New Guy's instrumental debate- psalms

Posted in the Martinsville Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of424
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
New Guy

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Any discussion of the music question will center on the meaning of psalms found in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. According to Vine's, psalmos means "to strike or twitch with the fingers (on musical strings), then a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment,a psalm".

That seems to indicate that a psalm may be used with musical instruments. However, many dispute that.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/829...

In the above article, Wayne Jackson alleges that the word for psalm has changed in meaning from the Old Testament to the NT. He also states that the word psalm can be used for either instrumental music or music without accompaniment in the OT, depending on context.

*I agree with his second point, that context decides and sometimes it can be either instrumental or not instrumental. My belief is that both are acceptable to God. I do contend with point #1. At what point do we see the word psalm change in meaning in the Bible? If the Bible is our sole authority, where is the authority for this change? Where does God tell us a psalm is no longer a psalm?

Some scriptural evidence about psalms:
*55 of the Biblical book of Psalms begin with a variation of "To the chief Musician".

*Psalm 92 is a psalm for the Sabbath day; verse 3 says "Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a solemn sound."

*Psalm 87 is considered a prophecy of the church by several scholars. What about verse 7?

*Psalm 150 is a beautiful psalm speaking of praising God. Instruments are mentioned prominently and acceptably in the old covenant.

There is no doubt about the character and content of the OT psalms. Where and why then should anyone assume the meaning of psalm has changed? Why would God change His mind?

Vine's complete expository dictionary has an interesting note under the word "hymn". Quote- "the psalmos denoted that which had a musical accompanyment; the ode was the generic term for a song". This is in the New Testament words section. No mention here of any change. However, the Scriptures themselves are our final authority. We must find our meaning within them. Where is the evidence of a change of Biblical meaning?

Romans 15:9 is an interesting passage of scripture. Paul says "And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and SING unto thy name". The word sing in Greek is literally psallo. What makes this even more interesting is that here Paul is quoting from Psalms 18. Psalm 18 is begun with the inscription "To the chief Musician". The word translated sing is zamar, which meant to sing accompanied by an instrument.

Thought-did Paul use this word on accident? Did he not know what it meant? If instrumental music is indeed excluded in the new testament, did Paul err? Or did the Spirit that inspired him err? Is it possible that the word psalmos has retained its meaning?

*Example-"gay". If I told you I am "gay", my brethren would cringe in horror. However, the original meaning meant to "be happy". Is the word's original meaning incorrect because the times and culture have changed? No. So, even IF the meaning of psalmos has changed, and we have no BIBLICAL evidence that is has, the original meaning is still correct. And we must consider the writers background and intents. Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee. What would the word psalm mean to him, and those people in that culture?

This is to be a very condensed study on my instrumental position. It is by no means totally in depth, nor is it intended to be. I just want to show enough evidence to present my case. More is coming, so now-anyone agree, or disagree, with the meaning of the word psalm? For the naysayers, I will say you may want to save some objections for the next round or so, as I get into other aspects of the music question.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

