but this "phenomena" thing was an invention, probably of vpw's,
and there is no BIBLICAL definition of it.
Number of occurrences of the words phenomenon/phenomena
in the KJV is ZERO,
in the NIV is ZERO,
in the RSV is ZERO.
Since the words is NONEXISTENT in the Bible, it is not a word
that has a BIBLICAL definition.
What kind of definition can it have? It can be defined by
its use. Back in 1989, when I was in a room with several people,
someone claimed that phenomena were not guaranteed. I pointed out
that WE LABEL something a phenomena when we are surprised by the
results, that we did not consider this the expected result.
I silenced the room for an instant, then someone IMMEDIATELY gave
the knee-jerk reaction that we can't say that. Someone else quickly
disagreed-but still didn't explain what it seemed the entire room
was missing.
It's perfectly acceptable to make up a word or a phrase to explain
something new. We DO, however, need to be aware of what we do when we
do it, and be aware that our IMPOSED labels are not CANON and are not
AUTHORITATIVE.
I bring all of that up now to bring up what may or may not be obvious-
that calling something "phenomena", in and of itself, is a label, and
a label without authority or a universal definition.
"As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous."
That's 2 statements, neither supported by the verses themselves.
If there's a rationale for either statement, it was not presented.
"This is rare"
"This could be considered miraculous".
Mind you, all supernatural activity "could be considered miraculous."
I believe what was MEANT here-correct me if it was NOT meant-
was that "this could be considered unique."
If the first occurrence of something is supposed to set the standard
by which it is understood, then THE OPPOSITE is demonstrated.
"Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit."
And yet, that's on the "God-end" of things, and the DEMONSTRATED end, certainly
at Pentecost, was that the speakers spoke in languages they didn't understand
but many observers did-and they explained the speech was of "the wonderful works
of God."
"The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon,"
I think we all agree that the people of the different nations heard the 12 apostles
speak in their own native individual languages.
The "it's a phenomenon" label, supposing it carries an actual meaning of
"there's no guarantees of this", is a CLAIM and was not supported.
"and a reverse effect of that which occurred at the Tower of Babel when God confounded the languages. See Genesis chapter 11, verses 1-9."
It looks similar, but there are important differences. We can discuss them if you wish.
"That everyone understood in their own different language in Acts chapter 2 does not normally happen, but apparently this phenomenon was a sign of the importance and significance of the receiving of the Holy Spirit as promised by God."
Again, that it "does not normally happen" is a claim.
"Apparently" means the claim is being explained when it wasn't ever SUPPORTED.
I saw this when people explained the significance of the cross Jesus was crucified
on as being the "lowercase t" shape. Nice explanation, not factual, and not supported.
"If someone speaks in tongues or speaks in tongues with interpretation, it is possible for someone to know the language or tongue if it is a language of men that they know."
I would agree. If the listener understood the language of either the "tongue"
or the interpretation, they would be able to follow it.
Mind you, I think this claim ruffles feathers.
"However, the person speaking in tongues according to the scriptures will not know the language otherwise it wouldn’t be a tongue described as a mystery or divine secret to the speaker."
I think that this is uncontested, and we all agree.
Providing what is done is actual tongues (that's a "given" for that statement.)
When vpw supposedly spoke Greek when told to "speak in tongues", he was intentionally
faking it, so he knew what he was saying. (Presuming this was a true story he
So when you hear people speak do you understand every language? For example, if you are in a foreign country?
That's not relevant. If I hear someone speaking a language other than English, or to a more limited extent, Spanish, I don't understand because they are not speaking in tongues.
Here is the first usage of tongue in the New Testament. This is Strong's number 1100
Also irrelevant to the discussion, since it's not the first usage of speaking in tongues
Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech.
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
New Living Translation
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.
English Standard Version
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Oakspear, since I just posted the above verse on speaking in tongues, do you want to now ignore this verse?
What do you believe about speaking in tongues from this verse and other verses? Believe whatever you want.
I have to stay consistent. I've always taken the verses Mark cited to mean that under normal circumstances, in a church setting (or believer's meeting, if you prefer), the people present will not be expected to recognize the language produced in SIT. It is clear from other verses that understanding the language is possible, because these are languages. But typically, everyone in the church speaks and understands the same language (or two or at most three). Their SIT will invariably produce a fourth language (otherwise it's not SIT but the much less astonishing feat known as "talking"). That fourth language will, again TYPICALLY, be spoken by none of the people present. Thus, they will not understand. But God will.
