Ok I understand that you do not like calling any ONE a "Tryune_God" I chose that name not to say that i am a god or God. It is just a name that was not taken on GSC, (wonder why lol lol) Now I am not trying to change anyone, this is just another view point. And also i stand for trinity, so how i see these verses will not be what you are use to seeing.
1 Cor. 14:1 belongs to Chap 13. "Follow after [diokete] love ..." diokete= pursue,chase,hunt,run after. making love the object to run to.
1Cor. 14:2 For he that speaks in tongue (glossia) speaks not to man but to God: For no man understands him: however in (his) spirit he speaks mysteries."
Now I put in (his), it is very important to see (to me) What spirit. And as my stand I clearly see in Cor 14 "The Holy Spirit" is not in this context at all. Some would agree on GSC because, they do not see "The Holy Spirit" but "holy spirit" so we could say that "The 3rd part of the Godhead" is not in this context together. aman. But where we will not come together is the fact i see that "spirit", in Cor 14 is "mans" (that even the child of the Satan has). Lets not spring into a debate here, I just want to share with you what I have learned.
Paul is saying here "I do not understand you" "The rest of the people does not either" "well God must" I don't" This language is unknown among men, not human, not understandable, a fabricated language that was prob. not a language at all. Paul shows in this Verse that this practice did exist. And some thought they could commune with God with it. Paul is not approving of it to me. He seems to be saying "look at your selfs, what are you doing ??" Paul does not say "the utterances reach God, or is GOD ordained he says "no one understands this babbling"
After all why communicate with God in a language unknown to him or to anyone ?
Does God understand all human dialects ?
Does it make any logic to try to talk to God with out knowing what you are saying ?
Prayer is a expression of our complete dependence !! so if I do not know what I am saying I can not even get this done.
Do not reply with the answers to these questions. this is something i ask myself.
I have ran out of time for tonight and i will cont. on Verse 1-2.
That's certainly an interesting take on "perfect" prayer, that it's the essence that is to be perfect, not the technique. Even if it proved to be non-scriptural, it would still be profoundly wise advise.
Holy hugs, Bro.
Welcome, TG
Have you perused some of the articles and such?
No I have been in the chat room, and looked over what "Word_Wolf" had to say in his Thread for Noobs. He did a nice work there.
1Cor. 14:2 For he that speaks in tongues speaks not to man but to God: For no man understands him: however in (his) spirit he speaks mysteries."
After all why communicate with God in a language unknown to him or to anyone ?
Does God understand all human dialects ?
Does it make any logic to try to talk to God with out knowing what you are saying ?
I have ran out of time for tonight and i will cont. on Verse 1-2.
Until next time God Bless
Hi TG!
The Verse that you quoted answers the first two of these questions.
As for the third question concerning the logic of talking to God without "you" knowing what you are saying...mans logic is not necessarily logical to God. His ways are greater than ours so I try not to degrade God or what He does with my logic. But I do understand why you would ask that question.
On a side note has anyone else visited any of the sites that are listed in the banner above this thread? Very interesting stuff...food for thought.
Hi Ya'll! Hope you dont mind me crashing your thread!
Now God does nothing, creates nothing without a reason. He gave us a brain to do what "think". He gives redemption by way of Christ because man kind needs it. Everything he does, he does it for a reason. This applies to the gift of speaking in tongues, whither it comes from our spirit or from God. God speaks to us by way of his word, in a dialect we do understand. So the reason for a dialect is so that it would be understood. Speaking to God, or people in a ecstatic utterance cannot even accomplish this (being understood).
Looking into the word "glossolalia" it only appears in Cor. 14 it refers to the Cor. ecstatic utterances in the NT. why ? because the COR was babes in Christ and the least mature. The letter to the Cor. is is a letter of Correction.
In the next post I will let you see what I have found out in the 4th clause in this verse, and in the word "pneumati"
3rd clause in verse 2: "for no one understands him" the word rendered "understand" is "akouei" it means "hear". And the word "for" would be better understood if translated as "in truth, in fact"
"in truth, in fact no one understands him"
4th clause in verse 2: "howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries" is "howbeit" a conjunction ?? well the word "de" (1161) is the Greek word used here and it is a "particle" and would be better understood as "indeed" and it goes with the previous
"in truth, in fact no one understands him" "indeed he is speaking mysteries in the spirit"
The word spirit does not mean "The Holy Spirit" here but the persons spirit who is speaking, this is understood by
verse 14: "for if I pray in a unknown tongue my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful"
It uses what is called a possessive pronoun "my" (mou) and the Def. Art. "to" (3588) Lit. "the spirit mine" I have seen this by several Greek Scholars / Grammar heads, and I am forced to go with them on this one.
The Holy Spirit can not be reached by speaking ecstatic utterances that cannot be understood. The Holy Spirit reveals Gods purpose he never hides it.
verse 16: "else when you will bless with the spirit"
how does a person bless with the Holy Spirit , if he does not understand you ?? The subject in this verse is, the one who is speaking in a ecstatic utterance that is not understood by the listeners, and he is speaking mysteries to his self brought forth by his own imagination.
I see that the "ecstatic utterances" was created by the Corinthians own spirit. Paul says these tongues not a understood human dialect, there not prophesying, there going to God only, there a creation of mans own spirit, and no one understands them I see that Paul counts them as meaningless.
Now here is the first two verses in this Chapter, and what "I have seen" by way of other teachers in the holy text, this has soaked deep within my inner most being. Not to argue with anyone here at all !! This is like I said "just another view point". And if we only look at what only one teacher has taught us, we have put ourself in a box. I was a Pentecostal Minister for years and i did not always see tongues this way. Maybe God has shown you more deeper things than what I have shared with you, If he has Godspeed by friends.
3rd clause in verse 2: "for no one understands him" the word rendered "understand" is "akouei" it means "hear". And the word "for" would be better understood if translated as "in truth, in fact"
"in truth, in fact no one understands him"
4th clause in verse 2: "howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries" is "howbeit" a conjunction ?? well the word "de" (1161) is the Greek word used here and it is a "particle" and would be better understood as "indeed" and it goes with the previous
"Akouei", should be translated "understand" because it should be understood it is just not the hearing with the physical ear, but hearing with the end point of understanding.
"in truth, in fact no one understands him" "indeed he is speaking mysteries in the spirit"
"de" - is a conjunctive particle, marking the superaddition of a clause, whether in opposition or in continuation, to what has preceded, and it may be variously rendered: but, on the other hand, and, also, now, etc.
To translate as "indeed" would cause one to know that the Grk word used in the text would be "kai" as an emphatic. However, this is not the case.
The word spirit does not mean "The Holy Spirit" here but the persons spirit who is speaking, this is understood by
verse 14: "for if I pray in a unknown tongue my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful"
It uses what is called a possessive pronoun "my" (mou) and the Def. Art. "to" (3588) Lit. "the spirit mine" I have seen this by several Greek Scholars / Grammar heads, and I am forced to go with them on this one.
"pneumati" is a dative singular neuter would probably better fit the person, but SIT is a manifestation of the HS, it is HE that is manifesting Himself through the person's spirit which then utters the tongues.
So the question is not just the person that is speaking but who is giving the utterance. If I am sent with a message to declare, it may be my mouth speaking, but I am speaking for another and thus the words belong to that person and not necessarily to me.
The Holy Spirit can not be reached by speaking ecstatic utterances that cannot be understood. The Holy Spirit reveals Gods purpose he never hides it.
