"Wow! this sure has been a voyage of discovery! There you go, "forcing" me to address my beliefs with the Word again. "Forcing" in a good way, iron sharpening iron - thank you. I REALLY appreciate it."
Dah feeling iz moochul – thank you Tom! This discussion has been a lot of fun! Warning – off-topic condition just ahead – but also a plug for Grease Spot! It's also a set up for what I've gotten out of your posts, Tom. In my TWI days I used to see other viewpoints [outside of TWI-think] as threatening. It's a lot different now.
I picture a discussion on any given topic like a survey crew checking out a mountain. It helps to have different viewpoints. There may be one person who wants to tunnel through it, another who explores a cave, one who flies over it, one who takes rock samples, etc. Now I know doctrinal discussions can get heady and subjective – reasoning, perceptions and arguments usually flow from one's personal belief system. And that's where the fun begins. It's not like I'm going to accidentally catch your belief system. I'm not interested in your belief system. I'm interested in hearing about you tunneling through the mountain – I've never done that. Or maybe you've been on the mountain during a big storm – I haven't. Maybe you say, "you call that a mountain – where I come from we call that a hill." I'm interested in where you came from – tell me about your mountains.
Tom, I think it's interesting you get into Romans. I have to admit the book of Romans is one of the top seven of my favorite books [my top 7 are: Genesis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, John, Acts, Romans, Revelation – just in case you're wondering what to get me for Christmas – a good commentary on one of those will do – oh…uh…you'll have to sneak it in the back door – Tonto says If I get anymore books I'll have to build an addition on to the house]. What I find interesting in your study of Romans is that your approach is a little different from mine. I venture to say each of us has looked at Romans the way we always have – according to our own personal interests. Now – I'm not referring to how we all used to have PFAL-colored glasses on [referencing another of Oakspear's threads] when reading the Bible. I'm talking about whenever we each read the Bible – we each were drawn to certain things.
I've always been intrigued by the "technical" side of things, how things work, things that I can reason through and analyze, an explanation of things [i've got a real knack for analyzing the life out of something! ] In TWI – I was never comfortable with The Holy Spirit/holy spirit thing. And that's just me – I get hung up in things like what you said about Romans 8:26 the spirit makes intercession for us and then verse 34 says Christ. Or when Jesus talked about the Comforter in John 16 – Jesus was going to leave and send Him – but it's Christ in us the hope of glory. Man, so many things I get all muddled together – I wish there was some God-breathed diagrams, flow-charts and schematics in the Bible…
I gather from your posts – you are very comfortable in this area – both doctrine-wise and in the experiences you've shared – would you classify your approach as more spiritual – mystical – or something like that? I'm not saying either approach [yours or mine] is the best – or like they're the only ones. And I like your approach because the Bible is a spiritual book. Whereas - I tend to want everything categorized and all tied together - I mean well - but that can sometimes get into like trying to put God in a box!
I have to admit I'm a late-bloomer when it comes to all this doctrinal stuff. I left TWI 20 years ago – did a lot of studying, praying, and thinking – but didn't get involved with any off-shoots, a local church or even any type of Christian fellowship. But since I've come to Grease Spot – my old processor has been working overtime. I think that's mostly due to the interplay of ideas with other people. My core belief hasn't changed. I'm still a Christian and believe the Bible is God's book.
Now all this doctrinal stuff – I'm still working on it. Speaking in tongues? Drawing on all my past experiences with TWI and what I've gathered from my studies since then – I TEND to think it ceased back in the first century. I could be wrong – but for right now, I cut myself a lot of slack on things like this. I also could be wrong in assigning it a lower priority in my personal study. The way I process things now – is something that works for me. Don't get me wrong – I don't ignore the topic. I'm not nailing the lid down on my study of speaking in tongues…Oakspear, I appreciate you starting this thread. Tom, I truly appreciate what you've shared – and admire your vibrant and adventurous faith!
