|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 1:36:22 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 224
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
MrFribbles,
I don't know that we're on the same page (from past posts) and to use me to support your disagreement with Bill makes me wonder if you know what I really am saying.
quote:
Not to say that it can't be done in a church service, but if it is, it must not interfere with the service - that is, it must be quiet and controlled. I don't believe that tongues in a church situation is necessarily going to be quiet. It depends on which tongue is uttered, the one from my spirit or the one from The Spirit. Partly because it is part of the church service according to scripture. And if it was 'quiet' then how would the whole church be edified?
1CO 14:26 What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
I'm not exactly sure if 'a tongue' spoken about here is telling us to expect the 'whole inclusivel catagory of tongues', or if it just means 'Spirit tongues' or 'your spirit's tongue'. But tongues is definitely considered as part of the church 'service'. I personally do pray quietly in tongues during a service. But anyone manifesting a gift of tongues from The Holy Spirit speaking should be loud enough to edify all IMO (mega churches excepted).
Unfortunately any church I've ever been in has already established 'what hymn and whose preaching the lesson was allowed. And if you have a revelation or tongue or an interpretation...well then most churches today are out of order, as far as meeting the above scriptural mandate of a church gathering IMO.
DR
< Message edited by Him4all -- 6/10/2008 3:58:12 PM >
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 2:12:02 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2346
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
It depends on which tongue is uttered, the one from my spirit or the one from The Spirit
OK, I know you've addressed this before, but I still can't agree with it! The same Greek word for "tongues" is used throughout Scripture, without exception. If the authors really meant for there to be a distinction between the two, why wouldn't they use a separate word and save us the confusion?
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 3:53:12 PM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 635
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Him4all
Bill,
quote:
Also Paul does not say don't do it if there is no interpretation, he says do it alone with God.
Actually it says let two or three speak in a tongue first! And then if there is no interpretation they are to speak to oneself and God.
Personally feel like there were two possibilities going on in this text. One: the people speaking out in a 'tongue' were either just speaking out of zeal in their own spirit's prayer tongue (which has no earthly translation). Two: would be if someone actually had the unction of the Spirit come upon them with The Spirit's gift of tongues which they 'faithfully' spoke...but the person receiving The Spirit's gift of interpretation, just doesn't have the faith to step out and give it. In that case the Spirit's gift of a tongue would be valid in the one giving it publically, even though there isn't a following interpretation.
Do you have another take?
DR
No I don't have another take but I think the first scenario is most probable because the second is directly inspired by God who would know if there was someone to translate or not.
_____________________________
Bill Cotton
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 5:35:06 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 224
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
MrFribbles,
quote:
The same Greek word for "tongues" is used throughout Scripture, without exception. If the authors really meant for there to be a distinction between the two, why wouldn't they use a separate word and save us the confusion?
You may have answered your own question. Have you checked the Greek definition of Glossa?
1100 glossa: the tongue; by impl. a language (specifically one naturally unacquired)
If a tongue is from my spirit or The Spirit , then it is a language that is not acquired naturally. And that again is supportive of my POV that their are two Sspirit tongues, neither of which is a 'learned' or naturally aquired language/dialektos.
I think that the "separate word" which you wish they would have used is dialektos and it's the word used in Acts 2:8 for all the languages spoken by the disciples to the foreigners who were present.
1258 dialektos: a (mode of) discourse, i.e. "dialect"
But a dialektos language is one that is naturally acquired. Maybe that's why Corinthians isn't using it. But in the book of Acts, even though it was a dialektos spoken by the disciples, it was still a glossa to them...or a language that was 'not acquired naturally'...but supernaturally.
Bill,
quote:
No I don't have another take but I think the first scenario is most probable because the second is directly inspired by God who would know if there was someone to translate or not.
I agree "God would know", but that doesn't help us to know, and therein lies the 'rub' I think. What I mean is, of course God would know who He was giving the 'gift of interpretation' to, but maybe that person didn't give the interpretation because of 'lack of faith' or 'fear' or whatever. I know I've felt the 'unction' to move in a Spiritual gift but stopped because of 'second guessing' as to whether or not 'that was The Spirit'. Do you know what I mean? And in a congregation if someone gives a bonafide tongue from The Spirit, but no one interprets, then many might think the tongue was false when it really wasn't...even though like you said God knows.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 11:26:15 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2346
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think that the "separate word" which you wish they would have used is dialektos and it's the word used in Acts 2:8 for all the languages spoken by the disciples to the foreigners who were present.