I most definitely would have to disagree with this assertion. He can be reached, because He is the one giving the tongues in the first place. I cannot tell you how many times, the HS commands me to SIT right now. If He couldn't be reached, I wouldn't bother. Who wants a distant and impersonal God?
verse 16: "else when you will bless with the spirit"
how does a person bless with the Holy Spirit , if he does not understand you ?? The subject in this verse is, the one who is speaking in a ecstatic utterance that is not understood by the listeners, and he is speaking mysteries to his self brought forth by his own imagination.
"Euloges" is rendered bless, but if I had translated this passage, I would have chosen the better rendering of "PRAISE" OR "GLORIFICATION." You are absolutely correct, one is not BLESSING towards a congregation, but the BLESSINGS OR PRAISE OR GLORIFICATION is heaven bound. It is uttered towards the Heavenly Father. Your sweet words are for HIS ears only. It is most definitely not IMAGINATION, brother. The mysteries are a two way street, for I believe through this process the Heavenly Father is also speaking HIS mysteries to my spirit, which then His Holy Spirit can cause to come to my 5 senses at whatever time He wishes.
I see that the "ecstatic utterances" was created by the Corinthians own spirit. Paul says these tongues not a understood human dialect, there not prophesying, there going to God only, there a creation of mans own spirit, and no one understands them I see that Paul counts them as meaningless.
Paul does not count them meaningless in their entire sense, but only if people are trying to understand them and trying to bring them into a 5 senses realm. Joe SIT and then I say, "Hmmm, I think it means...."
Now here is the first two verses in this Chapter, and what "I have seen" by way of other teachers in the holy text, this has soaked deep within my inner most being. Not to argue with anyone here at all !! This is like I said "just another view point". And if we only look at what only one teacher has taught us, we have put ourself in a box. I was a Pentecostal Minister for years and i did not always see tongues this way. Maybe God has shown you more deeper things than what I have shared with you, If he has Godspeed by friends.
God bless
Indeed, this is why you should read other scholars and let the HS teach you and lead you. Will everything you read be 100% correct? No! But all too often people in general, not everyone, are afraid to read outside of their denominational outlook because when they encounter differering viewpoints of theology, it frightens them deep down and so to avoid this confusion, they'll read only RC books or Presbyterian books or PFAL books, etc.
I do not wish to apply a brush stroke of color upon you, but it really sounds like your disillusioned to the max. I hope you get past this. I know it took me a long time to get off of the Waycycle, but it is do-able.
God Bless you in your efforts, I hope this humbly offered Greek information will help you in your pursuit of Truth. Please remember, Truth is not a "what", but a "WHO!" .
3rd clause in verse 2: "for no one understands him" the word rendered "understand" is "akouei" it means "hear". And the word "for" would be better understood if translated as "in truth, in fact"
P.S. Your pic was a real shocker! Isn't there anything better you could have chosen from? Let me detach myself
Well a pastor of a local Church, was speaking in a "ecstatic utterance" when:
HE BEAT ME AND TOOK ME TO THE GROUND THIS YEAR!!"
He was charged with "ASSULT" for doing that to me.
I wonder if that was THEE HOLY GHOST ??
A lady in a local Church came in Speaking in what they call "the heavenly Lang." ohh my... everyone there thought she had the Holy Ghost " Boy O boy " well In just a week she sold a Martian D28 to a Preacher for a market value of 1500.00 cash. I went with him on the sale. She said "oh my husband had this most of his life, and there is nothing wrong with it". Well he took it home and after he played 2 songs the putty fell out, and the tone changed on it "it was cracked." which cost around 700.00 to fix, i said to the Preacher "And she spake in tongues too". The Preacher (being for SIT ) said to me "I FIGURED SHE WAS ONE OF THEM" hA HA I about died...lol lol, after he understood what he agreed to, he felt bad.
Wonder if THE HOLY SPIRIT was speaking in a utterance through her at the services we had together. ??
I was a teacher at this Local Church and most knew I did not see the "sign gifts for today" (that is another debate) but the Pastor did. All was well and many were blessed by it , to see that we could worship together. I was watching to see if he would what you all call "Manifest". The reason I watched is because I knew the Bible in Gal. Ch 5: it teaches "The fruit of the Spirit is the real "Manifest"." and if a person professes to be Christian, and lives day after day in a sinful state and did not produce or "manifest" these... "he will not "ENTER" the kingdom", and turn has "never" been a Christian. Passages like this one, is the ones we must ask our selfs, (and I do)
"am I manifesting these fruits "
"is this the manifesting of the Holy Spirit for us today"
Almost everyone in this town knows the Pastor and mock him bad because of the life stile he lived. It really hurt his out reach in the community, and the Church sat mostly empty because of it. I tried my best "to know no one after the flesh". One service he finally stood up and:
"e col a ba higha, e shon dia, e sodia a mo tia "
I said within my self "ok now lets hear God talk through you" and sure thing like clock work...say no more.
One month later to two, the Church burned to the Ground, his girlfriend found out about the one in Ky so you put it together. What does that have to do with this, I am stuck with facts, and the fact is
1- The Pastor that beat me
2- and The Pastor who had a bad outreach.
3- And the woman who sold the Martin
All of them was doing every thing contrary to Gal 5 applied to the real "manifesting" and yet they still was "SIT" as VPW named it , or sorry "Charles H.Parham".
I do believe that if I am SIT it is "lifting myself up" and not "others" and therefore it is a selfish motive, and cannot be love at all, because love is given away. If I SIT I am just making a useless Noise in the air (to me). This is just a personal view that I have of real life events. And I have looked at my 'SIT" in the past that I have done, I see it was all just "my spirit period".
Thanks for your ART. and exploring the Greek with me, and oh yes i see you "ex" from the Text hummmm I think I will like you, even though you need to see this ... hee hee... lol lol just kidding woo woo God bless you I thought I ran you all off the thread I told you all I had another view point. Hay I will say i see how you come up with some of those renderings but I cant say I can agree with your theory in general.
I really didn't know anything about him until you mentioned his name.
I googled it and read the information about his involvement with SIT and baptism in the spirit.
Thanks
Sure I have been through the mill on this topic lol lol . he is the one that started this mix up in 1902, strange that Taz Russel and him established these movements in the same year. Yes VPW just took up this theory as well. I will say VPW did take a lot of this theory but he did not go as far as CHP. CHP taught that the "Holy Ghost" came after conversion, some call this teaching the 2ed work of grace. I have came against this teaching, when I found out by the late "Dr. J. Vernon Mcgee" in this series "through the bible" as he unfolds the truth about 'Spirit baptism' and I was a assistant Pastor at a Pentecost Church of God at the time lol lol.
Dr J Vernon Mcgee brings out "sound teaching" when he hits "LEV 22,23,24, Cor. 12 ETC. as He unfolds the REAL TRUTH in his teaching about the body and bride of Christ. I would like to add here that if a person really thinks this is true teaching and "you must speak in the Heavenly Language to have the baptism of the Holy Ghost, look at just one Verse:
"For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body" 1Cor.12:13
And in that verse it is clear what Spirit baptism does. "places a believer in the body of Christ". Further there is problems for the trinitarian pentecostal your teaching says I can have the Holy Spirit but not the HOLY GHOST (until i SIT). How does that match when you are for a 3 part God. here is what you say to me "God the Father, God the Son God the Holy Ghost, God the Spirit. so you bring to people a quad God (to me). Oh I forgot we taught but "THEE HOLY GHOST" is the FULLNESS of God.
brandhamittes and oneness Pentecostal teach "you must SIT to be saved" and use Acts 2:38 as there base Verse. And water baptism is a MUST, and it must be in "Jesus name only" and they butcher MT 28:19 bad. baptismal regeneration with evidence of SIT is the REAL EVIDENCE of a TRUE Christian.