This does not change the fact that it is a glossa, an actual language.
The verses in Corinthians (that's One Corinthians for you Trump fans) do indeed indicate that one shouldn't expect to understand the language when someone speaks in tongues. However, this does not mean that the incident of speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is "phenomena" or that we should assume that other incidents of speaking in tongues were any different that in chapter 2. Acts 10 says that they were heard to speak with tongues and magnify God. How woud the hearers know that they were magnifying God? I suppose they could have assumed that they magnified God since they were spaking in tongues, or maybe they understood them. Same thing with chapter 19. Now maybe Corinthians trumps (no pun intended) Acts 2, or maybe the Acts 2 example trumps Corinthians. We leaned in PFAL to interpret Acts 10 & 19 in light of Corinthians, but might we alternately interpret Corinthians in light of Acts 2?
Oakspear, since I just posted the above verse on speaking in tongues, do you want to now ignore this verse?
I'm not ignoring anything, just suggesting other possibilities
What do you believe about speaking in tongues from this verse and other verses? Believe whatever you want.
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
New Living Translation
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.
English Standard Version
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Oakspear, since I just posted the above verse on speaking in tongues, do you want to now ignore this verse?
Actually, since you posted those verses in a SLANTED way, one could just as easily ask the
EQUALLY LOADED question (it wasn't nice of you to ask the question the way you did)
"Do you DELIBERATELY hide information that doesn't suit you?"
All pfal grads SHOULD be able to remember something interesting about that verse.
You didn't use the NASB. I just checked the Nestle-and the Greek agrees with it.
The word "them" in the NIV is NOT IN THE GREEK-it was ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR.
It is VOID OF AUTHORITY. It is the translator's BEST GUESS as to what belonged in the sentence-
and often we find the translator's skill WANTING.
I Corinthians 14:2 NASB
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.
The Greek seems consistent with a read that no "one who speaks in a tongue" UNDERSTANDS while he speaks mysteries.
As for the more florid examples of English versions, well, they're nice,
but all based on the opinion and not unquestionably a reflection of the Greek on which they
were allegedly based.
What do you believe about speaking in tongues from this verse and other verses? Believe whatever you want.
Personal attacks and appeals to OPINION are beneath the declared purposes of these threads.
I don't see where Mark's position of what the Bible teaches about SIT and the definition of "glossa" differs from mine, so I've been reading these latest posts with great interest. I'm not sure there's any disagreement at the heart of what we're discussing here. If I'm mistaken, I trust Mark will correct me. I see him saying "glossa is a language. Believers at a meeting probably won't understand the language for practical reasons, and the incidents in Acts serve to show that understanding is possible." That's what I THINK Mark is saying. Whether someone present understanding is the norm or the exception doesn't impress me one way or another, Biblically.
I agree that the definition of "phenomenon" as used has no apparent Biblical basis, but I don't see what bearing it has on the definition of glossa.
I guess what I'm saying is, as you're challenging Mark on his posts, can we ascertain whether you guys are actually disagreeing about anything substantive?
Wordwolf, you often read the context of posts, but as it relates to my post of any accusations, I have not been the person who has started negative posts that you call "personal attacks" seen at the end of post #433. Instead I write comments on biblical verses while directly quoting from the verses. This is seen here in post #419. Then I get negative comments from another poster here that says, "I don't see how this follows logic", from post #424 and "that's not relevant" from post #428. So then after my comment on this following his. I get a less negative comment so I ignore it. Now I am getting a negative comment from you.
Fortunately, now Raf is posting NO negative comment to my posts and instead a favorable one and is seeing them originating only as biblical verses followed by comments. Now I am agreeing with Raf. I hope this is O.K. to do. Please don't consider agreeing with another poster now as a negative statement.
Wordwolf, you often read the context of posts, but as it relates to my post of any accusations, I have not been the person who has started negative posts that you call personal attacks.
Try not to confuse "disagreeing" with "negative posts" with "personal attacks."
Personal attacks overstep the discussion of the subject, and get into a meta-discussion
about the other posters.
Disagreeing is a natural consequence of discussion.