Ah, sorry - this is really not a quote from T-Bone. I, many times, start a post by responding to a previous post, so I hit "quote," instead of "addreply." I really don't know what part of T-Bone's post to start with.
Okay, here is a point of entrance: "...would you classify your approach as more spiritual – mystical – or something like that?"
Well, I don't classify my approach, & I usually loose my grasp on the discussion when the target becomes classification of approach. I'm not well versed in man's classifications of spiritual matters. Maybe I should be more well versed, maybe not. Umm, I'm sorry to say that I just don't care. Perhaps I should care more, you know, to be a better witness & all, but I've been pretty fully occupied just trying to keep my life, my wife, my job, together with a connection to my God intact. Man's classifications of approaches to the Word - it just hasn't been a consideration - no time, no place!
So, you've brought the time & place into play, my brother. As I try to honestly engage those places in my heart you seek to define, please be so kind as to continue your gracious reactions to my posts - I realize that we seem to have some basic differences that will enter into the mix.
I also realize that you don't seek to classify my "approach as more spiritual - mystical - or something like that" to trap me into a doctrinal corner; you're simply asking.
So, I'll try to simply answer.
My approach is this. I figure that the rightly dividing of the Word occurs in life. It doesn't happen in an ivory tower of a research department. It happens in my life - in your life, my brother. If the Word has been rightly divided in your life in the area to which you need to apply the Word - NOW - the power of God is realized there by you - & by whomever the hell else needs to see the power of God fly there.
If that's not happening, something is wrong. But maybe things are still moving towards that in a round about way. We all take these round about ways - sigh; but God works with that a lot - smile.
But all round about ways aside, Christ has to be there. If he's not, there is something wrong with my approach. I don't know what kind of approach you want to call that - or my failure to achieve that at times - but that's the way I look at it. The approach doesn't discount the Word; neither does it discount my experiences of the Word in my life. If they're not both there, something is wrong. The Word, & the power & deliverance of God, are meant to be realized.
Well, I don't classify my approach, & I usually loose my grasp on the discussion when the target becomes classification of approach. I'm not well versed in man's classifications of spiritual matters. Maybe I should be more well versed, maybe not. Umm, I'm sorry to say that I just don't care. Perhaps I should care more, you know, to be a better witness & all, but I've been pretty fully occupied just trying to keep my life, my wife, my job, together with a connection to my God intact...
My approach is this. I figure that the rightly dividing of the Word occurs in life. It doesn't happen in an ivory tower of a research department. It happens in my life - in your life, my brother...
I haven't read through the discussion on this, just the opening thread. But I ask all to consider something that was overlooked by TWI, and most other churches/religions/teacing ministries about speaking in tongues. I do remember a few years back I shared this same thing, and was heckled or ignored, but no matter, I will share it again.
On the Feast of In-Gathering, the 50th day after The Feast of Unleavened Bread, when Peter "Spoke in Tongues" he was speaking his own language. The 11 with him were speaking their own language. The miracle was that the people heard them in their native language. All of Peter's lesson that day as recorded in Act 2 was him speaking in tounges...or rather, the listeners hearing him in their language.
If we keep that in mind, our perception and understanding might expand just a bit.
Rachel--------- Sounds like some really interesting stuff to look into . Kinda demonstates human nature for you to be so wrapped up in one's own words and voice that we ignore what the other person is saying. Looking forward to seeing where this all leads.
Yeah, Rachel, how do you come to that conclusion? It appears to me that the speaking in tongues (done by all 12) was separate from "Peter's message" which was just Peter.
Rachel----- My apologies for such a poorly worded post. When I said "for you to be so ----etc., I should have said "for ONE to be so------etc. This is truly some interesting subject matter and I hope your observation stirs some enlightening responses. OK. all out of time. The bell just rang for English class.--------
HEBREWS 1:6-7, 14, 2:3-46 And again, when he bringeth in
the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds ,
and his ministers a flame of fire.
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be
heirs of salvation?
