Why is my stand on what the Bible teaches stubborn, but an interpretation that contorts the scripture to say the opposite of what it plainly says with the explicit goal of getting the scripture to match a doctrine and practice instead of the other way around is perfectly acceptable?
And my interpretation is what, exactly?
I'm myopic for letting the Bible speak for itself.
No, you're myopic for not seeing that what you think and believe the Bible "plainly says" is actually an interpretation of scripture.
If you genuinely understood hermeneutics as fully or as completely as you portray yourself as knowing, then I'd suppose you get that.
I tell you, I am through the looking glass.
Agreed, we are indeed on different sides of the mirror. sayonara.
TLC: your position is denial of what the Bible actually says to the point that you're willing to twist it out of desperation to fit your doctrine and practice instead of humbly conforming your doctrine and practice to what the Bible actually teaches.
I'm going to say this one last time, because it does not appear to be sinking in.
I have no bleeping interest in bleeping proving that your bleeping experience is bleeping wrong. In a billion bleeping years I could never bleeping prove that your bleeping SIT is a bleeping fake. The only possible bleeping outcome that would bleeping prove your bleeping SIT is bleeping real would be for you to bleeping produce an identifiable bleeping language. That would DISPROVE my position. I am not interested in proving my position because I bleeping can't. That applies to me "proving your interpretation of your experience is wrong." STOP BLEEPING ACCUSING ME OF A BLEEPING AGENDA I DON'T BLEEPING HAVE AND THEN BLEEPING WONDERING WHY I'M GETTING BLEEPING HEATED!!!
ARE.
WE.
CLEAR???
Good. So now, here's the way I see it. We have two competing hypotheses. Both make predictions.
...snip...
If what you are saying seems not to be sinking in, Raf, then you might need to carefully reconsider the things both of us have been saying.
You are trying to "prove" to me that my interpretation of my experience is wrong, and that my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 is wrong.
Otherwise, why do you posit that "we have two competing hypotheses"? That's not the language of genuine hermeneutics. It sounds impressive, it sounds objective, it sounds scientific, it sounds like rigorous thinking, but it just doesn't apply to obtaining meaning from text. It is the language of subjective passionate persuasion trying to disguise itself as dispassionate.
If Paul meant for his words to be taken the way you are suggesting, then why did he write "hoste ai glossai" in 1 Corinthians 14:22? This phrase literally means "consequently OH! tongues" if he's using hoste as a logical connector in a syllogism, why did he insert the interjection ai? And if hoste was intended to be used as it would be in logical rhetoric, what is Paul trying to "argue" by connecting a patently poetic use of glossai with his own use in verse 22?
The part of your post that I quoted indicates that there is a whole lot of subjective passion fueling your effort to prove me wrong. You would be better served to identify exactly why that passion is there, and to deal with it appropriately, than to allow it to blow up in arguments with your friends.
And you, WordWolf... why are you allowing Wierwillian word-games to cause you to doubt the validity of your own interpretations of your own experiences? Isn't that what the whole "gaslighting" thread was about?
Now, at this point, I think I have made it clear that I am not trying to disprove anything or prove that your interpretation of your experience is wrong.
If you accuse me of that one more time, it becomes an active lie and I reserve the right to call it such.
I am trying to demonstrate that your interpretation of the scripture, equating language (glossa) with non-language, is wrong. It's got eff-all to do with your interpretation of your experience, and I am THROUGH responding to that false accusation. Beyond patience, I am willing to write it off as a mistaken accusation until now. But enough is enough.
Once, in a believers meeting during the hippie era, I heard an older gentleman speak in tongues rather eloquently. He followed with this interpretation: "My little children, cut your hair and get jobs." It really blessed me.
I don't have to prove your interpretation of your experience is wrong. YOU have to "prove" your practice, and what it produces, lines up with scripture. To date, in my opinion, you have done little more than adjust scripture to conform to what you are producing (presumably. I contend you won't get your SIT tested by a linguist for the same reason I never did, even with $1 million on the line).
But despite your attempts and insistence, you have done nothing to demonstrate that glossa in the Bible is anything other than a normal language spoken by some people somewhere and somewhen on earth.
That's what speaking in languages is. That's the underlying claim behind Biblical SIT. If modern SIT is Biblical SIT, then modern SIT will produce what Biblical SIT promises. A language. A real, human language, just like glossa means in every other relevant instance in the Bible, as previously demonstrated.
Once, in a believers meeting during the hippie era, I heard an older gentleman speak in tongues rather eloquently. He followed with this interpretation: "My little children, cut your hair and get jobs." It really blessed me.
LOL. I suspect he made up the interpretation. But it could be one of those instances where the hearer falls down and reports God is in you of a truth.
"1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined.
The most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefined put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined."
=======================================
Or, in this case, the debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by saying
it's the result of being "heated" and not actually demonstrating the logic it demonstrates.
[i'll address plenty of other things later. Life's banging on the door.]
And you, WordWolf... why are you allowing Wierwillian word-games to cause you to doubt the validity of your own interpretations of your own experiences? Isn't that what the whole "gaslighting" thread was about?
