Speaking in Tongues Continued

[Ed Edwards]

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:

DHK: // ... an ecstatic tongue is impossible to interpret ... //

Oh, I recon it can, if God gives a person the gift of the Spirit
of interpreting tongues.

Not even God interprets nonsense sylables. Nonsense means nonsense, no matter which way you look at it. It has no interpretation to God or man. Deceived depraved men only think there is an interpretation. Sad isn't it.

1 Corinthians 12:5-11 (KJV1611 Edition):

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diuersities of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the spirit, is giuen to euery man to profit withall.
8 For to one is giuen by the spirit, ... to another diuers kindes of tongues,
to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfe same spirit, diuiding to euery man seuerally as he will.

Sorry, interpretation of unknown tongues (glossia, escatic utterances, etc.)
is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Your interpretation is only your opinion based on a biased or slanted translation.

1 Corinthians 12:10 and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits; to another different kinds of languages; and to another the interpretation of languages.
--There is no "ecstatic utterances." They were different kinds of languages: Spanish, Arabian, Cretian, etc. They were actual real foreign languages. There is no evidence here of an ecstatic language.

The ability to interpret one language into another language
you know is a common human ability. To bad we tend to neglect
that ability in the USofA

Ce qu'il a dit, ne le fera-t-il pas? Ce qu'il a déclaré, ne l'exécutera-t il pas?

Do you have the ability?

Gott ist nicht ein Mensch, daß er lüge, noch ein Menschenkind, daß ihn etwas gereue

DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:

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.

Paul never spoke in ecstatic utterances. Paul never went contrary to the Word of God, nor contrary to the advice that he himself was giving to the Corinthians. First of all tongues was a gift given only to the whole church. It was always to be spoken only in the church. It was a gift of the Holy Spirit for the church. All the gifts were for the benefit for the church, never for one's own edification. Thus Paul never used the gift selfishly outside of any congregation.
Secondly the gift of tongues always required an interpreter. No interpreter--keep silent. That was the rule by Paul's own hand. Paul would not defy his own restrictions about speaking in tongues. There were no ecstatic utterances that were Biblical. You can't find them in the Bible. They are always actual foreign languages.

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

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

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.

That was the instruction for the churches of the first century, but not for today. How many of us are spoken to through burning bushes, as Moses was? Different era. Tongues was an historical event. So was the burning bush.

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

They should no be displayed at all. Ecstatic utterances are of the devil, found only in pagan religions. It is too bad that well meaning Christians copy the practices of paganism. There is nothing in the Bible that advocates ecstatic utterances--nothing.
DHK

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

 

[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".

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
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.

I trusted that even you would have the sense enough to realize that all italicized words in the KJV were not in the Greek manuscripts, but were deliberately added by the KJV translators often to make the sentence more coherent. In this case it caused more confusion than made sense. Men (including KJV translators) are fallible. They make mistakes. The word "unknown" is not in the Greek.
DHK

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
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.

I have no idea what you are talking about except perahps your pride, which does indeed go before the fall.

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.

The word glossa is used 50 times in the New Testament, and translated "tongue" every time. It is used in the books of Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Philippians, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. Now the only books that talk of the gift of tongues or of "speaking in tongues" are 1Cor. and Acts. So I ask you, what does "glossa" mean? It means language? It sometimes refers to the organ "tongue," as used in James. But almost always it is translated in other translations as "language." That is what the word means--language.

1 Corinthians 14 is NOT about the miracle of the hearing of
one speaker by multiple people in multiple languages.

No, you are right. It is not. It is Paul correcting the abuses of people who were abusing the Biblical gift of speaking in foreign langauges which ceased at the end of the first century. In that chapter we see how he contrasts the value of that gift to the gift of prophecy (which has also ceased). Prophecy had a much greater value for people could understand prophecy. They couldn't understand people speaking in tongues, therefore speaking in tongues was not profitable. Paul discouraged the practice.

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.

Glossa means language, and that is all. It does not mean ecstatic utterance. It has no such meaning at all. One has to have a pre-conceived theology to read that into Scripture. Glossa means simply language. The gift of "glossa" was the gift of speaking in foreign languages that they did not have to spend time learning. That was the miraculous part. You never answered my previous post by translating the statements I gave you in a foreign language. I will give you a hint. They were straight from the Bible. I posted them because you claimed that it was no miracle and it was easy for you to do. So prove your worth.

As for what happened on the day of Pentecost Ed, the Scripture is very plain. I don't know what is blinding your eyes here:

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.

Now whatever your belief is Ed, you must admit that on the Day of Pentecost the miracle was "that they spoke with other tongues (i.e. languages). That is what the Scriptures say. Is there any argumemt here thus far? They spoke with other languages. That is what the Bible says. If we go back a few verses earlier we see the other miraculous accompanying phenomena: the mighty rushing wind, the cloven hooves of fire hovering over the heads

Verses 9-11 gives us a list of the different language groups or nations that were present.

Verse 8 is a key verse:
Acts 2:8 How do we hear, everyone in our own native language? (WEB)
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
--Notice tongue = language.

Now think carefully about this Ed. We know that the miracle of speaking in tongues already took place. That is what Pentecost was all about. That is what was described in the first four verses. That is also what Peter refers to once again in verse 16 as a fulfillment of a prophecy of Joel:
Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
--Peter doesn't mention the interpretation; he doesn't mention the hearing as the miracle; only the speaking in tongues. The speaking in tongues was the miracle that Peter referred to.

