Moderators John317 Posted December 12, 2011 Moderators Posted December 12, 2011 If it is wrong to use, it is a counterfeit. Like I said, Paul was being gentle with these believers. He ddn't want to come outright and say "this is a counterfeit", because he was gradually leading them away from this heresy, trying to help them see the truth, without stepping on their toes too hard. Ellen White had insight on these things, and she even showed how he did this same thing with the feast keepers. He became all things to all men so that he might win them. But the subtle underlying implication in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is that the tongues Paul was telling them to avoid was a counterfeit. I completely agree with this. It explains why Paul would say in 1 Cor.14:2 that those speaking in "a tongue" spoke not to other humans but to "a god." By the way, the same principle applies to Paul's treatment of the subject of slavery. Neither Christ nor Paul came right out and said that slavery was wrong, but if people paid attention to what Christ and Paul taught, it would lead to the end of slavery. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 12, 2011 Moderators Posted December 12, 2011 ....Here is an excellent book I recommend: Speaking in Tongues http://www.atsjats.org/transaction_detail.php?id=15 by Gerhard F. Hasel "(From the back cover) Speaking in Tongues is an up-to date discussion of contemporary "speaking in tongues" as practiced by millions of Christians. This book reveals that speaking in tongues is also carried on in non- Christian (pagan) religions. The issues raised by this common practice are immense for the Christian believer. Five of the seven chapters are devoted to a penetrating study of the New Testament evidence for speaking in tongues. Thanks very much for posting this info. Looks like an excellent book. Gerhard Hasel was a terrific Bible scholar. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Author Posted December 12, 2011 Because what is the point in moving on to the next subject if we are not going to come into harmony on round 1? You made it clear that you are here to get your questions answered and inquire about SDA teachings. We cannot move on to the next point until we are agreed on this matter. Otherwise, there is nothing in common. This doctrine of false tongues I take serious offense to, because it is Satanic, and therefore, as long as you hold to this perfidious doctrine, I cannot trust anything else you say.
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Author Posted December 12, 2011 The translators were not perfect in everything. This is why we have scholars who know Greek inside and out writing books on such things. You would do yourself well if you would make up your mind to read more works by scholars and quit thinking you can find out all the intricate meanings of these Greek words yourself. Given that we agree that every person finds what they want in 1 Cor 14, why do you claim your scholars are different ? Why do you claim that Paul was not clear, and that God's message on this important ( for this age ) subject is totally obscured and lost to anyone reading the Bible in faith ?
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Author Posted December 12, 2011 Sorry, the site locked up and I reposted, and there's no delete button.
BibleOnly Posted December 12, 2011 Author Posted December 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Lysimachus If it is wrong to use, it is a counterfeit. Like I said, Paul was being gentle with these believers. He ddn't want to come outright and say "this is a counterfeit", because he was gradually leading them away from this heresy, trying to help them see the truth, without stepping on their toes too hard. Ellen White had insight on these things, and she even showed how he did this same thing with the feast keepers. He became all things to all men so that he might win them. But the subtle underlying implication in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is that the tongues Paul was telling them to avoid was a counterfeit. I completely agree with this. It explains why Paul would say in 1 Cor.14:2 that those speaking in "a tongue" spoke not to other humans but to "a god." By the way, the same principle applies to Paul's treatment of the subject of slavery. Neither Christ nor Paul came right out and said that slavery was wrong, but if people paid attention to what Christ and Paul taught, it would lead to the end of slavery. It only explains it in the assumption that it doesn't mean what you want for it not to mean. Why do you think Paul told those in Corinth to continue speaking in tongues, if they were using a counterfeit ? If there is a counterfeit, where does it come from, and why did Paul not write to this church or any other to warn them of it ?
Moderators John317 Posted December 13, 2011 Moderators Posted December 13, 2011 ...The translators were not perfect in everything. This is why we have scholars who know Greek inside and out writing books on such things. True, and it is also why it's a good idea to study the Bible with at least two translatons. Better yet is four or five good ones. Here's an example: In Acts 17: 23, the King James reads, "To The Unknown God." The New King James Version reads the same exact way. So do many other translations. The English Standard Version does a little better: "To the Unknown god." But they are wrong. The NIV got it right: "To an unknown god." The Greek lacks the definite article here. That's significant because if it had the definite article, it would mean the Greeks had a particular god who was known by that name. The Greek use of the definite article [the] is primarily for the purpose of identification. The NIV translation correctly shows that the Greeks had no particular god by that title but that they were being careful to give due worship all gods that could possibly exist. It explains why Paul called the Athenians "very religious." John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 Well, that is true. Only the Youngs Literal gets John 3:8 right, mostly because it is true that the translators bring their ideas to the table. I still think the worst translation around contains everything you need to find God and understand the Gospel, though.