I do think Oral Roberts should have went farther when he split from classic Pentecost, and there 2ed work of grace theory. Oral did come to see that the Spirit baptism came upon salvation, and the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit was the same person in the Godhead, but he was still errant in the tongue theory (I think anyway).
Well a pastor of a local Church, was speaking in a "ecstatic utterance" when:
HE BEAT ME AND TOOK ME TO THE GROUND THIS YEAR!!"
He was charged with "ASSULT" for doing that to me.
I wonder if that was THEE HOLY GHOST ??
A lady in a local Church came in Speaking in what they call "the heavenly Lang." ohh my... everyone there thought she had the Holy Ghost " Boy O boy " well In just a week she sold a Martian D28 to a Preacher for a market value of 1500.00 cash. I went with him on the sale. She said "oh my husband had this most of his life, and there is nothing wrong with it". Well he took it home and after he played 2 songs the putty fell out, and the tone changed on it "it was cracked." which cost around 700.00 to fix, i said to the Preacher "And she spake in tongues too". The Preacher (being for SIT ) said to me "I FIGURED SHE WAS ONE OF THEM" hA HA I about died...lol lol, after he understood what he agreed to, he felt bad.
Wonder if THE HOLY SPIRIT was speaking in a utterance through her at the services we had together. ??
I was a teacher at this Local Church and most knew I did not see the "sign gifts for today" (that is another debate) but the Pastor did. All was well and many were blessed by it , to see that we could worship together. I was watching to see if he would what you all call "Manifest". The reason I watched is because I knew the Bible in Gal. Ch 5: it teaches "The fruit of the Spirit is the real "Manifest"." and if a person professes to be Christian, and lives day after day in a sinful state and did not produce or "manifest" these... "he will not "ENTER" the kingdom", and turn has "never" been a Christian. Passages like this one, is the ones we must ask our selfs, (and I do)
"am I manifesting these fruits "
"is this the manifesting of the Holy Spirit for us today"
Almost everyone in this town knows the Pastor and mock him bad because of the life stile he lived. It really hurt his out reach in the community, and the Church sat mostly empty because of it. I tried my best "to know no one after the flesh". One service he finally stood up and:
"e col a ba higha, e shon dia, e sodia a mo tia "
I said within my self "ok now lets hear God talk through you" and sure thing like clock work...say no more.
One month later to two, the Church burned to the Ground, his girlfriend found out about the one in Ky so you put it together. What does that have to do with this, I am stuck with facts, and the fact is
1- The Pastor that beat me
2- and The Pastor who had a bad outreach.
3- And the woman who sold the Martin
All of them was doing every thing contrary to Gal 5 applied to the real "manifesting" and yet they still was "SIT" as VPW named it , or sorry "Charles H.Parham".
I do believe that if I am SIT it is "lifting myself up" and not "others" and therefore it is a selfish motive, and cannot be love at all, because love is given away. If I SIT I am just making a useless Noise in the air (to me). This is just a personal view that I have of real life events. And I have looked at my 'SIT" in the past that I have done, I see it was all just "my spirit period".
God bless
There is a difference between "lifting yourself up" which I would take to be pride and "building yourselfup" by SIT. The fruit is displayed because one is in submission to the Lord Jesus and the leadings of the HS. Fruit is not grown because you can occasionally be gentle, kind, temperate, etc.
Just because some people are off (balance) lol, doesn't mean that everyone who SIT is the same. I have never assaulted anyone while SIT, nor have I ever deliberately sold faulty goods. I tend to fear the Lord Jesus just a little too much.
So, your last comment was a little unclear..."Thanks for your ART. and exploring the Greek with me, and oh yes i see you "ex" from the Text hummmm I think I will like you, even though you need to see this ... hee hee... lol lol just kidding woo woo God bless you I thought I ran you all off the thread I told you all I had another view point. Hay I will say i see how you come up with some of those renderings but I cant say I can agree with your theory in general."
Thanks for my ART?? Ex from the Text?? So you don't agree with the Greek to English renderings?
There is a difference between "lifting yourself up" which I would take to be pride and "building yourselfup" by SIT. The fruit is displayed because one is in submission to the Lord Jesus and the leadings of the HS. Fruit is not grown because you can occasionally be gentle, kind, temperate, etc.
Just because some people are off (balance) lol, doesn't mean that everyone who SIT is the same. I have never assaulted anyone while SIT, nor have I ever deliberately sold faulty goods. I tend to fear the Lord Jesus just a little too much.
So, your last comment was a little unclear..."Thanks for your ART. and exploring the Greek with me, and oh yes i see you "ex" from the Text hummmm I think I will like you, even though you need to see this ... hee hee... lol lol just kidding woo woo God bless you I thought I ran you all off the thread I told you all I had another view point. Hay I will say i see how you come up with some of those renderings but I cant say I can agree with your theory in general."
Thanks for my ART?? Ex from the Text?? So you don't agree with the Greek to English renderings?
Do let me know...Bless you and SIT much (anyway).
Sorry I should have been more clear,
Thanks for my ART??
( what you shared with us in the GK in your article above)
ex from the Text??
The Greek ex or ek in Gen = as though a part was taken from the whole. like "eklego" get out from the scriptures using logic is what i was trying to say :).
So you don't agree with the Greek to English renderings?
English can not be "the original" English can not carry the Grammar Support, therefore it cannot be a True Translation at all. God gave it to us in Koine Greek, so we would need to have another, a more complex dialect to to translate it more accurate. But we have it paraphrased in many Dialects now "Praise God" that is super, i think we should use them all, and the Greek adds contrast to it.
Here is a story how God can use another translation.
We (a kitchen full of people) that had two interlinear bibles with 8 different Trans. in each of them. I had a AMP,RSV,NKJV,NRSV,NJ,LAMSA,NIV,KJV,NWT we had so many at our fingertips I cannot recall them all. We wanted to do a study to see what all these translators had to say about that big word "by" in Heb.1:2,JN1:3. and the word "God" in JN 1:1c.
They seen real fast and quick, after every one read about 20 different renderings of scholars translations, a girl (that was smart as a tack) spoke up after one in the group said "there all wrong" in HEB. there not going with the "accuracy" and the NWT is WAY out man..." The girl said your nuts, and out numbered bad, even the NWT has Heb right on with the other bibles. where did you go to school at. The kids really gave him a hassle over it. But to say that Eng. is not useful would be very wrong, and back to the box again i go lol lol.
There is a difference between "lifting yourself up" which I would take to be pride and "building yourselfup" by SIT.
What is the difference if I said
"lift ME"
"Build ME"
"magnify ME"
"edifith Me
It is MYSELF and Paul makes this clear. and that is what I think anyway, and the bible is saying here. "MY" in Cor. 14. And the word "spirit" can only be determined by its context, like "arche", as to what "spirit" or what "beginning". no where in this Chapter is God the Holy Spirit ever brought out. But "my spirit" is in this context several times. (just what i see here).
"He that speaks in a tongue edifieth HIMSELF"
Verse 14 "for if I pray in a tongue MY SPIRIT PRAYS"
"The fruit is displayed because one is in submission to the Lord Jesus and the leadings of the HS."
in submission to the Lord Jesus, AND IF a person is not in Sub. according to GAL. 5, will "NOT ENTER"and in turn has never been saved, and is guilty as of the people Christ speaks of in that last day in MT 7.
"Lord Lord (even profess his deity here) have not we taught in your name , in your name did all these things, Jesus says to them I NEVER KNEW you, depart from me you WORKERS OF SIN."