We are not told "how" or the means of "how hear we every man in our own language. We just know that they did hear each one in their own language. We are entitled to our opinion, our conjecture at this point; but it must remain just that. We must admit that anything we say about "the hearing" is only our opinion, for the Bible does not say whether it was miraculous or not. The Bible does not say there was a miracle of hearing. There could have been. There may not have been. The Bible is silent. It doesn't say that there were 13 groups of disciples speaking in thirteen languages so that these 13 language groups could hear their own language. It doesn't say how they could discern their language. It doesn't say if their was another separate miracle here or not. It is just our opinion, our conjecture at this point.

The only thing we can dogmatically say is that they spoke in different languages miraculously. The thousands that were there heard what was said in their own language. That could have been a miraculous event, but not necessarily.

The Peter spoke. When Peter spoke he was not speaking in a language that he didn't know. He was speaking in the lingua franca of the day. It was probably Greek, though there is a possibility that it could have been Hebrew since they were all Jews.
I hope this makes sense to you.
DHK

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by DHK:
Paul never spoke in ecstatic utterances. Paul never went contrary to the Word of God, nor contrary to the advice that he himself was giving to the Corinthians. First of all tongues was a gift given only to the whole church. It was always to be spoken only in the church. It was a gift of the Holy Spirit for the church. All the gifts were for the benefit for the church, never for one's own edification. Thus Paul never used the gift selfishly outside of any congregation.

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by gb93433:

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."

No one could understand a foreign language that was not interpreted. He was speaking mysteries. Even to himself it would be like speaking a mystery, for if he was going to speak or pray to God, it would be far better to speak to God in his mother tongue, that which he understood far better, than a "mysterious" language supernaturally given to him for a specific purpose.

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

Yes, and in so doing, it said it as a rebuke, not as an encouragement. In other words, if only edifies yourself and not the whole church don't do it. That is not the purpose of the gift of tongues. It is not a selfish gift, like all of the other gifts. Was the gift of healing given just to heal oneself? These were gifts given for the benefit of the entire church, not just for the edification of one person. That would be a very selfish ego-centric use of the gift which God never intended.

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.

That is not true. It was a gift given to the entire church, and if it didn't edify the entire church it wasn't to be used at all. That is why Paul explicilty said: If there is no interpreter let him keep silence in the church. You had to have an interpreter. There couldn't be more than three that spoke. They had to speak in turn, not all at once. Women could not speak in tongues at all. Above all, they had to have interpretation so that they would edify the entire body, the entire church. Otherwise the purpose of tongues were useless. Prophecy was much better for that very reason.

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.

That is precisely why Paul rebuked them. It is also why tongues (foreign languages) was the same as Acts 2. If it was different (as in ecstatic utterances), one could tell that it was from their pagan past. That is what Paul was referring to in 1Cor.12:1-3, at least in part. There is no indication that speaking in tongues (the Biblical gift), is anything other than speaking miraculously in a foreign language which one did not know previously.

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.

I agree. Notice how you just said: "seek to edify the whole body. Anything which does not edify the body in an assembly should never be brought up." By your own conclusion, tongues was only for the entire church, not to be used privately in prayer or for any other reason--but to edify the whole church.
DHK

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by DHK:

The gift of "glossa" was the gift of speaking in foreign languages that they did not have to spend time learning. That was the miraculous part.

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?

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"The important point is this, Ray.
The Biblical gift of tongues is always confined to speaking a real genuine foreign language, unknown to the speaker, but known to the hearer."

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

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by DHK:

By your own conclusion, tongues was only for the entire church, not to be used privately in prayer or for any other reason--but to edify the whole church.

That is not what I meant. What I meant is for tongues to edify the church it must be understood. How I pray in private or the things I talk about with my wife may not be edifying in an assembly setting. So I would refrain from sharing those things which should be kept private.

Scripture says "Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful."

Doesn't that seem to you that what Paul was talking about was prayer in a tongue which was an unintelligble prayer that not even the person understood. Therefore only their spirit prayed. The person who prayed in a tongue was to also pray for an interpretation. The only way a body can be edified is if each person understands. Therefore there must be an interpretation for the body to be edified.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

 

[D28guy]

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:

"Katargeo" is used for prophecy and knowledge. And the way it is used means that something will make them end, Thus it can be said that prophecy and knowledge will end when something happens that makes them end. That we know is the coming of the "Perfect"."

OK.

"Pauo" is used for when tongues will end. Used in the way it is used, (reflexative, etc...) it means "to stop on their own", so Paul says of tongues literally, "They will stop on their own" or "They will fade away by themselves""

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

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Bible-boy,

The term being 'slain in the Spirit' is a term some Christians use to describe when the Spirit of God moves so close to you that He overpowers you to bless you.

When I was saved nothing like this happened to me and perhaps 90 some percent of the people were the same as my peaceful experience of being forgiven.

In Acts 9:4 Saul was overpowered by the Spirit of God and could no longer stand up.

Secondly, the Apostle John in Revelation 1:17 also experienced being 'slain by God the Spirit' where he says, 'And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet, as dead.' John was not merely bowing in adoration and worship of Jesus. You wanted documentation and there it is in your KJV.

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.

Now we sit back and watch for people's spin on the Scripture in stead of bowing to His sovereign words to us.

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.

Perhaps most will never experience this as I do not speak in tongues or have the gift of the 'interpretation of tongues.' Christians do not get all of the gifts. The best Gift is knowing Jesus and being able to serve Him while we are here. I know everyone on the board will agree with this last sentence. So that is a start.

I agree with that last statement.

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

 

[Hope of Glory]

after that which is perfect has come, and we are with Christ for eternity.

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