Clarification: my "coach" and does not remember saying the words I attributed to him the first time I spoke in tongues. We agree that either he or I can be mistaken. So I present it as memory that may be flawed, not as fact.
Sometimes it's easier to spot who's having a discussion,
and who's skimming entire posts and cherry-picking sentences
to find something to disagree to in order to prop up their
current belief system.
Why so testy WW? If I agree with, or have no problem understanding, the rest of your post... must I then also comment on it before questioning the portion of it that confuses me or that I disagree with? Perhaps so, if I am to be polite and courteous to every post that I respond to. I all too easily forget that we live in a society where everyone is so sensitive to so much (that I personally am not), that I have to use the same caution in responding on a message board that is required in face to face communications. So, my apologies for offending you. It wasn't because of malicious intent or design.
As part of a much longer post, I wrote this:
So, we started with the example of languages.
"All accounts before this showed a demonstration of languages that someone recognized,
and someone present understood- which made them not only human languages,
but CURRENT languages spoken LOCALLY by SOMEONE if not many people."
The reply I got ignored the rest of the post- which used VERY sound reasoning, and I suspect
it was ignored because it was unassailable- and focused in in arguing with this sentence
AND MISUNDERSTANDING IT.
"Say what? Who's imagination fabricated this?
If it's plainly written that no man understandeth (ICor.14:2), why the contradiction with scripture?"
It didn't make sense to me, so yes, I questioned it.
Again, please accept my apologies if my way or manner of questioning it offended you so much.
I'm not trying to knock some chip off your shoulder (I didn't know one existed.)
Nice insult-while failing to read what is written.
"Account"- a description of facts, conditions, or events : report, narrative <the newspaper account of the fire>
The ACCOUNTS of Speaking in Languages are all through Acts, which is authored by God Almighty,
not "imagined" nor "fabricated"-at least to those of us Christians who respect it-
and they show people who spoke languages, and other people present knew they
spoke languages, and understood them well enough to know the content.
(I know a few words of French or German. I could identify the languages, but not
understand the content.)
Well, it seems that I disagreed that ALLaccounts were recorded and accounted for in the Book of Acts. What is written in Acts are indeed accounts, and there are accounts all through it, but in my mind not all of the accounts mentioned or referred to in scripture are written and recorded in Acts. Paul very plainly states in I Cor. 14 that he spoke in tongues "more than ye all." Yet, there is no mention of him doing so in Acts. Maybe that doesn't somehow technically qualify as an "account" in your mind, or by Webster's definition (it's debatable), but it did in mine... so I think you're nitpicking, and unfairly expecting me (and others) to know and understand the exact definition and perception of something that you hold in your mind when you speak of something. Furthermore, it actually comes across as very condescending that I didn't meet your high standard of expertise in defining just what an "account" is suppose to mean. If I was (and am) wrong, then poo on me for not understanding or agreeing with your more intellectually accurate statement.
An entirely separate question is: why does I Corinthians appear to contradict numerous accounts
in Acts? The Acts accounts are unimpeachable-for Christians who respect the Bible.
Why does the description in I Corinthians APPEAR to say the Acts accounts are impossible?
Is this an actual contradiction, or do we misunderstand the description in I Corinthians?[/b]
Yeah, that's my question. Again, my apologies if I didn't ask it correctly or politely enough to avoid your hammer, or if I appear to be a prima donna.
To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly.
In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.
When the POGY was at Guam, some of us went up to a little bar called My Elena's. We deliberately decided to go there because we heard it was a quite place, and we just wanted to relax.
We sere sitting there sipping our beers when one of the locals broke a pool cue on Thurlo, and a chair bounced off of my face. Mayhem ensued. It was a barroom brawl... just like in the movies.
This thread is the closest thing I've seen to a barroom brawl since then.
Last night, I found it depressing... this morning, it's exhilarating!
You never know where the next punch is going to come from! You can't hit everybody, so you just hit the person nearest to you! You keep on fighting till one side or the other runs, or until the MPs show up!
This is chockfull's thread! Somebody broke the mirror over the bar, but I swear it wasn't ME!
I'll be ready to come back swinging later in the day, but for now, all I'm going to say is...
To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly.
In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.
Raf, because of the complexity of this issue I see no practical way to avoid revisiting certain verses from I Cor. 14 repeatedly and questioning what they might have meant to those in the first century, and what application or nuance of meaning they have (or makes the most sense) for Christians today. There are simply different (sometimes changing) perspectives to view it from, or shine light through it.
Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement.
I will point out to you, Raf, something I wrote on the previous page, BEFORE the barroom brawl simile occurred to me...
I feel like I'm sitting in the newsroom of the Anderson Herald about 55 years ago...
As long as nobody is taking this stuff personally, and getting bent out of shape, this is more fun than I've had in a long time.
It's always fun until somebody gets an eye put out!
The pace has been exhausting to me, too, especially given my debilitated condition, but I REALLY want to continue this discussion at a livable pace.
This is a wonderful opportunity to examine hermeneutics, the art of obtaining meaning from text, under nearly perfect "laboratory" (or should we say "atelier") conditions. We can examine text that we ourselves are generating as the performance (it is an art, NOT a science) progresses!
I made numerous attempts, all of which were ignored, to direct the doctrinal assumption behind my assertion about modern SIT to this thread, which is properly placed in the doctrinal forum. Although I did lay out my reasoning in the other thread, I am laying it out here in greater detail for anyone who chooses to look for it. I think it's a fair question.
What are tongues in the Bible?
To begin with, I'm going to set the verses in I Corinthians 12-14 aside. Saving them for last, as it were.