These People only professed, like "even the devils believe and tremble" there must be "faith that works" a "working faith"
but here is another debate, and lets move on. Wow I looked over just on these last couple posts we did, and there is some meat in just what we covered in these last two verses. Wow that was only two verses lol lol sheww wee. I do say you got me digging (in the word) here lol lol
Wow glad to hear your comment, and glad to see another view point ...makes me want to look at Verse 3 now hee hee
I must say I like that picture better because I am one of those kids that the last one got too
I see myself as still in the womb of God
But I have a question for you
Have you ever looked into tongues taught in the Old Testament bible
example of tongues a language that must be interpreted for us to understand better
Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Dan 2:1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.
Dan 5:12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Gen 41:12 And there was there with us a young man, an Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he did interpret.
after reading these verses and thinking about the context I came to believe a dream from God = speaking in tongues
was not picture art the first known language of men
( what you shared with us in the GK in your article above)
English can not be "the original" English can not carry the Grammar Support, therefore it cannot be a True Translation at all. God gave it to us in Koine Greek, so we would need to have another, a more complex dialect to to translate it more accurate. But we have it paraphrased in many Dialects now "Praise God" that is super, i think we should use them all, and the Greek adds contrast to it.
Who says that English does not have the Grammar Support. In fact, strange as it might seem, I never understood the grammar rules (not completely) in my own language until I learned Greek. The Koine Greek language is a highly inflected language; English is not as highly inflected but there are ways around it and the translation still remains clear from Greek to English.
Here is a story how God can use another translation.
We (a kitchen full of people) that had two interlinear bibles with 8 different Trans. in each of them. I had a AMP,RSV,NKJV,NRSV,NJ,LAMSA,NIV,KJV,NWT we had so many at our fingertips I cannot recall them all. We wanted to do a study to see what all these translators had to say about that big word "by" in Heb.1:2,JN1:3. and the word "God" in JN 1:1c.
They seen real fast and quick, after every one read about 20 different renderings of scholars translations, a girl (that was smart as a tack) spoke up after one in the group said "there all wrong" in HEB. there not going with the "accuracy" and the NWT is WAY out man..." The girl said your nuts, and out numbered bad, even the NWT has Heb right on with the other bibles. where did you go to school at. The kids really gave him a hassle over it. But to say that Eng. is not useful would be very wrong, and back to the box again i go lol lol.
NWT or New World Trans by the JW's is whacked out especially in John 1:1.
What is the difference if I said
"lift ME"
"Build ME"
"magnify ME"
"edifith Me
It is MYSELF and Paul makes this clear. and that is what I think anyway, and the bible is saying here. "MY" in Cor. 14. And the word "spirit" can only be determined by its context, like "arche", as to what "spirit" or what "beginning". no where in this Chapter is God the Holy Spirit ever brought out. But "my spirit" is in this context several times. (just what i see here).
"He that speaks in a tongue edifieth HIMSELF"
The difference is that it is the tongues that are doing the building, which is the manifestation of the HS as opposed to the egotistical lifting up of myself by myself. This is what the inmature Corinthians were doing when Paul corrected them.
Verse 14 "for if I pray in a tongue MY SPIRIT PRAYS"
in submission to the Lord Jesus, AND IF a person is not in Sub. according to GAL. 5, will "NOT ENTER"and in turn has never been saved, and is guilty as of the people Christ speaks of in that last day in MT 7.
"Lord Lord (even profess his deity here) have not we taught in your name , in your name did all these things, Jesus says to them I NEVER KNEW you, depart from me you WORKERS OF SIN."
These People only professed, like "even the devils believe and tremble" there must be "faith that works" a "working faith"
but here is another debate, and lets move on. Wow I looked over just on these last couple posts we did, and there is some meat in just what we covered in these last two verses. Wow that was only two verses lol lol sheww wee. I do say you got me digging (in the word) here lol lol
Wow glad to hear your comment, and glad to see another view point ...makes me want to look at Verse 3 now hee hee
Yes Indeed!! When I first saw this and realized it, it cured me forever of the heretical teaching of "eternal security", now I live in an awesome fear of the ONE TRUE GOD and HIS SON, THE LORD YESHUA. But He expects those who follow Him to live accordingly, and not just SAY they are Christians, or even go to church and put on your SUNDAY-GO-TO-MEETING-CLOTHES, nor loudly say PRAISE JESUS, HALLELUJAH! and then stab and maul other Christians. It is one thing to disagree or even reprove, but this is not what I am talking about.
Who says that English does not have the Grammar Support. In fact, strange as it might seem, I never understood the grammar rules (not completely) in my own language until I learned Greek. The Koine Greek language is a highly inflected language; English is not as highly inflected but there are ways around it and the translation still remains clear from Greek to English.
True there is ways around it and that is why I do not "put down" paraphrases, only sometimes in the sections where there scholar was "errant", or they may have a good point somewhere it is useful at times :)
the translation still remains clear from Greek to English.
True but it then becomes less accurate, and a paraphrase (to me).
Let the word in its God-Breathed dialect show us how accurate it is cf to ENG. I am sorry to say this my friend, but I am forced by what I have seen in GK to say the KG is way more colorful and we cannot carry what is here (to my understanding). no harm meant to you. but it is just what I have learned till this day.
Several of us was researching out to see if The Word was eternal in John chapter one.
so we hit this word "een" or "en" in the Ipf tense.
where is the grammar support for a TRUE translation here?
There is none for the word "een" (that I have seen), in this context at all.
Some scholars think this to be a eternal verb. Can we "accuratly" place this in English, unless I add a word, and if I add a word we no longer have the inspired written word, but just "another translation". Can that than be a "true" translation??
JN 1:1,2.
en arche EN ho logos kia ho logos EN pros tou theou kia theos EN ho logos hutos EN en arche pros tou theou.
Why add a word in Eng. here to use it as a paraphrase, because if we would want contrast or get to the "rightly divided word" one would need to place it in Imperf tense into ENG. Translations put in mostly Past here, because of "the beginning" that JN 1 and verse 2 is speaking of here. There looking at Gen:1 "en arche" in the LXX. but lets move on and not get into " arche" but note that the "en " applied to Christ in the context of JN 1 and it is is ALWAYS IN Ipf. (to my understanding)
"Before any beginning "had always been" the Word
and the Word "had always been" with the God
and God "had always been" the Word
this person "had always been".
A "paraphrase" on the word "en" and more accurate than almost every English translations that I have seen on this word.
"the Word had always been God" they put it in the past because JN 1 is speaking of the "eternity" of the word, and our minds can only think of the first "arche" in Gen. but the word "een", says the Word goes farther back than any beginning, and is eternal.
This is just what i see and I see they have good and bads to them lol lol.
NWT or New World Trans by the JW's is whacked out especially in John 1:1.
Despite they (Jonathese Gerber, and his wife) missed this word "theos" and tries to add a Indef. Art. He did pick up on the Word "arche" in Jn. 1a,2. In his "In beginning" but messes it up in that Jesus Christ was first created in many passages with the word "archee' . So I do like to say that I see what he was looking at in JN 1:1,2- "en arche" but it is to the Watchtowers shame to allow Gerber to push his "Slanted Translation" in to there "New World Translation" and it is even worse I have seen some from VPWs group go with Gerber on this one, and add to the words in JN 1:1c. "a god".
True there is ways around it and that is why I do not "put down" paraphrases, only sometimes in the sections where there scholar was "errant", or they may have a good point somewhere it is useful at times :)
True but it then becomes less accurate, and a paraphrase (to me).
Let the word in its God-Breathed dialect show us how accurate it is cf to ENG. I am sorry to say this my friend, but I am forced by what I have seen in GK to say the KG is way more colorful and we cannot carry what is here (to my understanding). no harm meant to you. but it is just what I have learned till this day.
