1. 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!

no "unknown" tongues in Bible?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, May 17, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,608
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In his tract about "Tongues" [Tract # A-319],
    E. L. Bynum, who was and may still be a member of D. A. Waite's Dean Burgon Society, wrote:
    "'UNKNOWN' tongues are not to be found in the Bible at all. Not one time is 'unknown tongues' to be found. 'Unknown' is printed in italics in I Cor. 14, and this means that it was not in the Greek manuscripts at all, but was added by the translators. (In this instance they do not clarify but confuse the subject). Every tongue spoken in the New Testament was a known language to some race or people. There are no instances of a heavenly language, unknown language or gibberish spoken in the N. T."

    All the above were the exact words of this author.
    There is no date on the tract, but it is an old edition perhaps from the 1970's. It is possible that it has been changed now that E. L. Bynum is involved with promoting the KJV-only view.
     
    #1 Logos1560, May 17, 2005
  2. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    In the KJV there are 25 verses in the New Testament where the word "tongues" appears, while such "modern versions" as the ASV, the NASB, the NKJV, and the RSV have 24 verses containing the word "tongues." The ESV has 20 such verses.

    Of these verses, only 3 speak of something other than languages, and these are the only verses with the word "tongues" in the HCSB.

    Acts 2:3 speaks of the tongues of fire which appeared above the disciples gathered at Pentecost.

    Romans 3:13 speaks of the organ of speech.

    Revelation 16:10 again speaks of the bodily organ.

    In none of the other verses does the word "unknown" appear along with the word "tongues."

    The phrase "new tongues" appears in Mark 16:17, and the phrase "other tongues" appears in Acts 2:4 and 1 Corinthians 14:21, but in most other appearances of the word "tongues" it stands on its own without a qualifying adjective.

    Apparently, Mr. Bynum was correct, but I don't see where this would have any bearing on the KJVO view...
     
    #2 Keith M, May 20, 2005
  3. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    [strawman buster]You narrowly define an English word (Unknown) to mean "unknown in an absolute sense" as opposed to "unknown to the hearer" (which not only is a perfectly acceptable application of the word, but context bears out this definition.) Then, using your personal interpretation of the English word, you procede to discredit everyone's favorite whipping boy, the KJV. Pretty silly.[/strawman buster]

    Lacy
     
    #3 Lacy Evans, May 20, 2005
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,608
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps you did not read very carefully. The quotation I provided was written by a KJV-only author.
     
    #4 Logos1560, May 20, 2005
  5. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is possible that it has been changed now that E. L. Bynum is involved with promoting the KJV-only view.

    Lacy

    PS. I stand corrected. "Bynam (and anyone else who argues thusly) narrowly defines an English word . . .etc."
     
    #5 Lacy Evans, May 21, 2005
  6. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    Compare 1 Cor. 13:1

    1. If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (NASB, 1995)

    [​IMG]
     
    #6 Craigbythesea, May 21, 2005
  7. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Since the word does not appear in the original Greek, it is a word added by translators, and this added word appears only in 1 Corinthians 14 along with the singular tongue. How we define the word is not so important as that the word is not a part of Scripture and there should be no major beliefs based on it. Our interpretation of the word, whether narrow or broad, is a moot point since it is not a part of Scripture.
     
    #7 Keith M, May 21, 2005
  8. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have the autograph? Have you ever seen it? Or did some "scholar" tell you?
    It is in my copy of Scripture. Your definition of the word "scripture" (inspired only in the autographs) is not scriptural, but rather a fanciful doctrine of man.

    Lacy
     
    #8 Lacy Evans, May 23, 2005
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,608
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because so much of the KJV comes from Tyndale's Bible, KJV-only author John Sawyer referred to Tyndale as "the primary translator of the KJV"
    (p. 6 of introduction to modern spelling edition of Tyndale's).

    As he was guided by the Holy Spirit in his translating, William Tyndale translated the first
    part of 1 Cor. 14:4 as follows: "He that speaketh with tongues." That is the same rendering in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, and 1539 Taverner's Bible. Would you claim that the KJV translators kept around 70% of the translating of a translator (William Tyndale) who was not guided by the Holy Spirit?

    The 1539 Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, has "He that speaketh with the tongue"
    at 1 Cor. 14:4.

    The 1557 Whittingham's and 1560 Geneva Bibles have "he that speaketh strange language" with
    strange used then to mean the same thing as "foreign."

    The word "unknown" was not added until the 1568 Bishops' Bible with its rendering "He that speaketh with an unknown tongue." The fact that the KJV translators put the word "unknown" in italics indicated that they were adding it where there was no Greek word for it in their underlying text.
     
    #9 Logos1560, May 23, 2005
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When the phrase "unknown tongue" was used it was intended to be understood as a "foreign language."

    The word "unknown" is found 6 times in 1 Corinthians 14 but the word is not found in the Greek text. The Greek text simply says "tongue" without the adjective.

    The KJV translators, knowing that a language unknown to the speaker was meant (see my next paragraph), chose to add the word "unknown" so there could be no possible doubt that the language (tongue) in question was a foreign language unknown to the speaker.

    Remember, Paul was speaking of "tongues" in the context of the subject as taught in the Gospel accounts and the book of Acts. In Mark 16:17 we see the adjective "kainos" (new) used to modify the word "tongues." This causes the reader to understand that the language was to them a "new" language, unknown to them. There is another adjective used in relation to "tongues" in Acts 2:4. Here we are told they spoke with "heteros" (other) tongues. This can only mean they spoke in a language other than their own.