The word "glossa" appears in the following verses:
Mark 7:33 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 7:35 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 16:17 [considered by many scholars to be a fraudulent insertion into the original gospel of Mark, those who accept it as canonical agree that "new tongues" is a reference to existing languages new to the speaker, not to the planet].
Two uses in Luke refer to the physical organ.
Acts 2:3 [the word appears as a physical description of the fire that appeared on the heads of the apostles. Has nothing to do with speaking or language].
Acts 2:4 [the context clearly states that the "other tongues" were known, human languages. Unless the Mark 16 verse is accepted, this is the first use in the New Testament of tongues as a language, and it is specifically in reference to the manifestation of speaking in tongues].
Acts 2:11 [this verifies that the tongues in v. 4 are real, human languages].
Acts 2:21 [a metaphorical reference to the actual tongue, where the tongue is put for the speech of the speaker. Good news made him happy and he said so].
Acts 10:46 [a reference to the manifestation. No reason to assume it's referring to anything other than a human language, whether or not those present understood the utterance. Peter is present at this incident and surmises it to be the same as what he experienced in Acts 2, which was known human languages. How did he know? Either he understood it (not likely), or the same God who gave Him profound revelation to get him to this location in the first place revealed it to him].
Acts 19:6 [Again, the manifestation, and again, no reason to believe the meaning of tongues changed for the writer, Luke, who for no reason failed to tell us about the change. It's a human language, regardless of whether anyone around understood].
Romans 3:13 [physical organ]
Romans 14:11 [likely a metaphorical reference to the physical organ, with the tongue put for the person speaking. Every knee shall bow + every tongue shall confess = God will be honored in the deeds and words of those of whom He is speaking].
Skipping I Corinthians...
Philippians 2:11 [same as Romans 14:11]
Five references in James, all dealing with the physical organ, literally or metaphorically.
I Peter 3:10 [metaphorical reference to the physical tongue].
I John 3:18 [tongue is put for the words of the speaker: not a reference to language, but speech].
Revelation 5:9 [human languages]
Revelation 7:9 [human languages]
Revelation 10:11 [human languages]
Revelation 11:9 [human languages]
Revelation 13:7 [human languages]
Revelation 14:6 [human languages]
Revelation 16:10 [physical organ]
Revelation 17:15 [human languages]
It should be noted that the in the references in Revelation, the languages stand in for the people who speak them. But the underlying reality of human language is rather rightly taken as a given.
So we see, then, that outside of I Corinthians 12-14, tongues has two meanings: the physical organ, either literally or metaphorically, or human languages. In no verse is there even a hint that tongues might be referring to something else.
Let's look at one other verse, since it has come up in conversation:
Romans 8: 26-27
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
I'm going to ignore the argument over whether to interpret this verse under a Trinitarian framework or a Biblical Unitarian view, because it's not particularly relevant.
Is this verse speaking about SIT? I'm pretty sure it is. Not 100 percent, but SIT makes perfect sense as the subject matter to me.
What does "groanings which cannot be uttered" mean? Does it mean sounds that are not a human language? I highly doubt that was the intent of the writer (or the Author). After all, if the sounds are not a human language, then the infirmity is not just ours, but the Sspirit's as well! I believe the clearest explanation for this verse, the one most in line with what the Bible teaches, is that the infirmity is the believer's, and it is the believers who find it impossible to put their "groanings" into words. The spirit has no trouble with this, and SIT, if applied here, corrects our infirmity. In light of the clear verses identifying SIT as producing human languages, this view makes the most sense to me. This verse does not change SIT from a language to a linguistically meaningless utterance. It changes our inability to express ourselves in words to an ability to express ourselves in words through the Sspirit's intervention.
So let's move back to I Corinthians.
I Corinthians 12:10 [kinds of tongues/interpretation of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages, consistent with every other verse in the Bible in which this word does not refer literally or metaphorically to the physical organ].
I Cor. 12:28 [diversities of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 12:30 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages. It's the same manifestation and there's nothing in the text to signify a change of meaning].
I Cor. 13: 1 [tongues of men and angels: tongues of men is presented as normal, tongues of angels as a hyperbole. Tongues is still languages here. Is "tongues of angels" literal and not hyperbole? I think not, but honest Christians disagree. So be it. I still think it's a huge stretch to suggest that somewhere between Acts and Corinthians, tongues of angels became the norm. The apparent tone of the discourse Paul is in the middle of strongly suggests tongues of angels is, in fact, hyperbole. It's also being put down in comparative value to love].
I Cor. 13:8 [A reference to the manifestation, which produces human languages unless you take tongues of angels to be both literal and the norm, neither of which seems justified by the context].
I Cor. 14:2 [The word unknown is not in the text. The person doing it is speaking to God, not men, IN A LANGUAGE the speaker does not know. It's still a tongue, and the meaning of that word has not changed. That "no man understands" is to be expected in an ordinary worship setting, which is the context of this verse. This says nothing about any other setting. It does not bar anyone from understanding in any setting. It is merely describing the normative, worship experience. It has no bearing on the language produced; only on the extreme unlikelihood of anyone in a worship setting understanding it. What is produced is still a human language].
I Cor. 14:4 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:5 [twice: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:6 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:9 [this appears NOT to be a reference to the manifestation, but a reference to speaking in a known language with the understanding. The tongue here is either a metaphorical reference to the physical organ or a reference to a known language itself. If the former is true, it affects neither my position nor those who disagree with me. If the latter is true, we have an explicit statement of what I've been taking as a given: tongues are languages, period. Alas, I think the former explanation makes the most sense. In context, however, I think the use of that word here indicates that tongues are simply languages, and there's nothing complicated about it].