Several of us was researching out to see if The Word was eternal in John chapter one.
so we hit this word "een" or "en" in the Ipf tense.
where is the grammar support for a TRUE translation here?
which verse? V1?
There is none for the word "een" (that I have seen), in this context at all.
Some scholars think this to be a eternal verb. Can we "accuratly" place this in English, unless I add a word, and if I add a word we no longer have the inspired written word, but just "another translation". Can that than be a "true" translation??
JN 1:1,2.
en arche EN ho logos kia ho logos EN pros tou theou kia theos EN ho logos hutos EN en arche pros tou theou.
Why add a word in Eng. here to use it as a paraphrase, because if we would want contrast or get to the "rightly divided word" one would need to place it in Imperf tense into ENG. Translations put in mostly Past here, because of "the beginning" that JN 1 and verse 2 is speaking of here. There looking at Gen:1 "en arche" in the LXX. but lets move on and not get into " arche" but note that the "en " applied to Christ in the context of JN 1 and it is is ALWAYS IN Ipf. (to my understanding)
"Before any beginning "had always been" the Word
and the Word "had always been" with the God
and God "had always been" the Word
this person "had always been".
A "paraphrase" on the word "en" and more accurate than almost every English translations that I have seen on this word.
"the Word had always been God" they put it in the past because JN 1 is speaking of the "eternity" of the word, and our minds can only think of the first "arche" in Gen. but the word "een", says the Word goes farther back than any beginning, and is eternal.
This is just what i see and I see they have good and bads to them lol lol.
Despite they (Jonathese Gerber, and his wife) missed this word "theos" and tries to add a Indef. Art. He did pick up on the Word "arche" in Jn. 1a,2. In his "In beginning" but messes it up in that Jesus Christ was first created in many passages with the word "archee' . So I do like to say that I see what he was looking at in JN 1:1,2- "en arche" but it is to the Watchtowers shame to allow Gerber to push his "Slanted Translation" in to there "New World Translation" and it is even worse I have seen some from VPWs group go with Gerber on this one, and add to the words in JN 1:1c. "a god".
God bless
My trans: " In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and The Word was God." Straight from the Greek, it is an easy verse to translate.
I have to go now, I'm running out of time. I would have liked to say more on this topic. I won't be able to get back to this until after the holiday.
My trans: " In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and The Word was God." Straight from the Greek, it is an easy verse to translate.
You should look in your Greek closer, I see several problems. You said "Straight from the Greek" Imposable you left out a Def. Art. before the word "theon" in Sect b. And added another "the" in Sect A, and scrambled up
Sect. C.
1) where is your word support for "the" in "in beginning" ?
2) Why did you leave out the word "the" in " with THE God" ?
3) Why did you scramble up the words [you quoted] "and the Word was God" ?
4) Why did you put the word "een" [has always been] in the past tense ?
If it is so easy why add, and scramble, and subtract, place in the wrong case, these words ??
here it is "from the Greek" putting "een" in the present tense, because we see it in past with your rendering and it is not either past or present in Greek.
In Beginning is the Word and the Word is with the God and God is the Word
This makes as much science as putting that word "een" in the past to me.
the reason this is so important because the inspired Dialect of the NT. is pure and spotless "Holy" "ios". in Set C, it makes the Word a Person. Therefore it is not a "written word" or a "word of speech", but "a person". Some sects has tried to dance around this for years and the word is very clear that "ho logos" in JN 1 is a person, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. But this is another debate.
This verse "paraphrased" to ENG for a clear understanding of what is seen in the Greek, therefore It is not a Translation at all.
"BEFORE ANY BEGINNING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD AND THE WORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN WITH THEE GOD AND GOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD THIS PERSON HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BEGINNING WITH THEE GOD."
Just what I see here. look at your Greek in this Verse, see what is going on here. You are a wise man and I really enjoy talking to you, Hope to hear form you after the Holidays. You should look this up in the Greek.
Not to bust your bubble (you being a god and all) but the sect of the Logos predated Christianity by hundreds of years.
The first verse of John is verbatim from the sect's scripture and whether or not "pros" was "together with yet distinctly independent of" was hotly debated for centuries to the point of causing a denominational split within the cult.
Not to bust your bubble (you being a god and all) but the sect of the Logos predated Christianity by hundreds of years.
The first verse of John is verbatim from the sect's scripture and whether or not "pros" was "together with yet distinctly independent of" was hotly debated for centuries to the point of causing a denominational split within the cult.
I am not god first off it is just a screen name that was not chosen, and it is a statement of faith.
"together with yet distinctly independent of" this is a VPW Interp. (maybe more) of the word "pros" Although he does make a attempt to show that "the word is not Thee God" there is no debate about the word "pros" today by REAL scholars it is proven can be "face to face" "toward" "with". Look OUTSIDE the ways resources (not saying you do not).
"Pros" 4311
Prep. governing the gen.,dat.,acc primary=Toward.
Now I think it is important for me to say this at this time here.
Rarely is "pros" and only in later use, this word drops its meaning as "motion, direction" and pros with the acc. means the same as "para" in the Dat. "near" and in JN one we see this. cf MT 13:56, Mark 2:2,4:1, 6:3, Phile.1:13.
Now here is something I just learned this week, and had to re group my thinking. I had thought Pros only showed motion. I looked closer as I came to see "pros" more accurately. This was brought to me by a Greek almost 90 Yo., who speaks Greek 'DR. Peter Courtless" from the American Baptist association. I came home and what did I see... just what I shared with you to be true.
now you are correct in that 'ho logos" goes way back before the NT. (you did not bust my bubble I knew this) Glad you brought it out.
The "logos" was known by many, (before Christ becoming flesh) That the Logos was the creator of the universe. That is why many think thee Holy Spirit choose to use "ho logos" in JN Chapter 1 as the creator of ALL things (V3), and therefore God (1:1C). Not a god (1:1C), and not the Father (1:1B). He (v2) is "the Logos" not "a" Logos (v-1,a,b,c) Christ is Logos (v-14) "creator of all things"(v-3) Logos is very clear in these verses (to me) who he is.
Thank you for your input it is a pleasure. I would love to go on in this Chapter, but this thread is about SIT. I think we have so much to share here, we may need a thread on it.
The PFAL definition of pros is not something he pulled out of his butt.
The pros "together with yet distinctly independent of" argument predates VP by thousands of years.
You use a big dart there "YOUR WRONG" and your user name says "lovematters" hummm I am confused
I have been wrong before, and I am sure I am wrong on stuff now and I admit it. That is why I try stay meek so I can receive the implanted word
I want to ask you what is more important:
1) the word of God
2) "argument predates VP by thousands of years"
So IF i am wrong on "argument predates VP by thousands of years" no big deal at all. But if I am wrong in the Word THAT IS A BIG DEAL. So I take your "YOUR WRONG" as no threat at all. Sorry I do not want to come off to you or anyone as harsh AT ALL, If I have please forgive me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
17
33
19
Popular Days
Aug 28
22
Aug 26
19
Feb 15
17
Sep 1
12
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 19 posts
cman 17 posts
anotherDan 33 posts
TRIUNE_GOD 19 posts
Popular Days
Aug 28 2007
22 posts
Aug 26 2007
19 posts
Feb 15 2010
17 posts
Sep 1 2007
12 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
No problem RobertErasmus. I do very much enjoy your sharings. But I do like the doctrinal section here and don't want anyone to be intimidated to say what they think. Of course there are going to b
Sunesis
Well, Mr. RobertErasmus, from my study, I do not believe tongues today is what it was then. You can call my opinion "poppycock" all you want, but you have just lowered yourself to me. If you can't s
sirguessalot
i can suggest starting with a mutual consent based-process for any adult discussion ...including doctrinal.. rather ordinary...and any good marriage or friendship is based on it illustrated by ask
Posted Images
TRIUNE_GOD
Ok I understand that you do not like calling any ONE a "Tryune_God" I chose that name not to say that i am a god or God. It is just a name that was not taken on GSC, (wonder why lol lol) Now I am not trying to change anyone, this is just another view point. And also i stand for trinity, so how i see these verses will not be what you are use to seeing.
