200
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: + + + +
→Rewrite: I disagree, I think there is a valid difference
::::: It seems that you do not have a valid reason for the distinction.
::::: It seems that you do not have a valid reason for the distinction.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Regarding supporting evidence:
:::::: A choir of that size would leave evidence behind, in the forms of contemporary accounts of their singing and so on. Whether or not any such evidence has ''survived'' is another matter, but in principle it could still be found.
:::::: Regarding Lucifer, an event in heaven would leave no direct evidence on earth. You say that you could theorise such evidence: could you please give me an example? We have the Biblical account, but we cannot use the existence of a claim as evidence in favour of itself.
:::::: I say that King David's choir (leaving aside questions of size) is a reasonable possibility, because members of royalty throughout history have often been patrons of music or owned private musical ensembles, and because David is said to have been a keen musician himself. On what basis can one judge the plausibility of Lucifer being the first musician? We are not privy to the normal course of events in heaven, and with what else could it be compared? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)