Instead I write comments on biblical verses while directly quoting from the verses. This is seen here in post #419. Then I get negative comments from another poster here that says, "I don't see how this follows logic", from post #424 and "that's not relevant" from post #428.
If you're supposedly answering a question, and your reply doesn't address the question,
other people may point that out-which is not necessarily negative.
"I don't see how this follows logically." -Either it doesn't, or your communication was not
sufficient to show that person how it IS logical. (It's possible, but less common, for the
person to be impenetrable to logic, but that wasn't the case here.)
So, lay it out again, clearer. This should result in one of 3 things, each of which have
happened here, at different times:
A) the logic is shown to be flawed
B) the logic is demonstrated to be sound and is easier to understand
C) the asker is demonstrated to be wasting everyone's time
That last one was the hallmark of a few posters.
So then after my comment on this following his. I get a less negative comment so I ignore it. Now I am getting a negative comment from you.
Fortunately, now Raf is posting NO negative comment to my posts and instead a favorable one and is seeing them originating only as biblical verses followed by comments. Now I am agreeing with Raf. I hope this is O.K. to do. Please don't consider agreeing with another poster now as a negative statement. :knuddel:/>/>
My comment was "negative" but was no "attack" on you. Your phrasing was slanted-
and, apparently, you didn't notice it. It was a loaded question, and I showed one
equally loaded, just as unfair, and representing a different position.
It isn't "negative if it disagrees with me and positive if it disagrees with someone else."
I made a rather fundamental comment about the Greek and an obvious error in the same post.
I don't think you INTENTIONALLY skipped over them, but you didn't address them, either.
Considering the context- you sounding like something was obvious and unquestionable,
yet missing something basic that was a basis for questioning it all by itself-
I thought it was at least worth noting.
One goal is "disagreeing without being disagreeable." If we got personal, I'm sure Raf and I
could really insult and verbally abuse each other here-but we agree not to even if we agree
on nothing else. There's ways to really disagree without making them personal.
(Reminds me, Raf. I'll get back to Genesis 3 when the weather stays cool if I can manage
enough time to sleep in between posts.)
BTW, was Raf correct in his summary of your position?
Wordwolf, no one here is required to answer every question or comment on every person's post. Apparently, my posts and biblical information is more important than I thought when I originally posted them because I am now getting a lot of quotes and comments on them.
Wordwolf, in your last post you are again placing negative comments on my posts, while ignoring my actual biblical content here. You are now doing what you are accusing me of doing. For example, your comment of "your phrasing was slanted". Can you at least try now to get back to this biblical subject here? My short comments verses your longer comments only take up more wasted reading time for the few readers here.
And yes, you also have posted biblical information on this web site. Please get back to actual biblical content here which is 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13 and 14.
For commentaries on these three chapters here are links:
I guess what I'm saying is, as you're challenging Mark on his posts, can we ascertain whether you guys are actually disagreeing about anything substantive?
The differences aren't earthshaking.
My arguments have been more about peripheral issues and assumptions (for instance, that contradictory verses have to "fit")
Then I get negative comments from another poster here that says, "I don't see how this follows logic",
Actually, what I said was that I don't see how this follows logically, but perhaps that is too fine a point. I'm not breaking any rules, or even using bad manners by expressing my opinion that you are not connecting the dots logically.
from post #424 and "that's not relevant" from post #428.
I have stated on several occassions that my personal beliefs are not relevant to the discussion
For the last couple of years or so, I've been working on a project I call "What the Bible really says (and really does NOT say) about speaking in tongues."
The scholarship is up to the academic standards of the Anderson University School of Theology. This would have been my masters thesis if I had the physical strength, endurance and speed to complete my paper within the constraints of the thesis program, which, unfortunately, I do not have. The project is up to 51 12-point, double-spaced pages, about 16,500 words. I have yet to finish a section demonstrating that speaking in tongues is not a "third work of grace," and a section to analyze John's use of the figure "rivers of living water" to refer to speaking in tongues.
Though I will not be completing my masters, I received permission to audit and participate in a doctoral level class on hermeneutics, which was very instructive. We didn't study the Bible at all in that class. One of the foundational texts for the class was "Shakespeare in the Bush: An American anthropologist set out to study the Tiv of West Africa and was taught the true meaning of Hamlet." (which is an anthropology article available on line, and a very fun read!). We practiced the art of hermeneutics on some difficult passages from the poetry of John Milton. What the heck could he have meant by that? We learned that there are at least three places to look for meaning: 1) behind the text - what did this mean to the original writer and their audience? - social/historical criticism, 2) in the text itself - how was it written? - literary, form, redaction criticisms, and 3) in front of the text - what meanings might a current reader take away from this text?