Love,
Steve
Here's the adult version of "Yo mama!" Again.
Skipped all the content, labeled what I said as not just "Wierwillian word-games"
in the vain hope it will produce a KNEE-JERK reaction and not a logical response?
Hey, guys!
This is SUPPOSED to be a DOCTRINAL thread, about what the Bible actually says
and what we should take from that if we believe it.
It's not supposed to be about making a doctrine of your experiences,
nor a referendum on how disbelieving what wierwille taught equals disbelieving
the Bible as a whole (which it does not, for most Christians with faith.)
How about we try to return to discussing the Bible, its content, and its meaning
here, and skip all the personal experiences, insults, insinuations and personal
attacks? Granted, it would slow the posting on this thread to a crawl,
but it would be a crawl of content actually worth reading. There are other threads
to discuss all the separate issues- like personal experience (2 active threads)
and what language means outside of the Bible (1 active thread.) If you really
think those are important issues, why are you skipping the threads like they've
So that was a great article, WW, but after a while it became impossible to take him seriously because of his partisanship. I mean, imploring people to be fair with Sarah Palin is valid. Implying as he did that criticism directed at her was less than totally deserved is not valid.
Tomorrow is a day of CELEBRATION for me! Dr. M@jesk1 (she IS a real doctor, you know) will be leading us in a three hour discussion of I Corinthians in Literature & History of the New Testament II! I Corinthians contains chapter 2 as well as chapters 12-14!
The kind of word studies we learned to do in TWI are bogus.
By lumping all the uses of the word together, they fail to take into account the multivocality of the word. Different writers used their words in different ways. By extracting only the similarities of each author's use, we lose the distinctions of each author's use. It reduces the dimensionality of the word's possible meanings.
The word study technique limits us in another way. It assumes that even if there are several different ways that an author can use a word, one, and only one, of those ways will be in effect at a particular place.
Many times, probably more often than not, Biblical authors wrote in such a way that a word can be understood in several different ways in a single occurrence of the word. And the meanings cannot be judged to be mutually exclusive. Jewish scholars have always recognized this. Protestant scholars have not. God breathed his word with inherent ambiguity. The lust for certainty is what leads systematic theologians to try to reduce the meanings of the scripture to a single, one and only one, meaning. Wierwille was a systematic theologian, and he's the one who taught us things that we now just take for granted... like word studies. Lust for certainty is what drives fundamentalist/evangelical protestants to their erroneous doctrine of inerrancy.
Can Paul's uses of the word glossa be interpreted to mean a generic, unidentifiable language? Yes they can.
Can Paul's uses of the word glossa be interpreted to mean "a specific, identifiable language? Again, yes they can.
Paul's uses of glossa cannot be used to privilege either Raf's interpretation or my own. They cannot be used to "disprove" either Raf's interpretation or my own.
The idea that they can is a left-over artifact of way-brain.
These issues are issues of how we interpret the scriptures That's why I am discussing them here on the Doctrinal forum. They are valid, pertinent issues, even if they seem picky. It was by lulling us into being not-picky that Wierwille drew us into his errors.
The only reason you insist that glossa can mean something other than language is: Because you need it to.
The only reason you need it to is: You cannot identify the language you are producing.
To accuse us of waybrain for showing a consistent Biblical usage of a term, which we have done, is not just poor debating, it's raging hypocrisy. You simply would not tolerate it if the tables were turned.
But you go ahead and accuse me of being waybrained again.
The absolute NERVE of me letting the Biblical usage of the word speak for itself! Don't I know people have experiences to protect!?!
If your doctine and practice don't line up with what the Bible teaches, you have two choices. You can either change your doctrine and practice, or you can change what the Bible teaches.
You have chosen the latter. It's transparent. You have access to actual Bible scholars. Why aren't you asking them what glossa means?
Not that it matters. The Bible is already clear on what it means. But let's go speculating. Could Paul have meant something else?
Yes. Paul could have been talking about the meaningless prattle produced by free vocalization. That's why it needs an interpretation...
Why on EARTH would something that's not a language need an interpretation?
Oh, I'm being too Wierwillian.
You do realize those accusations don't refute anything, don't you?
You asked me why I'm wasting my time. I'll tell you. I'm wasting my time because I am not dealing with somebody who is approaching the material with humility, which is ironic as hell coming from me. You're supposed to conform your doctrine and practice to the Word, not the other way around!
If this were any other claim by any other religion, you would see it clearly.
But it's your claim for how you practice your religion. Well, sorry it stings, but the Bible does not say what you wildly speculate it does. It says language. It says nothing more complicated or enigmatic than that. There's no mysterious hidden meaning to glossa that you need to lift the veil fo the text to detect.
But you have to, not because the text demands it, but because you have a doctrine and practice to protect.
That's not honest scholarship.
You KNOW honest scholars.
Ask them what glossa means.
I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say.
