What do you think?There’s an equivocation on 4. ‘music’. You want it to mean music as such, and also this particular piece of music which is a percussion piece.
Sorry for the confusion. My latest example was not meant to be merged with the previous examples. It was meant to stand alone. What I mean is, #4 ‘music’ can simply be thought of as ‘that which the composer wrote’. #1 is now ‘percussion’ or ‘percussion section’ (rhythm section), not percussion piece. So, just as anything found in the Bible is “of the Bible” or ‘Biblical’, anything found in the music is “of the music” or ‘musical’. In this case, the composer included percussion in the piece s/he composed, and even if the percussion section consisted of pots and pans being hit with sticks, they are a part of this music and must be considered ‘musical’. So the author (me) is not being equivocal, but instead just states how the percussion (even if the composer wrote for pots and pans in the parts) is musical even though the composer didn’t write a melodic line for the percussion, in the same way the original author’s point was that the doctrine was Biblical, even if the author(s) of the Bible didn’t write the formula in a single statement.
The 4. ‘Bible’ must be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘Biblical doctrine’.
However, 4. ‘this piece of music’ cannot be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘musical’.
The #4 ‘Bible’ is the determiner of what is ‘Biblical’. Are you sure that #4 ‘Music’ cannot be the determiner of what is ‘musical’? I would think even dynamic markings, tempo markings, and even articulations which the composer indicated in the music, can be considered as being “of the music” and therefore, musical.
I don’t think you’ll ever write a strictly parallel analogy, because the concepts involved in the original are different and possibly unique.