New Guy wrote:
Any discussion of the music question will center on the meaning of psalms found in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. According to Vine's, psalmos means "to strike or twitch with the fingers (on musical strings), then a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment,a psalm".
That seems to indicate that a psalm may be used with musical instruments. However, many dispute that.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/829...
In the above article, Wayne Jackson alleges that the word for psalm has changed in meaning from the Old Testament to the NT. He also states that the word psalm can be used for either instrumental music or music without accompaniment in the OT, depending on context.
*I agree with his second point, that context decides and sometimes it can be either instrumental or not instrumental. My belief is that both are acceptable to God. I do contend with point #1. At what point do we see the word psalm change in meaning in the Bible? If the Bible is our sole authority, where is the authority for this change? Where does God tell us a psalm is no longer a psalm?
Some scriptural evidence about psalms:
*55 of the Biblical book of Psalms begin with a variation of "To the chief Musician".
*Psalm 92 is a psalm for the Sabbath day; verse 3 says "Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a solemn sound."
*Psalm 87 is considered a prophecy of the church by several scholars. What about verse 7?
*Psalm 150 is a beautiful psalm speaking of praising God. Instruments are mentioned prominently and acceptably in the old covenant.
There is no doubt about the character and content of the OT psalms. Where and why then should anyone assume the meaning of psalm has changed? Why would God change His mind?
Vine's complete expository dictionary has an interesting note under the word "hymn". Quote- "the psalmos denoted that which had a musical accompanyment; the ode was the generic term for a song". This is in the New Testament words section. No mention here of any change. However, the Scriptures themselves are our final authority. We must find our meaning within them. Where is the evidence of a change of Biblical meaning?
Romans 15:9 is an interesting passage of scripture. Paul says "And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and SING unto thy name". The word sing in Greek is literally psallo. What makes this even more interesting is that here Paul is quoting from Psalms 18. Psalm 18 is begun with the inscription "To the chief Musician". The word translated sing is zamar, which meant to sing accompanied by an instrument.
Thought-did Paul use this word on accident? Did he not know what it meant? If instrumental music is indeed excluded in the new testament, did Paul err? Or did the Spirit that inspired him err? Is it possible that the word psalmos has retained its meaning?
*Example-"gay". If I told you I am "gay", my brethren would cringe in horror. However, the original meaning meant to "be happy". Is the word's original meaning incorrect because the times and culture have changed? No. So, even IF the meaning of psalmos has changed, and we have no BIBLICAL evidence that is has, the original meaning is still correct. And we must consider the writers background and intents. Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee. What would the word psalm mean to him, and those people in that culture?
This is to be a very condensed study on my instrumental position. It is by no means totally in depth, nor is it intended to be. I just want to show enough evidence to present my case. More is coming, so now-anyone agree, or disagree, with the meaning of the word psalm? For the naysayers, I will say you may want to save some objections for the next round or so, as I get into other aspects of the music question.
May I use this on my Facebook?

12:24pm - Lunch
Wed
3/20/2013

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

May I use this on my Facebook and Blog?

12:26pm - Lunch
Wed
3/20/2013
New Guy

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

JesusCreed wrote:
May I use this on my Facebook and Blog?
12:26pm - Lunch
Wed
3/20/2013
Yes sir you may.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 20, 2013
 
New Guy wrote:
Any discussion of the music question will center on the meaning of psalms found in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. According to Vine's, psalmos means "to strike or twitch with the fingers (on musical strings), then a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment,a psalm".
That seems to indicate that a psalm may be used with musical instruments. However, many dispute that.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/829...
In the above article, Wayne Jackson alleges that the word for psalm has changed in meaning from the Old Testament to the NT. He also states that the word psalm can be used for either instrumental music or music without accompaniment in the OT, depending on context.
*I agree with his second point, that context decides and sometimes it can be either instrumental or not instrumental. My belief is that both are acceptable to God. I do contend with point #1. At what point do we see the word psalm change in meaning in the Bible? If the Bible is our sole authority, where is the authority for this change? Where does God tell us a psalm is no longer a psalm?

I will address other parts in the future but you have to be called on one of your first comments. You claim to use the bible as your "SOLE" authority yet from the beginning go to outside the bible by using Vines to define a word. So what should we do with your thoughts now? Want to change your speech?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

New Guy wrote:
The word translated sing is zamar, which meant to sing accompanied by an instrument.
Now to your next comment I will contest.

The word zamar does not always mean to sing with accompanied instrument because there are verse that use the word and then add to use the instrument along with the singing.
Let me post one and then show what Strongs does define for this word.

Ps 71:22 I will also praise 3034 thee with the psaltery 3627 5035,[even] thy truth 571, O my God 430: unto thee will I sing 2167 with the harp 3658, O thou Holy One 6918 of Israel 3478.

So according to your thought this text says,.......Unto thee will I SING AND PLAY (Zamar) and PLAY the HARP.
Your question about Paul should be asked here if the word means what you said. DID this writer get confused and not know the meaning a zamar had the instrument included with it?