Below is information that I have written from one of my web sites. This is the equivalent of a commentary. I likely have posted this before here. Perhaps more than a year ago.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (gloossa) speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
King James Version
The biblical usage of speaking in tongues over the years has been very controversial among Christians and especially in various churches. Plenty of Christians do not understand what speaking in tongues is nor do they believe in it. Others believe in it, but sometimes do not speak in tongues at churches without a great deal of confusion. With this in mind we are going to do a short study of speaking in tongues purely from New Testament scriptures.
First of all biblically the Greek word for “tongues” here in 14:2 is the Greek word “gloossa.” From the Thayer’s Greek to English lexicon it means literally the tongue as a member of our physical body, which is the organ of speech. Tongues (gloossa) can also represent a language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations. To see this let’s look at scriptures, which use this Greek word.
Mark 7:32-35
32 Then they brought to Him (Jesus) one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hand on him. 33 And He (Jesus) took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He (Jesus) spat and touched his tongue (gloossa). 34 Then, looking up to heaven, He sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue (gloossa) was loosed, and he spoke plainly.
New Kings James Version
Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech. This should clearly tell us that tongues as inspired by the Holy Spirit can include our actual tongue body part with the speaker in control of his own. Next we will look at usages of tongues (gloossa) used for speech as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:3-4
3 And there appeared unto them cloven (diamerizoo) tongues (gloossa) 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 (gloossa), as the Spirit gave them utterance.
King James Version
Holy Ghost above from the King James Version is the same as Hoy Spirit in other versions. In Acts 2 we have for the first time the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised to give to his followers. Here we see the Holy Spirit coming to Jesus’ twelve disciples looking like divided tongues of fire and sitting on each of them. The Greek word used for “cloven” is “diamerizoo.” “Diamerizoo” is normally translated divided and means to divide or cut in pieces. From this we see a vision or a painted picture spiritually of what occurs with the receiving of the Holy Spirit. We see the Holy Spirit being individually given, but we see every individual gift of Holy Spirit interconnected. In the vision it starts off as one tongue of fire, but then is divided separately among recipients. This is harmonious with Ephesians 2:18 which states “we have access to the Father by one Spirit”, and Ephesians 4:4 which states “There is one body and one Spirit…”
With this they were each filled with the Holy Spirit and the first thing they did was speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance or as the Spirit enabled them. This was prophesied during Jesus’ earthly ministry for example, Matthew 3:11 quotes John the Baptist, “He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
It is interesting that at this time we had a festival known as Pentecost or the feast of harvest. According to Acts 2:5, we had Jews in Jerusalem at this festival from every nation with multiple languages spoken and understood. What was noticed by these people from other nations was that there were 12 Galileans speaking foreign languages, many of which they could not have known. People from Galilee were not known for their linguistic ability or knowledge. Some of these listed nations with languages are as follows:
Acts 2:8-11
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians…
King James Version
Then continuing in verse 11, “we do hear them speak in our tongues (gloossa) the wonderful works of God.” Or stated with more detail, these people of many nations heard the disciples of Jesus Christ speak of the magnificent, excellent, splendid, and wonderful works or things done by God. And this was spoken in a language that the speakers themselves did not know and therefore did not understand. Yet it was all done with their own vocal ability. Next, we see that tongues is also words that “magnify God.”
Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God...
New King James Version
Here we see for the first time Gentiles also receiving the gift of Holy Spirit. Gentiles is a term used by Jewish people to refer to foreigners, or any other people who were not part of the Jewish race. And like the twelve original disciples, who were also Jesus’ apostles, the first thing the Gentiles did after receiving the Holy Spirit was speak in tongues and with this magnify God. Magnifying God is declaring or deeming as great or to esteem highly, to extol, to laud, to celebrate God’s greatness.
To summarize from the scriptures we have covered including 1 Corinthians 13:1, the chapter before this and now 1 Corinthians 14:2 we see that tongues or speaking in tongues is the following:
1. From Mark 7:33-35, the physical human tongue as used for speech.
2. From Acts 2:4, speaking inspired words from the Holy Spirit.
3. From Acts 2:11, speaking the wonderful works of God.
4. From Acts 10:46, speaking words that magnify God or declare that God is great.
5. From 1 Corinthians 13:1, which also uses the word “gloossa,” speaking a language either of men or angels.
5. From 1 Corinthians 14:2, speaking mysteries or divine secrets directly to God and not man.
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. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon, 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. 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. 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. 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.
This issue popped up on another thread and applies here to me and Steve (if it applies to anyone else, police yourselves on it).
From the GSC rules:
"making disparaging remarks about fellow posters' character, motives, intelligence, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or life outside these forums."
Calling someone's position the result of "waybrain" falls under this rule.
Questioning the motives of someone's interpretation of scripture (rather than the interpretation itself) falls under this rule.
The rule is not perfect, and in this case I did not complain because questioning the reasons for my rigidity appears to be a natural outgrowth of the issues we're discussing on this thread, and as such, I am not complaining about the violation. I do believe my response also appears to be a natural outgrowth of the issues we're discussing on this thread. I cannot read Steve's mind to tell why he has not complained, but if he did, I would be compelled to revisit all the posts over the last couple of weeks to excise anything that appears to violate a rule.
