he posts as if he was a founding member of the Jesus Seminar...For crying out loud, learn to use the quote feature of this software. it's not that hard.
No I don't. You're quoting from an atheist, anti-Christian, anti-Christ website. The guy is against everything you and I stand for. Tell me why he would not make up quotes from Rice, or take them out of context even if they were from an original source.
And you really should quit your unethical practice of posting quotes with no source other than some Internet website which in turn does not source the quotes.
At last, you finally deal with my point. So men like Finney and Moody, not to mention all the other men I mentioned who were pre-Azusa Street, were used of God in an incredible way without tongues. So what does tongues provide us in the service of Christ? Absolutely nothing
You "pointed out" but did not prove. All you have done is taken a very minority view about Eph. 6:18, and not proven it at all.
This is actually what I said, which you are trying to answer. But your failure to learn the quote feature on this software makes your posts hard to follow.
First of all, highlight what you want to quote. Secondly, look at the icons at the top: B, I, U, etc. Click on the little plus sign. Then click on the Quote icon. You have successfully used the feature. See, not so hard.
This makes it even worse. You taught logic, yet you used the "guilt by association" fallacy against me, hinting that my position is akin to the notorious, non-Baptistic Westside Baptist Church. And your appeal to anecdote is hardly scholarly.
No offense, but I'm literally laughing out loud. You quote John R. Rice from an atheist's website, assuming that you then know his position. That may be the most unscholarly thing I've ever read here on the BB. Then you claim scholarship is on your side because of your doctoral thesis. If you do start another thread about this, please use original sources--the actual writing of Rice rather than a hugely suspect source, an anti-Christian website (not an "article," as you said) run by an atheist. True scholarship goes to original sources.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Babbling against Speaking in Tongues
- Thread starter Deadworm
- Start date
His earned degree comes from a school well known to be critical/liberal minded on religious views though!With a Ph.D. from Harvard, he should be able to handle this.
From a non critical/liberal biased one...
I think he's embarrassed at what I've tried to teach him on this thread: that Kittel is passe, that the oracle at Delphi did not really speak in glossalalia, his view of Eph. 6:18 is an extreme minority view (for which he cannot find a good scholarly commentary for), etc. Maybe the good liberal doctor just gets this verbally violent way when contradicted by a bit of modern scholarship.
It's a good thing I have my son around to verify such things for me, since he is a Baptist scholar writing for many non-Baptist journals and for the non-Baptist Logos.
However, he's conservative, and Deadworm's real ire and disdain is obviously saved for us conservatives. Deadworm not doubt would look down with utter disdain at my son's many scholarly contributions--simply because they are not liberal.He seems to equate holding to ther scriptures as the sure word of God as being ignorant and simplistic/naive, but the Lord jesus held to them as being full trustworthy and authoritative, would he care to debate it with Him?I think he's embarrassed at what I've tried to teach him on this thread: that Kittel is passe, that the oracle at Delphi did not really speak in glossalalia, his view of Eph. 6:18 is an extreme minority view (for which he cannot find a good scholarly commentary for), etc. Maybe the good liberal doctor just gets this verbally violent way when contradicted by a bit of modern scholarship.
It's a good thing I have my son around to verify such things for me, since he is a Baptist scholar writing for many non-Baptist journals and for the non-Baptist Logos.
The fact is, THE HOLY SPIRIT IS IN FULL CONTROL OF HIS OWN GIFTS! If HE sees a need for someone to "speak in a tongue", He will enable one to do it. His gifts do NOT come at any man's beck & call, but are bestowed & activated as HE chooses, when & where, and in whom.
His most-common gift is to enable a Christian to convey the Gospel to others in a believable manner.
Now, while he doesn't bestow the "more-spectacular" gifts that often, the Holy Spirit has at least one gift for every Christian, and all would be wise to pray for understanding of the gift He has for each of them individually.
Meanwhile, let us thank God for sending Him to each of us, in Jesus' name.