Strongs define of zamar

1) to sing, sing praise, make music

a)(Piel)

1) to make music, sing

2) to play a musical instrument

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 20, 2013
 
Regarding the thread from NG, he makes some points from the Bible, which, btw, define themselves within the context. As he said, the word Psalm during that era would have been taken one way and only one way. The challenge for those who consider the word Psalm to have been changed MUST come from the Bible. If we chose to go outside of the Bible, NG already demonstrated that there is proof there as well what the word meant. However, if you stick with the Bible, please cite the verse{s}from the Bible where the meaning of Psalm changed.

4:20pm - Friends House
Wed.
3/20/2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Randy_Craiger wrote:
Regarding the thread from NG, he makes some points from the Bible, which, btw, define themselves within the context. As he said, the word Psalm during that era would have been taken one way and only one way. The challenge for those who consider the word Psalm to have been changed MUST come from the Bible. If we chose to go outside of the Bible, NG already demonstrated that there is proof there as well what the word meant. However, if you stick with the Bible, please cite the verse{s}from the Bible where the meaning of Psalm changed.
4:20pm - Friends House
Wed.
3/20/2013
He went outside the bible to begin with. He needs to either not do so or change his parameters dont you think?

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 20, 2013
 
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
He went outside the bible to begin with. He needs to either not do so or change his parameters dont you think?
Perhaps he went outside of the Bible to demonstrate that you can find support form both positions if you do that. INSTEAD, stick to the Bible and make your case for "Psalms" was his point, the way I understood his thread.

4:56pm - Friends House
Wed
3/30/2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 20, 2013
 
Now lets look at this in proper context of the whole of the bible.

1. Matt 28:18ff gives clear direction as to what was fixing to happen and expected of those
a. The apostle would remember all that Christ taught
b. The apostle were to teach everything Christ taught as the Holy Spirit would direct them.
c. The apostles were to teach nothing except what Christ told them.
d. The church was to follow the teaching of these inspired men and should not adhere to anything not authorized by Christ.

2. There is no implication, example, or command of the instrument being used in worship in the NT record. This is important because after the transfiguration it was understood that Not Moses nor Elijah but only Christ instructions were now to be followed as Given through the Holy Spirit.
We do not have the authority of Christ.

3. You can not Use the Instrument by Faith in worship.
Rom 14:23 addresses this in a sense. "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

2 Corinthians 5:7 Paul says we are to "walk by faith, not by sight." To walk by faith is to walk as God's Word directs. If God's Word does not direct an action, it is not 'of faith' and therefore is sin!

To add the instrument without instruction from the head of the church (Christ), is to deny the head of the Church. Ephesians 5:24, "Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

4. To worship without authority no matter how good it seems is vain worship. Examples throughout the bible on this one. John 4:24, Jesus declares, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Truth is the Word of God (John 17:17)

5. It causes Division.

God is for unity and those that require the instrument are divisive not the ones singing only.

"I know of no cases where the instrument was already in use and non-instrumental brethren tried to force it out and possess the property, but the reverse has occurred many times."(Biblical Notes, Volume IX, July, 1975, page 27).

Where the instrument was introduced, churches split and division is an ugly picture, contrary to true Christianity (I Corinthians 1:10).

Probably more to follow but not now.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 20, 2013
 
Randy_Craiger wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps he went outside of the Bible to demonstrate that you can find support form both positions if you do that. INSTEAD, stick to the Bible and make your case for "Psalms" was his point, the way I understood his thread.
4:56pm - Friends House
Wed
3/30/2013
Perhaps????? He went to Vines And then said His SOLE authority would be the bible. He can not do so and neither can you. Be consistent.