I have no desire to do that, to eliminate criticism of me or ciriticism from me.
If it's ok with Steve, let's just agree to keep motives off the table and just discuss the actual scriptures and interpretations.
Can Paul's uses of the word glossa be interpreted to mean a generic, unidentifiable language? Yes they can.
Can Paul's uses of the word glossa be interpreted to mean "a specific, identifiable language? Again, yes they can.
Paul's uses of glossa cannot be used to privilege either Raf's interpretation or my own. They cannot be used to "disprove" either Raf's interpretation or my own.
The idea that they can is a left-over artifact of way-brain.
These issues are issues of how we interpret the scriptures That's why I am discussing them here on the Doctrinal forum. They are valid, pertinent issues, even if they seem picky. It was by lulling us into being not-picky that Wierwille drew us into his errors.
Love,
Steve
Emphasis mine.
I don't see a Biblical basis for the statement that Paul's use of glossa can be interpreted to mean an unidentifiable language. Perhaps that is semantics. All actual languages are hypothetically identifiable. So if you're saying that our inability to identify a language through lack of competence does not disqualify the utterance as a glossa by Paul's use, I would have to agree with you. And I never said otherwise.
But if you're saying that the utterance can fail to match any actual language and still be a glossa, I see no Biblical evidence to support that position. A glossa is a language. It's not a word that was used to relay an "inherent ambiguity." There's nothing ambiguous about the Biblical use of the word glossa. Mark's post, which goes over the same scriptures I posted previously, makes that pretty clear. In fact, in Acts 2, just to drive the point home, it says that when the apostles spoke in glossa, they produced dialectos, which is almost a synonymous term (we use the words "language" and "dialects" in English nearly-but-not-precisely as synonyms to this day. What you don't see, in English or Greek, is the use of "language" or "glossa" to mean something that is flatly not a language.
Looking at your post from a strictly technical standpoint, the first point you made (which I placed in bold) is not supported by Scripture. The point that followed is supported by scripture.
Steve, I think you're getting tripped up on my position, which is why I find myself restating it so often. This discussion was never about disproving someone's SIT, neither yours nor anyone else's. It has always been about proving it. If the language you produce cannot be documented, as long as it is possible that the failure to identify the language might maybe be a result of the incompetence of the person trying to identify it, no conclusion can be drawn from such failure.
But (correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be intent on showing that a glossolalic utterance can fail to actually be a language and still fit the definition of glossa. It can't. Not Biblically. I can fail to indentify it and thereby prove nothing, but it can't actually NOT BE a language and still fit the Biblical definition of SIT. The word glossa does not carry that "inherent ambiguity."
I'm really starting to wonder whether this part of the discussion has been a disagreement about semantics rather than an actual disagreement.
Around 10 months ago I brought up a suject that included SIT. I was told at the time that the topic had been hashed and over hashed numerous times. I may have done so in the wrong forum.
Here I see that discussion goes on, what am I to take from that: If you are a veteran poster then go for it?
I may be missing the point if this is a resurrected topic, if so, then I apologize for the accusation of bias and selectivity.
Regardless, I have followed this post thread with interest though I have read pretty much all the same arguements on older posts.
The whole SIT thing runs along do and don't lines: for those of us who do not SIT it means nothing and to those of us who do SIT it means nothing. We will continue to do/not do what we do.
It has been a good dissertaion on 1 Cor 12 to 14 as long as it regards SIT but not much has been discussed regarding the rest.
I admit, I read the topic discussions on the doctrinal forum and do little to add to the discussion other than interjecting a topic. I also admit, I lack much of the knowledge to debate on the forum, I'm O.K. with that, I am a learner and reader.
I perceive this thread has become funneled to a specific area with no resolution in sight but being ignorant as I am, maybe we are reaching an apex of knowledge.
Looking for resolutionon on a doctrinal topic is not achievable.
Thanks to the folks who have contributed but can we possibley get to some of the other matters in 1 Cor 12-14?
Lastly, I am thankfull for such well evaluated information.
MRAP, this discussion was re-ignited to bring you and TLC up to speed on it. A few of us just decided to pick up where we left off. So yes, your accusation of selectivity and bias is off-base.
There was never any RULE against reviving the discussion. What you encountered was a resistance to revisiting the topic. Note how the About the Way thread also revived the topic and promptly died.
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. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon, and a reverse effect of that which occurred at the Tower of Babel when God confounded the languages.
I don't see that this follows logically. the first canonical mention of speaking in languages in Acts specifically mentions that they were understandable, the others are not specific, but I can see no reason to assume that the first usage was unique.
I don't see that this follows logically. the first canonical mention of speaking in languages in Acts specifically mentions that they were understandable, the others are not specific, but I can see no reason to assume that the first usage was unique.
