The command is to sing, you add to the command when you add instruments that are not authorized by the command...
The command is for all to teach and admonish "εαυτους" ->(each other) with "ψαλμοις" ->(psalms) "και" ->(and) "υμνοις" ->(hymns) "και" ->(and) "ωδαις πνευματικαις" ->(songs spiritual, or put in proper English, "spiritual songs")
The issue is your assumption that everything has to be 'authorized by the command'--or at least the things that you have a problem with have to be authorized.
If you have one person preach a sermon every week, instead of 'every one of you' having a song, teaching, etc., then you don't think that has to be authorized, do you? Why do the things the other churches do have to be so specifically authorized. And why doesn't whether interpreting whether 'speak to one another' is in the form of solos or congregationally not have to be specifically authorized by some other verse?
It would seem your approach is that if it's in line with your tradition, it doesn't need authorization. If it isn't, it does.
The command was to the church in Colossea, it was to them all to do to εαυτους or each other...
That doesn't settle the issue, because each one singing a solo and all singing congregation are both examples of 'each other.' And where does the passage specify that this is done in the church meeting? I Corinthians 14:26 is clearly about when the church comes together. So if you want to take the rigid idea that every single action has to be specifically authorized, why not argue only for solos. Every one of you having a psalm is singing solos. If everyone does that, then people sing to 'one another'.
I'm not saying congregational singing is wrong. I'm just pointing out if you were consistent with your use of scripture, you would come to conclusions like this.
I am not even going to quote the rest of your post having to do with solo(s) as it is not in the text, it is a fabrication you have made...
It's right there in the text. If everyone has a song, then we are talking about one person singing a psalm. Look at the context that follows. One (tis) person speaks in tongues and one interprets.
etymology shows the word to once have had the meaning of musical instruments, but by the time of the NT it had lost that meaning :
Then why were you arguing that the verse is talking about twanging the instrument of the heart? If you don't believe the etymology is relevant, why argue that it is to argue your own point?
(
psalletō). Present active imperative of
psallō,
originally to twang a chord as on a harp, to sing praise to God whether with instrument or without, in N.T. only here,
1 Cor. 14:15;
Romans 15:9;
Ephes. 5:19. "Let him keep on making melody."
This definition does not look sufficient resource for determining whether the idea of twanging was inherent in the word psallo in the first century. It would take a deeper word study, if you could find any conclusive evidence at all.
I have no idea where you find this snakes mouth stuff, or what it has to do with Psallo,
Look up Phineas in Hebrew. It's just an example of something weird people can come up with arguing off of etymology as you have done.
If the meaning of psallo was 'transparent' to Greek speakers, arguing that it has to do with instruments
could be justified. Maybe.
but no matter what you twist the Greek or English to say, Psallo does not define the instrument,
I'm not twisting it. You are the one using etymology to argue your case, but arguing it isn't important when the issue is not in line with your opinion.
Paul said the instrument is the heart, where a instrument is not found in the text, it is translated simply "sing" (see Romans 15:9)
In the Old Testament, singing praise to instrumental accompaniment is still called singing. It is in English, too. In the New Testament 'sung' is also used to refer to singing with the sound of instruments as well.
Revelation 14[SUP]
2 [/SUP]And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and
I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:[SUP]
3 [/SUP]And they
sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
You're comparing the English to the English, what is rendered "each one" in 1 Cor 14:26 is "εκαστος" (Nominative Singular) the word in Col 3:16 is "εαυτους" (Third person plural) translated "one another" in the KJV
So what? Semantically, what is the difference? Colossians 3:!6 doesn't specify if all sing at the same time or if all do so in turn. In I Corinthians 14:26, it is clear that we have an individual in mind, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not against congregational singing if it is done unto edifying. If you were against solos in church, you would be specifically contradicting a verse about church meetings.
I will not address spiritual gifts here, it is off topic, they are done away, if you think not start another thread
So you don't believe in the gift of teaching, either? Do you think everyone is left to work without any grace from God to help them?