See I know history supports the teaching and I am not afraid to use those and neither is God afraid of History. Just those who do not want the full truth.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

JustChristian wrote:
Now lets look at this in proper context of the whole of the bible.
1. Matt 28:18ff gives clear direction as to what was fixing to happen and expected of those
a. The apostle would remember all that Christ taught
b. The apostle were to teach everything Christ taught as the Holy Spirit would direct them.
c. The apostles were to teach nothing except what Christ told them.
d. The church was to follow the teaching of these inspired men and should not adhere to anything not authorized by Christ.
2. There is no implication, example, or command of the instrument being used in worship in the NT record. This is important because after the transfiguration it was understood that Not Moses nor Elijah but only Christ instructions were now to be followed as Given through the Holy Spirit.
We do not have the authority of Christ.
3. You can not Use the Instrument by Faith in worship.
Rom 14:23 addresses this in a sense. "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
2 Corinthians 5:7 Paul says we are to "walk by faith, not by sight." To walk by faith is to walk as God's Word directs. If God's Word does not direct an action, it is not 'of faith' and therefore is sin!
To add the instrument without instruction from the head of the church (Christ), is to deny the head of the Church. Ephesians 5:24, "Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
4. To worship without authority no matter how good it seems is vain worship. Examples throughout the bible on this one. John 4:24, Jesus declares, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Truth is the Word of God (John 17:17)
5. It causes Division.
God is for unity and those that require the instrument are divisive not the ones singing only.
"I know of no cases where the instrument was already in use and non-instrumental brethren tried to force it out and possess the property, but the reverse has occurred many times."(Biblical Notes, Volume IX, July, 1975, page 27).
Where the instrument was introduced, churches split and division is an ugly picture, contrary to true Christianity (I Corinthians 1:10).
Probably more to follow but not now.
iT'S THE NON-INSTRUMENTAL POSSITION THAT CAUSES DIVISION.

'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.'

JESUS TAUGHT FROM THE OT AND DIDN'T TOSS OUT THE TORAH, PROPHETS OR PSALMS, BUT DECLARED THEM FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

I agree. And what lexicon did they use when Paul wrote his epistles ..... the Torah. They didn't have all of the lexicons we have today.......they used the old testament. The word psalm in defined by context and practice via the old testament.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 21, 2013
 
I see I got the old "disagree" and "clueless" above yet not rebuttal.

Again, I ask: What lexicon did they use when Paul wrote his epistles?

They didn't have all of the lexicons we have today.......they used the old testament.

The word psalm in defined by context and practice via the old testament.

6:30
Thursday
3/21/2013

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 21, 2013
 
JC, Isn't the Bible sufficient to make your case? If so, where in the Bible did the meaning of Psalm change?

Paul told Timothy that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction", for training in righteousness. What Lexicon would Timothy use to define the meaning of Psalms?

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture" is inspired by God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction", for training in righteousness?

6:35am
Thursday
3/21/2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 21, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
JC, Isn't the Bible sufficient to make your case? If so, where in the Bible did the meaning of Psalm change?
Paul told Timothy that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction", for training in righteousness. What Lexicon would Timothy use to define the meaning of Psalms?
2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture" is inspired by God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction", for training in righteousness?
6:35am
Thursday
3/21/2013
It isnt for you so dont say you use the bible only. Neither you or New Guy use only the bible as you claim.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 21, 2013
 
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
iT'S THE NON-INSTRUMENTAL POSSITION THAT CAUSES DIVISION.
'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.'
JESUS TAUGHT FROM THE OT AND DIDN'T TOSS OUT THE TORAH, PROPHETS OR PSALMS, BUT DECLARED THEM FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH.
Now be truthful How many congregations have split because someone decided to go with the instrument? How many Have split because the instrument was being used and people said NO dont use it? You might want to look at historical records on this.
Dont let me confuse you with the facts.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 21, 2013
 
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
It isnt for you so dont say you use the bible only. Neither you or New Guy use only the bible as you claim.
Isn't the Bible sufficient to make your case? If so, where in the Bible did the meaning of Psalm change?

Paul told Timothy that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction", for training in righteousness. What Lexicon would Timothy use to define the meaning of Psalms?

9:30am - Break
Thursday
3/21/2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 21, 2013
 
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't the Bible sufficient to make your case? If so, where in the Bible did the meaning of Psalm change?
Paul told Timothy that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction", for training in righteousness. What Lexicon would Timothy use to define the meaning of Psalms?
9:30am - Break
Thursday
3/21/2013
Here is the biblical argument why the instrument should not be used in worship. And when you honestly then ask what the NT church actually did you can only come to one honest conclusion. The first Century Church did not use the instrument because they followed the NT teaching of Christ and his words.