Nine more references in I Cor. 14. In all of them, they are talking about the manifestation, the same manifestation described in Acts, which produced human languages and never, not once, indicated that something else was being produced.
There is ZERO evidence that SIT produces anything other than a human language, UNLESS one takes I Cor. 13:1 literally and ignores the rather obvious hyperbole Paul is employing. He did not claim to speak in the tongues of angels, or even that there IS such a thing. He merely says IF HE DID, it would still not be as valuable to him as love. That SIT is tongues of men is a given. It's tongues of men in every other Biblical usage that does not refer, literally or figuratively, to the physical organ.
The original writer and readers of Paul's letter would have been utterly baffled by the assertion that they were doing anything other than producing human languages. It runs counter to every other use of that word in the Word. It is, as I have called it, a retrofit designed to explain why people who SIT today are NOT producing languages. Suddenly, 2,000 years later, the Bible isn't promising human languages.
Sorry, I don't buy it. That's my doctrinal position. If you disagree with it, there is no need to argue with me on the conclusions I draw from it. We're simply not going to agree, and that's that.
Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language.
This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless.
...asking ourselves "What does glossa mean in 1 Corinthians 12-14?"
Raf says it means one thing... I say it means another... Is Raf right? or wrong? Am I right? or wrong? Are we both right? Are we both wrong? (I will answer this question eventually.)
This is a nearly perfect exercise in hermeneutics, the art of obtaining meaning from text.
But before we can get into the specific problem at hand, we have to think about some general ideas that are fundamental to the process. WordWolf has already started by asking the question, "What is language?" on the open forum. On this thread, I am not going to address that particular question any farther than by stating a technical definition: A language is a communication system, mostly spoken, sometimes written, that consists of a limited number of signs (usually several thousands) made up of an even more limited number of nonsense sounds (usually less than 100). This feature is called "double articulation." The other feature of language is "syntax," a system that allows the limited number of signs to be combined in an unlimited number of ways, producing an unlimited number of meanings.
-----
A Word About a Word...
We are going to see the word "articulation" and variations of it again in a number of similar but slightly different applications. It's a good idea to become familiar with it now. "Articulation" comes from the Greek word arthron which means "joint" as in elbow or knee. To say that a thing is articulated means is has parts that are joined (jointed) together. Sometimes, though not in every case, to say that a thing is articulated means that the connected parts can move in relation to each other. A switchblade could accurately be called an articulated knife.
The "double articulation" of language means that first, the nonsense sounds are joined together to form signs (syllables and words) and second, the signs are joined together into sentences to convey meanings.
We also say we "articulate thoughts." This means we put the words (signs) together (we join them) so that they express our thought.
-----
Next we need to examine the two major ways that language is used, poetically and absolutely.
Poetic language expresses information in the form of simile and metaphor. It compares two or more items and asks us to see what is similar or dissimilar about the items. Absolute language makes a direct statement regarding the relation between two or more items. The word "poetic" was chosen because of the use of similes and metaphors in poetry. There may well be better ways to conceive of this use of language, but we are stuck with the descriptor "poetic" because that's what so many students of linguistics have used for so long.
The word "absolute" means "free of imperfection." The use of absolute language tries to eliminate the inherent uncertainty of poetic language. Absolute language strives to be free of imperfection. Poetic language is tolerant of imperfection, because the items of no simile, of no metaphor, ever have 100% exact correspondence. Absolute language tends toward its most extreme form, mathematics.
-----
Example from post #332 of this thread:
"When the POGY was at Guam, some of us went up to a little bar called My Elena's. We deliberately decided to go there because we heard it was a quiet place, and we just wanted to relax.
"We were sitting there sipping our beers when one of the locals broke a pool cue on Thurlo, and a chair bounced off of my face. Mayhem ensued. It was a barroom brawl... just like in the movies.
"This thread is the closest thing I've seen to a barroom brawl since then.
"Last night, I found it depressing... this morning, it's exhilarating!
"You never know where the next punch is going to come from! You can't hit everybody, so you just hit the person nearest to you! You keep on fighting till one side or the other runs, or until the MPs show up!
"This is chockfull's thread! Somebody broke the mirror over the bar, but I swear it wasn't ME!
"I'll be ready to come back swinging later in the day, but for now, all I'm going to say is...
"Keep Calm and Carry On"
This was a moderately extended simile even though I didn't use the words "like" or "as." "This thread is the closest thing I've seen to a barroom brawl since then" indicates that this is not a metaphor. I am not calling this thread a barroom brawl, but it reminds me of one.
How is that? I stated the similarities, "You never know where the next punch is going to come from! You can't hit everybody, so you just hit the person nearest to you! You keep on fighting till one side or the other runs, or until the MPs show up!"
On this thread, I can't tell who is going to post next, or what the topic of their post is going to be. I can't answer everyone, so I have to make relatively snap decisions about who to answer. I feel like I can't quit. The only options seem to be that I might give up and go away, that other people might lose interest in the question and go away, or that the moderators might shut the thread down.
Another option, that was not in my thinking when I wrote that post, was that we might all just stop punching, buy each other beers, and go on with a friendly, orderly discussion, even though the topics are highly controversial.
Then I switched to a metaphor, "This is chockfull's thread! Somebody broke the mirror over the bar, but I swear it wasn't ME!" This was intended to be a light-hearted way of pulling the post toward a close, relieving the seriousness of the feelings being generated, and to admit my part in the fracas by making a tongue-in-cheek denial.