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken
by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles,
and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (cf. Acts 2, 1 Cor.12).
ACTS 2:1-4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with
one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,
and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
ENOCH 70:6ff (circ.200 BC) And he concealed the spirit of Enoch in the heaven of heavens. There I beheld in the midst of that light a building raised with stones of ice. And in the midst of these stones tongues of living fire. My spirit saw around the circle of this flaming habitation...the Seraphim, the Cherubim,, and Ophanin surrounded it...And I beheld angels innumerable, thousands of thousands, and myriads and myriads, who surrounded the habitation.
Luke 8:25 And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.
Really on to somthing here. The power of Christ.
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
I arrived at that conclusion by reading. Just reading what it really says.
It says those people heard the 12 in their own language, right?
So we know if they heard a different language than the one being spoken, then when PETER SPOKE, HE WAS SPEAKING A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAN WAS BEING HEARD..
If you dont buy that, fine. But when did Peter stop speaking his own language?
It clearly says they heard Peter in their own language. Do you think they heard him for 5 minutes in tongues? Or maybe a half an hour, then everybody switched up?
It doesnt say that, does it?
It says they heard the Apostles speaking in their own language.
As the kids say, I have to roll with that. If you don't, fine. Maybe you read in tongues too.
The term "speaking in tongues" refers back to the one speaking - no? If the miracle revolved around the audience I would think it would be termed "hearing in tongues."
I arrived at that conclusion by reading. Just reading what it really says.
Ah...what it really says
It says those people heard the 12 in their own language, right?
Right
So we know if they heard a different language than the one being spoken...
Who, that's an unwarranted jump there Rachel; just from what's written. The only thing that it says it that they heard what the 12 were saying in their own language, it does not say what specific language any of the 12 were speaking, but it does say that they spoke with other tongues. Unless there is something elsewhere to contradict this, the logical reading would be that the apostles were speaking the languages listed in Acts 2, not that they were speaking their native language which was miraculously heard by the listeners as their own native tongues.
then when PETER SPOKE, HE WAS SPEAKING A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAN WAS BEING HEARD..
Your conclusion is not supported by the facts that you present.
If you dont buy that, fine.
Well, you haven't really "sold" it
But when did Peter stop speaking his own language?
You haven't established that he was speaking his own language when Acts says that he was speaking in tongues.
It clearly says they heard Peter in their own language.
It clearly says that they heard "them" speak in their own language, this of course includes Peter, but is not limited to him
Do you think they heard him for 5 minutes in tongues? Or maybe a half an hour, then everybody switched up? It doesnt say that, does it?
It doesn't specify, you're right
It says they heard the Apostles speaking in their own language.
Yes it does. I suppose that it's possible that Peter was still speaking in tongues, but I don't consider it likely: there is a definite change, since we go from 12 men speaking a vague "wonderful works of God" to one man speaking a specifically worded speech.
As the kids say, I have to roll with that. If you don't, fine. Maybe you read in tongues too.
Rachel
Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning, but your conclusions don't flow from the verses that you refer to.
Haven't read the thread, although, I think most of you know my view of SITing for the most part.
Today I came home from my soccer game and went upstairs to where my wife was with the boys in their room. My eldest, 3, after hugs and kisses and stuff, got up on the air filter next to his bookshelf and turned around to face us. He then began orating a rather eloquent speach with hand gestures and a variety of expressions much like a politician or a ring master. The only thing was we didn't understand a word he was saying. He had a lot to say and a lot of words, but none in English. He can speak English, he just wasn't at the moment. He stopped on occasion and we clapped as if he was giving the State of the Union. He would go on and we would clap in support of his enthusiasm and laugh at his wit or make ohs and ahs at his rather complicated vocabulary of what at times sounded like Russian and other times like an Asian or Polynesian language.
3 years old.