Some time ago, I realized I needed to summarize the definition and functions of speaking in tongues to a single page, and I began working to that end. My summarization was not quite complete when I had my DOA experience (sounds like the storyline from a film noire), so the first thing I did when I was able to get back to work was to finish it. Here it is!
This is not intended as an argument against Raf's position. It is simply a look at what the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues, and it was intended to benefit my colleagues at the School of Theology, almost none of whom speak in tongues. They sort of down-play the significance of tongues, thinking it is a gift given to some Christians but not to others, and definitely not to THEM.
Speaking in tongues is the free-will[1] thank offering[2] of the first fruit[3] of the Spirit,[4] whereby people give back to God of, and in proportion to, that with which the LORD has blessed them;[5] the gift which is the Spirit that was promised for the last days,[6] the first installment and pledge of the Spirit of resurrection life[7] which we will all receive at the ingathering.[8] Speaking in tongues is a private prayer made to God through the joint cooperation of the believer and the Holy Spirit.[9]
The primary purpose of speaking in tongues is to enable each and every Christian to offer perfect praise and thanksgiving to God in their private prayer lives,[10] despite the unregenerate hypocrisy that will continue to mar our hearts until Jesus Christ returns.[11] A secondary purpose of speaking in tongues is to demonstrate that God really did raise Jesus from the dead.[12]A third purpose is to permit the Spirit to make intercession for the saints, since we are not able to picture what we should pray for as we ought.[13] A fourth purpose of speaking in tongues is to build up the confidence of the Christian speaking in tongues that they do indeed have Christ in them, the hope of glory.[14] A fifth purpose of speaking in tongues is to serve as a sign that a person is a member of the New Covenant community[15]
Since speaking in tongues is a free-will thank offering, it has to be the result of the mutual agencies of the speaker and the Spirit. The speaker has to will to speak, to voluntarily move their organs of speech to produce sounds. When the speaker does so, the Spirit gives the utterance.[16] For a Christian to be able to speak in tongues in their private prayer life is not a gift in the sense of a present wrapped in a box, that some Christians get and others do not. The “present wrapped in a box” is the Holy Spirit itself, and every Christian gets it.[17] When a Christian speaks in tongues in the assembly, with interpretation for the up-building of the people,[18] it is a gift in the sense of a favor done by the Holy Spirit for all the people there.[19] Not everyone speaks in tongues in the assembly.[20] Every Christian can speak in tongues in their private prayer life.[21] Genuine biblical speaking in tongues is in no way, shape or form ecstatic utterance. It does not spring from, nor does it produce an artificially altered state of consciousness in the speaker, even though on two occasions it altered the state of consciousness of the hearers.[22] Whenever a person speaks in tongues in public, it should be done decently and in order as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14.[23] The only imperative directly associated with speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:39b, “do not forbid speaking in tongues.”
Thanks for that, Steve. Highly relevant to a conversation I was having with a friend just last night.
Missed seeing your posts! Don't be a-dyin' on us. We need your breadth of knowledge and your calm posts! Best wishes for your return to, and continuing, good health.
I agree with Twinky...ás I said to someone recently, I couldn't do the tongues thing before I was shown/led into it...then I could...and I'm not that smart to be able to make it up ! I'm talking syllabic, enunciated, glossalia...I've also run 'classes' where raving homo's have been led into tongues which proves that of a truth God is no respecter of persons. I've also been in services ( not twi ) where people have 'tongued' in languages not known to them BUT I have recognized words ( I speak a number of languages) sometimes a mish mash of English, German ,Pacific Islands and Latin for God's sake....from the one person, freaked me right out...anyhoo, that's my 2 cents worth :)
I've also been in services ( not twi ) where people have 'tongued' in languages not known to them BUT I have recognized words ( I speak a number of languages)
Earlier, same post...
Quote
I couldn't do the tongues thing before I was shown/led into it...then I could...and I'm not that smart to be able to make it up !
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
WordWolf
I know this comes as a shock to people at times,
but this "phenomena" thing was an invention, probably of vpw's,
and there is no BIBLICAL definition of it.