Members phkrause Posted December 13, 2011 Members Posted December 13, 2011 If there is a counterfeit, where does it come from, ? Where do you think counterfeits come from? Wow and you say you know the Bible?????????????????? Throughout the Bible we read of how Satan will counterfeit everything!!!!!! phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Moderators John317 Posted December 13, 2011 Moderators Posted December 13, 2011 I still think the worst translation around contains everything you need to find God and understand the Gospel, though. I agree with you that even the worst translations-- such as the New World Translation-- are used by God to teach people the gospel. But when using them, the problem comes when one attempts to do close and careful Bible study. To do that, it becomes more important to have several accurate translations. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 Originally Posted By: BibleOnly If there is a counterfeit, where does it come from, ? Where do you think counterfeits come from? Wow and you say you know the Bible?????????????????? Throughout the Bible we read of how Satan will counterfeit everything!!!!!! OK, good. So we agree that you claim that the Corinthians were using something that was from the Devil, but Paul never told them this, or made it clear that the tongues he was not forbidding were different to the tongues he was using, which I assume he would in fact have forbidden.
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 Originally Posted By: BibleOnly I still think the worst translation around contains everything you need to find God and understand the Gospel, though. I agree with you that even the worst translations-- such as the New World Translation-- are used by God to teach people the gospel. But when using them, the problem comes when one attempts to do close and careful Bible study. To do that, it becomes more important to have several accurate translations. Yes, I don't disagree. I have also seen people lose themselves in the Greek to try to prove things that are just not there. At the end of the day, if the Bible doesn't come close to ever supporting your position, it doesn't matter what you find in the Greek, if God is to be trusted to be able to bring us a clear message of His will.
Moderators John317 Posted December 13, 2011 Moderators Posted December 13, 2011 1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What does Paul mean he says, "my understanding is unfruitful"? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 It means the same as 1 Cor 14:2, which is to say that he does not understand what he is saying. What do you think it means ? The core thing is, Paul says he thanks God for this gift, where he does not understand what he says.
Bert Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 BO - I guess what I am saying is that there are Christians throughout the whole world that will be among the redeemed, and there is no doubt that there are numerous different languages, or tongues, involved. I know that our denomination is in well over a hundred countries, so the different languages are many. When Christ comes and we are 'changed in the twinkling of an eye', we will all be able to communicate in one language again. I might pass on this information for study and comment. The word 'tongue' in the New Testament as defined in Strong's Concordance is 1100 "glossa" in the Greek, and is defined as follows: Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specifically one naturally unacquired):--tongue. So it appears that the use of tongues in the following texts in the New Testament is related to the spoken language learned from childhood as a native language (unacquired), and on the other hand, those languages that are acquired through the learning process. The texts are: Mark 16:17; Acts 2:3,4,11; 10:46; 19:6; Romans 3:13; 1st Cor 12:10,28,30; 13:1,8; 14:5,6,18,22,23,39; Rev. 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 16:10; and 17:15. The only variance in the New Testament was in 1st Cor 14:21, and is coded 2084 in the Greek and is defined as "heteroglossos" - from 2087 and 1100; other-tongued, i.e., a foreigner:--man of other tongue.
Bert Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 SO, once again, your claim is that God hid the Gospel in this age from all but Greek scholars, excepting the Greek scholars who did the translating and didn't attempt to make this clear ? Why does he never tell them they were not 'speaking in tongues' as in a gift from God ? Why did he say 'forbid not tongues' instead of 'stop speaking in pagan tongues and speak in God's tongues' ? 1Cr 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret. 1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. These are also in the singular, I believe. So, why would God give an interpretation of a pagan tongue ? Surely a pagan tongue means nothing, to anyone ? So how can God understand it ? How can it be interpreted ? God knows what is in the heart before a word is ever uttered from the mouth. That is how God would understand it. You're walking down a path that only leads to trying to make the Bible argue with itself.