    So, the KJV translators, being the very excellent men they were, chose to make sure the reader of 1 Corinthians understood the word "tongues" in the context of the Gospels and Acts, I.E., that the tongues were "new" and "other" than those they had learned and thus were "unknown" to the speaker.
     
    #10 TCassidy, May 23, 2005
  11. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Do you have the autograph? Have you ever seen it? Or did some "scholar" tell you?
    It is in my copy of Scripture. Your definition of the word "scripture" (inspired only in the autographs) is not scriptural, but rather a fanciful doctrine of man.

    Lacy     </font>[/QUOTE]Just so you know the truth, Lacy...when a word appears in the KJV in italics it means that the word was not originally in Scripture, and that the KJV translators added the word. An added word IS NOT a part of scripture. When you get your foot out of your mouth, you can then make further comment...that is, if you have anything meaningful or truthful to add! If not, just let it alone before you destroy your credibility more than you already have... [​IMG]
     
    #11 Keith M, May 23, 2005
  12. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lacy, like many KJVO adherants, you have a terrible habit of putting words in the mouths of others., which further destroys your own credibility. Your credibility has been stretched to the max, and it is near its breaking point.

    BTW, do you mean to say that the KJVO myth isn't a fanciful doctrine of man? Then once and for all, prove where the Scriptures (the word of God) teaches KJVOnlyism. Can't do it, can you? :rolleyes:
     
    #12 Keith M, May 23, 2005
  13. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forgive me if I put words in your mouth. I have the bad habit of speaking generally about a position when addressing specifically a person. I'm sorry. Dumb mistake and bad form on my part.

    BTW, do you believe that the Autograph-only myth isn't a fanciful doctrine of man? Then once and for all, prove where the Scriptures (the word of God) teaches Autograph-Onlyism. Can't do it, can you? :rolleyes:
     
    #13 Lacy Evans, May 23, 2005
  14. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes I am quite aware why the words are italicized. But noone can prove whether the autographs had the word or not. And even more importantly, whether the English word is need to express the Greek thought. Word for word translation is sophomoric, and quite silly. The KJV translators knew plenty about Greek, the other languages the Bible was transferred in, and also about English.

    What is your definition of Scripture? My copy of scripture has the word "unknown".

    You seem really concerned about my credibility brother. I'm afraid you don't understand my argument nor my position. Here is part of it.

    http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliologia-PreservacaoTT/BigLie-InspiredJustInOriginals-Evans.htm

    http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article428.cfm

    Lacy
     
    #14 Lacy Evans, May 23, 2005
  15. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    You flatter yourself, Brother Lacy! I am concerned with the credibility of anyone caught up in the KJVO myth! This myth has been disproven sooo many times that those who continue to adhere to it are showing their own lack of credibility...
     
    #15 Keith M, May 23, 2005
  16. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you mean? How do I flatter myself? :confused:

    What about the Autograph-Only myth?
    Is that the best you've got?

    Lacy
     
    #16 Lacy Evans, May 23, 2005
  17. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    What do you mean? How do I flatter myself? :confused:

    What about the Autograph-Only myth?
    Is that the best you've got?

    Lacy     </font>[/QUOTE]Lacy, you flatter yourself in that you think I care any more about your credibility than the credibility of anyone else who continues in the KJVO myth.

    I do not believe in the "Autograph-only myth" as you label it. I never said I did. This is just another prime example of your putting words in the mouths of others, which you yourself admitted was a mistake on your part. I believe we have the inspired and holy word of God, preserved for all generations, just as God promised. But God's word is not preserved in only a single translation, as you would have us believe. With the exception of "versions" that deliberately change the meaning of Scripture (the New World Translation of the JW sect and the Clear Word Translation of the SDA sect come immediately to mind) we have God's inspired and preserved word in various Bible versions. The KJV is one of many, not the only one, as you insist it is.

    No, brother...I have the inspired and preserved word of God...whether it is in the KJV or in one of the "modern versions" you so maliciously malign.
     
    #17 Keith M, May 28, 2005
  18. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, you have never read a post of mine where I "maliciously maligned" a MV. As my eigth graders might say, "You got me messed up."

    2Ti 3:16
    All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

    What "scripture" (In your opinion) does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to? Are all your MVs inspired? If that is your belief, I must admit that it is a new one for me, so I apologize. What is your criteria for rejecting some (New World, Clear Word, etc.) but accepting others? Did God not inspire those? How do you know?

    Most folks reject KJV onlyism because they don't believe that God inspired anything but the autographs.


    -Lacy (I'm so handsome)Evans

    (I flatter myself)
     
    #18 Lacy Evans, May 28, 2005
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Co 14:14 (KJV1611):
    For if I pray in an vnknowen tongue, my spirit prayeth,
    but my vnderstanding is vnfruitfull.

    'Unknown tongue' is the translation, according to Strong's
    of this:

    G1100
    γλῶσσα
    glōssa
    gloce'-sah
    Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

    IMHO 'unknown tongue' is NOT refering
    to a tongue (language)known on earth.
     
    #19 Ed Edwards, May 28, 2005
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lacy Evans: "What "scripture" (In your opinion) does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to? Are all your MVs inspired? If that is your belief, I must admit that it is a new one for me, so I apologize."

    Your apology is accepted. I'm still having
    problems with KJVOs who can't tell me which
    of the three KJVs that i have THAT ARE DIFFERENT
    from each other - which is the KJB inspired
    by God. Well my MV, the 2003 Holman Christian
    Standard Bible, God's written word for the
    21st Century (2001-2100), is just as inspired as their
    KJV1611, KJV1769 or KJV1873.
     
    #20 Ed Edwards, May 28, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...