Speaking in Tongues Continued

DHK: //How can you teach your child an unknown language
if it is unknown to you?? [Roll Eyes]
DHK//

Here is what I said:

Ed: //BTW, unknown tongues is NOT a miracle.
It is so easy to do that I taught it once to a 5-year-old.
He thought he was pretending to read the words
he really couldn't read.//

He though he was pretending to read the words that he
really couldn't read them.

What you have to understand is the people you are arguing with
believe that 'unknown tongues' means languages unlearned
by anybody in the world. A mathematicion would call it 'random
syllables'. Some nay-sayers call it 'gibberish'
(EVen though God through Paul said in
1 Corinthians 14:30B (KJV1611 Edition):

... forbid not to speake with tongues.

It is just as bad to deny what tongues are and thus forbid them
as to acknowledge what they are and forbid them.

A brain surgeon might say this:
The human brain has two functions that coordinate speaking,
the first, the Generator, generates syllables; the second,
the Censor, throws out the syllables that don't contribute
to the thought to be expressed.
People like Mel Tillis, who stutters, has a problem with
the Generator, it keeps generating the same syllable over
and over. When he has a song to sing, the Generator isn't
the source, but memory is the source of the sound.

Strangely, the generator is NOT as subject to depression
as is the censor. So if you are in a depressed state,
you can turn off the censor, speak to yourself in
unknown tongues, and not be as depressed. (Don't do this
while driving, please).

Recall Paul said he spake in unknown tongues more than anybody.
Maybe he suffered depresssion. I suppose one could sew tents
with the censor turned off. Anyway, how could he speak more
than anybody with ecstatic utterances AND always prefer talking
with understanding? Obviously Paul spake to himself with ecstatic utterances
but spoke with others the Good New (Gospel) of the saving power of Jesus.

Now, how much worship time should a local church use to help it's people
develop helpful habits like exercising ecstatic utterances?
My answer is: no more than what Paul said: 2 or 3 (but only if
one who has the SPIRITUAL GIFT of translation is present in the service)
in turn, decently and in order.

IMHO ecstatic utterances should NOT be displayed in public places like on TV.

 

The Riot Act:

I believe the Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that my understanding
of all the Bible is inerrant.

You believe your Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that your understanding
of all your Bible is inerrant.

Surely i have respect enough for my
Brother in Christ that i will allow you your
opinion. If further you believe your
opinion, i will allow that also.
But i will receive the same consideration
for my opinion/belief.
I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
What the Bible said is true, what
the Bible means is your opinion or
is my opinion.
Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant
get confused with what the Bible said.

To have any other consideration is a denial
of the Baptist Distinctive:
the Doctrine of Soul Sufficienty.

 

DHK: //Why are you denying what the Bible says so plainly?//

You say one set of words.
But most here hear "I disrespectfully disagree".

But I keep saying "i respectfully disagree".
(Actually most people on BB are afraid to
disagree. This is because people keep slaying them
by disrespectfull disagreeing.)

I rest my case. I won the debate when you surrendered.
Your misunderstanding of my thoughtful exposition of the
Written Word of God is in no wise my DENYING anything.

YOu minunderstood. But I graciously allow you to misunderstand
IAW the superior position I had, having taken the moral high
ground.

So we rest the case: 1 Corinthians 14 is about the
spiritual gift of speaking
of glossia, unknown tongues, ecstatic utterances, tongues,
languages understood by no man, etc.
1 Corinthians 14 is NOT about the miracle of the hearing of
one speaker by multiple people in multiple languages.

Even a simple missionary like yourself understood that
glossia, unknown tongues, ecstatic utterances, tongues,
languages understood by no man, etc. sound like gibberish
but you can not explain the miracle as on the Day of Pentacost
where what one person says touches the ears of multiple people
in multiple languages.

 

DHK: //Ecstatic utterances are of the devil, found only in pagan religions.//

You haven't given any scriptural arguments for this.
I have shown that the Eastern Orthodox practice Ecstatic utterances,
the Easter Orthodox are Christian, not pagan.
(BTW, in the USofA we are reqired to say 'Pagan' for they have as
much right as do Christians to have their religion capatolized.)

DKH: //here is nothing in the Bible that advocates ecstatic utterances--nothing.//

Find a shrink. Denial is common among debate loosers.

Ed: //Now, how much worship time should a local church use to help it's people
develop helpful habits like exercising ecstatic utterances?//

DHK: //Absolutely none. The practice today may even be demonic.
Have nothing to do with it. It ceased in the first century.//

As I said, your wrong assumption invalidates all your arguments.
Even if 'ecstatic utterances' mean what you say, how much worship
time should a local church use? is still a valid quesiton.
But you dismiss the question out of hand.