1 Cor. 14:1 belongs to Chap 13. "Follow after [diokete] love ..." diokete= pursue,chase,hunt,run after. making love the object to run to.
1Cor. 14:2 For he that speaks in tongue (glossia) speaks not to man but to God: For no man understands him: however in (his) spirit he speaks mysteries."
Now I put in (his), it is very important to see (to me) What spirit. And as my stand I clearly see in Cor 14 "The Holy Spirit" is not in this context at all. Some would agree on GSC because, they do not see "The Holy Spirit" but "holy spirit" so we could say that "The 3rd part of the Godhead" is not in this context together. aman. But where we will not come together is the fact i see that "spirit", in Cor 14 is "mans" (that even the child of the Satan has). Lets not spring into a debate here, I just want to share with you what I have learned.
Paul is saying here "I do not understand you" "The rest of the people does not either" "well God must" I don't" This language is unknown among men, not human, not understandable, a fabricated language that was prob. not a language at all. Paul shows in this Verse that this practice did exist. And some thought they could commune with God with it. Paul is not approving of it to me. He seems to be saying "look at your selfs, what are you doing ??" Paul does not say "the utterances reach God, or is GOD ordained he says "no one understands this babbling"
After all why communicate with God in a language unknown to him or to anyone ?
Does God understand all human dialects ?
Does it make any logic to try to talk to God with out knowing what you are saying ?
Prayer is a expression of our complete dependence !! so if I do not know what I am saying I can not even get this done.
Do not reply with the answers to these questions. this is something i ask myself.
I have ran out of time for tonight and i will cont. on Verse 1-2.
Until next time God Bless
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
No I have been in the chat room, and looked over what "Word_Wolf" had to say in his Thread for Noobs. He did a nice work there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Hi TG!
The Verse that you quoted answers the first two of these questions.
As for the third question concerning the logic of talking to God without "you" knowing what you are saying...mans logic is not necessarily logical to God. His ways are greater than ours so I try not to degrade God or what He does with my logic. But I do understand why you would ask that question.
On a side note has anyone else visited any of the sites that are listed in the banner above this thread? Very interesting stuff...food for thought.
Hi Ya'll!
Hope you dont mind me crashing your thread!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
Now God does nothing, creates nothing without a reason. He gave us a brain to do what "think". He gives redemption by way of Christ because man kind needs it. Everything he does, he does it for a reason. This applies to the gift of speaking in tongues, whither it comes from our spirit or from God. God speaks to us by way of his word, in a dialect we do understand. So the reason for a dialect is so that it would be understood. Speaking to God, or people in a ecstatic utterance cannot even accomplish this (being understood).
Looking into the word "glossolalia" it only appears in Cor. 14 it refers to the Cor. ecstatic utterances in the NT. why ? because the COR was babes in Christ and the least mature. The letter to the Cor. is is a letter of Correction.
In the next post I will let you see what I have found out in the 4th clause in this verse, and in the word "pneumati"
Edited by TRIUNE_GODLink to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
3rd clause in verse 2: "for no one understands him" the word rendered "understand" is "akouei" it means "hear". And the word "for" would be better understood if translated as "in truth, in fact"
"in truth, in fact no one understands him"
4th clause in verse 2: "howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries" is "howbeit" a conjunction ?? well the word "de" (1161) is the Greek word used here and it is a "particle" and would be better understood as "indeed" and it goes with the previous
"in truth, in fact no one understands him" "indeed he is speaking mysteries in the spirit"
The word spirit does not mean "The Holy Spirit" here but the persons spirit who is speaking, this is understood by
verse 14: "for if I pray in a unknown tongue my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful"
It uses what is called a possessive pronoun "my" (mou) and the Def. Art. "to" (3588) Lit. "the spirit mine" I have seen this by several Greek Scholars / Grammar heads, and I am forced to go with them on this one.
The Holy Spirit can not be reached by speaking ecstatic utterances that cannot be understood. The Holy Spirit reveals Gods purpose he never hides it.
verse 16: "else when you will bless with the spirit"
how does a person bless with the Holy Spirit , if he does not understand you ?? The subject in this verse is, the one who is speaking in a ecstatic utterance that is not understood by the listeners, and he is speaking mysteries to his self brought forth by his own imagination.
I see that the "ecstatic utterances" was created by the Corinthians own spirit. Paul says these tongues not a understood human dialect, there not prophesying, there going to God only, there a creation of mans own spirit, and no one understands them I see that Paul counts them as meaningless.
Now here is the first two verses in this Chapter, and what "I have seen" by way of other teachers in the holy text, this has soaked deep within my inner most being. Not to argue with anyone here at all !! This is like I said "just another view point". And if we only look at what only one teacher has taught us, we have put ourself in a box. I was a Pentecostal Minister for years and i did not always see tongues this way. Maybe God has shown you more deeper things than what I have shared with you, If he has Godspeed by friends.
God bless
Edited by TRIUNE_GODLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Indeed, this is why you should read other scholars and let the HS teach you and lead you. Will everything you read be 100% correct? No! But all too often people in general, not everyone, are afraid to read outside of their denominational outlook because when they encounter differering viewpoints of theology, it frightens them deep down and so to avoid this confusion, they'll read only RC books or Presbyterian books or PFAL books, etc.
I do not wish to apply a brush stroke of color upon you, but it really sounds like your disillusioned to the max. I hope you get past this. I know it took me a long time to get off of the Waycycle, but it is do-able.
God Bless you in your efforts, I hope this humbly offered Greek information will help you in your pursuit of Truth. Please remember, Truth is not a "what", but a "WHO!" .
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
LOL LOL I have got a ton of comments from it. lol lol. I think you are Refering to the VPW one ?? he he
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
Well a pastor of a local Church, was speaking in a "ecstatic utterance" when:
HE BEAT ME AND TOOK ME TO THE GROUND THIS YEAR!!"
He was charged with "ASSULT" for doing that to me.
I wonder if that was THEE HOLY GHOST ??
A lady in a local Church came in Speaking in what they call "the heavenly Lang." ohh my... everyone there thought she had the Holy Ghost " Boy O boy " well In just a week she sold a Martian D28 to a Preacher for a market value of 1500.00 cash. I went with him on the sale. She said "oh my husband had this most of his life, and there is nothing wrong with it". Well he took it home and after he played 2 songs the putty fell out, and the tone changed on it "it was cracked." which cost around 700.00 to fix, i said to the Preacher "And she spake in tongues too". The Preacher (being for SIT ) said to me "I FIGURED SHE WAS ONE OF THEM" hA HA I about died...lol lol, after he understood what he agreed to, he felt bad.
Wonder if THE HOLY SPIRIT was speaking in a utterance through her at the services we had together. ??
I was a teacher at this Local Church and most knew I did not see the "sign gifts for today" (that is another debate) but the Pastor did. All was well and many were blessed by it , to see that we could worship together. I was watching to see if he would what you all call "Manifest". The reason I watched is because I knew the Bible in Gal. Ch 5: it teaches "The fruit of the Spirit is the real "Manifest"." and if a person professes to be Christian, and lives day after day in a sinful state and did not produce or "manifest" these... "he will not "ENTER" the kingdom", and turn has "never" been a Christian. Passages like this one, is the ones we must ask our selfs, (and I do)
"am I manifesting these fruits "
"is this the manifesting of the Holy Spirit for us today"
Almost everyone in this town knows the Pastor and mock him bad because of the life stile he lived. It really hurt his out reach in the community, and the Church sat mostly empty because of it. I tried my best "to know no one after the flesh". One service he finally stood up and:
"e col a ba higha, e shon dia, e sodia a mo tia "
I said within my self "ok now lets hear God talk through you" and sure thing like clock work...say no more.