His most-common gift is to enable a Christian to convey the Gospel to others in a believable manner.
Now, while he doesn't bestow the "more-spectacular" gifts that often, the Holy Spirit has at least one gift for every Christian, and all would be wise to pray for understanding of the gift He has for each of them individually.
Meanwhile, let us thank God for sending Him to each of us, in Jesus' name.
I once had a woman at Shinjuku Station in Tokyo (largest in the world) try to teach me to talk in tongues. All I had to do was say (in Japanese), "Jesus Christ is Lord, Jesus Christ is Lord" for 1/2 an hour, and it would turn into tongues. Certainly not from God! I asked her where that was in the Bible, and of course she couldn't tell me.
Our OP writer has apparently abandoned this thread. I don't blame him, since he maintains that 90% of the group he is advocating for is aberrant, and he himself hasn't spoken in tongues in decades. How can he defend the position when he himself is not there?
I just want to talk a little more about his "proof" from an extra-biblical source that glossa in the NT can mean a non-linguistic babble. His main source is "Kittel," or the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). To be more specific, it is the article on glossa in TDNT, which claims that since it was supposedly used for the idolatrous Oracle at Delphi. I linked to a source which debunked that, but Deadworm never answered that (just has he has ignored many points that disagree with him).
Now, Deadworm scoffed at me in post #43, saying, "You seem to have no clue about how academic exegesis is done. Ancient terms (especially those relation to religious experience) derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games."
Actually, I've done semantics in six different languages (English, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Chinese, Japanese; "I speak as a fool," as Paul said), and he is dead wrong. Lexical units in any language do not "derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games." (He's referring to Wittgenstein's theory--bet he thought a ghetto Baptist would not know that.). Ancient terms first of all derive their meaning from context, in this case the context of the NT. There is no place in the NT where glossa can be demonstrated to mean babble as in modern Charismatic tongues. Therefore in the NT it carries one of its normal meanings: the human organ, or an understandable language.
Usage outside of the NT must always be subordinate to meaning within the NT. According to a leading hermeneutics graduate textbook, "The final area that needs to be explored to determine the potential meaning of a word is its nonbiblical use in the everyday speech, literature, and inscriptions at the time the biblical book was written" (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, p. 197). Did you catch that? Nonbiblical sources are the final step, not the first one.
Now, even if we were to grant that the Oracle at Delphi spoke with typical "tongues" as the modern Charismatics (Deadworm did not prove this, but ignored my link: Delphi Prophetesses and Christian Tongues - charlesasullivan.com), that is only one source. When there are many extra-biblical sources, we do not determine NT meaning from that one source. That is just lousy semantics. 'Nuff said.
I just want to talk a little more about his "proof" from an extra-biblical source that glossa in the NT can mean a non-linguistic babble. His main source is "Kittel," or the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). To be more specific, it is the article on glossa in TDNT, which claims that since it was supposedly used for the idolatrous Oracle at Delphi. I linked to a source which debunked that, but Deadworm never answered that (just has he has ignored many points that disagree with him).
Now, Deadworm scoffed at me in post #43, saying, "You seem to have no clue about how academic exegesis is done. Ancient terms (especially those relation to religious experience) derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games."
Actually, I've done semantics in six different languages (English, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Chinese, Japanese; "I speak as a fool," as Paul said), and he is dead wrong. Lexical units in any language do not "derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games." (He's referring to Wittgenstein's theory--bet he thought a ghetto Baptist would not know that.
). Ancient terms first of all derive their meaning from context, in this case the context of the NT. There is no place in the NT where glossa can be demonstrated to mean babble as in modern Charismatic tongues. Therefore in the NT it carries one of its normal meanings: the human organ, or an understandable language.Usage outside of the NT must always be subordinate to meaning within the NT. According to a leading hermeneutics graduate textbook, "The final area that needs to be explored to determine the potential meaning of a word is its nonbiblical use in the everyday speech, literature, and inscriptions at the time the biblical book was written" (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, p. 197). Did you catch that? Nonbiblical sources are the final step, not the first one.