Because it does not have the authority of Christ.(Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 5:24).

Because we cannot do so "by faith".(Romans 14:23; 10:17).

Because to do so would make our worship vain.(Matthew 15:9). Because to do so would be to reject Christ as the head of the church.(Ephesians 1:22-23).

Because the use of the instrument in worship is contrary to the doctrine of Christ.(2 John 9).

Because it causes divisions.(Romans 16:17).

Because it does not pertain to life and godliness.(2 Peter 1:3).

Now simply show a command Of CHRIST (Doctrine of Christ)(Law of liberty) that claims use of the instrument, or an example of the church using the instrument, or an inference that they did use the instrument and you have me. Its ok with me if you convict me with historical support as I believe the scripture of God is not destroyed by historical accounts but confirmed. History is important for most of the apostles used it in convicting those who they were trying to persuade to leave Jewish faith and become CHrisitans.
New Guy

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 21, 2013
 
HISTORY USED AS PROOF OF THE A CAPELLA POSITION

We are often told that early church history proves that the first Christians did not use instruments in their "worship". Thus, we have no precedent and are breaking the pattern laid out for us. What does history truly have to tell us?

*The early church fathers indeed were against instrumental music in the church services. There are several centuries' worth of condemnation written by these men. The documents are out there for all to find; I will not present them here. However, there are several problems with these historical writers which must be taken into account before we consider using them to prove our doctrinal positions today.

*We are warned several times in scripture to "do not go beyond what is written". Post Biblical history is exactly that, post Biblical. These men were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, their words do not form the canon of scripture. Many hold doctrinal positions that the churches of Christ would call abominable today.

*Their objections to instrumental music are not the same as those who object to the instrument today. Todays arguments are- no authority from Christ; singing only was authorized; strange fire; heart is the instrument; not of faith is sin; et al. The early church fathers objected on no Biblical grounds; rather, their objections came from a fear of sensuality and idolatry, imitating pagan or Jewish worship, Roman celebrations, and other such things. Again, the info is out there, search for this on your own.

*Some of these "fathers" also came up with the idea of "allegorizing" the scriptures-most notably those from the Egyptian city of Alexandria, who were afraid of imitating Egyptian pagan rites.

*A logical question-why does one argue so strongly against something that is said to never have happened? If no one was using the instrument, why argue against it?

*Are we comfortable following the lead and ideas of those who led the world into Catholicism and division?

*The historical writers are not all in agreement about when instrumental music was introduced into the churches. The answers range from 670 to 755 to 768 to the ninth century to 1200 years later. If these do not agree, how can we assume they are correct? There are also some who claim that the earliest Greek converts used instruments. Which is correct, or are any of these correct?

*These dates come from researching on bible.ca, a non-instrumental church of Christ website. Another interesting quote from bible.ca- "Nowhere has God CONDEMNED use of mechanical instruments in Christian worship; nowhere has God COMMANDED their use".

*My final argument about history is this-when we discuss "church history", it seems that we always go past Bible times into the second century and beyond. Have we forgotten this?

Galatians 3:7- "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham". A Christian is a spiritual descendant of Abraham. His history is our history. The Old Testament was written for our learning and as an example for us. The OT is not a history of Israel after the flesh, it is a history of God's people from Genesis to Malachi. It is MY family history, and OURS if we are in the faith.

Why then should we disregard our own ancient history, but accept the history of those who may or may not be our brethren? Only God knows where those "early church fathers" stand. We do not.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of424
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

11 Users are viewing the Martinsville Forum right now

Search the Martinsville Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Making some changes 24 min Bobby 212
puppet masters on here 32 min Bobby 17
Is Jesus your Lord and Savior 38 min Mike_Peterson 18
Jesus saves his sheep 51 min JustChristian 41
Pray for my friends in Palestine 2 hr scirocco 40
Who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses (Aug '13) 4 hr Barnsweb 550
Is Roman Catholicism a FALSE GOSPEL Sun Jimmy Crack Corn 26
•••
•••
•••
•••

Martinsville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••