At this age, some intelligent youngins that don't have the vocabulary to express all that they want to say will make up a language to fill in the blanks or just not speak the language they know at all. Twins at times will come up with a unique language that they speak to eachother. My boy and his cousin have done this to a degree. My boy has been doing this for about a year now, but today he was verbose and ready to hit the campaign trail...or perhasp lead a believers meeting.
I was two years older than he is when I supposedly started SIT.
Do you think these Galileans knew all these different languages?
No. I think what Acts is trying to communicate is that the Galileans were speaking languages that they didn't understand, but that the hearers did. Pretty much the common view of this section.
And with the being filled with the Holy Spirit they spoke just what they needed to hear?
It says it was the wonderful works of God.
If the Spirit is cut out of Acts 2 then we are left with men speaking and not Spirit.
If they were filled with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit was speaking.
Okay...I'm not arguing that point
Also when Peter spoke afterwords (after the speaking in tongues), all
these people understood what Peter was saying even though they were from different places.
And they were brought up speaking different languages, which does not exclude them
knowing the language that Peter spoke.
I agree with you there. It doesn't specifically state that everybody understood the language that Peter was speaking, but it's a reasonable and logical assumption that people coming to Jersusalem would have at least a working knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic or maybe Greek. A case can be made for amy of those 3 languages.
Do these questions make sense, or am I left wanting more.
Or needing to further inquire?
They make perfect sense. I think that you and I are in at least general agreement on what Acts 2 means, my disagreement was with Rachel who presented an interesting and novel interpretation that, while plausible, doesn't appear to be backed up by what's written.
Ok, I've made it through most of the thread now, but haven't seen this yet.
Have any of you thought about the coincidence that SITing happens in the Bible at basically the same time God goes from a God of Israel to a God of "the uttermost parts of the world." In Acts, right after the whole phenomenon thing happens, Peter quotes Joel saying God will "pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."
Couldn't the whole idea of SITing be about the language of God's people going from Aramaic to every other language around? If you want to believe what is said in Acts fine, but couldn't it just have been a sign of things to come...the "Word" going to the gentiles and their languages?
5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?”
2:8 {e} And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
(e) Not that they spoke one language, and different languages were heard, but the apostles spoke with different languages: for otherwise the miracle would have been in the hearers, whereas it is really in the speakers; Nazianzen in his oration of Whitsunday.
Not that the above is the final answer, but it would make sense.
Acts 2:6
ASV: And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language.
BBE: And when this sound came to their ears, they all came together, and were greatly surprised because every man was hearing the words of the disciples in his special language.
DBY: But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude came together and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.
KJV: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
WEY: So when this noise was heard, they came crowding together, and were amazed because everyone heard his own language spoken.
WBS: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own language.
WEB: When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.
YLT: and the rumour of this having come, the multitude came together, and was confounded, because they were each one hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,
Acts 2:6 Multiple Languages
WEY may be a notable translation. Not that the hearers each heard all the 12 speaking their own particular language at the same time, but that among the speakers each hearer heard the language of his/her birthplace being spoken. Among the 12 speaking, a language that one understands would stick out among the 11 other languages that one didn't understand - I'd go there to hear what was being spoken. To realize that all there were doing the same would be remarkable. That way, there wouldn't have to be one language spoken for 5 minutes & than another started - which does seem rather silly. What if your language was the last one to be spoken? How long would you have to wait, listening to incomprehensible gibberish instead of the wonderful works of God?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
26
26
69
Popular Days
Jun 26
28
Jul 3
20
Jun 27
18
Aug 12
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 45 posts
Oakspear 26 posts
T-Bone 26 posts
dancing 69 posts
Popular Days
Jun 26 2006
28 posts
Jul 3 2006
20 posts
Jun 27 2006
18 posts
Aug 12 2006
17 posts
dancing
i think the scriptures are in tongues
they are understood and not understood
read as a child and read as a man
lived as a child and lived as a man
those who speak in tongues-
their prayer life and
to one another
these two must be seen as one
the inexpreessable utterances and the tongues of angels
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Dah feeling iz moochul – thank you Tom! This discussion has been a lot of fun! Warning – off-topic condition just ahead – but also a plug for Grease Spot! It's also a set up for what I've gotten out of your posts, Tom. In my TWI days I used to see other viewpoints [outside of TWI-think] as threatening. It's a lot different now.