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 BO - I guess what I am saying is that there are Christians throughout the whole world that will be among the redeemed, and there is no doubt that there numerous different languages, or tongues, involved. I know that our denomination is in well over a hundred countries, so the different languages are many. When Christ comes and we are 'changed in the twinkling of an eye', we will all be able to communicate in one language again. I might pass on this information for study and comment. The word 'tongue' in the New Testament as defined in Strong's Concordance is 1100 "glossa" in the Greek, and is defined as follows: Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specifically one naturally unacquired):--tongue. So it appears that the use of tongues in the following texts in the New Testament is related to the spoken language learned from childhood as a native language (unacquired), and on the other hand, those languages that are acquired through the learning process. The texts are: Mark 16:17; Acts 2:3,4,11; 10:46; 19:6; Romans 3:13; 1st Cor 12:10,28,30; 13:1,8; 14:5,6,18,22,23,39; Rev. 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 16:10; and 17:15. The only variance in the New Testament was in 1st Cor 14:21, and is coded 2084 in the Greek and is defined as "heteroglossos" - from 2087 and 1100; other-tongued, i.e., a foreigner:--man of other tongue. Well, I doubt we will speak at all, we will 'know as we are known'. " the tongue; by implication, a language (specifically one naturally unacquired):--tongue" This means that the word means 'tongue' and is used to refer to a language, by implication, as in 'the mother tongue' in english. I doubt very much that the Greek had a word for languages you learned yourself, as opposed to languages God gave you. Why would they have a word for a concept that did not exist until Acts 2 ?
Bert Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Originally Posted By: Lysimachus ...The translators were not perfect in everything. This is why we have scholars who know Greek inside and out writing books on such things. True, and it is also why it's a good idea to study the Bible with at least two translatons. Better yet is four or five good ones. Here's an example: In Acts 17: 23, the King James reads, "To The Unknown God." The King James Version does not read as you have written here. It is written as "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD". Written in all capitals is the same as being written with all small letters. However, you don't write an inscription on a monument in small letters. Aside from that, the translators were well aware of the difference between 'a god' and 'the God'. The New King James Version reads the same exact way. So do many other translations. The English Standard Version does a little better: "To the Unknown god." But they are wrong. The NIV got it right: "To an unknown god." The Greek lacks the definite article here. That's significant because if it had the definite article, it would mean the Greeks had a particular god who was known by that name. The Greek use of the definite article [the] is primarily for the purpose of identification. The NIV translation correctly shows that the Greeks had no particular god by that title but that they were being careful to give due worship all gods that could possibly exist. It explains why Paul called the Athenians "very religious."
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 God knows what is in the heart before a word is ever uttered from the mouth. That is how God would understand it. No, that's just waffle. If you don't understand what you're saying, how is it that you speak 'from your heart' ? How can the Devil cause you to do that ? Can't you see the convoluted mess you're getting in to ? Fact is, Paul never refers to any sort of satanic tongue, or differentiates in any way from the tongues he uses, and those used in Corinth.
Bert Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Quote: Well, I doubt we will speak at all, we will 'know as we are known'. " the tongue; by implication, a language (specifically one naturally unacquired):--tongue" This means that the word means 'tongue' and is used to refer to a language, by implication, as in 'the mother tongue' in english. I doubt very much that the Greek had a word for languages you learned yourself, as opposed to languages God gave you. Why would they have a word for a concept that did not exist until Acts 2? [/quote'] I would respond with the knowledge that the Greek words from which our English Bible was translated existed long before Paul wrote his epistles. If a person spoke Aramaic naturally, he would have had to learn Greek unnaturally...by studying or being helped by a tutor.
BibleOnly Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 I would respond with the knowledge that the Greek words from which our English Bible was translated existed long before Paul wrote his epistles. If a person spoke Aramaic naturally, he would have had to learn Greek unnaturally...by studying or being helped by a tutor. I'm not sure what this matters. Are you saying that some languages have a word for a language that comes to you via supernatural means, and that you do not learn ? English doesn't, that's why we call it 'speaking in tongues'.
Lysimachus Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 There is no 'doctrine of false tongues' in the Bible, you claim Paul only ever vaguely implied this, even when he said 'forbid not tongues', he was not clear that there's two types of tongues, and which should not be forbidden. Only someone who has already come to your conclusion, can find what you find in those verses. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
BibleOnly Posted December 14, 2011 Author Posted December 14, 2011 OK, so my post was not displayed, and I had a conversation with a moderator which made me realise that no matter how abusive you are, I'm responsible for my own actions and the way they reflect the values of Jesus. What you do, is up to you. I am editing this reply to try to make it smaller so that it will show in the site, as well as removing places where I succumbed to the temptation to lower myself to the level of your communications to me. Wow - you just won't drop this, nor will you listen. How interesting...Wow - you just won't drop this, nor will you listen. How interesting... Tongues, plural. Not a some tongue to an unknown god. It's referring to languages.
Dr. Rich Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Did Jesus say to obey the bible--OR did Jesus say to obey His words? Go fish?
BibleOnly Posted December 15, 2011 Author Posted December 15, 2011 As noted in another thread, I am ignoring you, in the hope that you take your heresy elsewhere.
Recommended Posts