So when you hear people speak do you understand every language? For example, if you are in a foreign country? Here is the first usage of tongue in the New Testament. This is Strong's number 1100
Mark 7:32-35
32 Then they brought to Him (Jesus) one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hand on him. 33 And He (Jesus) took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He (Jesus) spat and touched his tongue (gloossa). 34 Then, looking up to heaven, He sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue (gloossa) was loosed, and he spoke plainly.
New Kings James Version
Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech.
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
waysider
"Note the number of threads we have on this forum debunking Mormon claims about pre-Colombian American history."
Nada......."Nada" stinkin' one....heh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
And my interpretation is what, exactly?
No, you're myopic for not seeing that what you think and believe the Bible "plainly says" is actually an interpretation of scripture.
If you genuinely understood hermeneutics as fully or as completely as you portray yourself as knowing, then I'd suppose you get that.
Agreed, we are indeed on different sides of the mirror. sayonara.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wouldn't Sayonara be a terrible name for a band? I mean, if they were the opening act, who would stay for the headliner?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC: your position is denial of what the Bible actually says to the point that you're willing to twist it out of desperation to fit your doctrine and practice instead of humbly conforming your doctrine and practice to what the Bible actually teaches.
There. Clear enough for you?
Or does that need an interpretation?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If what you are saying seems not to be sinking in, Raf, then you might need to carefully reconsider the things both of us have been saying.
You are trying to "prove" to me that my interpretation of my experience is wrong, and that my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 is wrong.
Otherwise, why do you posit that "we have two competing hypotheses"? That's not the language of genuine hermeneutics. It sounds impressive, it sounds objective, it sounds scientific, it sounds like rigorous thinking, but it just doesn't apply to obtaining meaning from text. It is the language of subjective passionate persuasion trying to disguise itself as dispassionate.
If Paul meant for his words to be taken the way you are suggesting, then why did he write "hoste ai glossai" in 1 Corinthians 14:22? This phrase literally means "consequently OH! tongues" if he's using hoste as a logical connector in a syllogism, why did he insert the interjection ai? And if hoste was intended to be used as it would be in logical rhetoric, what is Paul trying to "argue" by connecting a patently poetic use of glossai with his own use in verse 22?
The part of your post that I quoted indicates that there is a whole lot of subjective passion fueling your effort to prove me wrong. You would be better served to identify exactly why that passion is there, and to deal with it appropriately, than to allow it to blow up in arguments with your friends.
And you, WordWolf... why are you allowing Wierwillian word-games to cause you to doubt the validity of your own interpretations of your own experiences? Isn't that what the whole "gaslighting" thread was about?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I.
Am.
Not.
Trying.
To.
Prove.
Your.
Interpretation.
Of.
Your.
Experience.
Is.
Wrong.
I.
Am.
Waiting.
For.
You.
To.
Prove.
It.
Is.
Genuine.
And.
I.
Am.
Frustrated.
At.
Your.
Constant.
Attempt.
To.
Redefine.
The.
Biblical.
Practice.
To.
Conform.
To.
What.
You.
Are.
Producing.
Instead.
Of.
Conforming.
Your.
Doctrine.
And.
Practice.
To.
What.
The.
Bible.
Actually.
Promises.
Which.
Is.
A.
Language.
Not.
Meaningless.
Prattle.
Now, at this point, I think I have made it clear that I am not trying to disprove anything or prove that your interpretation of your experience is wrong.
If you accuse me of that one more time, it becomes an active lie and I reserve the right to call it such.
I am trying to demonstrate that your interpretation of the scripture, equating language (glossa) with non-language, is wrong. It's got eff-all to do with your interpretation of your experience, and I am THROUGH responding to that false accusation. Beyond patience, I am willing to write it off as a mistaken accusation until now. But enough is enough.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Once, in a believers meeting during the hippie era, I heard an older gentleman speak in tongues rather eloquently. He followed with this interpretation: "My little children, cut your hair and get jobs." It really blessed me.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't have to prove your interpretation of your experience is wrong. YOU have to "prove" your practice, and what it produces, lines up with scripture. To date, in my opinion, you have done little more than adjust scripture to conform to what you are producing (presumably. I contend you won't get your SIT tested by a linguist for the same reason I never did, even with $1 million on the line).
But despite your attempts and insistence, you have done nothing to demonstrate that glossa in the Bible is anything other than a normal language spoken by some people somewhere and somewhen on earth.
That's what speaking in languages is. That's the underlying claim behind Biblical SIT. If modern SIT is Biblical SIT, then modern SIT will produce what Biblical SIT promises. A language. A real, human language, just like glossa means in every other relevant instance in the Bible, as previously demonstrated.
LOL. I suspect he made up the interpretation. But it could be one of those instances where the hearer falls down and reports God is in you of a truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If I were "heated up", it might be about the sad attempt to dismiss what I say by skipping
the content, and slapping a dishonest label on it, like that it's the result of being "heated up."
(BTW, still not "heated up.")
http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics
"1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined.
The most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefined put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined."
=======================================
Or, in this case, the debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by saying
it's the result of being "heated" and not actually demonstrating the logic it demonstrates.
