being the perfect/unbeatable form in Biblical Hebrew if it was repeated three times.
That Dude wrote:Yes in the Hebrew language of the time something repeated three times was meant as the "ultimate" form of that word. Holy holy holy meant that it was impossible for anything to be holier than that. Does that clear things up?
Nate wrote:Are you saying that, in Biblical Hebrew, if a word was repeated three times it was the ultimate/perfect form of that word? Because I'm not sure, but it sounds to me as if you are saying that if a word was repeated three times, then in Hebrew that was the perfect/unbeatable form of that word. I just want to make sure, because I don't want to spread any misinformation about a word being the perfect/unbeatable form in Biblical Hebrew if it was repeated three times.
Nate (post: 1356025) wrote:Indeed, you have cleared up many things on a word being repeated three times in Biblical Hebrew being the ultimate/perfect form of that word. At first I was not sure that if a word was repeated three times in Biblical Hebrew, whether or not it was the ultimate/perfect form of that word. But from now on, when I am reading the Bible, I will keep in mind if a word is repeated three times, that it is the ultimate/perfect form of that word.
Nate wrote:Hmm. Your friend may be on to something there. I'm willing to admit that maybe I just don't like the music and therefore downplay the lyrics. Still, it's pretty hard to say "Maybe the lyrics are good but I just don't respond emotionally" when the lyrics are just "You are holy" repeated for two minutes straight.
You.
You are.
You are God.
You are God God God.
(repeat)
Yamamaya wrote:Love is a verb, not a noun.
Ake wrote:They feel like they are in a routine. Which would be fine were it not for the lack of relationship with God because of it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 231 guests