Posts by the pharmer

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

LOL!

Awww...someone else agrees with my funny vocabulary!

(from wikipedia)

The most frequently encountered chords are triads, so called because they consist of three distinct notes: further notes may be added to give seventh chords, extended chords, or added tone chords. The most common chords are the major and minor triads and then the augmented and diminished triads. The descriptions "major", "minor", "augmented" and "diminished" are sometimes referred to collectively as chordal "quality". Chords are also commonly classed by their root note so, for instance, the chord C Major may be described as a triad of major quality built upon the note C. Chords may also be classified by inversion, the order in which their notes are stacked.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Okay, this is the last music one (haha, a musician’s famous last words…”this is the last time”) :)

I know this isn’t a Music thread, but I need to defend my comments against these elementary misconceptions.

I cannot agree with what you say here about F# having the "same 3 sharps present";

Notice how you are responding to a comment of mine where I had used the terms relative minor.

It is apparent you are not familiar with major keys and their relative minor keys, or vice versa, minor keys and their relative major keys.

Look it up.

Had you understood that, you would have never said “I cannot agree with what you say here...".

Another elementary mistake.

Okay, I’ll try not to let these errors of yours distract me from my main points.

Sorry

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Djeggnog,

Sorry, I thought I had answered this question, but realized I didn’t yet:

I don't understand, did any of the things I stated in my previous post not clear up your misunderstanding of the following:

If not, maybe it isn't possible for me to articulate an answer to your opening question.

You certainly gave a response to my opening question, but in doing so, you presented a couple of conflicting statements/ideas which either needed to be reconciled or shown how I am wrong and that they were in fact not conflicting.

Although you have attempted both, you have not succeeded.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Woo hoo! Look djeggnog,

I just discovered how to type accidentals on the computer and thought I would share! :)

For a flat note: Type 266d and then press Alt-X

For a natural note: Type 266e and then press Alt-X

For a sharp note: Type 266f and then press Alt-X

Now I don’t have to say “natural” and I can actually use the sign.

Also, musical food for thought:

When someone asks a musician, “What are the fingerings/positions for playing the A scale?” A beginning or less advanced musician would likely make an assumption and answer by giving the fingerings/positions for the A-major scale.

But a more experienced musician would realize the incompleteness of that kind of answer and would not give an answer without first asking, “To which ‘A’ scale are you referring, for there are several”.

The same would hold true when asking how many sharps or flats are in the key of “A”...“To which key of ‘A’ do you refer, for there are several.”

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

So if we're talking about an F# chord, then this would consist of F#, Bb and Eb, but for purposes of this discussion, we'll call these keys F#, A# and D#.

Sorry, I can't let this go...

An F# chord would never contain flats...only sharps and naturals. The Bb and Eb are what is known as enharmonic equivalents...and although they are the same pitch and fingerings as A# and D# respectively, to write them as flats in musical notation in an F# chord would be flat out wrong. (pun intended). Your latter statement is accurate and should always be used. The former view is an elementary mistake.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Djeggnog, you said:

I'm never going to change my position (which is what your questions are seeking), so when I write "Ok," this signals that I have reached a point in our discussion where I can acknowledge what you have said, but cannot agree with what you have said.

You are wrong, I am not seeking for you to change your position, but rather I am seeking (if I am in fact wrong on weighing the evidence you’ve provided me) for you to simply show me exactly why and how I am wrong. “OK” simply tells me that you are unable to do so. That is fine though, I’ll accept that as evidence that needs to be weighed in the same way as all your other evidence.

While I have said, and do say, that anyone unwilling for any reason to accept a wrong viewpoint along with 'the body' of JWs, or rather, anyone that should be unwilling for any reason to accept what might be an incorrect viewpoint for the time being until an adjustment is made and beings to official teach something else altogether different than what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching others at that time, cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

At least you’re able to admit that.

I have appreciated your time and efforts.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

W]hat about those who don’t understand or don’t agree with the WT position…you said, even if they are correct, they must speak in harmony with ‘the body’ – i.e. they must speak incorrectly.

I didn't say this.

Djeggnog, uhmm, yes you essentially did, even with your “politically correct” explanation that followed.

Those that might not agree with the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on a particular issue know that they cannot unilaterally decide to start teaching things according to their own beliefs, so they will point out when teaching others that this is what the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses is as far as the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" is concerned, which is not a lie, and doesn't require anyone to say anything that they do not believe, for it is not a lie that the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses before the early 1950s was that the "higher powers" were Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

You’re being deceptive here djeggnog, and I’ll show you just how.