1258 dialektos: a (mode of) discourse, i.e. "dialect"
But a dialektos language is one that is naturally acquired. Maybe that's why Corinthians isn't using it. But in the book of Acts, even though it was a dialektos spoken by the disciples, it was still a glossa to them...or a language that was 'not acquired naturally'...but supernaturally.
I don't think that words are a "separate word" at all. "Dialektos" is used by the non-believing hearers to describe what they're hearing; it is not used by Luke to describe the phenomena. He, of course, uses glossa.
quote:
If a tongue is from my spirit or The Spirit , then it is a language that is not acquired naturally. And that again is supportive of my POV that their are two Sspirit tongues, neither of which is a 'learned' or naturally aquired language/dialektos.
That doesn't support your "two tongues" view at all! Nothing in the definition of "glossa" suggests two different sources for the tongue. Also, can you please let me know where you're getting your Greek definitions from? My definition suggests that it is a language, distinct to a certain people-group, which in my mind means that it is a known, recognizable language - though, for the gift of glossa, it is a language unknown to the speaker, and as you say, supernaturally acquired.
< Message edited by MrFribbles -- 6/11/2008 5:52:54 PM >
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 10:15:00 AM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 224
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
MrFribbles,
quote:
I don't think that works are a "separate word" at all.
"Works"? Is that a misspelling or are you trying to make a point? If it's a point then clarify it, if it's a misspelling then correct it please. As it's written, doesn't clarify anything IMO.
quote:
"Dialektos" is used by the non-believing hearers to describe what they're hearing;
That's exactly the point that I made. And I made it because it supports my view not yours. Hello!
quote:
That doesn't support your "two tongues" view at all! Nothing in the definition of "glossa" suggests two different sources for the tongue.
The definition of glossa is the physical tongue OR OR OR by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired).
So I'd have to say, it absolutely does support my POV of two 'tongues acquired without learning them naturally'. But that's only going to make sense if you read it 'in the context of scripture', and if you 'rightly divide the word of truth' in word definition/application.
But you must first understand that a 'normally aquired human language' isn't even in the definition of the word glossa, and that's what it appears you are trying to do. Every time it is speaking of an "unknown tongue" in KJV, it's in a verse concerning the prayer language of your spirit which is an unknown language to man "no man understandeth" 1Co 14:2). It is a 'heavenly' language and the tongue of "angels". It is not a dialektos and no one can even interpret it.
That is not the same as the 'glossa/tongue' that is given through us by The Holy Spirit. That glossa is, or may be, an earthly dialektos ALSO. If it is a dialektos, then people present and who speak that 'naturally aquired' language, will understand it even though it is still a 'unlearned' glossa language to the one speaking. But if it isn't a dialektos then those present will need the associated Spiritual gift of interpretation to understand what The Spirit spoke through an individual that manifested the Spiritual gift of glossa/tongues.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 11:40:50 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1038
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
That's the thing though. The word "unknown" is not in the Greek next to "glossa". It was added to the text, in order to indicate that the speaker did not naturally know the tongue and therefore mark it as a Spiritual gift, not a matter of training. The concept is that the tongue is *unknown* to them, not *unknowable* to all. So, what the unbelievers say is that the disciple's glossa (tongue that is unknown to them by natural acquisition) is their own dialektos (native language that they naturally acquired).
So, every time it says "unknown tongue" in the KJV, it's merely interpreting the same "glossa" as is everywhere else. There is no difference in the original language.
This in no way indicates the multiple language theology you're pushing.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 1:36:12 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 224
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Zhi,
quote:
That's the thing though. The word "unknown" is not in the Greek next to "glossa".
It was not added for the purpose you just stated, it was added because the translators, in being true to interpreting the Greek as best they could had to distinguish betweeen the two different cases of glossa or tongues being spoken about in 1 Cor 14. That is simply something they saw that you don't see. Why do you think they threw that word unkown in only in chapter 14? If what you believe was right they would have done it in chapter 12 and 13 too, but they didn't. Why not?
quote:
So, every time it says "unknown tongue" in the KJV, it's merely interpreting the same "glossa" as is everywhere else. There is no difference in the original language Again, they added it for a reason. But they were adding 'unknown' for a reason you obviously don't agree with because it just won't support your POV.
quote:
This in no way indicates the multiple language theology you're pushing. All I'm pushing is my view of the truth. And all you're pushing against that. And you aren't offering a convincing enough rebuttal to change my opinion.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 2:25:30 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1038
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
It was not added for the purpose you just stated, it was added because the translators, in being true to interpreting the Greek as best they could had to distinguish betweeen the two different cases of glossa or tongues being spoken about in 1 Cor 14. That is simply something they saw that you don't see. Why do you think they threw that word unkown in only in chapter 14? If what you believe was right they would have done it in chapter 12 and 13 too, but they didn't. Why not?