One month later to two, the Church burned to the Ground, his girlfriend found out about the one in Ky so you put it together. What does that have to do with this, I am stuck with facts, and the fact is
1- The Pastor that beat me
2- and The Pastor who had a bad outreach.
3- And the woman who sold the Martin
All of them was doing every thing contrary to Gal 5 applied to the real "manifesting" and yet they still was "SIT" as VPW named it , or sorry "Charles H.Parham".
I do believe that if I am SIT it is "lifting myself up" and not "others" and therefore it is a selfish motive, and cannot be love at all, because love is given away. If I SIT I am just making a useless Noise in the air (to me). This is just a personal view that I have of real life events. And I have looked at my 'SIT" in the past that I have done, I see it was all just "my spirit period".
Thanks for your ART. and exploring the Greek with me, and oh yes i see you "ex" from the Text hummmm I think I will like you, even though you need to see this ... hee hee... lol lol just kidding woo woo God bless you I thought I ran you all off the thread I told you all I had another view point. Hay I will say i see how you come up with some of those renderings but I cant say I can agree with your theory in general.
God bless
Edited by TRIUNE_GODLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
TG
Thanks for that reference to Chas. F. Parham.
I really didn't know anything about him until you mentioned his name.
I googled it and read the information about his involvement with SIT and baptism in the spirit.
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
Sure I have been through the mill on this topic lol lol . he is the one that started this mix up in 1902, strange that Taz Russel and him established these movements in the same year. Yes VPW just took up this theory as well. I will say VPW did take a lot of this theory but he did not go as far as CHP. CHP taught that the "Holy Ghost" came after conversion, some call this teaching the 2ed work of grace. I have came against this teaching, when I found out by the late "Dr. J. Vernon Mcgee" in this series "through the bible" as he unfolds the truth about 'Spirit baptism' and I was a assistant Pastor at a Pentecost Church of God at the time lol lol.
Dr J Vernon Mcgee brings out "sound teaching" when he hits "LEV 22,23,24, Cor. 12 ETC. as He unfolds the REAL TRUTH in his teaching about the body and bride of Christ. I would like to add here that if a person really thinks this is true teaching and "you must speak in the Heavenly Language to have the baptism of the Holy Ghost, look at just one Verse:
"For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body" 1Cor.12:13
And in that verse it is clear what Spirit baptism does. "places a believer in the body of Christ". Further there is problems for the trinitarian pentecostal your teaching says I can have the Holy Spirit but not the HOLY GHOST (until i SIT). How does that match when you are for a 3 part God. here is what you say to me "God the Father, God the Son God the Holy Ghost, God the Spirit. so you bring to people a quad God (to me). Oh I forgot we taught but "THEE HOLY GHOST" is the FULLNESS of God.
brandhamittes and oneness Pentecostal teach "you must SIT to be saved" and use Acts 2:38 as there base Verse. And water baptism is a MUST, and it must be in "Jesus name only" and they butcher MT 28:19 bad. baptismal regeneration with evidence of SIT is the REAL EVIDENCE of a TRUE Christian.
I do think Oral Roberts should have went farther when he split from classic Pentecost, and there 2ed work of grace theory. Oral did come to see that the Spirit baptism came upon salvation, and the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit was the same person in the Godhead, but he was still errant in the tongue theory (I think anyway).
God Bless you all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
There is a difference between "lifting yourself up" which I would take to be pride and "building yourselfup" by SIT. The fruit is displayed because one is in submission to the Lord Jesus and the leadings of the HS. Fruit is not grown because you can occasionally be gentle, kind, temperate, etc.
Just because some people are off (balance) lol, doesn't mean that everyone who SIT is the same. I have never assaulted anyone while SIT, nor have I ever deliberately sold faulty goods. I tend to fear the Lord Jesus just a little too much.
So, your last comment was a little unclear..."Thanks for your ART. and exploring the Greek with me, and oh yes i see you "ex" from the Text hummmm I think I will like you, even though you need to see this ... hee hee... lol lol just kidding woo woo God bless you I thought I ran you all off the thread I told you all I had another view point. Hay I will say i see how you come up with some of those renderings but I cant say I can agree with your theory in general."
Thanks for my ART?? Ex from the Text?? So you don't agree with the Greek to English renderings?
Do let me know...Bless you and SIT much (anyway).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
Sorry I should have been more clear,
( what you shared with us in the GK in your article above)The Greek ex or ek in Gen = as though a part was taken from the whole. like "eklego" get out from the scriptures using logic is what i was trying to say :).
English can not be "the original" English can not carry the Grammar Support, therefore it cannot be a True Translation at all. God gave it to us in Koine Greek, so we would need to have another, a more complex dialect to to translate it more accurate. But we have it paraphrased in many Dialects now "Praise God" that is super, i think we should use them all, and the Greek adds contrast to it.Here is a story how God can use another translation.
We (a kitchen full of people) that had two interlinear bibles with 8 different Trans. in each of them. I had a AMP,RSV,NKJV,NRSV,NJ,LAMSA,NIV,KJV,NWT we had so many at our fingertips I cannot recall them all. We wanted to do a study to see what all these translators had to say about that big word "by" in Heb.1:2,JN1:3. and the word "God" in JN 1:1c.
They seen real fast and quick, after every one read about 20 different renderings of scholars translations, a girl (that was smart as a tack) spoke up after one in the group said "there all wrong" in HEB. there not going with the "accuracy" and the NWT is WAY out man..." The girl said your nuts, and out numbered bad, even the NWT has Heb right on with the other bibles. where did you go to school at. The kids really gave him a hassle over it. But to say that Eng. is not useful would be very wrong, and back to the box again i go lol lol.
What is the difference if I said
"lift ME"
"Build ME"
"magnify ME"
"edifith Me
It is MYSELF and Paul makes this clear. and that is what I think anyway, and the bible is saying here. "MY" in Cor. 14. And the word "spirit" can only be determined by its context, like "arche", as to what "spirit" or what "beginning". no where in this Chapter is God the Holy Spirit ever brought out. But "my spirit" is in this context several times. (just what i see here).
"He that speaks in a tongue edifieth HIMSELF"
Verse 14 "for if I pray in a tongue MY SPIRIT PRAYS"
in submission to the Lord Jesus, AND IF a person is not in Sub. according to GAL. 5, will "NOT ENTER"and in turn has never been saved, and is guilty as of the people Christ speaks of in that last day in MT 7.
"Lord Lord (even profess his deity here) have not we taught in your name , in your name did all these things, Jesus says to them I NEVER KNEW you, depart from me you WORKERS OF SIN."
These People only professed, like "even the devils believe and tremble" there must be "faith that works" a "working faith"
but here is another debate, and lets move on. Wow I looked over just on these last couple posts we did, and there is some meat in just what we covered in these last two verses. Wow that was only two verses lol lol sheww wee. I do say you got me digging (in the word) here lol lol
Wow glad to hear your comment, and glad to see another view point ...makes me want to look at Verse 3 now hee hee
God Bless
Edited by TRIUNE_GODLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved TRIUNE_GOD
God loves us all my dear friend
I must say I like that picture better because I am one of those kids that the last one got too
I see myself as still in the womb of God
But I have a question for you
Have you ever looked into tongues taught in the Old Testament bible
example of tongues a language that must be interpreted for us to understand better
Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Dan 2:1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.