-----
I have explained to you one of my posts, showing you what were the meanings I intended as author. I have demonstrated how those meanings might have been obtained by you, as readers of the text, from the poetic language I used. I am not using absolute language, but rather conditional language about the meanings you may have obtained from my text, because there are no "laws of hermeneutics," like Boyle's gas law. None of you will have obtained the exact same meaning I intended when I wrote. No two of you will have obtained the exact same meanings from what I wrote.
All for now... tomorrow we will examine other things...
"Paul very plainly states in I Cor. 14 that he spoke in tongues "more than ye all." Yet, there is no mention of him doing so in Acts."
Is it possible he wasn't doing the same thing they were doing in Acts? Maybe this misunderstanding of what it is goes back farther than we suspected.
I actually think it's a fair question, but one that will be probably get poo-pooed and ignored.
When I have more time, I may return to it.
Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement.
There. Said it AGAIN.
Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?
When myopia sets in, I suppose everything does look the same.
Well, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in discussing the scriptural aspects of it, I would think that part of understanding its benefits would also require pondering different ways to look at the reasons for it, including from God's perspective. Which may not be an easy task, but not necessarily or altogether an impossible one. But, it is one that extends outside the pages of I Cor. 12-14, and reaches as far as touching the theological foundation for it. So, I don't see "what the Bible says" as a hard and fast boundary for what can or might be "on topic" here.
Since someone mentioned this as my thread I started I'm perfectly fine with it going all over the place. The path from where I was to where I'm going is still being defined. So from that perspective yes different ways of looking at things are welcomed IMO especially in doctrinal. We've all had such a "Westboro Baptist" fundamentalist view of scriptures that other approaches may be freeing. i still see people involved in TWI going through life with a series of delusional self-talk way quotes. That crap has to be broken out with a chisel almost it seems.
I will say that all my attempts to look at things "from God's perspective" kind of just lead back to playing god and that elitist attitude I'm trying to change from the cult days. People suck at playing God, me the worst of all.
Once desperation sets in, I suppose any excuse for why you're not producing what the Bible plainly says you will becomes credible.
Alternatively, I kind of just pray a bit in different formats and varieties, and let the chips fall where they may. I figure the man upstairs can understand a tongue and can also understand me articulating with intent in prayer. From my perspective, it's personal prayer life stuff. Some of it engages the brain, other may calm the brain and be more meditative in quality. I'm not doing it on tape, audio, video, tv broadcast, or stadium platform, so who the f cares analyzing it down to which language is this - is this a language - am I a lemon?
I have enough desperation in my life. I need to seek solace from it in my prayer life, not invent more there.
A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined together by the hinge pin, and the two plates can move in relation to each other in order to serve their purpose.
Each plate has a hole (or sequentially coaxial holes, if there are more than one) for the pin to pass through.
If the inside diameter of the plate hole and the outside diameter of the pin are the same, that is, if they are absolute (free of imperfection), then, not only will the plate not move in relation to the pin, it will be impossible to drive the pin into the plate hole.
In order for the parts to move in relation to each other, or in order for the parts to even go together, there has to be a difference between the inside diameter of the plate hole and the outside diameter of the hinge pin. The hinge pin HAS TO BE slightly smaller than the plate hole. This difference is called "tolerance."
Tolerance is necessary for any parts, of any machinery, to move in relation to each other. Tolerances (imperfections) are designed and calculated into the specifications of parts. Actual tolerances are measured by machinists using feeler gauges...
If a machinist screws up the tolerance while adjusting the machinery, the machinery will seize up, if it works at all.
The same is true when it comes to articulating thought. If the definition of a word is absolute, free of imperfection, then that word can be used in ONE and ONLY ONE sense. The word has been stripped of all other possible meanings. It has been stripped of its ability to articulate with words in any way but one. The sign has become a mathematical symbol, and it makes sense only in a mathematical equation.
In order for words to be articulable, their definitions have to be tolerant of imperfection, their definitions have to be poetic.
(If I had the stamina to go for a doctorate, this would be the gist of my dissertation.)
-----
So... how do words get their meanings, anyway? They all start out as nonsense sounds...
Let's look at the word "spirit" since it figures so much in the discussion of 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Our English word "spirit" comes from the Latin spiritus, literally "breath", from spirare, "to blow, breathe".
Spiritus is the word Jerome used to translate the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma into Latin. The basic, literal definition of both words is "air in motion."
Back in antiquity, they didn't have life monitoring equipment like we have in our hospital rooms today. They didn't even know what the pulse was, or meant. The only way they could tell the difference between an unconscious person and a dead person was by whether or not air was moving in and out of that person. Because of its close association with the difference between life and death, air in motion (wind, breath, ruach, pneuma, spiritus, spirit) took on the figurative meaning of "life-force" or "that which makes alive". All other meanings of the word "spirit" derive from this one. The absolute (free of imperfection) definition of the word "spirit" is "air in motion". All other definitions are poetic (tolerant of imperfection).
Today, we think of spirit as a substance, the ectoplasm Wierwille plagiarized from spiritualism. We think of spirit as the substance of "Heaven." But neither of those things were so at the time Paul was writing I Corinthians.
In the first century, spirit was not a substance. The substance of spirit was the element air intermixed with the element fire. The air was the substance, the fire impelled it to motion. Spirit permeated throughout the cosmos and performed the following functions: hexis or habit which gave form and persistence to ALL things, phusis or nature which gave growth-life and the ability to reproduce to everything from plants on up, psyche or soul which gave sentience and the ability to move around to everything from animals on up, and nous or mind which gave intelligence to human beings (earth elementals), the daimon (air elementals) and the gods (fire elementals).