Number of occurrences of the words phenomenon/phenomena
in the KJV is ZERO,
in the NIV is ZERO,
in the RSV is ZERO.
Since the words is NONEXISTENT in the Bible, it is not a word
that has a BIBLICAL definition.
What kind of definition can it have? It can be defined by
its use. Back in 1989, when I was in a room with several people,
someone claimed that phenomena were not guaranteed. I pointed out
that WE LABEL something a phenomena when we are surprised by the
results, that we did not consider this the expected result.
I silenced the room for an instant, then someone IMMEDIATELY gave
the knee-jerk reaction that we can't say that. Someone else quickly
disagreed-but still didn't explain what it seemed the entire room
was missing.
It's perfectly acceptable to make up a word or a phrase to explain
something new. We DO, however, need to be aware of what we do when we
do it, and be aware that our IMPOSED labels are not CANON and are not
AUTHORITATIVE.
I bring all of that up now to bring up what may or may not be obvious-
that calling something "phenomena", in and of itself, is a label, and
a label without authority or a universal definition.
"As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous."
That's 2 statements, neither supported by the verses themselves.
If there's a rationale for either statement, it was not presented.
"This is rare"
"This could be considered miraculous".
Mind you, all supernatural activity "could be considered miraculous."
I believe what was MEANT here-correct me if it was NOT meant-
was that "this could be considered unique."
If the first occurrence of something is supposed to set the standard
by which it is understood, then THE OPPOSITE is demonstrated.
"Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit."
And yet, that's on the "God-end" of things, and the DEMONSTRATED end, certainly
at Pentecost, was that the speakers spoke in languages they didn't understand
but many observers did-and they explained the speech was of "the wonderful works
of God."
"The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon,"
I think we all agree that the people of the different nations heard the 12 apostles
speak in their own native individual languages.
The "it's a phenomenon" label, supposing it carries an actual meaning of
"there's no guarantees of this", is a CLAIM and was not supported.
"and a reverse effect of that which occurred at the Tower of Babel when God confounded the languages. See Genesis chapter 11, verses 1-9."
It looks similar, but there are important differences. We can discuss them if you wish.
"That everyone understood in their own different language in Acts chapter 2 does not normally happen, but apparently this phenomenon was a sign of the importance and significance of the receiving of the Holy Spirit as promised by God."
Again, that it "does not normally happen" is a claim.
"Apparently" means the claim is being explained when it wasn't ever SUPPORTED.
I saw this when people explained the significance of the cross Jesus was crucified
on as being the "lowercase t" shape. Nice explanation, not factual, and not supported.
"If someone speaks in tongues or speaks in tongues with interpretation, it is possible for someone to know the language or tongue if it is a language of men that they know."
I would agree. If the listener understood the language of either the "tongue"
or the interpretation, they would be able to follow it.
Mind you, I think this claim ruffles feathers.
"However, the person speaking in tongues according to the scriptures will not know the language otherwise it wouldn’t be a tongue described as a mystery or divine secret to the speaker."
I think that this is uncontested, and we all agree.
Providing what is done is actual tongues (that's a "given" for that statement.)
When vpw supposedly spoke Greek when told to "speak in tongues", he was intentionally
faking it, so he knew what he was saying. (Presuming this was a true story he
recounted.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
1 Corinthians 14:2
New International Version
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
New Living Translation
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.
English Standard Version
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Oakspear, since I just posted the above verse on speaking in tongues, do you want to now ignore this verse?
What do you believe about speaking in tongues from this verse and other verses? Believe whatever you want.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I have to stay consistent. I've always taken the verses Mark cited to mean that under normal circumstances, in a church setting (or believer's meeting, if you prefer), the people present will not be expected to recognize the language produced in SIT. It is clear from other verses that understanding the language is possible, because these are languages. But typically, everyone in the church speaks and understands the same language (or two or at most three). Their SIT will invariably produce a fourth language (otherwise it's not SIT but the much less astonishing feat known as "talking"). That fourth language will, again TYPICALLY, be spoken by none of the people present. Thus, they will not understand. But God will.