If a JW comes to me and shares the official position of the WT on a matter, it is implied that that JW believes that to be true, but you admit that they might not agree with that view themselves personally. You’ve given a fine example of that. You say it’s still not a lie for them to present the WT view, but regardless of what you want to call it, they are implying that they agree with the things they present.

So my statement above stands.

You ask:

Why get bent all out of shape over one, two or three doctrinal matters that you might feel pretty sure will eventually be changed?

Why get bent out of shape over whether a “C” is sharp or natural in ‘mary had a little lamb’? It’s just one note! Play it the way the conductor likes, even if you don’t agree…that’s just your opinion…; if it’s wrong, he will let us know immediately after he realizes it. Until then, just play it.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

I'm sorry, but no. You're wrong. I would never make the assumption that we are talking about A-major if the notes should be "A, B, C, D, and E." Why is that? Because if I don't hear you say "C#," then I'm going to assume that you are talking about A-minor, for there are no sharps in the A-minor scale

djeggnog,

Just an fyi, the "F" and "G" in the A-melodic minor scale are sharp when ascending and natural when descending. Sorry, you're wrong.

And, you really didn't understand what I said when I said:

Besides, if you think the fact that a key signature has 3 sharps in it (F#, C#, and G#) automatically makes it A-major, you would be mistaken, it could be it's relative minor key of f# minor (same 3 sharps present). We digress :)

If a piece of unfamiliar music is in front of you, and the key signature has 3 sharps...djeggnog, what key is it in? If you can't answer that question without looking at the notes on the page in order to find the 'tonic' or 'root' of the piece, then you've gotten my point. If you think you can tell me if it is major or minor based on the key signature alone, you are mistaken.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

As regards "Mary Had a Little Lamb"

djeggnog, you said,

No one would play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" in the key of A in the manner that you describe. This is not the melody I learned when I was a kid and played this tune on the violin.

:) Exactly...it seems it would be obvious that, to play it in a minor key would be wrong. That's how I feel about your higher powers example; it seems obvious that the higher powers interpretation should have been in a major key as opposed to the old WT view of it in a minor key. Perhaps their conductor wasn't familiar with that particular tune and they failed to see or adhere to the key signature.

I played it on my iPad, but I don't need to imagine that the song will sound flat whenever a C is played instead of a C#.

LOL, when you say "the song will sound flat", do you mean to say it has a minor quality to it? You talk funny. ;) j/k

Again, there is no C in the key of A-Major, there is only a C# (and a F# and G#).

BINGO! (btw- there is a type of "C" in every kind of A scale -- major and minor -- and I like to make sure it's clear as to what kind of "C" it is -- #, b, or natural. But I understand what you mean.)

So now you understand that, when playing Mary Had a Little Lamb in the key of "A", if you didn't play a C# every time a "C" came along, it would sound minor instead of the way the composer wrote it (major).

Now just plug in me as the one playing it in the major key, and the WT ensemble playing it in the minor key...and voila...you understand my example and how it applies the "higher powers" example!

Got it now?

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Really djeggnog?

I really meant my music example to be simplified, but I see your hangup.

Also...You're wrong. When someone says "Key of A", it does not imply Major or Minor...it simply indicates that the music is based on an "A" scale. But the key signature (and accidentals within the music) gives us the clue as to what quality or kind of key of "A" it is in...and that is why I "talked funny". Just because you're not familiar with talking about minor and major having a quality does not mean it is a foreign way of describing it...it's just foreign to those who aren't familiar with it. Try not to let your unfamiliarity hang you up.

You didn't know this, but you are talking to a current musician...Key of A does not imply 3 sharps....Key of A-major does. Perhaps you didn't get far enough in your musical studies to understand that. Knowing your background, though, I can see why you think if someone says "play this piece in the Key of A", you already would have known if it was a minor key or major key based on the title of the piece. If you were ready to play a piece that was written in G minor, you would have to assume if someone said "let's play this in the key of A" that they mean to play it in "a-minor".

Hopefully that's all cleared up. Wow, sorry I caused so much confusion.

I see that, for your sake, I should have not just addressed C# and C-natural (btw- I specified "natural" so the contrast between sharp and natural would be obvious...I never know what kind of music background people might have) but I should have addressed the whole key signature.

I see now that I should have just said...the composer wrote in the key of A and the key signature was 3 sharps, so it had to be A-major. But the conductor of the WT ensemble ignored or didn't see the key signature, and played everything natural -- i.e. all the F's, C's, and G's.

Same thing with the Mary Had a Little Lamb example. You almost understood that one! Your comments indicate that. I'll post about that seperately.

You're right, you can't read my mind, and I should have known there was potential for you to read too far into my example; so far that you missed the point entirely.

Please accept my apologies.