Because Chapter 14 is directly addressing people who were interrupting church services by talking in an unknown, uninterpreted tongue in the middle of it. The interpreters wanted to make it clear that it wasn't about, say, bilingual churches where they were making sure everyone could understand, or a spirit-driven word given with interpretation, it was about people blabbering on in a language no one understood, which was not edifying to the believers there, and caused unbelievers to think they were nuts. Which is why Paul tells them quite bluntly that they need to shut up and keep it to themselves.
You have to read all of 1 Corinthians and keep in mind that Paul sent this letter to seriously get on the Corinthians' case. They're proud, they're arrogant, they're not progressing spiritually, they're jealous and quarrelling amongst themselves. They're arguing over whose disciples they are, and the "Paul vs Appolos" argument is tearing them apart, quite a few of the church members apparently strongly dislike Paul and he has to spend entire chapters defending himself. They're proud of the fact that a member of their congregation is having sex with his father's wife, and they think grace means "Everything is permissable for me". During the Lord's Supper, half of them are getting drunk off the wine and gorging on the bread while the other half go hungry. Their church services are apparently total chaos because everyone is trying to give prophecy or babble in uninterpreted tongues to show off their "spiritual gifts" at the same time. Paul actually threatens to come visit them "with a whip" if they don't shape up.
quote:
Again, they added it for a reason. But they were adding 'unknown' for a reason you obviously don't agree with because it just won't support your POV.
No, I agree with their addition of the word "unknown" because of the reasons I just stated. I disagree with your interpretation that multiple gifts and multiple tongues are being addressed here, because the contexts, the comparisons, and the Greek simply do not agree with that interpretation.
quote:
All I'm pushing is my view of the truth. And all you're pushing against that. And you aren't offering a convincing enough rebuttal to change my opinion.
Well, I'm pushing against that because quite frankly I'm under the impression that you're presenting a false theology. It may not change your opinion, but it might at least keep others from being led astray.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 6:15:17 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2346
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Works"? Is that a misspelling or are you trying to make a point? If it's a point then clarify it, if it's a misspelling then correct it please. As it's written, doesn't clarify anything IMO.
My apologies - I sometimes think faster than I write. ; ) I meant "words", and my post has been corrected.
quote:
That's exactly the point that I made. And I made it because it supports my view not yours. Hello!
I don't think it supports any view. It's just how it's written. The believers were speaking in a glossa, and the people heard it in their dialektos. Their tongue (exact same word as in 1 Corinthians 14) was a known language to the listeners, though it was unknown previously to those speaking it.
quote:
The definition of glossa is the physical tongue OR OR OR by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired).
That's still doesn't suggest two "s/Spirits" being the source for tongues. When it says "physical tongue," it literally means the organ - that thing in our mouth that tastes, licks, and helps us talk. Also, it sometimes deals, by implication, with the words we speak to one another - consider the section in James about the tongue, which is, of course, the word "glossa".
I would contend that whatever Greek lexicon you're using does not have a good definition of "glossa". Consider 1 Peter 3:10 - clearly the physical tongue is meant, but again, by implication, it is addressing the words we speak, in a known, learned language!
quote:
But you must first understand that a 'normally aquired human language' isn't even in the definition of the word glossa, and that's what it appears you are trying to do.
In Revelation 5:9, it seems clear that a distinction is made between different people groups, and one of the "lines" used to distinguish between people groups is their "tongue," which to me implies that it is their unique cultural language that is just as much part of them as their "tribe,...people and nation." In this case, clearly "glossa" does not mean an unknown language in any way, but rather something naturally acquired.
quote:
the prayer language of your spirit which is an unknown language to man "no man understandeth" 1Co 14:2). It is a 'heavenly' language and the tongue of "angels". It is not a dialektos and no one can even interpret it.
The reason nobody understood it is because the church in Corinth was failing to translate it - something Paul says is essential to properly administer the gift of tongues.
As for the "tongue of angels," I would contend that Paul is using a hyperbole. If you are saying that is the literal, normative experience for the Christian, then we must also expect the normal Christian to fathom all mysteries and knowledge (which, at last check, only God was able to do). Or be able to literally move physical mountains with our faith. Or burn up our bodies in physical flames. So, if you're willing to accept all that, then we can have a discussion about whether or not it's true or not. If you're not, then neither should you believe we, as believers, should speak in the "tongue of angels."