The inward (eis) motion of spirit relayed sentience from the periphery of the cosmos to its guiding heart (hegemonikon). The outward (ek) motion of spirit transmitted all design and operational information from the guiding heart to the "all things" of the periphery. The information flowing outward was called logos. Paul says the exact same thing in 1 Corinthians 8:6, except he substitutes One God the Father in the place of the hegemonikon and One Lord Jesus Christ in an intermediary place between the center and the periphery. He does not write in 1 Corinthians 8:6 of the One Spirit of 1 Corinthians 12:13 because, even though the terminus of the spirit-motion in the center is singular, the termini of the spirit-motion in the periphery is plural.
The heavens were nothing more than what you see when you look up outdoors. The heavens were the realm of fire, and they were inhabited by the fire elementals (the Sun, Moon, planets and stars). Everybody knew that the air extended only to the sphere of the orbit of the Moon because you never see clouds (air) behind the Moon.
The word spirit didn't take on the widespread meaning of "the substance of Heaven" until sometime in the third century, a couple of hundred years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and about a hundred years before the councils tried to make all the definitions of Christianity absolute (free of imperfection).
When Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 2, what did he mean? When Paul used the word "spirituals" in 1 Corinthians 12:1, what did he mean? When he used the word "spirituals" in 1 Corinthians 14:1, did he mean the same thing he meant in 1 Corinthians 12:1? If he didn't mean "the substance of Heaven" then what DID he mean?
If we read through Paul we frequently see the theme that the spirit and the flesh are in contrast, in conflict with each other. We think, "My spirit is the invisible, immaterial substance in me and my flesh is the visible, material substance of me. The invisible and the visible parts of me are duking it out every day." We read I Corinthians 15:44 to mean that there is a visible, material body and an invisible, immaterial body, but that's not the case at all.
There are two, and only two, ages described with enough detail in the Bible to distinguish, this age and the age to come. This is the truth that people miss when they mistakenly attribute the meaning of "a period of time" to the word oikonomia. There is a good Greek word that means "a period of time". It is the word aion. If you track the uses of the word aion through the New Testament (and olam though the Old), you will find some dramatic and remarkable things about the way God has designed the ages. These things are not obvious in the King James Version because it translates aion as "world" and eis aion ("into the age") as "forever". The Bible doesn't say that we live in a mysterious, parenthetical age where everything that happened before the Day of Pentecost and everything that will happen after "the rapture" (a non-Biblical supplanter of "the gathering together") is suspended, null and void, to and for the Church. Through the use of the word aion, the Bible says we are living in the overlap of the ages. The age to come began when God raised Jesus from the dead. What Paul calls "this present evil age" in Galatians 1:4 will not end until Jesus Christ returns.
In the meantime, we find ourselves to be composite beings. Some of our parts belong to the present evil age. Some others belong to the age to come which is not yet fully here. The age to come is called the age of the Spirit, because the Old Testament characterizes it by the outpouring of Holy Spirit. When Paul writes about "spiritual" things, he is writing about things that belong with the age to come instead of things that belong with the present evil age. Those things Paul calls flesh. "Things pertaining to the age to come" is what Paul meant when he used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 2, and that set the foundation for his use of the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 12-14. But can we take this as an absolute definition?
As we are going to see, Paul plays a word-game with "spirituals" between 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 that blows all hopes for absolute definitions out of the water.
This is all I have the strength to post for now. We will finish examining Paul's use of poetic language with regard to the word "spirituals" before we begin looking at how he used the word glossa.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
WordWolf
Sometimes it's easier to spot who's having a discussion,
and who's skimming entire posts and cherry-picking sentences
to find something to disagree to in order to prop up their
current belief system.
As part of a much longer post, I wrote this:
So, we started with the example of languages.
"All[accounts before this showed a demonstration of languages that someone recognized,
and someone present understood- which made them not only human languages,
but CURRENT languages spoken LOCALLY by SOMEONE if not many people."
The reply I got ignored the rest of the post- which used VERY sound reasoning, and I suspect
it was ignored because it was unassailable- and focused in in arguing with this sentence
AND MISUNDERSTANDING IT.
"Say what? Who's imagination fabricated this?
If it's plainly written that no man understandeth (ICor.14:2), why the contradiction with scripture?"
Nice insult-while failing to read what is written.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/account
"Account"- a description of facts, conditions, or events : report, narrative <the newspaper account of the fire>
The ACCOUNTS of Speaking in Languages are all through Acts, which is authored by God Almighty,
not "imagined" nor "fabricated"-at least to those of us Christians who respect it-
and they show people who spoke languages, and other people present knew they
spoke languages, and understood them well enough to know the content.
(I know a few words of French or German. I could identify the languages, but not
understand the content.)
An entirely separate question is: why does I Corinthians appear to contradict numerous accounts
in Acts? The Acts accounts are unimpeachable-for Christians who respect the Bible.
Why does the description in I Corinthians APPEAR to say the Acts accounts are impossible?
Is this an actual contradiction, or do we misunderstand the description in I Corinthians?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Clarification: my "coach" and does not remember saying the words I attributed to him the first time I spoke in tongues. We agree that either he or I can be mistaken. So I present it as memory that may be flawed, not as fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why so testy WW? If I agree with, or have no problem understanding, the rest of your post... must I then also comment on it before questioning the portion of it that confuses me or that I disagree with? Perhaps so, if I am to be polite and courteous to every post that I respond to. I all too easily forget that we live in a society where everyone is so sensitive to so much (that I personally am not), that I have to use the same caution in responding on a message board that is required in face to face communications. So, my apologies for offending you. It wasn't because of malicious intent or design.
