Twilight II Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Pauls concern about the incorrect use of tongues is that people in the congregation would not understand. And it would cause confusion. When languages were used without an interpreter, Paul forbade its use. His fear would be that it would appear that they were mad if the visitors could not understand them: Quote: 1Cr 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? Yet you argue that this will not be the case? And in fact state it will be the opposite?
BibleOnly Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: BibleOnly You must be joking. 1Cr 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 1Cr 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men [to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 1Cr 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 1Cr 14:6 ΒΆ Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1Cr 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. I've quoted these several times before. Yes, but you misunderstand the word "tongues". The Greek word for tongues is an "intelligible language". with that in mind and the rest of the context of the book of Corinthians, it is quite simple. Paul was saying this: There is no point speaking to an English congregation in Spanish, it they do not understand Spanish. So Paul then reasons from there and makes the case that if you cannot be understood, then keep silent.
BibleOnly Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Pauls concern about the incorrect use of tongues is that people in the congregation would not understand. And it would cause confusion. When languages were used without an interpreter, Paul forbade its use. His fear would be that it would appear that they were mad if the visitors could not understand them: Quote: 1Cr 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? Yet you argue that this will not be the case? And in fact state it will be the opposite? No, it's you who oppose scripture. When I hear people talking to each other in Italian, I do not think they are mad. But, if everyone speaks a language that no-one can understand, and they talk in stead to God, yes, people will think they are mad. In fact, I went to churches that did this before I was saved, and without knowing this verse, thought exactly that. But, that does not change the fact that he's saying 'if you all speak in tongues', which is odd to say if they can't all do it, and his point is that there should be 2-3 with interpretation, but that if there's no interpreter, then NO-ONE will understand, as someone who speaks in tongues, does not speak to men, as no man understands. At what point will you address the verses I keep quoting that disprove every theory you are putting forward ? You can't take one verse and use it to disprove another, the whole Bible is true.
ClubV12 Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Your interpretation of the bible verses you present to make your case are incorrect. It's as simple as that. Bible verses HAVE been presented that show a different interpretation, at what point will you address them, rather than continue to ignore them? The whole bible is true, so it should be rather obvious, right? :)
BibleOnly Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 I'm sorry, but posts like this are counter productive. The claim has been made that when Paul says that only God understands, that God somehow understands 'fake tongues' given by the Devil. No Biblical evidence has been given to support this, not least because Paul says he speaks in tongues in this manner, so that only God understands. So, the onus is on you, not me. I've explained how every verse quoted supports or at least does not contradict my view. You've failed to the same, and there's at least three of you to one of me. So long as we're talking about Greek words: Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. The word 'wind' here is the same word as 'Spirit' at the end, and through the Bible. The word 'sound' is phonos, as in phonetic, it means an articulate sound, not the sound of wind. What does this verse mean ? It means the Spirit breathes where He chooses and you hear the voice, but you cannot tell where it comes from ( how it got there ) or where it goes ( what is said ). I can tell where wind comes from and is going, you suck your finger and hold it in the air, and the cold side is where it's coming from, and it's going in the opposite direction.
ClubV12 Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 "Paul says he speaks in tongues in this manner, so that only God understands." No "onus" on me or anyone else BibleOnly, you simply grossly misunderstand what Paul is saying. Your interpretation skills are so biased you cannot see the truth. The only languages Paul spoke in were understood by people who spoke the same language. Paul did not speak in gibberish as a fool would. The biblical support for the interpretation of the gift of tongues as languages is very strong. When we look at Acts and Mark to help us understand Corinthians the picture becomes more clear tongues are a specific gift of a foreign language. But all this has been presented in this thread before and BibleOnly has consistently rejected it. There really is nothing more that can be said. The truth stands, each must decide for themselves.
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 I'm sorry, but your very speech shows your bias. 'as a fool would' is a natural view, as I've pointed out, people like you see this in 1 Cor 12-14 because you believe it. People who think only some Christians speak in tongues, see this in 1 Cor 12-14. But, I am sure if you gave this text to a 10 year old child, they would conclude what it says. Paul several times identified that when he spoke in tongues, only God understood. He never said the Corinthians should stop using a gift that is Satanic, surely something you'd make clear if it was true. He didn't say to speak in tongues differently, he said to only use the gift which he nominated was understood only by God, either privately, or in church only if they were ready to interpret. I'm sorry, this is not a passage that I've failed to study, it's one I know backwards and forwards. There is no level on which it says anything about fake tongues, or any of the other things you need to claim to defend your own opinions. You're right, there's no 'onus' on you. But, what counts here is if you hold your views with integrity. Read the passage. Just think about what it means. Imagine you have no opinion on the topic. Look for a verse that says that 'gibberish as a fool' is a concept anywhere in there. Look for a verse that says the tongues they used in Corinth were wrong. I'll give you $500 if you can find one.