Now, even if we were to grant that the Oracle at Delphi spoke with typical "tongues" as the modern Charismatics (Deadworm did not prove this, but ignored my link: Delphi Prophetesses and Christian Tongues - charlesasullivan.com), that is only one source. When there are many extra-biblical sources, we do not determine NT meaning from that one source. That is just lousy semantics. 'Nuff said.
Last edited:
This thing of the Oracle of Delphi piqued my interest, so I found this National Geographic documentary and looked at the whole thing. (See
.) You don't have to--it's 40 minutes long. But it details recent archaeological research and geological research (1990's). The conclusion is that the ecstatic state of the Oracle was caused by ethylene gas from a volcanic vent they found within the temple.
Now, they did not say anything about tongues, but the ecstatic state could have included slurred and excited speech. For the sake of argument, let's say that the Oracle did speak in an unintelligible way. It would still be an error to call that tongues and say that 1 Cor. 12-14 refers to that phenomenon. You see, the Oracle at Delphi spoke in a way induced by a chemical, and not by some "spiritual" ecstatic state, even one caused by demons.
Oh, and one more thing. By the time of Christ, the Oracle was virtually done. The earthquake of 373 BC really hurt the temple and started its decline, probably destroying the source of ethylene. According to the documentary, the last recorded message from the oracle was in 362 BC. You don't do NT semantics from sources 100's of years before your document--in this case, the meaning in the NT of glossa, or tongues.
And that's the rest of the story!
Now, they did not say anything about tongues, but the ecstatic state could have included slurred and excited speech. For the sake of argument, let's say that the Oracle did speak in an unintelligible way. It would still be an error to call that tongues and say that 1 Cor. 12-14 refers to that phenomenon. You see, the Oracle at Delphi spoke in a way induced by a chemical, and not by some "spiritual" ecstatic state, even one caused by demons.
Oh, and one more thing. By the time of Christ, the Oracle was virtually done. The earthquake of 373 BC really hurt the temple and started its decline, probably destroying the source of ethylene. According to the documentary, the last recorded message from the oracle was in 362 BC. You don't do NT semantics from sources 100's of years before your document--in this case, the meaning in the NT of glossa, or tongues.
And that's the rest of the story!
Last edited:
terrpn
Active Member
This thing of the Oracle of Delphi piqued my interest, so I found this National Geographic documentary and looked at the whole thing. (See.) You don't have to--it's 40 minutes long. But it details recent archaeological research and geological research (1990's). The conclusion is that the ecstatic state of the Oracle was caused by ethylene gas from a volcanic vent they found within the temple.
Now, they did not say anything about tongues, but the ecstatic state could have included slurred and excited speech. For the sake of argument, let's say that the Oracle did speak in an unintelligible way. It would still be an error to call that tongues and say that 1 Cor. 12-14 refers to that phenomenon. You see, the Oracle at Delphi spoke in a way induced by a chemical, and not by some "spiritual" ecstatic state, even one caused by demons.
And that's the rest of the story!
Anything to do with coffee I am in.....thanks for sharing and your feedback in regards to this thread.
The scriptures are clear who signs are for, what tongues (languages) were and who for (unbelieving Jews).
Israel started with signs- 2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are entirely welcome!
Throughout history, many cultures/religions have had their own versions of the Oraqcle, as they had demonic things going on. along with human fraudelent activity!Our OP writer has apparently abandoned this thread. I don't blame him, since he maintains that 90% of the group he is advocating for is aberrant, and he himself hasn't spoken in tongues in decades. How can he defend the position when he himself is not there?
I just want to talk a little more about his "proof" from an extra-biblical source that glossa in the NT can mean a non-linguistic babble. His main source is "Kittel," or the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). To be more specific, it is the article on glossa in TDNT, which claims that since it was supposedly used for the idolatrous Oracle at Delphi. I linked to a source which debunked that, but Deadworm never answered that (just has he has ignored many points that disagree with him).