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 9:37:57 PM
|
|
|
Godhead
Posts: 287
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
Talk about reading between the lines, So angels talk in nonsensical sounds that do not even constitute a language. So specifically they grunt like chimpanzees or something. What madness! No man understands because it was not in his language. Paul explains that when he spoke about many different languages in the world.
The idea for any gift was that it could be used for others and not individual satisfaction. This modern babble is worthless and useless for the body of Christ.
_____________________________
"Faith consists in the knowledge of God and Christ. It is always by his word that he manifests himself to those whom he designs to draw to himself." (John Calvin)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 12:33:53 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 224
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Zhi,
quote:
Because Chapter 14 is directly addressing people who were interrupting church services by talking in an unknown, uninterpreted tongue in the middle of it.
You're embellishing your bias again. That was simply one small point of the 'chapter 14' which is dealing with the whole subject of "various tongues". And I have explained it, based upon understanding the two different tongues, one has a translation and one which doesn't and indeed can't, by biblical definition, since it is Sspiritual language and not a natural language. It very well may be the language that all had before God gave us true babble at the tower of Babel.
quote:
it was about people blabbering on in a language no one understood,
Several times you've stated you believe in the gift of tongues, but then your heart reveals the truth. Your disdain for the supernatural gift of tongues as being "Blabbering" is as apparant with you as it is with Godhead. And that attitude is simply disrrespectful to those of us who walk in this precious gifting, and I am close to putting you in the same catagory as Godhead. That catagory being, someone who isn't worthy of my time (in this subject). The biblical definition of babble came from Tower of Babel and 'you two' both seem to understand each other well enough so what more can I say.
quote:
Well, I'm pushing against that because quite frankly I'm under the impression that you're presenting a false theology. It may not change your opinion, but it might at least keep others from being led astray. As I'm reading/responding to your post, again your true bias against tongues as even being a valid gift is blatantly apparent. As I said before to you, when you want to ask questions seeking to understand a POV other than yours, I'm open to dialogue. Other than that, your true purpose of "keeping others from being led astray" is noted as stated. And since your attempts to refute are 'almost' as embarrasing to me, as Godhead's, I'd prefer not responding to you any more either Zhi. As I've said multiple times now, it isn't doing any good anyway. Throwing the rocks of "false theology" instead of stating the truth which is 'theological differences' again reveals where your heart is...and has the 'faith' to stay. So enjoy babbeling with Mr. Godhead.
MrFribbles,
I can accept your 'implication' def. of glossos even though Strong's def. really doesn't allow for it IMO.
quote:
I don't think it supports any view. It's just how it's written. The believers were speaking in a glossa, and the people heard it in their dialektos. Their tongue (exact same word as in 1 Corinthians 14) was a known language to the listeners, though it was unknown previously to those speaking it. Again, that is exactly the point that I made back in post 2023:
quote:
DR 2023 But a dialektos language is one that is naturally acquired. Maybe that's why Corinthians isn't using it. But in the book of Acts, even though it was a dialektos spoken by the disciples, it was still a glossa to them...or a language that was 'not acquired naturally'...but supernaturally. In your opinion why didn't the original writers use dialektos anywhere in Cor.? It would certainly fit your POV here and then there wouldn't have been any "implication" necessary with glossos. This topic is difficult and will require an enlightened heart from God to understand...jot and tittles will always fall short...for both of our sides.
quote:
The reason nobody understood it is because the church in Corinth was failing to translate it - something Paul says is essential to properly administer the gift of tongues. natural translating of a known language of man would not require the supernatural Spiritual gift of interpretation IMO.
quote:
As for the "tongue of angels," I would contend that Paul is using a hyperbole. If you are saying that is the literal, normative experience for the Christian, then we must also expect the normal Christian to fathom all mysteries and knowledge (which, at last check, only God was able to do). I would have to consider it hyperbole too if I wasn't experiencing it literally and bibilically (admittedly as I read/understand scripture). A tongue that "no man knows" fits perfectly with 'prayer tongues from my spirit' and it also fits perfect as a contrasting tongue in 13:1 where Paul differentiates between 'earthly tongues of man' (which 'some man' would understand) versus 'heavenly angelic/spiritual tongues' (which no man understands). There simply is no earthly translation for prayer tongues and that's why Paul is saying if there isn't an interpretation for "body edification" then keep it to yourself, which is what I do when I pray quietly in the congregation.