Dan 5:12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Gen 41:12 And there was there with us a young man, an Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he did interpret.
after reading these verses and thinking about the context I came to believe a dream from God = speaking in tongues
was not picture art the first known language of men
so I asked what you see here my friend
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
True but it then becomes less accurate, and a paraphrase (to me).
Let the word in its God-Breathed dialect show us how accurate it is cf to ENG. I am sorry to say this my friend, but I am forced by what I have seen in GK to say the KG is way more colorful and we cannot carry what is here (to my understanding). no harm meant to you. but it is just what I have learned till this day.
Several of us was researching out to see if The Word was eternal in John chapter one.
so we hit this word "een" or "en" in the Ipf tense.
where is the grammar support for a TRUE translation here?
There is none for the word "een" (that I have seen), in this context at all.
Some scholars think this to be a eternal verb. Can we "accuratly" place this in English, unless I add a word, and if I add a word we no longer have the inspired written word, but just "another translation". Can that than be a "true" translation??
JN 1:1,2.
en arche EN ho logos kia ho logos EN pros tou theou kia theos EN ho logos hutos EN en arche pros tou theou.
Why add a word in Eng. here to use it as a paraphrase, because if we would want contrast or get to the "rightly divided word" one would need to place it in Imperf tense into ENG. Translations put in mostly Past here, because of "the beginning" that JN 1 and verse 2 is speaking of here. There looking at Gen:1 "en arche" in the LXX. but lets move on and not get into " arche" but note that the "en " applied to Christ in the context of JN 1 and it is is ALWAYS IN Ipf. (to my understanding)
"Before any beginning "had always been" the Word
and the Word "had always been" with the God
and God "had always been" the Word
this person "had always been".
A "paraphrase" on the word "en" and more accurate than almost every English translations that I have seen on this word.
"the Word had always been God" they put it in the past because JN 1 is speaking of the "eternity" of the word, and our minds can only think of the first "arche" in Gen. but the word "een", says the Word goes farther back than any beginning, and is eternal.
This is just what i see and I see they have good and bads to them lol lol.
Despite they (Jonathese Gerber, and his wife) missed this word "theos" and tries to add a Indef. Art. He did pick up on the Word "arche" in Jn. 1a,2. In his "In beginning" but messes it up in that Jesus Christ was first created in many passages with the word "archee' . So I do like to say that I see what he was looking at in JN 1:1,2- "en arche" but it is to the Watchtowers shame to allow Gerber to push his "Slanted Translation" in to there "New World Translation" and it is even worse I have seen some from VPWs group go with Gerber on this one, and add to the words in JN 1:1c. "a god".
God bless
Edited by TRIUNE_GODLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I have to go now, I'm running out of time. I would have liked to say more on this topic. I won't be able to get back to this until after the holiday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
You should look in your Greek closer, I see several problems. You said "Straight from the Greek" Imposable you left out a Def. Art. before the word "theon" in Sect b. And added another "the" in Sect A, and scrambled up
Sect. C.
1) where is your word support for "the" in "in beginning" ?
2) Why did you leave out the word "the" in " with THE God" ?
3) Why did you scramble up the words [you quoted] "and the Word was God" ?
4) Why did you put the word "een" [has always been] in the past tense ?
If it is so easy why add, and scramble, and subtract, place in the wrong case, these words ??
here it is "from the Greek" putting "een" in the present tense, because we see it in past with your rendering and it is not either past or present in Greek.
In Beginning is the Word and the Word is with the God and God is the Word
This makes as much science as putting that word "een" in the past to me.
the reason this is so important because the inspired Dialect of the NT. is pure and spotless "Holy" "ios". in Set C, it makes the Word a Person. Therefore it is not a "written word" or a "word of speech", but "a person". Some sects has tried to dance around this for years and the word is very clear that "ho logos" in JN 1 is a person, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. But this is another debate.
This verse "paraphrased" to ENG for a clear understanding of what is seen in the Greek, therefore It is not a Translation at all.
"BEFORE ANY BEGINNING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD AND THE WORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN WITH THEE GOD AND GOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD THIS PERSON HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BEGINNING WITH THEE GOD."
Just what I see here. look at your Greek in this Verse, see what is going on here. You are a wise man and I really enjoy talking to you, Hope to hear form you after the Holidays. You should look this up in the Greek.
I know we got off topic here sorry :(
God Bless
Edited by TRIUNE_GODLink to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Not to bust your bubble (you being a god and all) but the sect of the Logos predated Christianity by hundreds of years.
The first verse of John is verbatim from the sect's scripture and whether or not "pros" was "together with yet distinctly independent of" was hotly debated for centuries to the point of causing a denominational split within the cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_Cal1
Speaking in Tongues is perfect prayer to God. Do it as often as I can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
I am not god first off it is just a screen name that was not chosen, and it is a statement of faith.
"together with yet distinctly independent of" this is a VPW Interp. (maybe more) of the word "pros" Although he does make a attempt to show that "the word is not Thee God" there is no debate about the word "pros" today by REAL scholars it is proven can be "face to face" "toward" "with". Look OUTSIDE the ways resources (not saying you do not).
"Pros" 4311
Prep. governing the gen.,dat.,acc primary=Toward.
Now I think it is important for me to say this at this time here.
Rarely is "pros" and only in later use, this word drops its meaning as "motion, direction" and pros with the acc. means the same as "para" in the Dat. "near" and in JN one we see this. cf MT 13:56, Mark 2:2,4:1, 6:3, Phile.1:13.
Now here is something I just learned this week, and had to re group my thinking. I had thought Pros only showed motion. I looked closer as I came to see "pros" more accurately. This was brought to me by a Greek almost 90 Yo., who speaks Greek 'DR. Peter Courtless" from the American Baptist association. I came home and what did I see... just what I shared with you to be true.
now you are correct in that 'ho logos" goes way back before the NT. (you did not bust my bubble I knew this) Glad you brought it out.
The "logos" was known by many, (before Christ becoming flesh) That the Logos was the creator of the universe. That is why many think thee Holy Spirit choose to use "ho logos" in JN Chapter 1 as the creator of ALL things (V3), and therefore God (1:1C). Not a god (1:1C), and not the Father (1:1B). He (v2) is "the Logos" not "a" Logos (v-1,a,b,c) Christ is Logos (v-14) "creator of all things"(v-3) Logos is very clear in these verses (to me) who he is.
Thank you for your input it is a pleasure. I would love to go on in this Chapter, but this thread is about SIT. I think we have so much to share here, we may need a thread on it.
God Bless
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
You're wrong, 3G.
The PFAL definition of pros is not something he pulled out of his butt.
The pros "together with yet distinctly independent of" argument predates VP by thousands of years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRIUNE_GOD
You use a big dart there "YOUR WRONG" and your user name says "lovematters" hummm I am confused
I have been wrong before, and I am sure I am wrong on stuff now and I admit it. That is why I try stay meek so I can receive the implanted word
I want to ask you what is more important:
1) the word of God
2) "argument predates VP by thousands of years"
So IF i am wrong on "argument predates VP by thousands of years" no big deal at all. But if I am wrong in the Word THAT IS A BIG DEAL. So I take your "YOUR WRONG" as no threat at all. Sorry I do not want to come off to you or anyone as harsh AT ALL, If I have please forgive me.
God Bless
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
trigodguy,
This forum has a long and ignoble history as a cruel and unusual town without pity.
Thank you for crying uncle.
Good luck on the forum.
Edited by lovemattersLink 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.