Revelation 14:2

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping with their harps.

And I heard a voice from heaven ... Although the person or persons speaking in this great voice is not indicated, the fact of its being "from heaven" proclaims the true power and authority of it. God either spoke the message or authorized it.

As the voice of many waters ... It was not the noise of many waters which John heard, but something so powerful as to suggest that.

As the voice of harpers harping with their harps ... Just as in the case of the waters, John did not hear "waters"; he did not hear, in this case, either the harps or the voice of the harpers, but something suggesting that. What John heard was not singers singing and playing harps, but a sound as precious and sweet as that, meaning that, "It was articulate and sweet."[10] Morris described the voice as loud and melodious, supposing that, "It was the voice of the 144,000."[11]

As might have been expected, not all scholars could resist the temptation to fabricate an argument from this to favor worshipping God with mechanical instruments of music. "We see that there are zithers of God ... The zithers accompany the singing!"[12] But, of course, there are no literal harps in heaven; nor is it stated in the text that John heard any harps. As Hinds said, "The passage gives no support for the use of mechanical instruments in worship.[13] Furthermore, there is the valid principle that the appearance of anything whatever in these visions could not possibly provide any authority for the incorporation of such things into the worship of God through Christ on earth. This verse was falsely rendered by the New English Bible (1961) thus, "It was the sound of harpers playing on their harps." As Plummer pointed out, "The ASV rendition as in this text is supported by all the leading uncials, the Sinaiticus, the Alexandrinus, the Vatican and the Codex Ephraemi."[14] Therefore, the New English Bible (1961), like so many of the so-called "modern" translations, is, in certain texts, not a translation at all, but a perversion of the word of God.

[10] W. H. Simcox, The Revelation, Revised, Cambridge Greek New Testament (Cambridge: University Press, 1893), p. 139.

[11] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 176.

[12] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 421.

[13] John T. Hinds, A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1962), p. 208.

[14] A. Plummer, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22, Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 347.