It didn't make sense to me, so yes, I questioned it.
Again, please accept my apologies if my way or manner of questioning it offended you so much.
I'm not trying to knock some chip off your shoulder (I didn't know one existed.)
Well, it seems that I disagreed that ALL accounts were recorded and accounted for in the Book of Acts. What is written in Acts are indeed accounts, and there are accounts all through it, but in my mind not all of the accounts mentioned or referred to in scripture are written and recorded in Acts. Paul very plainly states in I Cor. 14 that he spoke in tongues "more than ye all." Yet, there is no mention of him doing so in Acts. Maybe that doesn't somehow technically qualify as an "account" in your mind, or by Webster's definition (it's debatable), but it did in mine... so I think you're nitpicking, and unfairly expecting me (and others) to know and understand the exact definition and perception of something that you hold in your mind when you speak of something. Furthermore, it actually comes across as very condescending that I didn't meet your high standard of expertise in defining just what an "account" is suppose to mean. If I was (and am) wrong, then poo on me for not understanding or agreeing with your more intellectually accurate statement.
Yeah, that's my question. Again, my apologies if I didn't ask it correctly or politely enough to avoid your hammer, or if I appear to be a prima donna.
(Not that anyone else here ever is.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Paul very plainly states in I Cor. 14 that he spoke in tongues "more than ye all." Yet, there is no mention of him doing so in Acts."
Is it possible he wasn't doing the same thing they were doing in Acts? Maybe this misunderstanding of what it is goes back farther than we suspected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm just going to inject one thought.
To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly.
In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When the POGY was at Guam, some of us went up to a little bar called My Elena's. We deliberately decided to go there because we heard it was a quite place, and we just wanted to relax.
We sere sitting there sipping our beers when one of the locals broke a pool cue on Thurlo, and a chair bounced off of my face. Mayhem ensued. It was a barroom brawl... just like in the movies.
This thread is the closest thing I've seen to a barroom brawl since then.
Last night, I found it depressing... this morning, it's exhilarating!
You never know where the next punch is going to come from! You can't hit everybody, so you just hit the person nearest to you! You keep on fighting till one side or the other runs, or until the MPs show up!
This is chockfull's thread! Somebody broke the mirror over the bar, but I swear it wasn't ME!
I'll be ready to come back swinging later in the day, but for now, all I'm going to say is...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You think this is a bar room brawl? Hahahahaha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Raf, because of the complexity of this issue I see no practical way to avoid revisiting certain verses from I Cor. 14 repeatedly and questioning what they might have meant to those in the first century, and what application or nuance of meaning they have (or makes the most sense) for Christians today. There are simply different (sometimes changing) perspectives to view it from, or shine light through it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement.
There. Said it AGAIN.
Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I will point out to you, Raf, something I wrote on the previous page, BEFORE the barroom brawl simile occurred to me...
As long as nobody is taking this stuff personally, and getting bent out of shape, this is more fun than I've had in a long time.
It's always fun until somebody gets an eye put out!
The pace has been exhausting to me, too, especially given my debilitated condition, but I REALLY want to continue this discussion at a livable pace.
This is a wonderful opportunity to examine hermeneutics, the art of obtaining meaning from text, under nearly perfect "laboratory" (or should we say "atelier") conditions. We can examine text that we ourselves are generating as the performance (it is an art, NOT a science) progresses!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"(it is an art, NOT a science)"
If this is art, are we drawing conclusions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
So here we sit...
...asking ourselves "What does glossa mean in 1 Corinthians 12-14?"
Raf says it means one thing... I say it means another... Is Raf right? or wrong? Am I right? or wrong? Are we both right? Are we both wrong? (I will answer this question eventually.)
This is a nearly perfect exercise in hermeneutics, the art of obtaining meaning from text.
But before we can get into the specific problem at hand, we have to think about some general ideas that are fundamental to the process. WordWolf has already started by asking the question, "What is language?" on the open forum. On this thread, I am not going to address that particular question any farther than by stating a technical definition: A language is a communication system, mostly spoken, sometimes written, that consists of a limited number of signs (usually several thousands) made up of an even more limited number of nonsense sounds (usually less than 100). This feature is called "double articulation." The other feature of language is "syntax," a system that allows the limited number of signs to be combined in an unlimited number of ways, producing an unlimited number of meanings.
-----
A Word About a Word...
We are going to see the word "articulation" and variations of it again in a number of similar but slightly different applications. It's a good idea to become familiar with it now. "Articulation" comes from the Greek word arthron which means "joint" as in elbow or knee. To say that a thing is articulated means is has parts that are joined (jointed) together. Sometimes, though not in every case, to say that a thing is articulated means that the connected parts can move in relation to each other. A switchblade could accurately be called an articulated knife.
The "double articulation" of language means that first, the nonsense sounds are joined together to form signs (syllables and words) and second, the signs are joined together into sentences to convey meanings.
We also say we "articulate thoughts." This means we put the words (signs) together (we join them) so that they express our thought.
-----
Next we need to examine the two major ways that language is used, poetically and absolutely.
Poetic language expresses information in the form of simile and metaphor. It compares two or more items and asks us to see what is similar or dissimilar about the items. Absolute language makes a direct statement regarding the relation between two or more items. The word "poetic" was chosen because of the use of similes and metaphors in poetry. There may well be better ways to conceive of this use of language, but we are stuck with the descriptor "poetic" because that's what so many students of linguistics have used for so long.