No one, in my church would expect me to shut up, anymore than they would expect the hispanic sitting next to me to shut up from praying softly in Spanish (which most of us 'gringos' don't understand either).
quote:
So, if you're willing to accept all that, then we can have a discussion about whether or not it's true or not. If you're not, then neither should you believe we, as believers, should speak in the "tongue of angels." I'm not willing to "accept all that" as the basis for discussion, but if that is your position I'm perfectly willing to end it here with you also.
This post, again, is simply getting too long for me to write and others to read. I hope that if you do continue you shorten yours too. I know it's difficult for both of us, but I do have a daily practice to run. 
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 1:02:49 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1038
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
You're embellishing your bias again. That was simply one small point of the 'chapter 14' which is dealing with the whole subject of "various tongues". And I have explained it, based upon understanding the two different tongues, one has a translation and one which doesn't and indeed can't, by biblical definition, since it is Sspiritual language and not a natural language. It very well may be the language that all had before God gave us true babble at the tower of Babel.
No it's not. That's the point of the entirety of Chapter 14... getting people to behave in church. Pretty much the ENTIRE BOOK of 1 Corinthians is trying to get the Corinthians to behave themselves, so if you've read 1 Corinthians I'm not sure why you would find that surprising.
Quite the speculation there about the tower of Babel thing, considering that the "tongues" pretty much never sound the same.
quote:
Several times you've stated you believe in the gift of tongues, but then your heart reveals the truth. Your disdain for the supernatural gift of tongues as being "Blabbering" is as apparant with you as it is with Godhead. And that attitude is simply disrrespectful to those of us who walk in this precious gifting, and I am close to putting you in the same catagory as Godhead. That catagory being, someone who isn't worthy of my time (in this subject). The biblical definition of babble came from Tower of Babel and 'you two' both seem to understand each other well enough so what more can I say.
When a person disrupts church by talking loudly in a language that no one else understands, that's blabbering. Regardless of what tongue it is done in. If I stood up in my church and starting praying in mandarin (which I do speak a little of) in the middle of the message, that's STILL blabbering. It's unhelpful, nobody in my church speaks mandarin and it's out of order in the service. I'm merely showing the same disdain that Paul showed as well in telling the Corinthians to keep quiet if they're not being interpreted, and take turns if they are.
quote:
As I'm reading/responding to your post, again your true bias against tongues as even being a valid gift is blatantly apparent. As I said before to you, when you want to ask questions seeking to understand a POV other than yours, I'm open to dialogue. Other than that, your true purpose of "keeping others from being led astray" is noted as stated. And since your attempts to refute are 'almost' as embarrasing to me, as Godhead's, I'd prefer not responding to you any more either Zhi. As I've said multiple times now, it isn't doing any good anyway. Throwing the rocks of "false theology" instead of stating the truth which is 'theological differences' again reveals where your heart is...and has the 'faith' to stay. So enjoy babbeling with Mr. Godhead.
I have a bias against tongues when it's in the context that you claim it should be, namely, uninterpretable. I don't think that was at any point the intent of the gift of tongues, and in fact Paul warns against using it that way. I also don't see any theological and scriptural basis for your claim of a "spiritual tongue" outside of the realm of the gift of the Spirit, and there is most definitely scripture opposing the idea that everyone should speak in tongues, so obviously I'm going to see that as bad theology. If my refutations are embarrassing to you, maybe you should take a hard look at your theology and make sure it's scriptural. If you don't want to respond to me that's your prerogative, go right ahead.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 5:31:21 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2346
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
In your opinion why didn't the original writers use dialektos anywhere in Cor.? It would certainly fit your POV here and then there wouldn't have been any "implication" necessary with glossos.
Because I believe that, while what was being spoken by the Corinthians was a "dialektos" to someone, it was unknown to those who were speaking it. I believe that when someone speaks in a glossa, they are speaking a language that can be naturally learned, but has not been by the person speaking it.
quote:
natural translating of a known language of man would not require the supernatural Spiritual gift of interpretation IMO.
It would be if neither the speaker nor the interpreter had learned the language previously. If someone starts speaking a tongue in, say, Russian, and I somehow translate it, that would have to be Spirit-led, because I do not speak a word of Russian.
quote:
I would have to consider it hyperbole too if I wasn't experiencing it literally and bibilically (admittedly as I read/understand scripture)
Then, I must ask, what are your takes on the other statements Paul makes in the start of chapter 13? Do you fathom all mysteries and understanding? Do you move mountains with your faith? Do you give up your body to the fire?