ClubV12 Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Standing on a single verse is simply bad form BibleOnly, you know better than that. You have to consider the context of the gift of tongues in light of what the book of Acts and Mark have to say. ...but that's been presented already and you keep coming back to Corinthians as your sole "proof text". Bad form my man, bad form.
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Well, to review, if I post a ton of scripture, I am told I am 'confusing the issue' and if I don't, I am told it's 'bad form'. The fact is, I am standing on a huge body of scripture, including all of Acts. Acts 8 and 19 both show that evidence is expected and that believers are not necessarily saved. Mark says that believers will speak in tongues. John has Jesus saying the same thing. You can't interpret one verse in a way that makes another verse a lie. That is bad form. Acts 2 DOES say the languages were understood ( some of them ), but no verse ever says that tongues was used to preach, nor was it used that way even in Acts 2. I don't pretend it did not say this, yet you pretend that Paul did not say that tongues is understood only by God. 1 Cor 12-14 is crystal clear that tongues is something every Christian does, that we cannot curse God despite not knowing what we say, and that tongues are always understood by God and not man. You have abandoned the scriptures without telling me what the verses in question mean, if I am wrong then there must be an alternative explanation that doesn't involve twisting what Paul plainly says to mean the opposite. You're trying to stand on your own words, and I am standing on the Bible.
ClubV12 Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Actually,,, whether YOU post one or a ton of scripture it leads to confusion because of your illogical interpretations. "I am standing on the Bible." No, your not standing on the bible my friend, your standing on the devils own playground.
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 There's nothing illogical about what I've said, it's basic English comprehension. 'the man who speaks in tongues speaks not to men but God, for no man understands him'. That's pretty basic. And if I am in 'the Devil's playground', I'd remind you that Satan quoted scripture to Jesus and Jesus shot him down, not with insults, but with scripture correctly interpreted. So, I ask again, why does 1 Cor 12-14 not make any mention of 'fake tongues' or say that tongues that no man understands are false and come from the Devil ? Why does Paul say that the tongues he speaks, are spoken to God and not to men, for no man understands ?
Dr. Rich Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 There's nothing illogical about what I've said, it's basic English comprehension. 'the man who speaks in tongues speaks not to men but God, for no man understands him'. That's pretty basic. And if I am in 'the Devil's playground', I'd remind you that Satan quoted scripture to Jesus and Jesus shot him down, not with insults, but with scripture correctly interpreted. So, I ask again, why does 1 Cor 12-14 not make any mention of 'fake tongues' or say that tongues that no man understands are false and come from the Devil ? Why does Paul say that the tongues he speaks, are spoken to God and not to men, for no man understands ? BO, while thousands believe like you do, they are mistaken and are in serious trouble of losing sight of the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses ONLY. Why does God even need to hear you say anything since He knows what you are thinking? Sure, Jesus prayed out loud, but it was because He wanted His disciples to hear what He was asking for so that they could remember. (John 14:26 and 17:17-21)
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 "BO, while thousands believe like you do, they are mistaken and are in serious trouble of losing sight of the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses ONLY." I apologise if you thought I was trying to suggest that the number of people who agree with me matters for anything. I was merely saying that everyone finds what they want in 1 Cor 12-14 and therefore it seems clear to me that we need to read it with care to make sure we see what it says, and not what we want it to. I'd say the same if I was the only person on earth saying it. God is still right. "Why does God even need to hear you say anything since He knows what you are thinking?" Paul asked who man is to question God. The point is not what I am thinking, but that I 'don't know what to pray for'. So, my thoughts are of no use, and God side steps them. This is what the Bible says. "Sure, Jesus prayed out loud, but it was because He wanted His disciples to hear what He was asking for so that they could remember. (John 14:26 and 17:17-21)" I don't see how that relates to what I do when I pray in private. I am quoting the same verses over and over, and no-one is explaining any alternative explanation of them. 1 Cor 14 is the only place that defines 'prayer in the Spirit' in the Bible. This builds us in the faith and keeps us in God's love, in Jude 20-21. It's what God requires of us, Jesus said. The Spirit intercedes because I don't know what to pray for, Romans says. 1 Cor 12 says I can't call Jesus Lord if I do not pray in the Spirit. All of these verses mean nothing, if you say that 'prayer in the Spirit' is nothing specific, and just a vague, meaningless term.