The word "absolute" means "free of imperfection." The use of absolute language tries to eliminate the inherent uncertainty of poetic language. Absolute language strives to be free of imperfection. Poetic language is tolerant of imperfection, because the items of no simile, of no metaphor, ever have 100% exact correspondence. Absolute language tends toward its most extreme form, mathematics.
-----
Example from post #332 of this thread:
"When the POGY was at Guam, some of us went up to a little bar called My Elena's. We deliberately decided to go there because we heard it was a quiet place, and we just wanted to relax.
"We were sitting there sipping our beers when one of the locals broke a pool cue on Thurlo, and a chair bounced off of my face. Mayhem ensued. It was a barroom brawl... just like in the movies.
"This thread is the closest thing I've seen to a barroom brawl since then.
"Last night, I found it depressing... this morning, it's exhilarating!
"You never know where the next punch is going to come from! You can't hit everybody, so you just hit the person nearest to you! You keep on fighting till one side or the other runs, or until the MPs show up!
"This is chockfull's thread! Somebody broke the mirror over the bar, but I swear it wasn't ME!
"I'll be ready to come back swinging later in the day, but for now, all I'm going to say is...
"Keep Calm and Carry On"
This was a moderately extended simile even though I didn't use the words "like" or "as." "This thread is the closest thing I've seen to a barroom brawl since then" indicates that this is not a metaphor. I am not calling this thread a barroom brawl, but it reminds me of one.
How is that? I stated the similarities, "You never know where the next punch is going to come from! You can't hit everybody, so you just hit the person nearest to you! You keep on fighting till one side or the other runs, or until the MPs show up!"
On this thread, I can't tell who is going to post next, or what the topic of their post is going to be. I can't answer everyone, so I have to make relatively snap decisions about who to answer. I feel like I can't quit. The only options seem to be that I might give up and go away, that other people might lose interest in the question and go away, or that the moderators might shut the thread down.
Another option, that was not in my thinking when I wrote that post, was that we might all just stop punching, buy each other beers, and go on with a friendly, orderly discussion, even though the topics are highly controversial.
Then I switched to a metaphor, "This is chockfull's thread! Somebody broke the mirror over the bar, but I swear it wasn't ME!" This was intended to be a light-hearted way of pulling the post toward a close, relieving the seriousness of the feelings being generated, and to admit my part in the fracas by making a tongue-in-cheek denial.
-----
I have explained to you one of my posts, showing you what were the meanings I intended as author. I have demonstrated how those meanings might have been obtained by you, as readers of the text, from the poetic language I used. I am not using absolute language, but rather conditional language about the meanings you may have obtained from my text, because there are no "laws of hermeneutics," like Boyle's gas law. None of you will have obtained the exact same meaning I intended when I wrote. No two of you will have obtained the exact same meanings from what I wrote.
All for now... tomorrow we will examine other things...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I actually think it's a fair question, but one that will be probably get poo-pooed and ignored.
When I have more time, I may return to it.
When myopia sets in, I suppose everything does look the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Once desperation sets in, I suppose any excuse for why you're not producing what the Bible plainly says you will becomes credible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I always enjoy it when I can bring my half to a battle of wits ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't think I expressed my point very clearly here.
My point was that perhaps Paul was doing the same thing we did, mistaking glossolalia for what is described in Acts.
Is that clearer? I hope so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Since someone mentioned this as my thread I started I'm perfectly fine with it going all over the place. The path from where I was to where I'm going is still being defined. So from that perspective yes different ways of looking at things are welcomed IMO especially in doctrinal. We've all had such a "Westboro Baptist" fundamentalist view of scriptures that other approaches may be freeing. i still see people involved in TWI going through life with a series of delusional self-talk way quotes. That crap has to be broken out with a chisel almost it seems.
I will say that all my attempts to look at things "from God's perspective" kind of just lead back to playing god and that elitist attitude I'm trying to change from the cult days. People suck at playing God, me the worst of all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Alternatively, I kind of just pray a bit in different formats and varieties, and let the chips fall where they may. I figure the man upstairs can understand a tongue and can also understand me articulating with intent in prayer. From my perspective, it's personal prayer life stuff. Some of it engages the brain, other may calm the brain and be more meditative in quality. I'm not doing it on tape, audio, video, tv broadcast, or stadium platform, so who the f cares analyzing it down to which language is this - is this a language - am I a lemon?
I have enough desperation in my life. I need to seek solace from it in my prayer life, not invent more there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"am I a lemon?"
I'm pretty sure you're not a lemon. Do you look like this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My apologies, chockfull. My statement was in response to an accusation of myopia, not intended to pick fights with those who agree to disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I am certainly not the lemon.
No worries. My response kind of cut into another argument I guess. I have no accusations of myopia for you. Just expressing my beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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 together by the hinge pin, and the two plates can move in relation to each other in order to serve their purpose.
Each plate has a hole (or sequentially coaxial holes, if there are more than one) for the pin to pass through.
If the inside diameter of the plate hole and the outside diameter of the pin are the same, that is, if they are absolute (free of imperfection), then, not only will the plate not move in relation to the pin, it will be impossible to drive the pin into the plate hole.
In order for the parts to move in relation to each other, or in order for the parts to even go together, there has to be a difference between the inside diameter of the plate hole and the outside diameter of the hinge pin. The hinge pin HAS TO BE slightly smaller than the plate hole. This difference is called "tolerance."
Tolerance is necessary for any parts, of any machinery, to move in relation to each other. Tolerances (imperfections) are designed and calculated into the specifications of parts. Actual tolerances are measured by machinists using feeler gauges...
If a machinist screws up the tolerance while adjusting the machinery, the machinery will seize up, if it works at all.