This does not change the fact that it is a glossa, an actual language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The verses in Corinthians (that's One Corinthians for you Trump fans) do indeed indicate that one shouldn't expect to understand the language when someone speaks in tongues. However, this does not mean that the incident of speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is "phenomena" or that we should assume that other incidents of speaking in tongues were any different that in chapter 2. Acts 10 says that they were heard to speak with tongues and magnify God. How woud the hearers know that they were magnifying God? I suppose they could have assumed that they magnified God since they were spaking in tongues, or maybe they understood them. Same thing with chapter 19. Now maybe Corinthians trumps (no pun intended) Acts 2, or maybe the Acts 2 example trumps Corinthians. We leaned in PFAL to interpret Acts 10 & 19 in light of Corinthians, but might we alternately interpret Corinthians in light of Acts 2?
I'm not ignoring anything, just suggesting other possibilitiesWhat I believe is irrelevant to this discussionLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If I speak English to a group of people who only know German, no man understands. Does that mean I didn't really speak a language?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, since you posted those verses in a SLANTED way, one could just as easily ask the
EQUALLY LOADED question (it wasn't nice of you to ask the question the way you did)
"Do you DELIBERATELY hide information that doesn't suit you?"
All pfal grads SHOULD be able to remember something interesting about that verse.
You didn't use the NASB. I just checked the Nestle-and the Greek agrees with it.
The word "them" in the NIV is NOT IN THE GREEK-it was ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR.
It is VOID OF AUTHORITY. It is the translator's BEST GUESS as to what belonged in the sentence-
and often we find the translator's skill WANTING.
I Corinthians 14:2 NASB
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.
The Greek seems consistent with a read that no "one who speaks in a tongue" UNDERSTANDS while he speaks mysteries.
As for the more florid examples of English versions, well, they're nice,
but all based on the opinion and not unquestionably a reflection of the Greek on which they
were allegedly based.
Personal attacks and appeals to OPINION are beneath the declared purposes of these threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't see where Mark's position of what the Bible teaches about SIT and the definition of "glossa" differs from mine, so I've been reading these latest posts with great interest. I'm not sure there's any disagreement at the heart of what we're discussing here. If I'm mistaken, I trust Mark will correct me. I see him saying "glossa is a language. Believers at a meeting probably won't understand the language for practical reasons, and the incidents in Acts serve to show that understanding is possible." That's what I THINK Mark is saying. Whether someone present understanding is the norm or the exception doesn't impress me one way or another, Biblically.
I agree that the definition of "phenomenon" as used has no apparent Biblical basis, but I don't see what bearing it has on the definition of glossa.
I guess what I'm saying is, as you're challenging Mark on his posts, can we ascertain whether you guys are actually disagreeing about anything substantive?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
IF you're correct about what he's saying,
then my disagreements with him as to substance are COSMETIC,
and my only disagreements with him would be about "style."
But I'm not sure you're correct about what he's saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Wordwolf, you often read the context of posts, but as it relates to my post of any accusations, I have not been the person who has started negative posts that you call "personal attacks" seen at the end of post #433. Instead I write comments on biblical verses while directly quoting from the verses. This is seen here in post #419. Then I get negative comments from another poster here that says, "I don't see how this follows logic", from post #424 and "that's not relevant" from post #428. So then after my comment on this following his. I get a less negative comment so I ignore it. Now I am getting a negative comment from you.
Fortunately, now Raf is posting NO negative comment to my posts and instead a favorable one and is seeing them originating only as biblical verses followed by comments. Now I am agreeing with Raf. I hope this is O.K. to do. Please don't consider agreeing with another poster now as a negative statement.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Try not to confuse "disagreeing" with "negative posts" with "personal attacks."
Personal attacks overstep the discussion of the subject, and get into a meta-discussion
about the other posters.
Disagreeing is a natural consequence of discussion.
If you're supposedly answering a question, and your reply doesn't address the question,
other people may point that out-which is not necessarily negative.
"I don't see how this follows logically." -Either it doesn't, or your communication was not
sufficient to show that person how it IS logical. (It's possible, but less common, for the
person to be impenetrable to logic, but that wasn't the case here.)
So, lay it out again, clearer. This should result in one of 3 things, each of which have
happened here, at different times:
A) the logic is shown to be flawed
B) the logic is demonstrated to be sound and is easier to understand
C) the asker is demonstrated to be wasting everyone's time
That last one was the hallmark of a few posters.
My comment was "negative" but was no "attack" on you. Your phrasing was slanted-
and, apparently, you didn't notice it. It was a loaded question, and I showed one
equally loaded, just as unfair, and representing a different position.