ClubV12 Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Dr. Rich, you need to increase the volume, I'm afraid your talking into the ears of a deaf man. Maybe, shouting will help? ... or not....
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 ClubV12, I know this is an adventist forum, but when you guys remind each other that numbers are on your side and look down on me without even bothering to explain the Bible verses that contradict your views, it really says nothing for your sincerity or your integrity. Nor does it change what the Bible says. I hope you don't think I am trying to score points or prove how smart I am. There is no victory for me in your refusal to accept what the Bible says, only disappointment.
Twilight II Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 BO, you keep claiming that only God can understand "tongues" which are of course "languages". And you state that Paul said that was the case. But we have shown you that the Bible clearly records that the "tongues" were understood. How is it then that you keep claiming that only God can understand. An evil spirit has gained control of your mind my friend, you cannot even reason clearly, it is so powerful over you. --------------- Often the reason a spirit can gain control over a Christian is because the "flesh" has a flaw in it that satan takes hold of. Often with things like "tongues/vain babblings" there is associated a certain "pride" with being one of the "chosen ones". This pride then stops the individual from hearing counsel on the matter. ---------------- You are wrong on this issue, dead wrong.
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 "BO, you keep claiming that only God can understand "tongues" which are of course "languages". And you state that Paul said that was the case." Actually, I keep quoting Paul, who said this was the case. I also referred to other scriptures that say the same thing. You're yet to explain how those verses fit your views or what they mean. "But we have shown you that the Bible clearly records that the "tongues" were understood. How is it then that you keep claiming that only God can understand." No, you've shown me that some were understood in Acts 2. That is one record. And yet, when I show three records in Acts that when people receive the Spirit, they speak in tongues, and one where SOMETHING clearly happened, you assume that they are not a record we can use to learn anything specific from. Why can you extrapolate from one specific instance to disagree with general statements Paul makes, but I can't use FOUR examples to prove something that no Bible verse contradicts ? "An evil spirit has gained control of your mind my friend, you cannot even reason clearly, it is so powerful over you." I can't help but feel it's the spirit of English comprehension. Seriously, you lot should just worship the devil. You think he is so powerful as to answer me when I called on God, to overcome all the addictions I could not overcome through the 'believe with no evidence' Gospel that I followed sincerely for 2 years, and that somehow, satan does good works to seal the deal of his possession. Jesus answered that view, I've quoted the scripture, it's another one that you have no answer for. You know, the devil DID try to tempt Jesus with scripture. Jesus answered the way I answer you, from the Bible. You answer me with stories, word games and accusations. You've typed so much the past few days. Why can't you just tell me what the scriptures I've quoted mean, instead of telling me that Acts 2 makes 1 Cor 12-14 a lie, but doesn't mean anything in terms of what the evidence of the Spirit is ? "Often the reason a spirit can gain control over a Christian is because the "flesh" has a flaw in it that satan takes hold of. Often with things like "tongues/vain babblings" there is associated a certain "pride" with being one of the "chosen ones". This pride then stops the individual from hearing counsel on the matter." What worthless babble. How does this have anything to do with the Bible ? It's self justification. It's my fault that I don't believe your stories and your inability to respond to scriptures that don't suit your world view ? As I said, I am not trying to prove I am right. I am not right. God is right. I don't feel good every time your replies are ridiculous and totally lacking in reference to scripture. I just feel sad for you. What you think of me, I could care less, excepting that I would try to show the fruits of the Spirit. I don't think I am doing that now, but, I feel that speaking plainly is the only way to communicate through this 'demon' drivel you go on with. Answer me from the Bible, or accept that you cannot. I won't feel any victory until you are a Christian, but, you can at least have some integrity by not responding unless you address the Bible verses that I claim prove my point and that you have no explanation for. "You are wrong on this issue, dead wrong." It's almost as if you think that saying this over and over will distract people from the core issue, which is that the Bible says I am right, unless you can explain otherwise.