I picture a discussion on any given topic like a survey crew checking out a mountain. It helps to have different viewpoints. There may be one person who wants to tunnel through it, another who explores a cave, one who flies over it, one who takes rock samples, etc. Now I know doctrinal discussions can get heady and subjective – reasoning, perceptions and arguments usually flow from one's personal belief system. And that's where the fun begins. It's not like I'm going to accidentally catch your belief system. I'm not interested in your belief system. I'm interested in hearing about you tunneling through the mountain – I've never done that. Or maybe you've been on the mountain during a big storm – I haven't. Maybe you say, "you call that a mountain – where I come from we call that a hill." I'm interested in where you came from – tell me about your mountains.
Tom, I think it's interesting you get into Romans. I have to admit the book of Romans is one of the top seven of my favorite books [my top 7 are: Genesis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, John, Acts, Romans, Revelation – just in case you're wondering what to get me for Christmas – a good commentary on one of those will do – oh…uh…you'll have to sneak it in the back door – Tonto says If I get anymore books I'll have to build an addition on to the house]. What I find interesting in your study of Romans is that your approach is a little different from mine. I venture to say each of us has looked at Romans the way we always have – according to our own personal interests. Now – I'm not referring to how we all used to have PFAL-colored glasses on [referencing another of Oakspear's threads] when reading the Bible. I'm talking about whenever we each read the Bible – we each were drawn to certain things.
I've always been intrigued by the "technical" side of things, how things work, things that I can reason through and analyze, an explanation of things [i've got a real knack for analyzing the life out of something! ] In TWI – I was never comfortable with The Holy Spirit/holy spirit thing. And that's just me – I get hung up in things like what you said about Romans 8:26 the spirit makes intercession for us and then verse 34 says Christ. Or when Jesus talked about the Comforter in John 16 – Jesus was going to leave and send Him – but it's Christ in us the hope of glory. Man, so many things I get all muddled together – I wish there was some God-breathed diagrams, flow-charts and schematics in the Bible…
I gather from your posts – you are very comfortable in this area – both doctrine-wise and in the experiences you've shared – would you classify your approach as more spiritual – mystical – or something like that? I'm not saying either approach [yours or mine] is the best – or like they're the only ones. And I like your approach because the Bible is a spiritual book. Whereas - I tend to want everything categorized and all tied together - I mean well - but that can sometimes get into like trying to put God in a box!
I have to admit I'm a late-bloomer when it comes to all this doctrinal stuff. I left TWI 20 years ago – did a lot of studying, praying, and thinking – but didn't get involved with any off-shoots, a local church or even any type of Christian fellowship. But since I've come to Grease Spot – my old processor has been working overtime. I think that's mostly due to the interplay of ideas with other people. My core belief hasn't changed. I'm still a Christian and believe the Bible is God's book.
Now all this doctrinal stuff – I'm still working on it. Speaking in tongues? Drawing on all my past experiences with TWI and what I've gathered from my studies since then – I TEND to think it ceased back in the first century. I could be wrong – but for right now, I cut myself a lot of slack on things like this. I also could be wrong in assigning it a lower priority in my personal study. The way I process things now – is something that works for me. Don't get me wrong – I don't ignore the topic. I'm not nailing the lid down on my study of speaking in tongues…Oakspear, I appreciate you starting this thread. Tom, I truly appreciate what you've shared – and admire your vibrant and adventurous faith!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Well, I don't classify my approach, & I usually loose my grasp on the discussion when the target becomes classification of approach. I'm not well versed in man's classifications of spiritual matters. Maybe I should be more well versed, maybe not. Umm, I'm sorry to say that I just don't care. Perhaps I should care more, you know, to be a better witness & all, but I've been pretty fully occupied just trying to keep my life, my wife, my job, together with a connection to my God intact. Man's classifications of approaches to the Word - it just hasn't been a consideration - no time, no place!