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 7:35:00 PM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 635
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
In your opinion why didn't the original writers use dialektos anywhere in Cor.? It would certainly fit your POV here and then there wouldn't have been any "implication" necessary with glossos.
quote:
Because I believe that, while what was being spoken by the Corinthians was a "dialektos" to someone, it was unknown to those who were speaking it. I believe that when someone speaks in a glossa, they are speaking a language that can be naturally learned, but has not been by the person speaking it.
quote:
natural translating of a known language of man would not require the supernatural Spiritual gift of interpretation IMO.
It would be if neither the speaker nor the interpreter had learned the language previously. If someone starts speaking a tongue in, say, Russian, and I somehow translate it, that would have to be Spirit-led, because I do not speak a word of Russian.
quote:
I would have to consider it hyperbole too if I wasn't experiencing it literally and bibilically (admittedly as I read/understand scripture)
Then, I must ask, what are your takes on the other statements Paul makes in the start of chapter 13? Do you fathom all mysteries and understanding? Do you move mountains with your faith? Do you give up your body to the fire?
Actually I think the writer not using dialektos anywhere in Cor. goes against you. Why not just use dialektos all the time if they are known languages. In fact if tongues are just known languages what is the need of interpretation? Why not just do like on the day of Pentecost and have people speak in the languages that the people know? What is the point of having someone speak a known language that no one else knows? How do you expain 1 Corinthians 14:2 where Paul says those who speak in an unknown tongue speak unto God and that no one understands it? Also if tongues are only for ministry to others why did Paul say in verse 28 that they should pray at home alone to God if there was no interpretation?
1 Corinthians 14:2, 28
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
_____________________________
Bill Cotton
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 7:46:24 PM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 635
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
the prayer language of your spirit which is an unknown language to man "no man understandeth" 1Co 14:2). It is a 'heavenly' language and the tongue of "angels". It is not a dialektos and no one can even interpret it.
The reason nobody understood it is because the church in Corinth was failing to translate it - something Paul says is essential to properly administer the gift of tongues.
As for the "tongue of angels," I would contend that Paul is using a hyperbole. If you are saying that is the literal, normative experience for the Christian, then we must also expect the normal Christian to fathom all mysteries and knowledge (which, at last check, only God was able to do). Or be able to literally move physical mountains with our faith. Or burn up our bodies in physical flames. So, if you're willing to accept all that, then we can have a discussion about whether or not it's true or not. If you're not, then neither should you believe we, as believers, should speak in the "tongue of angels."
All of the gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 13 are real gifts that were available to men. Paul was not saying that you had to have these giftings in the extreme in order to have them at all. Some men do have gifts of knowledge and understand some mysteries but not all. Likewise some can speak with tongues of angels. Paul was making a point that even if you had these gifts in the extreme but did not have love it didn't profit anything. Also in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul said that he prayed in tongues more than all the Corinthians but would rather speak a few words in a know language than 10,000 in an unknown tongue. So I think it is obvious that he did a lot of praying in tongues alone with God which goes to prove that there are two different purposes for tongues.
_____________________________
Bill Cotton
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 8:17:41 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2346
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why not just use dialektos all the time if they are known languages. In fact if tongues are just known languages what is the need of interpretation?
Enkel omdat een taal door iemand niet wordt gekend betekent het aan iedereen gekend is. Het spreken in een "tongue" spreekt in een taal die, terwijl gekend aan iemand in de wereld, tegelijkertijd aan de spreker onbekend is.
Op de zelfde manier, staat de Geestelijke gift van interpretatie voor iemand toe om een taal te vertalen, alhoewel zij nooit het voordien hebben gehoord. Dat is waarom dialektos niet wordt gebruikt - dat zou verwijzen naar een taal die de spreker op hun leerde (niet om met het gebruik van tong in Revelatie worden verward, die ook een taal is die zijn sprekers reeds wisten, maar is daar gebruikte om culturen te bepalen).
Now, if you had to use some sort of online translator, like I did, then I think the need for interpretation in some cases is obvious. Just because a tongue-language is known by someone does not mean it's known by anyone in the gathering in which it is spoken!
Also, there is no reason that the translation has to be from a Spiritual gift. Just as those who aren't given the Spiritual gift of mercy are still commanded to be merciful, so those who aren't given the Spiritual gift of interpretation might be able to translate a tongue anyway, if it's in their native language, or one they have learned.
(that's Dutch, by the way)
quote:
Why not just do like on the day of Pentecost and have people speak in the languages that the people know? What is the point of having someone speak a known language that no one else knows?