[i'll address plenty of other things later. Life's banging on the door.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's the adult version of "Yo mama!" Again.
Skipped all the content, labeled what I said as not just "Wierwillian word-games"
in the vain hope it will produce a KNEE-JERK reaction and not a logical response?
Hey, guys!
This is SUPPOSED to be a DOCTRINAL thread, about what the Bible actually says
and what we should take from that if we believe it.
It's not supposed to be about making a doctrine of your experiences,
nor a referendum on how disbelieving what wierwille taught equals disbelieving
the Bible as a whole (which it does not, for most Christians with faith.)
How about we try to return to discussing the Bible, its content, and its meaning
here, and skip all the personal experiences, insults, insinuations and personal
attacks? Granted, it would slow the posting on this thread to a crawl,
but it would be a crawl of content actually worth reading. There are other threads
to discuss all the separate issues- like personal experience (2 active threads)
and what language means outside of the Bible (1 active thread.) If you really
think those are important issues, why are you skipping the threads like they've
got the zika virus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Deleted. WordWolf said it better.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What is real and what is an illusion? Only you decide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So that was a great article, WW, but after a while it became impossible to take him seriously because of his partisanship. I mean, imploring people to be fair with Sarah Palin is valid. Implying as he did that criticism directed at her was less than totally deserved is not valid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I looked over all the usages of that Hebrew word. It's consistent with the usage
of "glossa" in Greek, "lengua" in Spanish and "tongue" in English.
(I'll waste the time going over the usages later in an appropriate format.)
It's easier to follow in a more modern version like the NASB than the KJV.
I expect the KJV's usage of words with usages less common since 1611 can lead
(accidentally or not) to false conclusions from meaning changes.
(The opposite of "incline" was "decline", so when told not to "decline" to
the behavior of a sinner, it meant "don't lower yourself to their level,"
not "if you are offered the chance to sin, don't refuse.")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Tomorrow is a day of CELEBRATION for me! Dr. M@jesk1 (she IS a real doctor, you know) will be leading us in a three hour discussion of I Corinthians in Literature & History of the New Testament II! I Corinthians contains chapter 2 as well as chapters 12-14!
The kind of word studies we learned to do in TWI are bogus.
By lumping all the uses of the word together, they fail to take into account the multivocality of the word. Different writers used their words in different ways. By extracting only the similarities of each author's use, we lose the distinctions of each author's use. It reduces the dimensionality of the word's possible meanings.
The word study technique limits us in another way. It assumes that even if there are several different ways that an author can use a word, one, and only one, of those ways will be in effect at a particular place.
Many times, probably more often than not, Biblical authors wrote in such a way that a word can be understood in several different ways in a single occurrence of the word. And the meanings cannot be judged to be mutually exclusive. Jewish scholars have always recognized this. Protestant scholars have not. God breathed his word with inherent ambiguity. The lust for certainty is what leads systematic theologians to try to reduce the meanings of the scripture to a single, one and only one, meaning. Wierwille was a systematic theologian, and he's the one who taught us things that we now just take for granted... like word studies. Lust for certainty is what drives fundamentalist/evangelical protestants to their erroneous doctrine of inerrancy.
Can Paul's uses of the word glossa be interpreted to mean a generic, unidentifiable language? Yes they can.
Can Paul's uses of the word glossa be interpreted to mean "a specific, identifiable language? Again, yes they can.
Paul's uses of glossa cannot be used to privilege either Raf's interpretation or my own. They cannot be used to "disprove" either Raf's interpretation or my own.
The idea that they can is a left-over artifact of way-brain.
These issues are issues of how we interpret the scriptures That's why I am discussing them here on the Doctrinal forum. They are valid, pertinent issues, even if they seem picky. It was by lulling us into being not-picky that Wierwille drew us into his errors.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The only reason you insist that glossa can mean something other than language is: Because you need it to.
The only reason you need it to is: You cannot identify the language you are producing.
To accuse us of waybrain for showing a consistent Biblical usage of a term, which we have done, is not just poor debating, it's raging hypocrisy. You simply would not tolerate it if the tables were turned.
But you go ahead and accuse me of being waybrained again.
The absolute NERVE of me letting the Biblical usage of the word speak for itself! Don't I know people have experiences to protect!?!
If your doctine and practice don't line up with what the Bible teaches, you have two choices. You can either change your doctrine and practice, or you can change what the Bible teaches.
You have chosen the latter. It's transparent. You have access to actual Bible scholars. Why aren't you asking them what glossa means?
Not that it matters. The Bible is already clear on what it means. But let's go speculating. Could Paul have meant something else?
Yes. Paul could have been talking about the meaningless prattle produced by free vocalization. That's why it needs an interpretation...
Why on EARTH would something that's not a language need an interpretation?
Oh, I'm being too Wierwillian.
You do realize those accusations don't refute anything, don't you?
You asked me why I'm wasting my time. I'll tell you. I'm wasting my time because I am not dealing with somebody who is approaching the material with humility, which is ironic as hell coming from me. You're supposed to conform your doctrine and practice to the Word, not the other way around!