The same is true when it comes to articulating thought. If the definition of a word is absolute, free of imperfection, then that word can be used in ONE and ONLY ONE sense. The word has been stripped of all other possible meanings. It has been stripped of its ability to articulate with words in any way but one. The sign has become a mathematical symbol, and it makes sense only in a mathematical equation.
In order for words to be articulable, their definitions have to be tolerant of imperfection, their definitions have to be poetic.
(If I had the stamina to go for a doctorate, this would be the gist of my dissertation.)
-----
So... how do words get their meanings, anyway? They all start out as nonsense sounds...
Let's look at the word "spirit" since it figures so much in the discussion of 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Our English word "spirit" comes from the Latin spiritus, literally "breath", from spirare, "to blow, breathe".
Spiritus is the word Jerome used to translate the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma into Latin. The basic, literal definition of both words is "air in motion."
Back in antiquity, they didn't have life monitoring equipment like we have in our hospital rooms today. They didn't even know what the pulse was, or meant. The only way they could tell the difference between an unconscious person and a dead person was by whether or not air was moving in and out of that person. Because of its close association with the difference between life and death, air in motion (wind, breath, ruach, pneuma, spiritus, spirit) took on the figurative meaning of "life-force" or "that which makes alive". All other meanings of the word "spirit" derive from this one. The absolute (free of imperfection) definition of the word "spirit" is "air in motion". All other definitions are poetic (tolerant of imperfection).
Today, we think of spirit as a substance, the ectoplasm Wierwille plagiarized from spiritualism. We think of spirit as the substance of "Heaven." But neither of those things were so at the time Paul was writing I Corinthians.
In the first century, spirit was not a substance. The substance of spirit was the element air intermixed with the element fire. The air was the substance, the fire impelled it to motion. Spirit permeated throughout the cosmos and performed the following functions: hexis or habit which gave form and persistence to ALL things, phusis or nature which gave growth-life and the ability to reproduce to everything from plants on up, psyche or soul which gave sentience and the ability to move around to everything from animals on up, and nous or mind which gave intelligence to human beings (earth elementals), the daimon (air elementals) and the gods (fire elementals).
The inward (eis) motion of spirit relayed sentience from the periphery of the cosmos to its guiding heart (hegemonikon). The outward (ek) motion of spirit transmitted all design and operational information from the guiding heart to the "all things" of the periphery. The information flowing outward was called logos. Paul says the exact same thing in 1 Corinthians 8:6, except he substitutes One God the Father in the place of the hegemonikon and One Lord Jesus Christ in an intermediary place between the center and the periphery. He does not write in 1 Corinthians 8:6 of the One Spirit of 1 Corinthians 12:13 because, even though the terminus of the spirit-motion in the center is singular, the termini of the spirit-motion in the periphery is plural.
The heavens were nothing more than what you see when you look up outdoors. The heavens were the realm of fire, and they were inhabited by the fire elementals (the Sun, Moon, planets and stars). Everybody knew that the air extended only to the sphere of the orbit of the Moon because you never see clouds (air) behind the Moon.
The word spirit didn't take on the widespread meaning of "the substance of Heaven" until sometime in the third century, a couple of hundred years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and about a hundred years before the councils tried to make all the definitions of Christianity absolute (free of imperfection).
When Paul used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 2, what did he mean? When Paul used the word "spirituals" in 1 Corinthians 12:1, what did he mean? When he used the word "spirituals" in 1 Corinthians 14:1, did he mean the same thing he meant in 1 Corinthians 12:1? If he didn't mean "the substance of Heaven" then what DID he mean?
If we read through Paul we frequently see the theme that the spirit and the flesh are in contrast, in conflict with each other. We think, "My spirit is the invisible, immaterial substance in me and my flesh is the visible, material substance of me. The invisible and the visible parts of me are duking it out every day." We read I Corinthians 15:44 to mean that there is a visible, material body and an invisible, immaterial body, but that's not the case at all.
There are two, and only two, ages described with enough detail in the Bible to distinguish, this age and the age to come. This is the truth that people miss when they mistakenly attribute the meaning of "a period of time" to the word oikonomia. There is a good Greek word that means "a period of time". It is the word aion. If you track the uses of the word aion through the New Testament (and olam though the Old), you will find some dramatic and remarkable things about the way God has designed the ages. These things are not obvious in the King James Version because it translates aion as "world" and eis aion ("into the age") as "forever". The Bible doesn't say that we live in a mysterious, parenthetical age where everything that happened before the Day of Pentecost and everything that will happen after "the rapture" (a non-Biblical supplanter of "the gathering together") is suspended, null and void, to and for the Church. Through the use of the word aion, the Bible says we are living in the overlap of the ages. The age to come began when God raised Jesus from the dead. What Paul calls "this present evil age" in Galatians 1:4 will not end until Jesus Christ returns.
In the meantime, we find ourselves to be composite beings. Some of our parts belong to the present evil age. Some others belong to the age to come which is not yet fully here. The age to come is called the age of the Spirit, because the Old Testament characterizes it by the outpouring of Holy Spirit. When Paul writes about "spiritual" things, he is writing about things that belong with the age to come instead of things that belong with the present evil age. Those things Paul calls flesh. "Things pertaining to the age to come" is what Paul meant when he used the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 2, and that set the foundation for his use of the word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 12-14. But can we take this as an absolute definition?
As we are going to see, Paul plays a word-game with "spirituals" between 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 that blows all hopes for absolute definitions out of the water.
This is all I have the strength to post for now. We will finish examining Paul's use of poetic language with regard to the word "spirituals" before we begin looking at how he used the word glossa.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink 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.