Twilight II Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 BO, please give a bible reference where the early believers were speaking in "tongues" and it was not a "known" language to those hearing it. Where it explicitly states that it was something no one could understand. An example of it in use. --------------- Because we have given you a clear example where "tongues" were a known language from the scripture. --------------- You have of course acknowledged this. But are arguing that there were times when it was incomprehensible to those around them. Do you have a biblical example of this? And please do not say 1 Cor 12-14 covers this, every text you have presented we have shown that what you are claiming is not correct. If you have a specific text, please show it.
Twilight II Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II This pride then stops the individual from hearing counsel on the matter." What worthless babble. How does this have anything to do with the Bible ? It's self justification. It's my fault that I don't believe your stories and your inability to respond to scriptures that don't suit your world view ? As I said, I am not trying to prove I am right. I am not right. God is right. I don't feel good every time your replies are ridiculous and totally lacking in reference to scripture. I just feel sad for you. What you think of me, I could care less, excepting that I would try to show the fruits of the Spirit. I don't think I am doing that now, but, I feel that speaking plainly is the only way to communicate through this 'demon' drivel you go on with. Answer me from the Bible, or accept that you cannot. I won't feel any victory until you are a Christian, but, you can at least have some integrity by not responding unless you address the Bible verses that I claim prove my point and that you have no explanation for. There it is. Are you claiming that unless someone speaks in strange noises they are not a Christian? The bolded part above seems to be claiming such. Do you believe you are not a "genuine" Christian until you speak with "tongues"?
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 But are arguing that there were times when it was incomprehensible to those around them. Do you have a biblical example of this? And please do not say 1 Cor 12-14 covers this, every text you have presented we have shown that what you are claiming is not correct. If you have a specific text, please show it. 1 Cor 14 DOES explicitly state that only God understands tongues. Acts 2 explains that tongues were understood there. Acts 10 and 19 don't even suggest that there was anyone present who did not speak the language being spoken. I'll go for a verse that establishes a principle with a broad statement over making assumptions on the basis of a verse that describes an instance that differs from that principle any day. Show me one verse that says that tongues were used to preach the Gospel. 1 Cor 12-14 is an obvious place to start, or Acts.
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 There it is. Are you claiming that unless someone speaks in strange noises they are not a Christian? The bolded part above seems to be claiming such. Do you believe you are not a "genuine" Christian until you speak with "tongues"? I feel it's obvious that I am stating that all Christians speak in tongues. How you feel about that is kind of irrelevant. What matters is what scripture says. Acts 8 says you can be a baptised believer and not have the Spirit. Romans says if you don't have the Spirit, you don't belong to Christ. You claim that people get the spirit if they believe, with no evidence. The Bible disagrees.
Twilight II Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II But are arguing that there were times when it was incomprehensible to those around them. Do you have a biblical example of this? And please do not say 1 Cor 12-14 covers this, every text you have presented we have shown that what you are claiming is not correct. If you have a specific text, please show it. 1 Cor 14 DOES explicitly state that only God understands tongues. Acts 2 explains that tongues were understood there. Acts 10 and 19 don't even suggest that there was anyone present who did not speak the language being spoken. I'll go for a verse that establishes a principle with a broad statement over making assumptions on the basis of a verse that describes an instance that differs from that principle any day. Show me one verse that says that tongues were used to preach the Gospel. 1 Cor 12-14 is an obvious place to start, or Acts. 1 Cor 14 does not state that. You are misreading it. Please supply the verse you think indicates this?
Twilight II Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II There it is. Are you claiming that unless someone speaks in strange noises they are not a Christian? The bolded part above seems to be claiming such. Do you believe you are not a "genuine" Christian until you speak with "tongues"? I feel it's obvious that I am stating that all Christians speak in tongues. How you feel about that is kind of irrelevant. What matters is what scripture says. Acts 8 says you can be a baptised believer and not have the Spirit. Romans says if you don't have the Spirit, you don't belong to Christ. You claim that people get the spirit if they believe, with no evidence. The Bible disagrees. Ahhh... So you are here to convert us heathen SDA's that don't roll around on the floor and dribble at church whilst making strange noises? :-)
BibleOnly Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 So you are here to convert us heathen SDA's that don't roll around on the floor and dribble at church whilst making strange noises? :-) You need to trust the Bible instead of '60 minutes'. I've stated over and over that I do not roll around on the floor or dribble in church. I've stated over and over that 1 Cor 12-14 was written to make sure the church is orderly. Why does what you saw on TV change what the Bible says ?
Recommended Posts