BTW, your circular logic, dependending as it does on your false
deinition of 'ecstatic utterances', is showing:

If ecstatic utterances ceased in the first century;
Then ecstatic utterances ceased in the first century.

DHK earlier in the post: //The practice today may even be demonic.//
DKH later in the post: //Ecstatic utterances are of the devil,
found only in pagan religions.//

Sorry, Bro. but your self comflicting statements in the same post
are a bit more serious than typos or a plural/singualar boo-boo.

 

The Holy Spirit apparently forgot what the Greek word "unknown" is, so men had to supply it for him, if you accept that "unknown" belongs with "tongues".

Either that, or you have to accept it as it is written as "languages".

However, even if you accept them as being for today, they are being misused terribly.

 

Hope of Glory: //The Holy Spirit apparently forgot what the Greek word "unknown" is, so men had to supply it for him, if you accept that "unknown" belongs with "tongues".//

If you wish to deride early English translations
go to the Version Forum at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/4.html?

Be careful, there are moderators there that don't take no huff
about the KJV.

Hope of Glory: //However, even if you accept them as being for today,
they are being misused terribly.//

Agreed. But that sounds like another discussion altogether.
And there are those here that want to toss all UNKNOWN TONGUE talker
babies out with the dirty TV bathwater.

 

It's a discussion that is very relevant when one is discussing "unknown" tongues.

I find it very ironic that the KJV translators themselves assumed that others would build upon their work. They themselves realized they were not perfect. Yet, others put their work on the same level as the direct words of God. (Sort of like the Pharisees did with the law.)

This is a perfect example of that. The KJV translators, who did an excellent job considering everything, added interpretation to their understanding of something. They made sure that we knew that it was added. We now know that it doesn't belong, because there is no such thing in the Bible as an unknown tongue. (Although there are plenty of examples from the pagan world.)

It has been shown repeatedly from Scripture that the sign gifts were for a specific purpose at a specific time and that time and purpose is gone.

Although there were signs accompanying the filling of the Holy Spirit at one point in time, are these signs are still occurring? It’s a common belief that they are. What are the “signs, wonders and miracles” spoken of in Acts? (Acts 2:22) The sign is centrally in view and the words wonder and miracle describe the sign. That is, the sign (Greek: semeion) is both a wonder (Greek: teras – something out of the ordinary) and a miracle (Greek: dunamis – “power” referring to the supernatural power necessary to bring the sign to pass.)

Signs, wonders and miracles performed through individuals were manifested on only two occasions or in two periods in the Old Testament.

Moses and Aaron manifested them surrounding Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, with a view to the nation’s entrance into the land of Canaan; and then they were manifested by Moses’ successor Joshua, surrounding Israel’s subsequent entrance into the land of Canaan. Exodus 4:29-31 tells of Moses doing the signs in front of the children of Israel. Moses cast his rod down before Pharaoh and it turned into a serpent. Moses parting the Red Sea. In Joshua 3:7, God said he would be with Joshua as he had been with Moses, and later, he had the priests stand in the Jordan, and the water stood in a heap. There are more, but you get the picture. That was the first occasion.

The second was a manifestation by Elijah and his successor Elisha, about 500 years later, in relation to creating a drought that would last for years. (1 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 2:13) Baal was the god of rain. Israel had turned to Baal; Israel would dry up for disobedience; turning to other gods. His Kingdom will come when the whole world recognizes God as the king of kings and lord of lords, but this event would demonstrate it to the Jews. This was not an absolute drought. An absolute drought would devastate the land into an uninhabitable wasteland. But, Elijah’s miracles were judgmental (drought and fire), because of the apostasy of Israel. The Kingdom was dried up for a while. Elisha’s miracles were more miracles of compassion and healings, such as cleaning the water and adding oil to a widow’s lamp. There’s more here, but we will study that at a future time.

Numerous miracles are recorded throughout the Old Testament, but they were performed directly by God, not by individuals empowered by God. There are still miracles being performed by God today, but miracles being performed through men in the name of God was for a specific purpose that no longer exists. (But, as with the manna and the quail, God obviously gives people what they want, if they're persistent enough.)

The manifestations during the days of Moses, Aaron and Joshua were in relation to Israel and the Kingdom. Supernatural miracles manifested through people empowered by God occurred relative to Israel being removed from Egypt and being established in Canaan. Thus, a first-mention principle was established at this point in the Scripture. Any time there is mention of signs, wonders and miracles being performed by individuals after this point, both Israel and the Kingdom must be in view.

The signs, wonders and miracles were simply the credentials for those manifesting them. Israel was to recognize the messenger as being sent from God. Whether it was Jesus or His disciples proclaiming the Kingdom, the signs, wonders and miracles were their credentials that authenticated the message.

 

1 Cor. 14:2-4, "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church."

How could tongues be always a language when the Bible states clearly in 1 Cor 14:2, "for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries."