So, you've brought the time & place into play, my brother. As I try to honestly engage those places in my heart you seek to define, please be so kind as to continue your gracious reactions to my posts - I realize that we seem to have some basic differences that will enter into the mix.
I also realize that you don't seek to classify my "approach as more spiritual - mystical - or something like that" to trap me into a doctrinal corner; you're simply asking.
So, I'll try to simply answer.
My approach is this. I figure that the rightly dividing of the Word occurs in life. It doesn't happen in an ivory tower of a research department. It happens in my life - in your life, my brother. If the Word has been rightly divided in your life in the area to which you need to apply the Word - NOW - the power of God is realized there by you - & by whomever the hell else needs to see the power of God fly there.
If that's not happening, something is wrong. But maybe things are still moving towards that in a round about way. We all take these round about ways - sigh; but God works with that a lot - smile.
But all round about ways aside, Christ has to be there. If he's not, there is something wrong with my approach. I don't know what kind of approach you want to call that - or my failure to achieve that at times - but that's the way I look at it. The approach doesn't discount the Word; neither does it discount my experiences of the Word in my life. If they're not both there, something is wrong. The Word, & the power & deliverance of God, are meant to be realized.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Amen to all that brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
I haven't read through the discussion on this, just the opening thread. But I ask all to consider something that was overlooked by TWI, and most other churches/religions/teacing ministries about speaking in tongues. I do remember a few years back I shared this same thing, and was heckled or ignored, but no matter, I will share it again.
On the Feast of In-Gathering, the 50th day after The Feast of Unleavened Bread, when Peter "Spoke in Tongues" he was speaking his own language. The 11 with him were speaking their own language. The miracle was that the people heard them in their native language. All of Peter's lesson that day as recorded in Act 2 was him speaking in tounges...or rather, the listeners hearing him in their language.
If we keep that in mind, our perception and understanding might expand just a bit.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
and how do you come to that conclusion Rachael ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Rachel--------- Sounds like some really interesting stuff to look into . Kinda demonstates human nature for you to be so wrapped up in one's own words and voice that we ignore what the other person is saying. Looking forward to seeing where this all leads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Yeah, Rachel, how do you come to that conclusion? It appears to me that the speaking in tongues (done by all 12) was separate from "Peter's message" which was just Peter.
Can you walk us through your thinking on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Rachel----- My apologies for such a poorly worded post. When I said "for you to be so ----etc., I should have said "for ONE to be so------etc. This is truly some interesting subject matter and I hope your observation stirs some enlightening responses. OK. all out of time. The bell just rang for English class.--------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Nice Danny,
Luke 8:25 And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.
Really on to somthing here. The power of Christ.
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Acts 2 has been called the reconciliation of the Tower of Babel by some.
And it continues even today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Hi Allen.
I arrived at that conclusion by reading. Just reading what it really says.
It says those people heard the 12 in their own language, right?
So we know if they heard a different language than the one being spoken, then when PETER SPOKE, HE WAS SPEAKING A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAN WAS BEING HEARD..
If you dont buy that, fine. But when did Peter stop speaking his own language?
It clearly says they heard Peter in their own language. Do you think they heard him for 5 minutes in tongues? Or maybe a half an hour, then everybody switched up?
It doesnt say that, does it?
It says they heard the Apostles speaking in their own language.
As the kids say, I have to roll with that. If you don't, fine. Maybe you read in tongues too.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The term "speaking in tongues" refers back to the one speaking - no? If the miracle revolved around the audience I would think it would be termed "hearing in tongues."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Interesting speculation though.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Haven't read the thread, although, I think most of you know my view of SITing for the most part.