Because the glossa there has a different purpose. It wouldn't have been a very good way to start the Church is everyone was just confused. But later on, when things had settled down a bit, it was a more powerful sign to the unbelievers to see, first, someone speaking truth a language they didn't know, and then someone who also didn't know that language, translating it for them!
quote:
How do you expain 1 Corinthians 14:2 where Paul says those who speak in an unknown tongue speak unto God and that no one understands it?
I would guess Paul was using one of the Corinthians arguments against them. Some members of the church in Corinth were abusing the gift of tongues - that is, they were speaking it loudly, disrupting the services because nobody was there to translate. The people who did this tried to justify themselves by saying, "Well, we're speaking to God!", and Paul is saying that this is not good enough - either a tongue must be interpreted, or it must be spoken quietly to oneself.
quote:
Also if tongues are only for ministry to others why did Paul say in verse 28 that they should pray at home alone to God if there was no interpretation?
It says nothing about praying at home, alone. I feel I addressed the rest of your question directly above this.
quote:
All of the gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 13 are real gifts that were available to men.
...
Some men do have gifts of knowledge and understand some mysteries but not all.
Not good enough. If you are going to claim that some people literally speak in the "tongue" of angels, then you need to also believe that there are Christians out there who comprehend all knowledge and mystery. And if you believe that it is a normal experience for Christians to speak in the glossa of angels, then you should likewise believe it is normal for this to happen, too.
quote:
Also in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul said that he prayed in tongues more than all the Corinthians but would rather speak a few words in a know language than 10,000 in an unknown tongue. So I think it is obvious that he did a lot of praying in tongues alone with God which goes to prove that there are two different purposes for tongues.
I don't think that's obvious at all. I think Paul is using a figure of speech, and again, he is using to argue against the way the Corinthian church was abusing tongues. He is saying that, while praying in tongues is good, it must be done in a way that is profitable for the entire Body, not just the individual - that is, it must be interpreted.
The 10,000 words in an unknown language are worthless compared to just 5 words spoken in a known language. I want you to think about how different those two numbers are, so imagine how different your reaction would be if you found $5 on the street, and then what you would do if you found $10,000 on the street. Pretty significant difference, right? So I think any attempt to use this verse to defend an "unknown prayer language" is misunderstanding the depth of Paul's argument here.
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 12:06:16 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 224
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
MrFribbles,
quote:
quote:
I would have to consider it hyperbole too if I wasn't experiencing it literally and bibilically (admittedly as I read/understand scripture)
Then, I must ask, what are your takes on the other statements Paul makes in the start of chapter 13? Do you fathom all mysteries and understanding? Do you move mountains with your faith? Do you give up your body to the fire?
My takes are this argument is so weak you are really grasping at straws to use this as a defense. You aren't reading the chapter for what it's saying...it is the love chapter not the tongues chapter. It is comparing tongues, prophetic powers, understanding all mysteries, having all knowledge WITH love. It is not making all those attributes a litmus test to having tongues or prophetic powers ect. ect....surely you can see that can't you?
quote:
It says nothing about praying at home, alone.
Do you try to pick fly spots out of the pepper too? Can't you hear 'the spirit' of what Bill is speaking of scripturally; did he need to say 'church home' for you to catch the big idea? You appear to be nit picking which is simply a sign of hopeless desperation here IMO.
1CO 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.
quote:
either a tongue must be interpreted, or it must be spoken quietly to oneself.
Since you don't believe in two tongues, what is the use of me sitting there speaking in Russian to myself...what on earth for? Nobody would benefit. Your position isn't valid to me scripturally or experientially.
I don't think that's obvious at all. I think Paul is using a figure of speech, and again, he is using to argue against the way the Corinthian church was abusing tongues. He is saying that, while praying in tongues is good, it must be done in a way that is profitable for the entire Body, not just the individual - that is, it must be interpreted.
quote:
The 10,000 words in an unknown language are worthless compared to just 5 words spoken in a known language. I want you to think about how different those two numbers are, so imagine how different your reaction would be if you found $5 on the street, and then what you would do if you found $10,000 on the street. Pretty significant difference, right? So I think any attempt to use this verse to defend an "unknown prayer language" is misunderstanding the depth of Paul's argument here. If your above argument is meant to discredit prayer tongues don't you realize it also discredited your interpretation of 'tongues' by the very same argument? I believe you are kicking against the goads.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 5:44:30 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2346
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Him4All, I feel you are merely accusing me of making weak arguments without really addressing my points. I feel this leads to unfruitful discussion, and would appreciate less attacks on my character in the future.
quote:
You aren't reading the chapter for what it's saying...it is the love chapter not the tongues chapter
I know it is. That's exactly my point, because all too often I hear people who believe as you do quoting this verse to defend the idea of a "heavenly prayer language," saying that Paul says we can speak in the tongues of angels. But this isn't a tongues chapter, it's a chapter on love.
quote:
It is comparing tongues, prophetic powers, understanding all mysteries, having all knowledge WITH love. It is not making all those attributes a litmus test to having tongues or prophetic powers ect. ect....surely you can see that can't you?