If this were any other claim by any other religion, you would see it clearly.
But it's your claim for how you practice your religion. Well, sorry it stings, but the Bible does not say what you wildly speculate it does. It says language. It says nothing more complicated or enigmatic than that. There's no mysterious hidden meaning to glossa that you need to lift the veil fo the text to detect.
But you have to, not because the text demands it, but because you have a doctrine and practice to protect.
That's not honest scholarship.
You KNOW honest scholars.
Ask them what glossa means.
I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Below is information that I have written from one of my web sites. This is the equivalent of a commentary. I likely have posted this before here. Perhaps more than a year ago.
1 Corinthians Chapter 14
1 Corinthians 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (gloossa) speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
King James Version
The biblical usage of speaking in tongues over the years has been very controversial among Christians and especially in various churches. Plenty of Christians do not understand what speaking in tongues is nor do they believe in it. Others believe in it, but sometimes do not speak in tongues at churches without a great deal of confusion. With this in mind we are going to do a short study of speaking in tongues purely from New Testament scriptures.
First of all biblically the Greek word for “tongues” here in 14:2 is the Greek word “gloossa.” From the Thayer’s Greek to English lexicon it means literally the tongue as a member of our physical body, which is the organ of speech. Tongues (gloossa) can also represent a language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations. To see this let’s look at scriptures, which use this Greek word.
Mark 7:32-35
32 Then they brought to Him (Jesus) one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hand on him. 33 And He (Jesus) took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He (Jesus) spat and touched his tongue (gloossa). 34 Then, looking up to heaven, He sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue (gloossa) was loosed, and he spoke plainly.
New Kings James Version
Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech. This should clearly tell us that tongues as inspired by the Holy Spirit can include our actual tongue body part with the speaker in control of his own. Next we will look at usages of tongues (gloossa) used for speech as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:3-4
3 And there appeared unto them cloven (diamerizoo) tongues (gloossa) 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 (gloossa), as the Spirit gave them utterance.
King James Version
Holy Ghost above from the King James Version is the same as Hoy Spirit in other versions. In Acts 2 we have for the first time the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised to give to his followers. Here we see the Holy Spirit coming to Jesus’ twelve disciples looking like divided tongues of fire and sitting on each of them. The Greek word used for “cloven” is “diamerizoo.” “Diamerizoo” is normally translated divided and means to divide or cut in pieces. From this we see a vision or a painted picture spiritually of what occurs with the receiving of the Holy Spirit. We see the Holy Spirit being individually given, but we see every individual gift of Holy Spirit interconnected. In the vision it starts off as one tongue of fire, but then is divided separately among recipients. This is harmonious with Ephesians 2:18 which states “we have access to the Father by one Spirit”, and Ephesians 4:4 which states “There is one body and one Spirit…”
With this they were each filled with the Holy Spirit and the first thing they did was speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance or as the Spirit enabled them. This was prophesied during Jesus’ earthly ministry for example, Matthew 3:11 quotes John the Baptist, “He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
It is interesting that at this time we had a festival known as Pentecost or the feast of harvest. According to Acts 2:5, we had Jews in Jerusalem at this festival from every nation with multiple languages spoken and understood. What was noticed by these people from other nations was that there were 12 Galileans speaking foreign languages, many of which they could not have known. People from Galilee were not known for their linguistic ability or knowledge. Some of these listed nations with languages are as follows:
Acts 2:8-11
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians…
King James Version
Then continuing in verse 11, “we do hear them speak in our tongues (gloossa) the wonderful works of God.” Or stated with more detail, these people of many nations heard the disciples of Jesus Christ speak of the magnificent, excellent, splendid, and wonderful works or things done by God. And this was spoken in a language that the speakers themselves did not know and therefore did not understand. Yet it was all done with their own vocal ability. Next, we see that tongues is also words that “magnify God.”
Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God...
New King James Version
Here we see for the first time Gentiles also receiving the gift of Holy Spirit. Gentiles is a term used by Jewish people to refer to foreigners, or any other people who were not part of the Jewish race. And like the twelve original disciples, who were also Jesus’ apostles, the first thing the Gentiles did after receiving the Holy Spirit was speak in tongues and with this magnify God. Magnifying God is declaring or deeming as great or to esteem highly, to extol, to laud, to celebrate God’s greatness.
To summarize from the scriptures we have covered including 1 Corinthians 13:1, the chapter before this and now 1 Corinthians 14:2 we see that tongues or speaking in tongues is the following:
1. From Mark 7:33-35, the physical human tongue as used for speech.
2. From Acts 2:4, speaking inspired words from the Holy Spirit.
3. From Acts 2:11, speaking the wonderful works of God.
4. From Acts 10:46, speaking words that magnify God or declare that God is great.
5. From 1 Corinthians 13:1, which also uses the word “gloossa,” speaking a language either of men or angels.
5. From 1 Corinthians 14:2, speaking mysteries or divine secrets directly to God and not man.
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. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon, 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. 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. 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. 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.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is not directed at Mark.