Today I came home from my soccer game and went upstairs to where my wife was with the boys in their room. My eldest, 3, after hugs and kisses and stuff, got up on the air filter next to his bookshelf and turned around to face us. He then began orating a rather eloquent speach with hand gestures and a variety of expressions much like a politician or a ring master. The only thing was we didn't understand a word he was saying. He had a lot to say and a lot of words, but none in English. He can speak English, he just wasn't at the moment. He stopped on occasion and we clapped as if he was giving the State of the Union. He would go on and we would clap in support of his enthusiasm and laugh at his wit or make ohs and ahs at his rather complicated vocabulary of what at times sounded like Russian and other times like an Asian or Polynesian language.
3 years old.
At this age, some intelligent youngins that don't have the vocabulary to express all that they want to say will make up a language to fill in the blanks or just not speak the language they know at all. Twins at times will come up with a unique language that they speak to eachother. My boy and his cousin have done this to a degree. My boy has been doing this for about a year now, but today he was verbose and ready to hit the campaign trail...or perhasp lead a believers meeting.
I was two years older than he is when I supposedly started SIT.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
So Oakspear,
Do you think these Galileans knew all these different languages?
And with the being filled with the Holy Spirit they spoke just what they needed to hear?
It says it was the wonderful works of God.
If the Spirit is cut out of Acts 2 then we are left with men speaking and not Spirit.
If they were filled with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit was speaking.
Also when Peter spoke afterwords (after the speaking in tongues), all
these people understood what Peter was saying even though they were from different places.
And they were brought up speaking different languages, which does not exclude them
knowing the language that Peter spoke.
Do these questions make sense, or am I left wanting more.
Or needing to further inquire?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well Lindy,
the only logical explanation for your son's ability is that - he must be born again!
That's the ONLY thing that could possibly explain that.
The only thing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Ok, I've made it through most of the thread now, but haven't seen this yet.
Have any of you thought about the coincidence that SITing happens in the Bible at basically the same time God goes from a God of Israel to a God of "the uttermost parts of the world." In Acts, right after the whole phenomenon thing happens, Peter quotes Joel saying God will "pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."
Couldn't the whole idea of SITing be about the language of God's people going from Aramaic to every other language around? If you want to believe what is said in Acts fine, but couldn't it just have been a sign of things to come...the "Word" going to the gentiles and their languages?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Except that Paul carried on with the whole speaking in tongues, interpretation of such etc.. throughout his ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphylia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language
Who came up with these languages?
What ties them together?
There is one who knows them all. Despite the attempts to divide.
Anyone for some research?
These men of Galilee knew what they were speaking also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven
one may want note that these were all jews
from every nation under heaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
A few things:
GENEVA STUDY BIBLE
2:8 {e} And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
(e) Not that they spoke one language, and different languages were heard, but the apostles spoke with different languages: for otherwise the miracle would have been in the hearers, whereas it is really in the speakers; Nazianzen in his oration of Whitsunday.
Not that the above is the final answer, but it would make sense.
Acts 2:6
ASV: And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language.
BBE: And when this sound came to their ears, they all came together, and were greatly surprised because every man was hearing the words of the disciples in his special language.
DBY: But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude came together and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.
KJV: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
WEY: So when this noise was heard, they came crowding together, and were amazed because everyone heard his own language spoken.
WBS: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own language.
WEB: When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.
YLT: and the rumour of this having come, the multitude came together, and was confounded, because they were each one hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,
Acts 2:6 Multiple Languages
WEY may be a notable translation. Not that the hearers each heard all the 12 speaking their own particular language at the same time, but that among the speakers each hearer heard the language of his/her birthplace being spoken. Among the 12 speaking, a language that one understands would stick out among the 11 other languages that one didn't understand - I'd go there to hear what was being spoken. To realize that all there were doing the same would be remarkable. That way, there wouldn't have to be one language spoken for 5 minutes & than another started - which does seem rather silly. What if your language was the last one to be spoken? How long would you have to wait, listening to incomprehensible gibberish instead of the wonderful works of God?
Edited by TomLink 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.