Now, Deadworm scoffed at me in post #43, saying, "You seem to have no clue about how academic exegesis is done. Ancient terms (especially those relation to religious experience) derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games."
Actually, I've done semantics in six different languages (English, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Chinese, Japanese; "I speak as a fool," as Paul said), and he is dead wrong. Lexical units in any language do not "derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games." (He's referring to Wittgenstein's theory--bet he thought a ghetto Baptist would not know that.
Usage outside of the NT must always be subordinate to meaning within the NT. According to a leading hermeneutics graduate textbook, "The final area that needs to be explored to determine the potential meaning of a word is its nonbiblical use in the everyday speech, literature, and inscriptions at the time the biblical book was written" (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, p. 197). Did you catch that? Nonbiblical sources are the final step, not the first one.
Now, even if we were to grant that the Oracle at Delphi spoke with typical "tongues" as the modern Charismatics (Deadworm did not prove this, but ignored my link: Delphi Prophetesses and Christian Tongues - charlesasullivan.com), that is only one source. When there are many extra-biblical sources, we do not determine NT meaning from that one source. That is just lousy semantics. 'Nuff said.
Tongies associated with things like Voodoo/cults/world religions, and not anyhting to do with How operated in Acts!
It reallys helps one to understand Acts if view Acts as an historical account of the transistion between old and new, and not normitive for all time forward in all examples given to us in there!
terrpn
Active Member
When Jesus' ministry first began, He did miracles to prove He wasn't just another demagogue. Same wyhen He sent His disciples forth to spread the Gospel. He enabled them to do certain miracles to prove they weren't just motormouths preaching a false doctrine themselves. They always credited Jesus as being the Source for their miraculous abilities & reminded their audiences that without Jesus, they were mere men like themselves. And, as Christianity grew, the need for miracles as proof declined.
Thus, the HOLY SPIRIT'S gifts became less-miraculous as time passed. They came to be mostly enabling people to do non-miraculous things, such as being able to sing or play instruments, preach, teach, handle finances & business, organize groups, etc. etc.
Yes, He still occasionally bestows miraculous gifts such as healing and, yes, occasionally tongues & their interpretation, but His gifts are usually more mundane. For instance, He's enabled me, an ordinary steelworker with no advanced education, to work against the trainload of false doctrines that Satan seex to use to pollute & dilute Christianity and Scripture. And that includes the practice of laying on the floor of a sanctuary, cutting dust angels, babbling incoherently, while claiming to be "in the spirit". People I strongly suggest you ASK GOD exactly WHAT spirit that is!
Thus, the HOLY SPIRIT'S gifts became less-miraculous as time passed. They came to be mostly enabling people to do non-miraculous things, such as being able to sing or play instruments, preach, teach, handle finances & business, organize groups, etc. etc.
Yes, He still occasionally bestows miraculous gifts such as healing and, yes, occasionally tongues & their interpretation, but His gifts are usually more mundane. For instance, He's enabled me, an ordinary steelworker with no advanced education, to work against the trainload of false doctrines that Satan seex to use to pollute & dilute Christianity and Scripture. And that includes the practice of laying on the floor of a sanctuary, cutting dust angels, babbling incoherently, while claiming to be "in the spirit". People I strongly suggest you ASK GOD exactly WHAT spirit that is!
1Co 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. (ESV)
1Co 14:27 No more than two or three of you should speak unknown languages during the meeting. You must take turns, and someone should always be there to explain what you mean. (CEV)
1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (KJV)
Oral Roberts had a 700 feet tal Jesus appear to Him, and tell him to make the Hospital, so why is it their cure rate there same as any other hospital?
Oral Roberts' ministry was as phony as a Chevy Mustang.
Wait...that's a phony car??
terrpn
Active Member
Wait...that's a phony car??
That was the Pacer.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That was the ugliest car in several decades. Rode in one for several hundred miles once--survived the journey somehow.