This issue popped up on another thread and applies here to me and Steve (if it applies to anyone else, police yourselves on it).
Calling someone's position the result of "waybrain" falls under this rule.
Questioning the motives of someone's interpretation of scripture (rather than the interpretation itself) falls under this rule.
The rule is not perfect, and in this case I did not complain because questioning the reasons for my rigidity appears to be a natural outgrowth of the issues we're discussing on this thread, and as such, I am not complaining about the violation. I do believe my response also appears to be a natural outgrowth of the issues we're discussing on this thread. I cannot read Steve's mind to tell why he has not complained, but if he did, I would be compelled to revisit all the posts over the last couple of weeks to excise anything that appears to violate a rule.
I have no desire to do that, to eliminate criticism of me or ciriticism from me.
If it's ok with Steve, let's just agree to keep motives off the table and just discuss the actual scriptures and interpretations.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Emphasis mine.
I don't see a Biblical basis for the statement that Paul's use of glossa can be interpreted to mean an unidentifiable language. Perhaps that is semantics. All actual languages are hypothetically identifiable. So if you're saying that our inability to identify a language through lack of competence does not disqualify the utterance as a glossa by Paul's use, I would have to agree with you. And I never said otherwise.
But if you're saying that the utterance can fail to match any actual language and still be a glossa, I see no Biblical evidence to support that position. A glossa is a language. It's not a word that was used to relay an "inherent ambiguity." There's nothing ambiguous about the Biblical use of the word glossa. Mark's post, which goes over the same scriptures I posted previously, makes that pretty clear. In fact, in Acts 2, just to drive the point home, it says that when the apostles spoke in glossa, they produced dialectos, which is almost a synonymous term (we use the words "language" and "dialects" in English nearly-but-not-precisely as synonyms to this day. What you don't see, in English or Greek, is the use of "language" or "glossa" to mean something that is flatly not a language.
Looking at your post from a strictly technical standpoint, the first point you made (which I placed in bold) is not supported by Scripture. The point that followed is supported by scripture.
Steve, I think you're getting tripped up on my position, which is why I find myself restating it so often. This discussion was never about disproving someone's SIT, neither yours nor anyone else's. It has always been about proving it. If the language you produce cannot be documented, as long as it is possible that the failure to identify the language might maybe be a result of the incompetence of the person trying to identify it, no conclusion can be drawn from such failure.
But (correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be intent on showing that a glossolalic utterance can fail to actually be a language and still fit the definition of glossa. It can't. Not Biblically. I can fail to indentify it and thereby prove nothing, but it can't actually NOT BE a language and still fit the Biblical definition of SIT. The word glossa does not carry that "inherent ambiguity."
I'm really starting to wonder whether this part of the discussion has been a disagreement about semantics rather than an actual disagreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Around 10 months ago I brought up a suject that included SIT. I was told at the time that the topic had been hashed and over hashed numerous times. I may have done so in the wrong forum.
Here I see that discussion goes on, what am I to take from that: If you are a veteran poster then go for it?
I may be missing the point if this is a resurrected topic, if so, then I apologize for the accusation of bias and selectivity.
Regardless, I have followed this post thread with interest though I have read pretty much all the same arguements on older posts.
The whole SIT thing runs along do and don't lines: for those of us who do not SIT it means nothing and to those of us who do SIT it means nothing. We will continue to do/not do what we do.
It has been a good dissertaion on 1 Cor 12 to 14 as long as it regards SIT but not much has been discussed regarding the rest.
I admit, I read the topic discussions on the doctrinal forum and do little to add to the discussion other than interjecting a topic. I also admit, I lack much of the knowledge to debate on the forum, I'm O.K. with that, I am a learner and reader.
I perceive this thread has become funneled to a specific area with no resolution in sight but being ignorant as I am, maybe we are reaching an apex of knowledge.
Looking for resolutionon on a doctrinal topic is not achievable.
Thanks to the folks who have contributed but can we possibley get to some of the other matters in 1 Cor 12-14?
Lastly, I am thankfull for such well evaluated information.
Edited by MRAPLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
MRAP, this discussion was re-ignited to bring you and TLC up to speed on it. A few of us just decided to pick up where we left off. So yes, your accusation of selectivity and bias is off-base.
There was never any RULE against reviving the discussion. What you encountered was a resistance to revisiting the topic. Note how the About the Way thread also revived the topic and promptly died.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I don't see that this follows logically. the first canonical mention of speaking in languages in Acts specifically mentions that they were understandable, the others are not specific, but I can see no reason to assume that the first usage was unique.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
So when you hear people speak do you understand every language? For example, if you are in a foreign country? Here is the first usage of tongue in the New Testament. This is Strong's number 1100
Mark 7:32-35
32 Then they brought to Him (Jesus) one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hand on him. 33 And He (Jesus) took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He (Jesus) spat and touched his tongue (gloossa). 34 Then, looking up to heaven, He sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue (gloossa) was loosed, and he spoke plainly.
New Kings James Version
Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech.
Link 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.