I know that it is not, but you are. You're saying that it teaches that believers can speak in the glossa of angels. So to you, it is describing having tongues in a literally sense. And since you make that claim, you must also agree that the other examples Paul uses should be literally and normally demonstrated in the believer, or revise your argument.
quote:
Can't you hear 'the spirit' of what Bill is speaking of scripturally; did he need to say 'church home' for you to catch the big idea?
Perhaps I missed it, but to me, "home" means "place where you live." If you eat, sleep and bathe and your church 7 days a week, then my apologies. But if you do not, I think it is a bit unfair for you to expect me to read the word "church" where it is not written.
quote:
Since you don't believe in two tongues, what is the use of me sitting there speaking in Russian to myself...what on earth for? Nobody would benefit. Your position isn't valid to me scripturally or experientially.
The glossa has to come out somehow, I suppose. You can't know if someone will interpret until you begin speaking. Since only 2 or 3 are going to speak in tongues during any biblical church service, it may be that a few will get started, not be interpreted, and so are finished quietly, to oneself.
And besides, why would Russian be any better than an unknown language? They'd both sound like gibberish to you anyway.
quote:
If your above argument is meant to discredit prayer tongues don't you realize it also discredited your interpretation of 'tongues' by the very same argument?
I don't think it did. I was arguing against untranslated tongues being spoken publicly (that is, loud enough for the congregation at large to hear) in a local church service. Perhaps you could expand on how you think I discredited my own interpretation?
*edited to add "untranslated" in that last part there, since I forgot it the first time around*
< Message edited by MrFribbles -- 6/13/2008 5:51:02 PM >
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 6:19:50 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 224
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
MrFribbles,
quote:
Him4All, I feel you are merely accusing me of making weak arguments without really addressing my points. I feel this leads to unfruitful discussion, and would appreciate less attacks on my character in the future.
I think the best way to address this is to cease and desist. It's too time consuming and too fruitless. I'm sorry they seem like character attacks I think they're just cognitive assesments of 'you just don't seem capable of getting it. I admit that 's my opinion and I present it as just that with no intended offense meant. If you take an offense then that is up to you to deal with and not mine. I hope you understand.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 11:11:36 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2346
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I admit that 's my opinion and I present it as just that with no intended offense meant.
If no offense was meant, then none is taken. : )
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/14/2008 11:29:26 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1038
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Frankly it's hard to "get" something that simply isn't there. It's not a cognitive failure on our part, it's just that you're asserting a duality of the nature of tongues that isn't born out in Scripture.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/16/2008 10:00:55 AM
|
|
|
awaken
Posts: 90
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
|
But Paul did speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:18)....so if Paul did not speak in the church...where did he speak? Could it be his own prayer time? Hmmmmmmmm......
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 6/16/2008 11:31:01 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1038
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
But Paul did speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:18)....so if Paul did not speak in the church...where did he speak? Could it be his own prayer time? Hmmmmmmmm......
Well, let's take it in context of all that he says.
1. Paul did not speak in tongues in church if it were not intelligible.
1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
2. Paul apparently spoke in tongues in order to convince people to believe. So we're talking about a believer glossa'ing an unbeliever's dialektos to tell them about Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:21 In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. 22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers;
3. Paul would not speak in tongues in the church without an interpreter.
1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
4. Paul would only speak tongues in an orderly fashion.
1 Corinthians 14:39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
So, apparently Paul spoke in tongues in church if there were an interpreter, and if it were in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, he spoke in tongues to unbelievers who could understand him, and quietly to himself and God. So, yes, it's entirely possible that Paul prayed in tongues... but it wasn't in the fashion that the "tongues" churches do it nowadays, where they babble somewhat haphazardly without interpretation (as has been my experience in "tongues" churches).
So, if you have the gift of tongues and want to pray privately in tongues, then absolutely do so. Paul says that's an appropriate use of your gift.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