The Bible does say that tongues edifies himself. If it edifies how can it be of anything else other than God.

The instructions in 1 Cor 14 is for control and edification in the assembly of believers. Tongues does nothing to edify the body but it does edify self.

I do not equate the tongues spoken of in Acts and 1 Cor as being the same. They are not at all in the same context. In 1 Cor they were bringing their past pagan practices into the assembly. That is much different than in Acts.

Basically Paul is telling them to put a lid on it and to seek to edify the body.

Anything which does not edify the body in an assembly should never be brought up.

 

So they didn’t have to learn? Some today would call their preaching Holy Ghost preaching while they truly share their ignorance. Where did you get that? That is quite contrary to studying which the readers were commended for in Acts and commanded to do in Timothy.

On pages 201 and 202 of BAGD third edition glossa is defined as 1)organ of speech, tongue 2) a body of works and systems that makes up a distinctive language, language, tongue 3) an utterance outside of intelligible speech and therefore requiring special interpretation, ecstatic language, ecstatic speech, tongue.

Louw & Nida disagrees with you on page 389 (33.3) Vol. 1 of Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains

Moulton and Milligan state in Vocabulary of the Greek Testament that glossa was not only used for language but also for local peculiarities of speech.

G.W.H. Lampe does not agree with you.

TDNT does not agree with you. In fact it gave quite a history of it in religious practices at different times.

Frankly, I was unable to find one credible Greek-English lexicon or theological dictionary which agrees with you.

So could you give a credible resource where one could read about what you claim?

 

DHK,

I agree completly. And what we are speaking of fits with that perfectly.

Sometimes the "real genuine foreign language" that is "unknown to the speaker" is an angelic heavenly language and it IS known to the "hearer"...for the hearer is God.

"For though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..."

"For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. For no one understands him. However, in the Spirit he speaks mysteries"

"He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself..."

(notice...absolutly no rebuke there)

"...but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied"

Notice...he never said speaking in tongues (speaking mysteries) only to God, and to be personally edified by that...is wrong. Never. Only that prophesying is better for the church.

And what does he conclude with a few verses later?

"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with the understanding. I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding"

Gods scriptures are so clear on this subject.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

The Analytical Greek Lexicon: the tongue, speech, talk, language, a language not proper to a speaker, a gift or faculty of such language, a nation (as defined by its language), a tongue shaped flame.

New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary: γλῶσσα glōssa; from a prim. root γλωχ- glōch- (projecting point); the tongue, a language:— tongue(25), tongues(25).

Thomas, R. L. 1998, 1981. New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition . Foundation Publications, Inc.: Anaheim

Also, although I dislike Strong's because it is a concordance, and not a lexicon, says that it is 1100 γλῶσσα [glossa /gloce·sah/] n f. Of uncertain affinity; TDNT 1:719; TDNTA 123; GK 1185; 50 occurrences; AV translates as “tongue” 50 times. 1 the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech. 2 a tongue. 1a the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations.

The inflection of giving it the meaning of "ecstatic utterances" is a result of the inflection given by the KJV translators, and not from the original language itself. Much like translating "aionios" as "eternal", when the word cannot mean that.

Albert Barnes says, "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue - This verse is designed to show that the faculty of speaking intelligibly, and to the edification of the church, is of more value than the power of speaking a foreign language. The reason is, that however valuable may be the endowment in itself, and however important the truth which he may utter, yet it is as if he spoke to God only. No one could understand him."

Gill says that it is referring to Hebrew specifically.

"Unknown" is interpretation based on something that is not in the text.

 

Brian,

You asked about your challenge on page 4.

I'll bite.

You challenged people concerning these "word meanings" and how the scenerio involving the differences in the 2 situations, and the 2 word meanings, would work themselves out, different than your view:

OK.

OK again.

What is the conflict?

Concerning prophecy and knowledge, they will be made to end at the appointed time...after that which is perfect has come, and we are with Christ for eternity.

Concerning tongues, they will fade away on their own at the appointed time...after that wich is perfect has come, when we are with Christ for eternity.

That was easy!

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Hello Ray,

You assume that I use a KJV or that I am a KJV only kind of Baptist. You'd be wrong on both counts. I do own a KJV (as well as NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and several others). I perfer to use my NASB. You should not make a habit of jumping to conclusions or making such assumptions.

Paul was in presence of the exalted Christ in Acts 9:4. No one alive on this earth today has had that same exact experience.

John was taken spiritually (via a vision) and given a view of the exalted Christ, things in heaven, and things that will come to pass here on earth. No one alive on this earth today has had the exact same experience.

When you use these Bible references in an attempt to justify and explain why people "fall out" at Benny Hinn (or other charismatic services) you are comparing apples to oranges.

I agree with that last statement.

[ December 20, 2005, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think this is referring to the second coming?