It isn't "negative if it disagrees with me and positive if it disagrees with someone else."
I made a rather fundamental comment about the Greek and an obvious error in the same post.
I don't think you INTENTIONALLY skipped over them, but you didn't address them, either.
Considering the context- you sounding like something was obvious and unquestionable,
yet missing something basic that was a basis for questioning it all by itself-
I thought it was at least worth noting.
One goal is "disagreeing without being disagreeable." If we got personal, I'm sure Raf and I
could really insult and verbally abuse each other here-but we agree not to even if we agree
on nothing else. There's ways to really disagree without making them personal.
(Reminds me, Raf. I'll get back to Genesis 3 when the weather stays cool if I can manage
enough time to sleep in between posts.)
BTW, was Raf correct in his summary of your position?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Wordwolf, no one here is required to answer every question or comment on every person's post. Apparently, my posts and biblical information is more important than I thought when I originally posted them because I am now getting a lot of quotes and comments on them.
Wordwolf, in your last post you are again placing negative comments on my posts, while ignoring my actual biblical content here. You are now doing what you are accusing me of doing. For example, your comment of "your phrasing was slanted". Can you at least try now to get back to this biblical subject here? My short comments verses your longer comments only take up more wasted reading time for the few readers here.
And yes, you also have posted biblical information on this web site. Please get back to actual biblical content here which is 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13 and 14.
For commentaries on these three chapters here are links:
1 Corinthians 12
1 Corinthians 13
1 Corinthians 14
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The differences aren't earthshaking.
My arguments have been more about peripheral issues and assumptions (for instance, that contradictory verses have to "fit")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Actually, what I said was that I don't see how this follows logically, but perhaps that is too fine a point. I'm not breaking any rules, or even using bad manners by expressing my opinion that you are not connecting the dots logically.
I have stated on several occassions that my personal beliefs are not relevant to the discussion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
For the last couple of years or so, I've been working on a project I call "What the Bible really says (and really does NOT say) about speaking in tongues."
The scholarship is up to the academic standards of the Anderson University School of Theology. This would have been my masters thesis if I had the physical strength, endurance and speed to complete my paper within the constraints of the thesis program, which, unfortunately, I do not have. The project is up to 51 12-point, double-spaced pages, about 16,500 words. I have yet to finish a section demonstrating that speaking in tongues is not a "third work of grace," and a section to analyze John's use of the figure "rivers of living water" to refer to speaking in tongues.
Though I will not be completing my masters, I received permission to audit and participate in a doctoral level class on hermeneutics, which was very instructive. We didn't study the Bible at all in that class. One of the foundational texts for the class was "Shakespeare in the Bush: An American anthropologist set out to study the Tiv of West Africa and was taught the true meaning of Hamlet." (which is an anthropology article available on line, and a very fun read!). We practiced the art of hermeneutics on some difficult passages from the poetry of John Milton. What the heck could he have meant by that? We learned that there are at least three places to look for meaning: 1) behind the text - what did this mean to the original writer and their audience? - social/historical criticism, 2) in the text itself - how was it written? - literary, form, redaction criticisms, and 3) in front of the text - what meanings might a current reader take away from this text?
Some time ago, I realized I needed to summarize the definition and functions of speaking in tongues to a single page, and I began working to that end. My summarization was not quite complete when I had my DOA experience (sounds like the storyline from a film noire), so the first thing I did when I was able to get back to work was to finish it. Here it is!
copy 2 What IS speaking in tongue1.docx
This is not intended as an argument against Raf's position. It is simply a look at what the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues, and it was intended to benefit my colleagues at the School of Theology, almost none of whom speak in tongues. They sort of down-play the significance of tongues, thinking it is a gift given to some Christians but not to others, and definitely not to THEM.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Nice one page summarization, Steve. Thanks.
And thanks for bringing up the impact of hermeneutics when considering this whole matter.
This last sentence of it stirred me to ponder on what it really meant...
The only imperative directly associated with speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:39b, “do not forbid speaking in tongues.”
Why use the word forbid if it's something that can't be stopped? (If one has the inherent ability, what can another do to stop it?)
I found it interesting that the same word is used in Luke 11:52:
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I tried clicking on the link I posted earlier, and a message came up saying there is no such page, So I'm copying the file here:
What IS speaking in tongues?
© copyright 2017, Stephen L. Lortz, permission to copy for non-commercial use, steve.lortz@gmail.com
Speaking in tongues is the free-will[1] thank offering[2] of the first fruit[3] of the Spirit,[4] whereby people give back to God of, and in proportion to, that with which the LORD has blessed them;[5] the gift which is the Spirit that was promised for the last days,[6] the first installment and pledge of the Spirit of resurrection life[7] which we will all receive at the ingathering.[8] Speaking in tongues is a private prayer made to God through the joint cooperation of the believer and the Holy Spirit.[9]
The primary purpose of speaking in tongues is to enable each and every Christian to offer perfect praise and thanksgiving to God in their private prayer lives,[10] despite the unregenerate hypocrisy that will continue to mar our hearts until Jesus Christ returns.[11] A secondary purpose of speaking in tongues is to demonstrate that God really did raise Jesus from the dead.[12] A third purpose is to permit the Spirit to make intercession for the saints, since we are not able to picture what we should pray for as we ought.[13] A fourth purpose of speaking in tongues is to build up the confidence of the Christian speaking in tongues that they do indeed have Christ in them, the hope of glory.[14] A fifth purpose of speaking in tongues is to serve as a sign that a person is a member of the New Covenant community[15]
Since speaking in tongues is a free-will thank offering, it has to be the result of the mutual agencies of the speaker and the Spirit. The speaker has to will to speak, to voluntarily move their organs of speech to produce sounds. When the speaker does so, the Spirit gives the utterance.[16] For a Christian to be able to speak in tongues in their private prayer life is not a gift in the sense of a present wrapped in a box, that some Christians get and others do not. The “present wrapped in a box” is the Holy Spirit itself, and every Christian gets it.[17] When a Christian speaks in tongues in the assembly, with interpretation for the up-building of the people,[18] it is a gift in the sense of a favor done by the Holy Spirit for all the people there.[19] Not everyone speaks in tongues in the assembly.[20] Every Christian can speak in tongues in their private prayer life.[21] Genuine biblical speaking in tongues is in no way, shape or form ecstatic utterance. It does not spring from, nor does it produce an artificially altered state of consciousness in the speaker, even though on two occasions it altered the state of consciousness of the hearers.[22] Whenever a person speaks in tongues in public, it should be done decently and in order as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14.[23] The only imperative directly associated with speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:39b, “do not forbid speaking in tongues.”
[1] Deuteronomy 16:10
[2] Leviticus 22:29
[3] Exodus 34:22; Numbers 28:26
[4] Romans 8:23
[5] Deuteronomy 16:10
[6] Acts 2:16-21 which quotes Joel 2:28-32a
[7] Ephesians 1:14
[8] Exodus 23:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:1
9 John 4:24
[10] 1 Corinthians 14:2a, 14, 16, 17, 18
[11] 1 Corinthians 13:8&9, 15:51&52
[12] Acts 2:32&33
[13] Romans 8:26-28
[14] 1Corinthians 14:4, 22, Jude 20
[15] Philippians 3:3, Acts 10:45, 11:15-17
[16] Acts 2:4, 2 Corinthians 3:17
[17] Acts 2:38
[18] 1 Corinthians 14:13-17
[19] 1 Corinthians 12:4
[20] I Corinthians 12:30b
[21] 1 Corinthians 14:5
[22] Acts 2:12, 10:45
[23] 1 Corinthians 14:40
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thanks for that, Steve. Highly relevant to a conversation I was having with a friend just last night.
Missed seeing your posts! Don't be a-dyin' on us. We need your breadth of knowledge and your calm posts! Best wishes for your return to, and continuing, good health.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I agree with Twinky...ás I said to someone recently, I couldn't do the tongues thing before I was shown/led into it...then I could...and I'm not that smart to be able to make it up ! I'm talking syllabic, enunciated, glossalia...I've also run 'classes' where raving homo's have been led into tongues which proves that of a truth God is no respecter of persons. I've also been in services ( not twi ) where people have 'tongued' in languages not known to them BUT I have recognized words ( I speak a number of languages) sometimes a mish mash of English, German ,Pacific Islands and Latin for God's sake....from the one person, freaked me right out...anyhoo, that's my 2 cents worth :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Earlier, same post...
Respectfully, yes you are.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.